Sitting of 9 February 1995

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

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 16 February.

    QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 16 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Crime Prevention, Portsmouth
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority he attaches to crime prevention in Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I regard crime prevention as a matter of the highest priority. I am delighted that Portsmouth, with its excellent record of encouraging crime prevention initiatives through partnership, is to have one of the new safer cities projects to help tackle crime and the fear of crime in the area.
    Mr. Martin: May I make my hon. Friend aware of the concern of many people in Portsmouth who are particularly sensitive about crimes of drunken, late-night violence and vandalism associated with clubs similar to the one in Aldershot? This week, four men in Winchester were given grossly inadequate sentences for a serious and mindless assault. Does that not sum up the lack of confidence in law and order enforcement that many people feel? They are worried about the failure of the courts to back up the efforts of the police and the clubs themselves to stamp out this behaviour. Will my hon. Friend support my asking our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to refer this case to the Court of Appeal for a proper sentence?
    Mr. Maclean: That case is not in the referrable category, but I congratulate Hampshire police on their excellent crime prevention initiatives. Last year, crime fell in Hampshire by 7 per cent.; burglaries were down by 14 per cent.; and robberies were down by 14 per cent. I accept my hon. Friend's point, however, that the criminal justice system is a seamless robe and that all parts of it must work in harmony if the public and our constituents are to be assured that there is justice.
    440
    The House has given the courts powers to impose sentences of up to 14 years for burglary, 10 years for killing someone while drink-driving, five years for inflicting bodily injury and life imprisonment for unlawful wounding. I suggest that any public indignation at a perceived failure to use the extensive powers that the House has granted should be directed at those responsible for sentencing.

    Parkhurst Prison
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who gave instructions to the Director of Custody (Prisons) with regard to the removal from office of the governor of Parkhurst prison on 10 January.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The decision to move the then governor of Parkhurst to other duties was taken by the Director General of the Prison Service after consulting the directors of custody, security and personnel.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is a strong suspicion among the press, the public and prison staff that the governor was removed directly on his orders as a sacrifice to the House on 10 January? Does he further agree that, however the matter was resolved, it has had a detrimental effect on prison governors' morale and on the morale of the Prison Service? The right hon. and learned Gentleman should face up to his responsibilities by accepting that he had a hand in the removal.
    Mr. Howard: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the minutes—available to everyone—of the evidence that I gave to the Home Affairs Select Committee just two weeks ago, in which I dealt with this and similar questions in great detail. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record of my answers, he will find that the suspicions to which he referred are quite without foundation.
    Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm yet again that none of the staff moved from Parkhurst prison was dismissed, and that people were moved for their own safety pending the outcome of the inquiry into the escapes?
    Mr. Howard: I made it absolutely clear, as I told the House on that occasion, that the movement of those concerned was pending the outcome of disciplinary investigations and any subsequent proceedings. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that fact.
    Mr. George Howarth: Is it not precisely because of the evidence in the minutes to which the Home Secretary referred that suspicion remains? Is not the clear truth of the matter that, in his desperation to retrieve his damaged political reputation, the Secretary of State was determined to come to the House on 10 January with Mr. Marriott's head on a platter? The manner in which Mr. Marriott has been scapegoated brings credit on neither the Home Secretary nor the Prison Service. It is a downright disgrace.
    Mr. Howard: I notice that neither the hon. Gentleman nor other Opposition Members have seen fit to suggest how they would have acted in similar circumstances. It was essential that the management of that prison, with the number of high-risk category A prisoners still there, should be carried out efficiently and effectively in all the circumstances. It was made absolutely clear at the time

    441
    that that was why the director general made his decision. If we are to have the kind of criticism that we have just heard from Opposition Members, they should tell us what they would do, or would have done, in similar circumstances.
    Mr. Brazier: I have a prison in my constituency. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while we cannot prejudge the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, if the events at that prison were substantially as they have been reported, it is right that people should be held accountable for them?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend and the House will understand that I cannot and will not prejudge the outcome of those disciplinary proceedings. It has been made absolutely clear time after time why the director general took the action that he took on that day. We shall have to await the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings in due course.

    Criminal Injuries Compensation
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the number of awards for criminal injuries compensation which will be reassessed if the tariff scheme is withdrawn.
    Mr. Howard: If the tariff scheme has to be withdrawn, all applications lodged since 1 April 1994 will have to be reassessed. Up to the end of January, some 51,400 applications had been lodged.
    Mrs. Kennedy: Will those 51,000 victims of violent crime be further disadvantaged by having to wait another period before receiving payment in compensation? Exactly how much public money will be spent on the reassessment of those cases if the tariff scheme is withdrawn? That money could have been spent on the victims of violent crime.
    Mr. Howard: I think that the hon. Lady is under a misapprehension. The whole purpose of taking action under the tariff scheme was to ensure that people did not have to wait for payment of compensation and that they had those payments before the ultimate judgment of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in this matter. The whole purpose of making payments under the tariff scheme during the interim judgment while we await the ultimate judgment is to ensure that people do not have to wait longer than necessary for their money.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Home Secretary explain why there has been a slowdown in the flow of paperwork from the Home Office on claims under the criminal injury compensation scheme? Leaving aside the dubious legality of how he sought to change the scheme, which still hangs in the balance, will he now admit the obvious: that victims of the most serious crimes of violence will not gain under his scheme and that compensation for those who suffer the most horrendous attacks and therefore need that compensation most, including police and fire officers injured in the course of duty, will be slashed?
    Mr. Howard: Time after time, it has been made clear that 60 per cent. of the victims of crime will gain by way of compensation under the tariff scheme at least as much as, if not more than, under the old scheme. Time after time, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the
    442
    Opposition Front Bench have failed to give an undertaking that they would restore the old scheme. Unless and until they give such an undertaking, all questions of the kind which the hon. Gentleman asked are the hottest of hot air.

    Convicted Murderers (Release)
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he has to release prisoners who have been convicted of murder.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): My right hon. and learned Friend has the power to release on licence a prisoner convicted of murder provided that the parole board has recommended release, and after consulting the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if available.
    My right hon. and learned Friend also has the power, in exceptional circumstances, to release a life sentence prisoner on compassionate grounds and may recommend the exercise of prerogative powers in respect of any convicted prisoner.
    Mr. Riddick: Will the Home Secretary use the powers at his disposal to free Private Lee Clegg at the earliest opportunity? Is he aware that I have received many more letters about the plight of Private Clegg than I have received, for example, about veal crates, because my constituents are outraged at the fact that that British soldier is serving a life sentence for murder, having become entangled in that terrible situation simply because he was doing his duty?
    Mr. Forsyth: Questions relating to the detention or release of Private Clegg are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Bermingham: Is it not a fact that if the Home Secretary relinquished his powers to interfere in judicial decisions and got rid of mandatory life sentences, the problem concerning Private Clegg would never have arisen, because the judge would have been able to sentence him appropriately?
    Mr. Forsyth: As I have already said, the issue of Private Clegg is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the mandatory life sentence enables my right hon. and learned Friend, on an individual basis, to decide on the basis of risk whether a life prisoner may be released and on the basis of appropriate retribution and deterrence the length of sentence that should be set as a minimum as part of the tariff-setting procedure.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend share the view that the public expect that the most heinous of all crimes should be visited by the most serious of all punishments; that life imprisonment is the substitute for capital punishment, which the House gave to the country in 1965; and that, if that is right, those who seek to require that judges decide how long a prisoner shall serve for the crime of murder have a difficult case to prove?
    Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with everything that my hon. and learned Friend has just said.

    443
    Obviously, it was part of the arrangements made following the abolition of the death penalty for murder that the Home Secretary should have a role in deciding the length of sentence that would be served as part of the tariff-setting procedure. It is important that that ability to set a tariff, on the advice of the judiciary, and to assess whether a prisoner will be released on licence, should take account of risk to the whole community, and that that power should rest with the Home Secretary.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for refugee status are currently outstanding; and what is the average time from application to decision.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): An estimated 55,255 applications for asylum were outstanding at the end of last year. For applications received since the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 and decided in the period between 1 October and 31 December 1994, the estimated average time between the receipt of a completed asylum application and the decision was seven months.
    Mr. Banks: Is it not a fact that that appalling backlog and the long time taken for consideration are caused by the immigration service being overstretched and underfunded? Is the Minister aware that there are more than 5,000 of those cases in my borough of Newham alone? That is 10 per cent. of all applications. Is he aware of how much pressure that puts on the people who are waiting for a decision, and how much pressure it puts on the hard-pressed services of Newham in terms of housing, social services and education? Will he give further resources to the immigration service and speak to his comrades—friends—in other Departments, so that boroughs such as Newham can be given additional resources to tackle the problem?
    Mr. Baker: Perhaps I could point out to the hon. Gentleman that before the 1993 Act, the average time taken on those cases was 18 months, so seven months is an improvement on that. I share the anxiety expressed by the hon. Gentleman about the time that is being taken, and am urgently considering, in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor's Department, ways in which we may reduce those times, precisely. to deal with the problems that the hon. Gentleman describes.
    Mr. Brooke: Does my hon. Friend, whatever the delay, encourage applicants for refugee status to spend the time learning English, which is in their direct interest and also in the interest of the community into which they are seeking to integrate?
    Mr. Baker: I am sure that that must be sensible advice, although I fancy that that question might be better directed at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.
    Dr. Howells: The Minister has placed in the Library a copy of the report that he commissioned from KPMG Peat Marwick on the workings of the refugee asylum appeals procedure. Has he read that report? If so, how can he explain the huge overload in existing work and the shambles that has resulted from 15 years of Government
    444
    administration of that department? What will he do to clean up the mess in order to introduce common decency and efficiency into the entire procedure?
    Mr. Baker: That report is in the Library. I urge anyone who is interested to look at it and to let me have their comments. We are, of course, studying it carefully. It makes a number of radical proposals, as well as sensible ones. We are looking urgently to see how we can improve the system in the light of those proposals.
    Mr. Evennett: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his officials on the work that they have done in that difficult area and on shortening the time during which asylum seekers have to wait before their cases are processed. Will he assure me and my hon. Friends, however, that bogus applicants are sent back as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Baker: One of the purposes of speeding up the appeals system set up in the 1993 Act is to deal quickly with appeals so that those genuine asylum seekers are given that right of asylum and those bogus asylum seekers to whom my hon. Friend referred are expelled as quickly as possible.

    Drug-related Crime
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase resources to fight drug-related crime.
    Mr. Maclean: Police forces will receive an extra £180 million in 1995–96. The allocation of those resources within each force is a matter for the chief constable. He must decide on the most effective use of his resources, taking account of local priorities and needs.
    Mr. Miller: I wonder whether the Minister has seen the letter sent to the Home Secretary by the local section of Parents Against Drug Abuse in my constituency in which those parents expressed their concern at the closure of the Customs and Excise operations at Ellesmere Port and the fact that no police officers are dedicated solely to the task of policing the drugs problem. Does he not understand that that failure to monitor that port leaves the door wide open for drugs? Does he not believe that children in my constituency and right across the country deserve better protection than that?
    Mr. Maclean: They are getting it. The Government's comprehensive drugs strategy commands expenditure of more than £500 million throughout Departments. The hon. Gentleman should not misrepresent the proposed changes to Customs and Excise. They will not detract from the effectiveness of the customs response to drug smuggling. The proposals are designed to enhance and develop existing strategies, and to provide better flexibility and better targeting for customs operations against drug smuggling. Customs and Excise assures me that there will be no customs-free port or airport in the United Kingdom. It will be able to make flexible use of regionally based, mobile, anti-smuggling teams and that represents a good response to the problem.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my hon. Friend confirm to the House that the Government have no plans to legalise any drugs that are currently banned in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Maclean: I can give my hon. Friend that categorical assurance. I do not think that those who

    445
    advocate the legalisation of so-called "soft" drugs understand the nature of the problem with which we are dealing. The signal that would be given to our young people, to the effect that some drugs are okay to mess about with while others are not, would be disastrous. That is the view of the police force and Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware of newspaper reports that the Security Service, MI5, is seeking a role in dealing with drug-related crime? Although it may have the capacity to assist in dealing with drug trafficking and money laundering, will Ministers bear it in mind that much of the work to combat drug-related crime depends on working closely with communities? Many police forces are doing just that and are accountable for that work to local communities in a way that the Security Service cannot be.
    Mr. Maclean: Although I agree with the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question that, of course, there is a role for various agencies, the 43 police forces in England and Wales and those in Scotland have a continuing and complete role to carry out in relation to drugs. I was slightly surprised that when we are discussing the legalisation of drugs the right hon. Gentleman from the Liberal party should rise on cue, as the Liberal party is one of those ridiculous organisations that believe in the liberalisation of some soft drugs.
    Mr. Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fight against drug-related crime can be enhanced by a proper public understanding of drugs? Is he aware that there are now certain varieties of cannabis which cause hallucinations and can exacerbate conditions such as phobias and even schizophrenia? In those circumstances, does my hon. Friend share my view that those who regard some drugs as only recreational and safe send out entirely the wrong signal in the fight against drug-related crime?
    Mr. Maclean: I have read some articles in some trendy newspapers which were given to me suggesting that some champagne socialists can pass the pot around at dinner parties quite safely. No doubt, some people can safely handle some drugs and know when to stop, but many more do not. The signal that legalisation would give young people in particular—that it is safe and trendy to participate in drugs—would be absolutely disastrous. It would lead to the use of harder drugs and would make the task of the police infinitely worse. The police are totally opposed to it, as are all right-thinking people. The Government remain totally opposed to legalisation.
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) made clear to the Minister our opposition to the legalisation of cannabis, and that remains the case. On the alarming decision this morning by the European Court of Human Rights to declare unlawful certain aspects of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, let me make it clear to the Minister that we fully supported those provisions—including the retrospective provisions—when they came before the House in January 1986, and that remains our position. I believe that the court made a bad decision that the British public will find almost impossible to understand. It is entirely right that those who profit from drugs should be hit in their pockets.
    446
    Does the Minister also accept the view of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, that the problem might have been avoided had the European convention been incorporated into English and Scots law? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That was the hon. and learned Gentleman's view on television at lunchtime, and it is what the Opposition have consistently argued.
    Mr. Maclean: I fail to see the consistency. The hon. Gentleman has just pointed out the incorrectness or daftness of the decision which has come from a European organisation on legislation which was passed with the full support of the House. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that there should be an attempt to make us remove those powers. We shall need to reflect carefully on the judgment.
    The hon. Gentleman then said that the problem could be solved by incorporating the European convention into British law, but I do not see how that could be achieved. I shall debate it with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman has lifted what my right hon. and learned Friend said and is apparently proposing it as Labour party policy. It does not make sense of the judgment to attempt to incorporate it into English law. We shall look carefully at the judgment, but the whole House shares the indignation at the decision that those jurists have reached. It is not the view of the British Government. We have robustly defended our corner; we shall reflect on it, but we remain convinced that the laws are appropriate for dealing with drug dealers.

    Offensive Material
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the law concerning the publication of racially offensive and anti-Semitic material.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: The Government share the disgust of all hon. Members for racially offensive and anti-Semitic material. That is why we introduced in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 a new power of immediate arrest to deal with the publication or distribution of written material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. This will significantly improve the enforcement agencies' investigative powers to take swift and effective action against those engaged in the dissemination of such offensive literature.
    Mr. Gapes: Will the Minister go further and take up all the proposals of the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Labour party to strengthen the law in that area? Is he aware that I wrote to the Home Secretary on 1 November and forwarded to him material which was sent to me by Lady Birdwood and her racist organisation? I have received a reply from the Director of Public Prosecutions saying that he is not prepared to prosecute in that instance.
    Is the Minister also aware that Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist organisation, has been issuing leaflets in my constituency calling for death to Jews, and that the Radio Authority recently gave a broadcast licence to an organisation associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir? Will the Minister please do something to stop this?
    Mr. Baker: We have made the publication or distribution of racist material which is intended or likely

    447
    to stir up racial hatred an arrestable offence. We have very strong laws in place and we hope that they will be enforced.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we welcome the recommendations in the Home Affairs Select Committee report on racial attacks and harassment. We were not able to accept every recommendation, but much of the work called for in that report is already being carried forward by the interdepartmental racial attacks group.
    On the question of Hizb ut-Tahrir, I am aware that the Jewish community is very concerned about the activities of extreme Islamic groups. If any group engages in illegal activities, it is liable to be dealt with using the full force of the law. I believe that the laws that we have in place are effective in dealing with precisely the kind of literature to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the House about the Government's consistent attack on racial discrimination? Will he remind the House that that has always been the Government's policy and that we shall continue to condemn racist attacks and any kind of racist or offensive material?
    Mr. Baker: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The new law that we have introduced to deal with intentional harassment goes further in dealing with racial attacks which concern so many hon. Members.
    Mr. Trimble: What steps have been taken to deal with the printing and distribution of racist and anti-Semitic material in Dublin? Has the Minister made any representations to the Irish Government about that?
    Mr. Baker: I am not aware of any such representations. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern only too well, but it is not a matter for which I can take responsibility.

    Crime
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of current trends in the figures for recorded crime; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: For the 12 months to June 1994, the number of crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales decreased by 5.5 per cent. compared with the previous 12 months. This is the largest fall over 12 months for 40 years. This decrease in recorded crime is a welcome step in the right direction, but we must continue to do all we can to help the police make further progress in the fight against crime.
    Mr. Booth: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept congratulations from Conservative Members on the fact that the figures represent a marked improvement on past figures? Can we also welcome a reduction in the number of recorded burglary offences? Will my right hon. and learned Friend challenge Labour Members to join Conservative Members in being tough on crime? Will he also challenge them to take a vow to stop the scaremongering about recorded crime statistics which so worries the elderly?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but his congratulations should be directed towards the police whose effective operations have been responsible for the fall in the recorded crime figures. I believe that we are
    448
    seeing much more effective action by the police, and the credit for the fall in figures is theirs. So far as the Labour party is concerned, I am not prepared to wait as long as it would take to accept its co-operation on these matters.
    Mr. Llwyd: When will the Government acknowledge that drug-related crimes are a direct threat to the fabric of society? Is the Secretary of State aware, for example, that, in some south Wales valleys, some vile and unspeakable people are giving heroin free to primary schoolchildren? What will he do about that?
    Mr. Howard: Drugs-related crime is undoubtedly a very serious cause for concern. We have made that plain for a considerable period. We are taking effective action to deal with it. The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, be aware of the co-ordinated strategy that was announced towards the end of last year. We must take effective action to deal with what I entirely agree is a dreadful menace, not only in the south Wales valleys but elsewhere in this country.
    Mr. Alexander: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the figure that he gave just now will be widely welcomed? But is he further aware that much of the crime is committed in rural areas and that many people who live in rural areas see a policeman only when a crime is committed and he comes to see what happened? Will my right hon. and learned Friend do something to ensure a greater police presence in our villages, our rural areas, the residents of which are deeply worried about the continuing crime figures?
    Mr. Howard: We have taken a number of initiatives to help to deal with rural crime. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in reminding people in villages that there is much that they can do to help themselves, for example, through parish constables, neighbourhood constables and a number of other initiatives, which are having a considerable impact on the crime figures in many communities throughout the country.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that his self-congratulation and complacency will go down very badly with the British public, and that although any reduction in crime is welcome, the British public know that, over the past 15 years, crime has doubled, that violent crime continues to. rise and that robbery has gone up almost fourfold? Against a background of repeated election promises from the Government that they would act to cut crime, the public know the truth: the Tories can no more be trusted on law and order than on tax.
    Mr. Howard: It would help if the hon. Gentleman was prepared just for once to listen to the answer that I have given. Far from self-congratulation, I specifically directed my hon. Friend's congratulations to the police, to whom the credit for the fall in the crime figures rightly belongs. We are prepared to give them that credit; the Labour party would deny them it.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend concede that the measures to deal with bail bandits and to lock up persistent offenders for longer are also having a big impact on the crime figures, and that if one locks up persistent offenders one keeps them out of people's homes and cars? That is what the Labour party will never accept.
    Mr. Howard: There is, indeed, much in what my hon. Friend says and he is entirely right to say that that is a

    449
    truth that the Labour party has consistently denied. That is why it tried to wreck and undermine the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That is why it fought and obstructed every measure that we have taken to deal effectively with crime. That is why it will never have the confidence of the British people on those matters.

    Fire Authorities
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the ability of fire authorities to carry out their statutory duties.
    Mr. Howard: It is for each authority to set a budget that would allow it to comply with its duties under the Fire Services Act 1947.
    Mr. Wareing: In response to that fully complacent reply, the Home Secretary should study the situation on Merseyside and throughout the country. On Merseyside, the shortfall in the Government's assessment of our needs is £2.9 million, even to stand still. If the authority were to carry out the Government's statutory growth requirements, the shortfall would be £4.7 million. How can the Government justify that? The Merseyside chief fire officer is saying that he cannot make cuts other than in pumping appliances and closing stations. When will the Government put people's lives before tax reductions and electoral bribes?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman refers to my original answer, he will find that it was entirely factual, but if he disagrees with any part of it I shall be pleased to hear from him.
    It is for the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority to set a budget for 1995–96, in the light of the criteria for council tax capping. That budget should allow it to comply with its statutory duties to provide fire cover.
    Sir Donald Thompson: When assessing the exact amount of cake that must be divided among the fire authorities, will my right hon. and learned Friend take more carefully into consideration the topography of an area and its special needs?
    Mr. Howard: I am certainly prepared to consider the point raised by my hon. Friend when we plan next year's standard spending assessment for fire authorities. My hon. Friend will know that-the Audit Commission has come up with a series of valuable recommendations of ways in which money can be saved in the fire service, and I am sure that all fire authorities will examine them carefully.

    Police Funding
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from chief constables about inadequacies in their constabulary funding settlement for 1995–96.
    Mr. Maclean: Twenty chief constables have made representations. These cover their allocations under the new funding formula, the burden of pay and pensions increases and connected matters.
    Mr. O'Brien: Does the Minister accept that for many constabularies this has been a very harsh settlement? The
    450
    Association of Chief Police Officers has said that 900 jobs may go, and the Police Federation has put the figure higher.
    Many forces, such as Warwickshire, have particular problems. A continuing public order problem at Baginton airport will put great pressure on its funds. Is not it time that the Home Office provided special allocations for forces in areas with on-going public order problems, so that they are not hit by station closures at the end of the year and do not have to sack officers because insufficient funds are available to support our police properly?
    Mr. Maclean: The Warwickshire constabulary can spend up to 2.5 per cent. more in the coming year than this year. It is possible, moreover, for police forces to ask the Home Office for funds in exceptional circumstances—to provide cover for special events—but not for on-going or regular policing.
    As for police numbers, the House should be aware of the statistics. I have seen surveys carried out by some members of the police service that suggest that officer numbers may fall next year. If that is so, it is because of a decision by the police service. Overall it received about 4 per cent. more this year.
    For me, the telling statistic is that 21 police forces are receiving over 5 per cent. more, and some are receiving increases of more than 10 per cent.; yet only four say that they will recruit more bobbies. If all those forces that are receiving a great deal more money choose to spend it on other matters, that is their decision and I will not criticise them, but the hon. Gentleman should not criticise me if chief officers do not retain the same number of police officers.
    Mr. Brandreth: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Chester we are funding not only more effective policing, but more policemen? In 1979 there were 158 police officers in Chester; today there are 227. That is a 38 per cent. increase. Is my hon. Friend aware that the only fall in the number of police officers in the city of Chester in the past 20 years took place under the last Labour Government?
    Mr. Maclean: Yes. I find it rather strange to hear certain Opposition spokesmen quibble about 50 officers here or there, or a few hundred officers out of 127,000. They should remind the House that, in its last year of office, Labour left a devastated police service, 8,000 officers short of its establishment. We need not look into the crystal ball; we can look at the record. We put in those 8,000 officers, and 8,000 more, and 16,000 more civilians to help.

    Overseas Visitors
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review procedures on controls of overseas visitors.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: Our immigration procedures are kept under review, and I see no need for a special review of controls on visitors.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the anxiety and anguish caused to many people in this country when visitors whom they wish to sponsor are refused entry? Is he aware that many of those people, including some of my constituents, are law-abiding people for whose integrity I

    451
    would gladly vouch? Instead of simply examining the visitor's application, should not the Minister also take into account the bona fides and the standing of the sponsor who wishes to be that visitor's host?
    Mr. Baker: I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman, but I disagree that, on examining visitor applications, we should not look primarily at the visitor. Sponsorship is, of course, important and relevant, but visitors must show that they have sufficient funds to support themselves, that they are genuine visitors, that they intend to leave at the end of their visit, and that they do not intend to take employment, among other things. When considering such applications, we could not properly shift the test from visitors to sponsors.

    Private Lee Clegg
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the security implications on the British mainland of the Private Clegg case.
    Mr. Howard: I do not consider that the case has any security implications on the British mainland.
    Mr. Dalyell: As a former national service man, may I inquire how it can possibly be right that a soldier does the business of the state, which he is legitimately asked to do, and that, two seconds later, by taking the same action, he can find himself had up on charges of murder?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will know that his point has given rise to widespread concern, that I am reviewing that part of the law of murder following comments made by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, and that his point will certainly be taken into account in the course of that review.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Roche: Given the news that Eastern Electricity has made millions of pounds by billing its customers up to three weeks early, that seven of its directors now have share options of £3 million, and that the salary of its chairman has more than doubled since privatisation, is not it about time that the Prime Minister intervened, or will he just let them get away with daylight robbery?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with what has been said about the undesirability of early billing, and no one should have the slightest shred of doubt that I do not approve of that particular mechanism. I understand that the company has indicated that it will not occur again, and I am delighted that that is the case.
    We have debated extravagant awards in the House on previous occasions. I have made it clear that that is a question for peer pressure in the private sector. I look
    452
    forward to the recommendations of the Greenbury committee and to examining them, but it is best dealt with in that manner.
    Mr. King: Does my right hon. Friend recall the attack on Tuesday by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about being forced to sack teachers? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Gentleman is, at this moment, supporting the Liberal Democrat leadership in Somerset, which is insisting on sacking teachers, even though Conservative councillors have put forward proposals so that those jobs need not be lost, and for ways in which the education in the county can be protected? Is not that symptomatic of the Liberal Democrat party, which is more interested in scoring political points than in genuinely seeing how the education of children can be protected?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the point about the Liberal Democrat council to which my right hon. Friend refers, and, frankly, I wish that I had been aware of that when the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked his question on Tuesday. It is important that, in the question of priorities in all local authority budgets, and particularly in education budgets, education authorities look carefully at the right education priorities for the children in our schools. That may well apply to Somerset county council, to which my right hon. Friend refers. It applies equally to many other education authorities.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister accept it as a responsibility of Government to reduce inequality?
    The Prime Minister: Yes.
    Mr. Blair: Then, if the right hon. Gentleman accepts that—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Blair: If he accepts that, is not it a matter of shame that Britain is today more unequal than at any point in time since the second world war?
    The Prime Minister: If people were relatively less well off, then I agree with, the right hon. Gentleman. The primary concern of all Governments must be to ensure that those people who are most vulnerable and those who are most in need are not ignored by the legislation of the day and that special care is taken to look at their particular interests. If the right hon. Gentleman examines the record, he will find that that is what we have continually done. It is the right way to proceed and it is the way in which people develop policies, not just through the social security system, but right the way through the whole gamut of Government responsibilities. That is persistently what we have done and will do.
    Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman has not contradicted the fact that inequality is greater than at any point in time since the second world war. Now, if the Prime Minister wants a fact, let me give him one. Is not the most telling fact of this week that, at the same time as the Government are doing nothing about the head of a privatised utility awarding himself 70 times as much as a teacher and 100 times as much as a nurse, the Cabinet has today devised a strategy that may see teachers sacked and classroom sizes rising? Is not it the case that, far from

    453
    reducing inequality or creating a nation at ease with itself, after 16 years the Government have created a Britain that is divided, inefficient and unjust?
    The Prime Minister: That is an extremely good soundbite, but it is not true. There are two ways in which one can deal with the sort of people about whom the right hon. Gentleman and I are concerned. One is by ensuring that their chances and opportunities are greater so inequality falls; that is the right way and that is what the Government are doing. The other way is to try to restrain success and that is what the right hon. Gentleman strives to do; that is the wrong way. What must concern people is that action is taken to improve the opportunities and living standards of the people who face the greatest difficulties. That is consistently what we have done and I believe that, in respect of that, we deserve not the kind of carping comments that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, but his support and that of every other Member of the House.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend accept that thousands of women agree with my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London? When they travel on public transport and happen to sit beside a drunk, someone high on drugs, or young thugs, they feel intimidated. They feel much safer in their motor cars and they will not give up those cars purely as a gesture of environmental tokenism.
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the need to ensure that everyone, whether a lady or anyone who is vulnerable, can travel on public transport or on the streets with proper protection, is a point that everyone will readily understand. The point made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London yesterday, which was widely misinterpreted by some, was that motorists' attitudes need to be changed and few will disagree with that.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Campbell: The Prime Minister will be aware that Trafalgar House is making a bid to take over Northern Electric plc. Is he also aware that if that bid takes place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury stand to lose £223 million—the equivalent of £8 in every taxpayer's pocket? Will the Prime Minister assure me that he will stop that merger and stop ripping off the taxpayer?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that I am not remotely likely to respond to something of that sort happening in the private sector. I am not likely to respond to it now, but if he wishes to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, he should contact him.
    Mr. Tracey: Has my right hon. Friend caught sight of the letter in today's edition of The Times, signed by 17 of Britain's senior business men, in which they say that their firms would see no discernable benefits from a single European currency? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that gives great force to the policies of Her Majesty's Government—now and in the foreseeable future?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I have taken the view that we ought not to contemplate a single currency until and unless we are convinced that that would be right for the country. That is the only basis on which we can make that judgment. We need to know the circumstances of the day and they cannot possibly be known now. What is in the interest of this country must be paramount.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michie: Following the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the Prime Minister's reply, how can the Prime Minister reconcile supporting a financial policy which is depriving our children of a good education, taking away remedial help and cramming children into overcrowded classrooms, with waving the flag in Europe and saying that he is defending the future of this country? The future of this country is with our children.
    The Prime Minister: I cannot imagine anyone possibly disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman about that. Of course, that is the reason why funding for education has dramatically increased over the years; it is the reason why more of our children are getting O and A-levels than ever before; it is the reason why one in three of our children now go on to further and higher education, rather than one in eight when the Labour party was in power; it is the reason why we have introduced new vocational qualifications; it is the reason why we are extending nursery education; it is the reason why I abolished the binary divide. If the hon. Gentleman looks, he will see the greatest revolution for good in education in the past five years that we have known for generations.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that to govern effectively in the long-term, the Prime Minister and the Government of the day must understand and reflect the concerns of the people of the country? Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), is not my right hon. Friend increasingly encouraged by the fact that his robust and realistic stand on a single currency and his opposition to any further political integration in Europe is increasingly supported by the people—in business and elsewhere—of this country?
    The Prime Minister: There comes a moment when consensus becomes unanimity.
    Mr. Soley: Why does the Prime Minister think that a free market operating between countries that has got rid of all our trade barriers will not inevitably lead to a single currency?
    The Prime Minister: I see no reason to suppose that it should. [Interruption.] We have had free markets in many parts of the world for a very large number of years. I see no evidence that a single currency is inevitable as a result of that, nor do I share the view of the hon. Gentleman, which he clearly holds as it becomes more apparent that the Labour party is already wedded to a single currency, whatever the economic circumstances may be. That is the only implication which can possibly be drawn from the hon. Gentleman's question. I simply have to say to him that I disagree with him.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the all-party Eurim group's report on wealth creation through technology? Will he lend his name—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must calm down. This is using up our precious time.
    Mr. Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend read the all-party Eurim group—[Interruption.]—of which many hon. Members are members—[Interruption.]—they might not know it, but they are—report on wealth creation through technology? Will he lend his name, as Al Gore and Jacques Delors have, to promoting information superhighway technology projects such as SuperJANET, the cable network and Internet, and make sure that the Government become a major customer of those technologies?
    The Prime Minister: The direct answer to my hon. Friend is no, I have not read it, but I have to say that it sounds irresistible. I will make it an early priority over this weekend to read it and discover the information contained therein about superJANET and other aspects of broad-band networks.
    Madam Speaker: An excellent question on which to end.

Business of the House
3.33 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (5th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "Europe and a Referendum" on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.

TUESDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (6th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "A Divided Britain—The Problems of Poverty and Long-term Unemployment" on an Opposition motion.

WEDNESDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Until about 7 o'clock, Second Reading of the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill.

Motions on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order, the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order and the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.

THURSDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 20 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (7th allotted day). There will be a debate on a Opposition motion, subject to be announced.

The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 15 February to consider the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 9 December 1994 relating to the Euro-Mediterranean Association agreement with Israel.
In the following week, I expect Monday 20 February to be an Opposition Day, and Thursday 23 February to be a debate on the Army, on a motion for the Adjournment.
Looking a week further ahead than that, the House may also like to know that I hope to provide for the annual debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment on Thursday 3 March.
[Wednesday 15 February:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 70-iii (1994–95).
Scotland Revenue Support Grant Reports. The documents are as follows:
Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1995; the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1995.]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information, and for the advance notice of future business.
The Leader of the House will be aware that, last week, I raised with him the Government's attitude to the private Member's Bill that we will debate tomorrow, and he referred me to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that I wrote to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People about the Government's attitude, and that, shortly before
458
Question Time today, the Minister faxed me a reply saying that the Government would not ask the House to support the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
Is the Leader of the House aware that the lobby taking place at the moment—the thousands of people who have come here to lobby Members of Parliament—will be extremely concerned by that reply from the Minister? Will he clarify the situation now, and tell us whether that means that the Government will actively block the measure tomorrow?
Secondly, in view of the significant public concern about the lack of places in psychiatric units, and about the miraculous discovery of such places when the Secretary of State for Health is summoned to appear in court, can we have a debate in Government time about the scandal of the shortage of such provision? Health debates usually occur only in Opposition time.
Thirdly, in connection with public sector pay and this morning's Cabinet decision, is the Leader of the House aware that in the debate in Opposition time on Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Education said that she could not comment on the consequences of the pay award until final decisions had been made?
As the Cabinet has now made decisions that will mean that school governors all over the country face the impossible task of balancing their budgets and maintaining standards, will the Leader of the House find time for the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement in the House about the impact of the loss of teachers' jobs on class sizes and on the quality of education for our children?
Mr. Newton: There were three questions there. The first concerned proceedings on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill tomorrow. I have indeed seen a copy of my hon. Friend's letter to the hon. Lady, which does little more than repeat what he said in the debate—and I said as much last week. What my hon. Friend said was that he could not ask the House to support the Bill. I am sure that he will seek to explain the whole position more fully in his speech tomorrow, and I shall not seek to anticipate that.
The second question, which was about psychiatric units, also ranged wider into some more tendentious areas. I simply draw attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for Health is due to answer questions in the House next week, which may provide an opportunity for those points to be raised. There is also health service legislation now before the House, which will no doubt provide further opportunities for debate in due course.
Finally, I do not think that I would be revealing any great state secrets by acknowledging that the Cabinet discussed public sector pay this morning. All will be made clear to the hon. Lady and others within the next half hour, so I shall not try to pre-empt that, either.
Sir John Stanley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the parliamentary ombudsman yesterday published his report on the channel tunnel rail link and blight, and found that the Department of Transport had been responsible for maladministration? Will he take an early opportunity to ensure that that important report is debated in the House, to give the Secretary of State for Transport an opportunity to respond to it and to tell us how he intends to remedy the grave injustices done to my constituents and to those of other Members on both sides of the House representing constituencies along the line of the channel tunnel rail link?
Mr. Newton: I am aware of that report, and my right hon. Friend probably needs no reassurance from me, but I understand why he has raised the matter. I think that he will also understand—certainly I understand—that the first step is for the Department to explain its position further before the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to do that, and it would not be right for me to comment further in advance of the Select Committee's deliberations.
Mr. Simon Hughes: May I respectfully suggest that the Leader of the House may have meant that the Welsh debate would take place on 2 March, as that is the date of the Thursday two weeks from now?
On more important matters, now that the right hon. Gentleman has told us the business for next week, we see that, over the next six working days, there are three Supply days for the Opposition, which are welcome enough, one Adjournment debate on the Navy and one day for private Members' Bills, but only half a day for Government legislation—and even that was the legislation that the Prime Minister thought up the other day.
Does not that timetable confirm that the Government programme this year is, as we all said in November, somewhat light, to put it generously? In that case, can we not use some of the time available for a Government motion to allow the House to debate the subject being investigated by the Nolan committee—standards in public life—so that not only will the views of the Government and of the Opposition parties be known, but views from all corners of the House will be heard before the Nolan committee finishes its initial deliberations?
Mr. Newton: On the latter point, I am not sure what view would be taken were the House to give any impression of pre-empting the Nolan committee's work, but I will note the hon Gentleman's suggestion. Having given evidence to the committee and tried to keep up with reading the voluminous amounts of evidence that others have given, I have found that it appears to have been generous in taking evidence from anyone who wishes to give it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so.
I heard on some grapevine or other that the Liberal party was finding it difficult to decide what evidence it should give. Perhaps that difficulty has informed these matters—[Interruption.] It may well be very short—
Mr. Hughes: No, it would be long.
Mr. Newton: Well, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be very welcome, if and when he cares to unveil the Liberal approach to these matters, and the rest of us will read it with proper fascination.
On the earlier parts of his question, although I may inadvertently have said 3 March instead of 2 March, whatever date it is, it is the Thursday of that week.
Mr. Hughes: It is Thursday 2 March.
Mr. Newton: I am just telling the House that it is the Thursday. If I said that it is the third and it is the second, whatever it is, it is the Thursday. As to the legislative programme, it is going very smoothly, thanks.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility later in the
460
parliamentary timetable of providing a full day's debate on the Government's research and development programme and their science policy? There was considerable pressure on time during the three-hour debate last week, and six of the eight Members who were fortunate enough to speak had to shorten their speeches. In the light of the Foresight programme, will my right hon. Friend consider this an early request for a full day's debate on a very important subject, which concerns both sides of the House?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will realise that I am not in a position to make an off-the-cuff commitment, but the very fact that we recently had the half-day debate is a sign of my willingness to listen to representations asking for time on that important matter, and I will certainly bear in mind what she said.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Since we have been treated to the views of the Minister for Transport in London on the general public and public transport, perhaps the Leader of the House would ask him to come here next week to make a statement on the reasons for getting rid of vast numbers of vehicle examination inspectors just when there is clear evidence that more and more lorries are travelling the roads with defects that lead directly to many deaths and injuries. It is essential that the Government take action on enforcement on more occasions, not fewer.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. and hon. Friends are aware of the concerns being expressed in the House. I drew those to their attention after I had been asked questions on the subject three times at business questions last Thursday. I cannot promise an early dedicated debate, but my right hon. and hon. Friends are looking very carefully at the points that have been made.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, under European Community legislation, we have undertaken to implement EC directives by way of statutory instruments, which are not amendable, are barely debatable and, at the hour that we deal with such matters, do not always command the total attention of the House? As a result, certain measures are likely to be imposed on this country—in particular, a change in the regime for halal and kosher meat and some other undesirable matters, such as the extension of the Data Protection Acts to handwriting.
We ought seriously to consider whether those changes are acceptable to the British nation. Will my right hon. Friend look closely at what we can do to safeguard the interests of this House and the nation against that sort of undesirable legislation, which will otherwise be rammed down our throats?
Mr. Newton: If I have heard my hon. and learned Friend aright, he is referring to provisions that exist, for which the House voted under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, which provide for some things to be done through secondary legislation in the way that he described. I should assure the House, however, that the Government always consider the most appropriate way to proceed on each and every one of those matters.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: May I ask the Leader of the House to undertake an investigation into the sound system on the Committee Corridor of the House of Commons? He will appreciate, as all hon. Members do,

461
that it is very important that all questions and answers be effectively recorded in our proceedings. In that context, I draw to his attention column 47 of the report of yesterday's Scottish Grand Committee, where, right at the end of proceedings, responding to a point of order raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the Scottish Office Minister clearly said that, yes, there would be formal consultation under the Railways Act 1993 as it affected railway services in Scotland—yet that is not recorded in the Official Report.
Obviously, we are not condemning the Hansard reporters, but the statement is on the recorded version—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that that is not at all a matter for the Leader of the House. I caution hon. Members that they should raise only matters that concern the Leader of the House. This is an administrative matter that does not concern him—although, if he is generous enough to comment briefly on it, I shall hear what he has to say.
Mr. Newton: I hope that I am always generous, and I shall seek to be courteous to the hon. Lady. You, Madam Speaker, are right to say that this is a matter for the Administration Committee or for the Accommodation and Works Committee, but certainly not for me. I shall make sure that those representations are drawn to their attention.
I am well aware of the comment made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I should make it clear that he was referring to formal consultations about passenger service requirements, which are going on now and which have already led to some results in some cases. Any decision to withdraw services in advance of consultation on passenger service requirements would, of course, be a commercial decision for British Rail.
Mr. Bob Dunn: The Leader of the House will be aware that, for almost 30 years, this House has refused to give the people a decision they want—the restoration of capital punishment. Will he provide for an urgent and early debate on the need for a national referendum on its reintroduction?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should make it clear, if my hon. Friend does not already know it, that I have on a number of occasions voted on that matter in a way of which my hon. Friend would not approve. I hope, however, that he will not think that that influences the answer I am about to give, which is that I do not think that it would be appropriate to arrange such a debate. We have already had an opportunity in this Parliament—as in every other Parliament since I became a Member—to debate and decide these issues, and the House once again made its position very clear.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Is the Lord President aware of the report in The Daily Telegraph today on yesterday's proceedings in the Nolan committee? The National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts said that it believed that the Secretary of State for Health was appointing people on the basis of croneyism.
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that Sir William Utting, a member of that committee, said that thousands of people are being appointed under unacceptable procedures? Given those remarks, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is high time that the
462
Secretary of State for Health came before the House to justify her appointments, especially as the Health Authorities Bill is now in Committee and Health Ministers are unable to make any changes because of the Secretary of State's position?
Mr. Newton: I have already adverted to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is due to be answering questions next Tuesday. I shall give her warning of some of the points that the hon. Lady may raise.
I have not yet had an opportunity to read the transcript of yesterday's proceedings in the Nolan committee, although I rather doubt whether Sir William Utting, whom I know well as a former social services official, put his question in quite the terms that the hon. Lady suggests.
Madam Speaker: Mr. John Greenway—I am sorry, Mr. Harry Greenway.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Thank you, Madam Speaker—we are different.
Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on special educational needs, so that I can bring before the House the complete failure of Ealing's Labour council to make proper provision for children with special educational needs in Ealing? That was the subject of an important street meeting which I addressed in Ealing this afternoon, and the House should hear about it. There should be a response from the Government, and pressure should be brought to bear on Ealing council to improve its behaviour.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friends responsible for those matters will look carefully at my hon. Friend's remarks and consider what they might do. I say wryly, rather than in an aggressive manner, that, on the basis of my hon. Friend's account, I sometimes think that we could spend all our time debating the inequities of the London borough of Ealing.
Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House bear it in mind that, now that the Jopling report has been implemented and, on a few occasions, the sittings of the House have not lasted until 10 o'clock at night, we should avoid debating Bills of an emergency nature on Fridays, when they get mixed up with Bills drawn in the first six? Would it not be a good idea to allow them to be brought forward by the Government, with Government support, so that they can get through the House without being subject to the vagaries of Fridays when the competition is so strong?
In that respect, would it not be a good idea if the Government would back the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Societies Bill—[Interruption.]—so that it can get approval in time?
Mr. Newton: I hear some sedentary interventions behind me of a not unhelpful kind. I can assume only that this is an attempt to explain and justify the blocking of that Bill, which will help many tens of thousands of mainly widows throughout the country. I hope that those who blocked it will not do so next time.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Further to early-day motion 557, will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on efficiency in the construction industry?

463
[That this House notes that the construction industry produces almost 10 per cent. of gross national product and is made up of more than 200,000 companies and a workforce of over one and a quarter million people; welcomes the proposals put forward by the Latham Report to improve the relationship between clients, contractors and subcontractors in the construction industry and improve value for money by an estimated 30 per cent. over the next five years and so encourage an increase in construction activity; notes the crucial role that a Construction Contracts Act would play in the implementation of the report's findings, recognising that it will reduce commercial red tape, and improve payment security by reducing payment abuse, introduce trust funds, and provide for a system of speedy and inexpensive dispute resolution; and therefore requests that Her Majesty's Government considers the introduction of a Construction Contracts Bill during the next Parliamentary session, as recommended in the Report.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Latham report shows the potential for a 30 per cent. improvement in productivity?
Mr. Newton: I am indeed aware of the Latham report, and pay further tribute to the work that our former colleague has done in that report, and to the support that it has gained throughout the industry. I am certainly willing to consider ways in which I might contribute to advancing sensible and necessary proposals.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: For a specific and compelling reason which I have given to the private secretary to the Foreign Secretary and which emerged since the Foreign Secretary courteously answered the Adjournment debate last Wednesday, may I request that the Foreign Secretary, in the light of the information that he has been given, makes another statement on Lockerbie?
Mr. Newton: I understand that the current position is that the hon. Gentleman, as he says, wrote to the Foreign Secretary a couple of days ago. I understand also that he will receive a reply shortly. Further consideration of the matter should depend on the outcome of all that.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: May we have an early debate on the common fisheries policy, so that we can find out whether the Liberals support a review, as promoted by their fisheries spokesman; are totally disinterested, as evidenced by the fact that their leader could not even be bothered to vote last time; or support complete withdrawal, as advocated by the East Sussex county councillor of the Liberal Democrat party in my constituency?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has, with her usual ingenuity, put some useful points on the record. I cannot promise a debate, not least because of my inner conviction that, however many debates we have, Liberal policy will never become clear.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: May we have a debate in the House, if not next week then as soon as possible, on overseas domestic servants who are brought to this country? This week, hon. Members heard reports from those people of the conditions under which they work, which are little short of slavery.
Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman has a particular concern and evidence of aspects of that concern which
464
should be looked into, I hope that he will bring the evidence to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary or whoever else may be appropriate.
Mr. Rupert Allason: May I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the work undertaken by Mr. Harold Doyne-Ditmass and his staff in the security division of the Department of Transport? Is he aware of the widespread concern about a directive circulated last week relating to redundancies and other staff cuts in the security division?
Given that inspectors working in that division are responsible for security inspections at airports and the channel tunnel, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance, and perhaps invite the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House next week to confirm, that there will be no compromise of passenger safety whatever cuts are made in the security division of the Department of Transport?
Mr. Newton: I think my hon. Friend knows that, after there had been a certain amount of reporting in the newspapers of anxieties of that type a week or so ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport commissioned urgent reports about channel tunnel security. He will decide what further action needs to be taken when he has considered those reports and any further security advice that he receives, but I am sure that he would wish to take security no less seriously than does my hon. Friend.
Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for the Foreign Secretary to come to the House and make a statement about the reported loss of £900,000 of taxpayers' money by an Overseas Development Administration procurement agent, which the National Audit Office has just brought to our attention, especially as it appears that the Foreign Office knew two years before the company collapsed that it was financially insecure, yet did nothing?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise to bring my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the House for that purpose at the moment, but I can undertake to bring the hon. Lady's question to his attention, and I am sure that he would wish to consider it.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the recent Audit Commission report, which suggested that over-staffing by local authorities has cost the country £1 billion a year? Does he agree that the House should examine which local authorities have entered the sphere of politically correct advisers, rather than spending money on social services and, frankly, teachers' pay?
Mr. Newton: In the past fortnight, as I am sure that my hon. Friend would acknowledge, the House has had a full day's debate about local government matters in respect of the English revenue support grant, a further half-day of opportunity in the debate about the Welsh revenue support grant yesterday, and a half-day debate on education earlier this week. There are opportunities next Wednesday in respect of the same matters in Scotland. If

465
my hon. Friend dares to take part in a debate on Scotland, with all the risks that that might entail, that may give her an opportunity.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give time in order to discuss the merits and demerits of regional selective assistance. Last week, I had to grab the Minister half-way through his lunch in order to save an eleventh-hour situation in my constituency. It would have meant the loss of 130 jobs and a firm that had invested millions of pounds during a five-year period, and the application considered that it was a crisis. It is time that we realised the importance of giving help to firms, as many firms in Scotland are going bankrupt that could be given help from regional selective assistance.
Mr. Newton: There are many examples of cases in which regional selective assistance, with which I was concerned as a Department of Trade and Industry Minister about six years ago, has been very helpful, including several recent examples, so I will certainly bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my hon. Friends.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on the printing facilities of the House, during which we could discuss the document that I have in my hand, which has been produced in many hundreds of copies on a photocopier of the House? It is a suggested answer to a questionnaire, under the title:
"A Model Reply to the NEC".
The House will be interested to know that it discusses ethnic and sexual struggles, condemns the choice of schooling made by some senior Labour politicians, supports clause IV and says:
"Whether or not you think … write to"
the address of the Inverkeithing constituency office of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
Mr. Newton: I think that I need to digest all that intelligence before commenting.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I reiterate the demand for the Minister for Transport in London, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), to make a statement to the House, so that he can apologise for his insulting remarks about sitting beside dreadful human beings who travel by bus or by train.
Is the Leader of the House aware that the travelling public are appalled by the Government's transport policy, and especially by the rail privatisation proposals that have been dreamed up by the dreadful sub-human beings who sit beside him at Cabinet meetings?
Mr. Newton: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said during rather more crowded exchanges not so long ago, it is plain that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London and the whole thrust of his speech have been misinterpreted. His purpose was to suggest that we want motorists to understand more fully the desirability of using public transport. Frankly, our rail privatisation policy is designed to make public transport more desirable for people to use. We shall stick to that policy.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 581,
466
entitled "The United Kingdom and the Single Currency", which has attracted 97 signatures from our right hon. and hon. Friends, including those of at least four former Cabinet colleagues of my right hon. Friend?
[That this House congratulates the Prime Minister for making it clear on 8th January that it is not in the United Kingdom's interest to join a single currency in 1997 and for his confirmation that there are no proposals for legislation necessary for the purpose nor for the United Kingdom to accept any changes at the Inter-Governmental Conference which will impact on the constitution of the United Kingdom; and notes his rejections of the support for the principle of a single currency by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition and M. Jacques Santer.]
On the basis of that motion, which now makes Government policy and the support for it quite clear, will my right hon. Friend draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? Will he arrange for a debate on that matter at the earliest possible opportunity, because it is clearly time that we discovered Opposition policy on the matter?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister advert to that matter at least three times during Prime Minister's questions, so I shall not attempt to add to what he said. Like everyone else, however, I am waiting with bated breath to know the policy of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I press the Leader of the House on the need for an urgent debate on bed shortages in the national health service? He will be aware that, recently, both a judge and a magistrate have issued summonses against the Secretary of State for Health. He will also know that the Government's own study into the provision of intensive care beds found that a considerable number of patients were denied the possibility of intensive care because those intensive care units were full. The shortage of beds in the NHS is reaching crisis point, and it is not good enough to suggest that we can debate that properly during questions next week to the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Newton: Of course I understand that questions do not provide the same kind of opportunity as a debate, but they certainly provide an opportunity to make points such as those raised by the hon. Lady. As I have said twice, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be here on Tuesday. I should add only that the number of intensive care beds has risen from just over 2,500 to just over 2,600 in the past six years.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Is the Leader of the House aware of the concerns that are being expressed by the people of Coventry, particularly in the Willenhall area, about the situation at Baginton airport, bearing in mind the fact that, for a number of years, small airports have not been subject to any regulation?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also undertake to talk to the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, who has said that a report known as "Aviation Regulations" is ready for publication, but that it is a matter of parliamentary time as to when he can bring it before the House? Will he

467
arrange for that report to be brought before the House urgently, so that it can be debated and the people of Willenhall and the surrounding areas can be reassured?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly draw those representations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Stephen Timms: Has the Leader of the House read the remarks made yesterday by the chief executive of Channel 4, who attacked the Government's policy and that of the Secretary of State for National Heritage of diverting the profits of Channel 4 to the shareholders of the ITV companies? Will the Leader of the House make time for us to have a debate on the need for policies promoting investment in British programme making?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has heard his representations direct. It is a matter on which I have also been lobbied, if I dare use that word, by Channel 4, so I am aware of the arguments. The funding formula and the associated risk were the basis on which the companies bid for their licences and, to put it mildly, it would be difficult to move the goalposts in the light of that.

Business of the House
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C

    HILL LIVESTOCK (COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCES)
    That the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995, No. 100) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Bates.]
    Question agreed to.

Points of Order
4.3 pm
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard the Leader of the House say that a statement is being made this afternoon by way of a written answer concerning the public sector pay awards. It is clearly a matter of considerable public interest, especially as thousands of jobs in education, the health service and other public services are in doubt. As Hansard may not report such questions until tomorrow or possibly Monday, what papers are being made available in the Vote Office this afternoon giving a full explanation of the Government's public sector pay awards?
Madam Speaker: Those questions should be put to the Ministers concerned: they are not for me. I have noticed that the three Members who are rising are those who were not called during business questions. I hope that they are raising points of order and not points of frustration that they might have made during business questions.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did rise during business questions, and you were kind enough to call me.
Madam Speaker: I was referring to the three others.
Mr. Arnold: I referred to a document entitled "Clause IV: A Model Reply to the NEC". It has obviously been printed in vast quantities on photocopiers in the House where this particular copy was found. It also says:
"printed and published by the Campaign for Socialism"
at an address in Glasgow, but clearly it was printed in the House at the expense of the taxpayer.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is making allegations that it was printed in the House. He must therefore have evidence of that. If he has, I hope he will pass the evidence and the material to the Sergeant at Arms' Office, so that proper inquiries can be made.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order. I am sure that you remain as confused as I am, Madam Speaker, because the Government seem to have got the calendar of saints in the same confused order as the rest of the country. Do you know whether the St. David's day debate will take place on St. Winwaloe's day, as announced, or on some other day, but it certainly will not take place on St. David's day?
It is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) once remarked to the House, because our daffodils will have wilted by St. Winwaloe's day, and it is crucial that we have the debate on the same day. After listening to the confused statement by the Leader of the House, I have no idea when the debate is taking place.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have in his top pocket a calendar. I do not have one, but I understand that Wednesday 1 March is St. David's day. I am not sure whether or not the debate is to take place on St. David's day, but as for daffodils, the hon.

469
Gentleman should not despair. I have about a hundredweight of daffodils in my garden, and if he is short of them, I shall see that he gets a few from me.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that disabled people suffer from a wide range of difficulties, including hearing difficulties and problems with wheelchairs in crowds. Therefore, when there is a lobby of Parliament such as the mass lobby of disabled people that is taking place today, there are difficulties in organising meeting facilities in Methodist Central hall because of the lack of access.
When a lobby takes place in Parliament, would it not be appropriate for there to be facilities enabling Members to communicate with a wider group of disabled people and for microphones to be available in Westminster Hall, instead of their being removed by the authorities of the House, as they were today, when masses of people were there to make representations on tomorrow's Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill?
Madam Speaker: The best possible facilities have been made available by the House and its authorities for the use of Westminster Hall, which holds more than 1,500 people. It is a large hall, and the authorities and the police have done their best to make it available for those who might be disabled and who wish to lobby their Members of Parliament.
Loudspeaker equipment is available in Westminster Hall only to the House authorities for crowd regulation. There are many people there. The idea is that, when Members of Parliament go to Westminster Hall to see
470
their constituents, the House authorities can let the lobbyists know that Members of Parliament are present and which part of the hall they will be in, so that they can lobby their Members of Parliament. Everything possible is being done to see that those lobbying can reach their Members of Parliament and that they can meet them in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: With regard to what you said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), Madam Speaker, about the statement which Ministers will make at some point on the vexed question of pay for millions of people—nurses, teachers and others—do you agree that that matter will exercise the minds of every Member of Parliament, and that we all need to know exactly what the Government will do?
On many previous occasions you have deplored the fact that Ministers make statements outside the House when they should make them in the Chamber. On what is probably the most important question of the week, which will affect millions of our constituents, the Government refuse to make a statement so that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members can ask vital questions. Do you agree, Madam Speaker, that the Chancellor should make a statement about that very important question?
Madam Speaker: I have no authority to bring the Chancellor or any other member of the Government to the Chamber to make a statement. It is for Ministers themselves to decide whether they will make a statement orally at the Dispatch Box, or will provide a written answer to a question. The Government have chosen to respond in this case by way of a written answer, which should be available now in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House of Commons.

BBC
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
[Relevant documents: The White Paper entitled 'The future of the BBC: serving the nation, competing world-wide' (Cm 2621) and the Second Report of Session 1993–94 from the National Heritage Committee on the Future of the BBC (HC 77).]
4.10 pm
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): This Adjournment debate is an opportunity for the House to comment on the contents of the White Paper, "The Future of the BBC", which my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) brought forward in July last year.
The White Paper set out a very clear view about the future of the corporation. It announced the Government's intention to renew the BBC's charter for a 10-year period to the end of 2006. It set out how the Government intended the BBC to develop through that period and how the BBC's accountability mechanisms should evolve in the changed world in which the corporation would be operating.
I think that it is fair to say that the White Paper was well received, both in the House and outside, and this debate constitutes an opportunity for hon. Members—who have had a chance both to read the White Paper and to hear people's reactions to it—to set out their considered views about the contents of the document.
I have said that the White Paper contains a very clear view about the future of the BBC and that is, of course, summarised in its title and its two subtitles. The aims of the BBC through the next charter period are encapsulated by the subtitles, "Serving the nation" and "Competing world-wide". I shall examine both those themes because they are important to the future of the BBC and to the future opportunities of British broadcasting.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister referred to the subtitle "Serving the nation", and he will be aware of the arguments in Wales and Scotland about securing adequate services and the need to ensure that there is strategic input into decision making at the BBC. Does he accept that, since the White Paper was drawn up, technology has changed so quickly that the advent of more television channels is imminent? Wales needs another national English language television channel that is comparable to the existing Welsh language channel. Will he take that point on board in his considerations today and in the outcome of the debate?
Mr. Dorrell: Later in my speech, I shall deal with regional and United Kingdom national input into BBC scheduling and the BBC's programme-making capacities.
On the comments that the hon. Gentleman made about changing technology in broadcasting, it is important to begin by considering that aspect of the broadcasting market. Any plans for the future of the BBC have to be made against a background of recognition that the marketplace is changing quickly. Like all changes that are technology driven, their precise speed and direction are
472
difficult to predict. It is important that the future structure of the BBC is tailored to a reasonable projection of where those technology changes are likely to lead us.
Mr. John Maxton: While I agree with the Minister in part, would not it be better if the Government were prepared to tailor technology to suit the future of the BBC rather than the other way round? Is not it time that the Government gave British Telecommunications plc—our biggest telecommunications company—the right to broadcast, link in and work with the BBC, rather than allowing a mass of American companies to broadcast in this country?
Mr. Dorrell: With respect, I am not sure that the regulation of BT reflects the Government moulding the future of technology. Certainly, the future of technology is not within the Government's gift, and nor should it be. What is, however, is to ensure that the cabling of Britain is undertaken by more than one company—
Mr. Maxton: Why?
Mr. Dorrell: To provide the consumer with choice in a competitive marketplace, with the likelihood of consumer wishes being more effectively met. The reason why it has been the Government's policy from the beginning to restrict the development of the existing BT cable network into the cable television market has been made clear by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. He has also made clear the reasons why that policy will be sustained.
Mr. Andrew Miller: If there is to be competition between companies to provide cable, how do the Government envisage that we avoid having our streets dug up more than once? Does not he think that there should be a statutory control to ensure that the same ducts are used?
Mr. Dorrell: With respect, the Government got to that question at least five years before the hon. Gentleman, because there is, of course, precisely such a statutory regulation. That is the precise purpose of the licensing system operated through the cable authority. The purpose of the regulatory system is to ensure that there is—as the hon. Gentleman put in the conditional—a competitive marketplace.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is not happening.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Some 80 per cent. of households in Britain are covered by an issued cable television licence as a result of the technology changes that have taken place.
Mr. Skinner: But why does not the Minister understand that just because the cable companies said something in the House a few years ago about what they wanted to do, it does not follow that it is happening underground? They will continue to dig up the roads. The trouble with the Minister is that he does not know what is happening in the real world. He should see more films, then he might find out.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you are

473
listening to the debate, but so far I have not heard, at least for the past five minutes, the word "BBC" or anything to do with the BBC.
Madam Speaker: The Minister is responsible for his own remarks. Perhaps if he was allowed to make some progress, we would hear about the BBC.
Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful for the opportunity to return to the subject of the BBC, but not, if I may, before observing that it might have been with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in mind that I went to see Buñuel's film "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie". I am not sure that it was precisely directed at the hon. Gentleman.
That exchange illustrates the extent and pace of technological change that is driving the broadcasting market. That is important as a context for the debate, because it demonstrates clearly that the BBC is operating in a fast-growing sector and one that contains within it major opportunities for all broadcasters in Britain, including the BBC. It is important that any plans for the future of the corporation are made against that background.
It is important to bear something else in mind when considering the future of the BBC: we are not starting, in the development of this fast-changing marketplace, with a clean sheet of paper. We are starting substantially better off than that, because, during its 70 years, the BBC has established an enviable reputation as a quality broadcaster and contributor to our national heritage and national life. That reputation is based on a broad-based expertise in the making and scheduling of programmes and the development of public esteem, both in this country and abroad.
Many hon. Members will have admired the BBC's drama, light entertainment and education programmes and its programmes for children. Earlier this week I was in Bristol, and was able to admire a specific example of the BBC's expertise—its natural history programmes.
Hon. Members occasionally comment on the BBC's skilful current affairs coverage, and its ability to maintain a balance in news and current affairs programmes. There will always be debate about how those programmes can be improved further, but that does not alter the fact that the BBC has established an enviable reputation in regard to news and current affairs broadcasting.
In planning the corporation's future, we must recognise the opportunities created by a changing marketplace. We must build on the enviable reputation that the BBC has established during its 70-year history.
Mr. Fabricant: Of course I agree with my right hon. Friend. I heard Michael Grade, chief executive of Channel 4, describe the BBC as a national treasure; he was right.
My right hon. Friend mentioned news and current affairs, however. Will he join me in condemning a specific story in Friday's 6 pm and 9 pm news bulletins? The BBC's news and current affairs department went out of its way to mislead viewers about events in the Chamber earlier that day in connection with the veal debate.
Mr. Dorrell: I did not have the advantage of seeing those broadcasts. A characteristic of most politicians is their speed in commenting on programmes that they have not seen; I shall refrain from doing so myself.
474
Although we are all occasionally annoyed by material produced by the BBC, and indeed by all broadcasters, the unavoidable and welcome truth is that throughout its history the BBC has made a serious effort to maintain independence and has established a public reputation for doing so. We should build on that.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC has a more exceptional reputation than any other broadcasting organisation in the world? Does he accept that, while we must move with the times and the changing market, the Government should not do anything that might damage the BBC's opportunity to remain pre-eminent in broadcasting throughout the world?
Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree; indeed, I shall go a step further. I do not content myself with merely not damaging the BBC's capacity to build on its reputation. The purpose of the debate surrounding the renewal of its charter was, rightly, to ensure not only that we did not damage that capacity, but that we could enhance it and give the BBC as many opportunities as possible.
Two themes are highlighted in the subtitles of the White Paper. First, there is the theme of serving the nation. Although the international exploitation of BBC material presents important opportunities, the BBC's primary role must be as a mainstream domestic broadcaster: that is its core activity, and that is where we should begin in considering its future evolution.
I have mentioned the fast-changing broadcasting marketplace, but the House should bear another element in mind. While we should take into account the technology-driven change that is affecting the marketplace, we should not overestimate the pace of that change or its implications. I sometimes hear people talk of technology-driven change in broadcasting as if they expected the broadcasting marketplace with which we have become familiar suddenly to crumble and disappear. That is not true. For the foreseeable future, the five terrestrial television channels will remain the main television market in Britain. The White Paper makes it clear that we intend that the BBC should continue to deliver two of them.
The radio market will also continue to change, but not at such a pace that it will be unrecognisable in 12 months' time. The BBC will remain a strong provider of broadcasting services in that changing, but not excessively fast-changing marketplace. It is important to remember that the BBC will, for the foreseeable future, remain a broad-based public service broadcaster which, at some time in the week or another, broadcasts to the great majority of the British population. That is likely to continue. I hope that it does continue. In the context of the White Paper, part of the Government's purpose is to ensure that it continues. That is important because it is the proper justification for the Government's decision, announced in the White Paper, to continue the licence fee as the financing mechanism for domestic broadcasting in Britain.
The White Paper makes it clear that the licence fee is an "oddity"—the word used in the White Paper. It is true that, if we were starting from scratch, we might not finance public service broadcasting in that way, but, as I emphasised to the House, we are not starting from scratch.

475
The BBC is a well-established and well-loved institution and the burden of proof lies firmly on those who want to change individual and important aspects of it.
It is important to establish where the burden of proof lies. The case for maintaining the licence fee is important. It rests on two principal legs. The first is that the BBC continues to have a large audience share and a very much larger reach in terms of domestic audience. At some time in the week or another, it is a main broadcasting provider to the great majority of the British listening and viewing public. The second key leg is, of course, that the licence fee gives the BBC an independent flow of revenue outside the direct political process. That was the basis on which the Government set out their continued commitment to the continuation of the licence fee for the first five years of the 10-year charter in the changing marketplace.
It is important not only to establish the reason why we remain, for the moment, committed to the licence fee, but to reflect that, if those fundamental circumstances change, the argument that delivers the licence fee as the main financing source starts to weaken.
Mr. Michael Colvin: I acknowledge and agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said, but will he confirm that he agrees with the statement in the White Paper that there should be no cross-subsidy from licence fee payers to the BBC's commercial activities? How will we relate that proviso to the BBC's transmission services if they are privatised? What is the cost of those services? The figure of some £24 million is being bandied about, but does not that already include a considerable element of cross-subsidy and hidden cost covered by other sectors of the BBC? Is not that unfair?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend raises two related subjects. The first is the extent of cross-subsidy from the home broadcasting business to the external business. I shall come to that subject later. Transmission services are left as an open question in the White Paper. We are in discussion with the BBC on the matter. I cannot tell the House yet what result those discussions are likely to produce. I am told that the cost to the BBC of the transmission services is not separately identified. That is one of the issues around which the discussions are taking place.
Dr. Kim Howells: I am worried about what the Secretary of State has said. He referred to the core activity of being the major broadcaster in Britain. The BBC is also a programme maker. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State's confidence in the licence fee as a source of revenue which, presumably, will apply at least to part of the function as programme maker.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that the entertainments industry, the televisual and radio industry, is one of the largest in the world? The Americans calculate that that industry will be their largest overseas earner by the turn of the century. The BBC's great role may relate to the fact that it makes programmes of great excellence and that it is as important as any other industry in this country.
Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. At the beginning of my comments, I tried to make it clear that I proposed to refer to the functions of the BBC under the two headings of serving the nation and exploiting the
476
wider international market opportunities. At this stage of my speech, I am addressing the issues that arise from serving the nation.
With regard to serving the nation, it is true that domestic programme content is one of the glories of the BBC and, it must be said, of ITV. The key objective is to consider the functioning and accountability of the BBC as a domestic broadcaster. I want now to consider accountability.
Sir John Gorst: With regard to one of the two premises on which my right hon. Friend is basing the continuation of the BBC, what proportion of the BBC's audience would have to be lost before the Government believed that circumstances had changed and things should be different?
Mr. Dorrell: I cannot attach a figure to that. The principle that I am describing is not unfamiliar to the House nor is it unwelcome to the BBC. It is important that it is understood that the basis on which the universal licence fee rests is the BBC's claim to be a mainstream broadcaster to every home in Britain. That is the basis on which the development of broadcasting policy within the BBC must rest if we are to continue to justify to the audience the proposition that paying for the BBC should be achieved through the licence fee.
I want now to consider the accountability of this public service broadcasting institution because that is at the heart of the issue of how we further improve—to take the theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—the performance of the BBC in the years ahead. The White Paper clearly sets out three tiers of accountability or documentation surrounding accountability. The first tier is the document that will be very familiar to the House—the BBC's charter. Much of last year's debate took place under the heading of the charter's renewal.
In terms of accountability, there is a sense in which the charter is not the most important document. In effect, it constitutes a constitution for the BBC. It sets out the responsibilities of the different elements within the BBC. However, it does not seek to define precisely the output purpose of the different elements of the BBC. That is contained in two other tiers of accountability—the agreement which we envisage the corporation will sign with me as Secretary of State and which will run for the 10-year period of the new charter, and the promises that the BBC will make to define, for its audience, its interpretation of the public service broadcasting obligation imposed on it.
I want to refer to those two documents and to concentrate in particular on "Promises to Audiences", because that is the more flexible key element in the enforcement of the accountability of that great public corporation. I shall refer to the agreement first. The agreement will set out the range of services that the Government and the BBC agree that the BBC will provide. It will set out the assurance of independence of management and programme editorial staff from political intervention, and the responsibility of the BBC's governors for the way in which that independence is used. The agreement will set out the undertakings of the BBC on the standards of programming material that it wil]I broadcast and it will also set out the principles that I have just described which surround the licence fee.

477
In "Promises to Audiences", as I said, the BBC will set out its clear understanding of the public service obligation placed on it. It is against the target set out in that document that not merely this House—although certainly this House—but the wider public, will want to test the delivery of the service for which the governors of the corporation will be responsible.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the constant diet, shown by the BBC and other television channels, of violence, pornography and bad language? Does he agree that the 9 o'clock watershed is a cop-out because children watch television after 9 o'clock and that in any event programmes of that kind coarsen and degrade everyone who watches them?
Mr. Dorrell: The White Paper, the agreement and the "Promises to Audiences" all make it clear that maintenance of standards of taste and decency must underlie any proper definition of the public service broadcasting obligation. However, all of us as individuals must recognise that when we are individually offended or angered by a programme, it does not necessarily mean that there has been a breach of the standards undertaken by the corporation. None the less, a serious commitment by the governors to deliver a proper, modern understanding of standards of taste and decency is expressed unambiguously in the White Paper, as it will be in the agreement between myself and the corporation.
Mr. Maxton: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that there is more than one audience in the United Kingdom? A variety of audiences is based largely around the regions and, especially, the nations that comprise the United Kingdom. How does he intend to ensure that the BBC is accountable to that diversity of audiences and not only to a single audience?
Mr. Dorrell: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The accountability will be set out in the agreement and "Promises to Audiences", which I shall address precisely.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend comment on impartiality and emphasise that the charter does not concern political impartiality, but impartiality on matters of public policy? Does he therefore agree that it is absolutely essential that, in matters of national interest, due weight is given to both sides of the argument in respect of the amount of time provided and the content of the matters raised?
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has had his say.
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is certainly right. Impartiality includes even—occasionally—accounting for the views of the hon. Member for Bolsover. We need to ensure that the responsibility for managing impartiality is clearly vested with the corporation and that there is an accountability mechanism by which we may test our collective view of its effectiveness in delivering that pledge. I shall describe that mechanism to the House.
I shall draw the attention of the House to what I think are the key passages in the White Paper, which set out clearly the contract that the BBC will offer as a public
478
service broadcaster to its audience, as contained in its "Promises to Audiences" document. Paragraph 6.36 of the White Paper says:
"The promises to audiences would include the BBC's objectives for its programmes and services as a whole … and would set out the role of each of the BBC's services in the United Kingdom funded from the licence fee."
That is clear and unambiguous. That paragraph also refers to paragraphs 3.25 and 3.26, which further clarify that principle. Paragraph 3.25 states:
"the purpose of each of the main national television and radio network services should be clearly stated and there should be objectives for some of the main strands of BBC output, such as news and current affairs, education and drama."
Paragraph 3.26 states:
"The availability of such objectives, approved by the Board of Governors, would provide a means of ensuring that the Governors and the BBC's senior managers, and ultimately Parliament and the public, would be able to assess how far the BBC had met the objectives, and so was fulfilling its role as a public service broadcaster. The Governors' assessment should be included in the BBC's Annual Report, which is presented to Parliament."
That contains the kernel of the approach to accountability, which is set out in the White Paper and which will be contained in the documents that will be presented to the House at the end of the consultation process. In that context, I want to comment on three specific elements of accountability which I know have been of concern to hon. Members and which I expect to see contained in the "Promises to Audiences" document.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that there is a strong commitment in the contract to the maintenance of high-quality British children's programming. So far, I have not heard that mentioned. If we consistently allow all our programmes to be bought-in cartoons, we shall not only underplay our commitment to the British culture and the British language, but sell our own children disastrously short.
Mr. Dorrell: I agree with the hon. Lady. If she checks the record, she will find that the development of expertise in children's programming was one of the points that I mentioned as a strength of the BBC. It is certainly contained within the BBC's wider commitment to the original commissioning of broadcasting, both within the corporation and from independent producers, for the United Kingdom domestic audience.
In terms of the key interests that will be covered by "Promises to Audiences", clearly the balance of different types of broadcasting material, as the quotations that I read out make clear, will be at the core of the promises that the BBC sets out in the document—that is, the balance between drama and children's programming and the balance between education programming and news and current affairs. That is part of the contractual document that the BBC will set out in "Promises to Audiences".
The second theme that the BBC will answer in the document is the subject that I debated with the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) this week—access for disabled people to different types of BBC broadcasting material. The third subject refers directly to regional balance within England, and national balance within the

479
United Kingdom. Paragraph 3.24—I assure the House that this is the last quotation from the White Paper—makes the point in unambiguous terms. It states:
"It is important that the BBC should make and commission a reasonable proportion and range of its national output, as. well as programmes for local audiences, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in the English regions. An undertaking to do this should be included in the new Agreement, and an analysis of hours and range of output made in different parts of the country for broadcasting locally and throughout the United Kingdom should be included in the BBC's Annual Report."
I expect that the BBC will want to include some precision about the nature of that understanding in "Promises to Audiences", so that there are yardsticks against which the audience and Parliament can test its delivery of the general principle that will be set out in the agreement signed between the Government and the corporation.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Taking paragraphs 3.24 and 6.22 together, what is the Government's view of the phrase "cultural patron"? What does the right hon. Gentleman regard as the BBC's responsibilities, particularly in Scotland, but doubtless in Wales and elsewhere, as a cultural patron? What does it mean in terms of finance?
Mr. Dorrell: I am not sure whether I warm to the term "cultural patron", but I warm to the term "public service broadcasting". Public service broadcasting should include a concept of local content, of local production, and of talking to a local audience in a language that the local audience talks, and doing that with material that reflects the quality standards to which some of my hon. Friends referred.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Dorrell: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and then I must make progress. I have already detained the:House for nearly 45 minutes.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Despite the assurance of the declaration of intent contained in paragraph 3.24, there is widespread concern in Scotland about what is regarded as the over-centralisation of the BBC in London, particularly in respect of drama and the production of drama. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that he will keep a tight weather eye on that matter?
Mr. Dorrell: I am happy to give not only the hon. Gentleman but the House that assurance. It was to give a tangible form that I suggested that I expect that the BBC will want, in its statement of "Promises to Audiences", to seek to tie down the undertaking in the agreement in a form that allows us to check year by year the delivery of the undertakings that it has given.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State said that he did not 'warm to the phrase "cultural patron". It was not my phrase; it was his phrase. It is in his own document, at line 5 of paragraph 3.24. It is—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. It might be a point of substance, but it is not a point of order.
Mr. Dorrell: I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. I was seeking to suggest that part of the public service
480
obligation was to deliver the service that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to suggest should be—I agree—part of the core of the BBC's activity.
Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dorrell: No. I want to move on. I am very grateful, as ever, for the hon. Gentleman's help.
I have spent a fair amount of time talking about my understanding and view of how the BBC should develop its serving the nation mission. I want now to deal with its role as a worldwide competitor in the changing broadcasting marketplace that I talked about. I regard it as a major opportunity for the BBC and I also regard it more generally as a major opportunity for Britain.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dorrell: Let me develop the argument a little bit further.
That marketplace brings benefits to this country, because broadcasting and the consumption of broadcasting material are a fast-growing marketplace, for all the technological reasons that I quoted, not just in this country but all round the world. That this country is the home of the English language should give us a particular advantage and an opportunity to develop that marketplace. The BBC's strong presence in that marketplace already gives us a firm base on which to build. There is a clear opportunity for British broadcasting, and particularly for the BBC.
The other benefit in that context, of which we should also be aware and which we should welcome, is that the larger the audience who see a programme inside or outside the country, the greater the opportunity to defray the cost of making it over a larger base. It gives us a larger programme-making budget. In a like-for-like situation, it reduces the cost to a certain audience of seeing a certain programme. It is therefore strongly in the interests of the domestic audience and of Britain as a broadcasting base that that international marketplace is exploited.
If we are to do that through the BBC, it is important that the terms on which that opportunity is to be exploited are made clear. It is important that we safeguard the interests of domestic licence payers, who do not pay their licence fees as an investment in an international broadcasting business. They pay their licence fees to secure a domestic broadcasting service. That is one reason why it is important to be clear about the terms on which that exploitation takes place. The other reason is that there are other United Kingdom players in that international marketplace, and we should not use licence payers' money to give the BBC a distorted advantage in an international marketplace over other United Kingdom broadcast programme makers. That is why the Government set out in the White Paper clear proposals for ring-fencing the international competing function, and set terms requiring the partner in that function to take the commercial risk. That is the proper function of the private sector partner, not of the licence payer.

481
I hope that the framework set out in the White Paper will be accepted on both sides of the House as an example of the link between the public and the private sector that will allow us to deliver our objectives without prejudicing the interests of the licence payer.
Mr. Flynn rose—
Mr. Dorrell: I shall give way, but this will be the last time.
Mr. Flynn: The whole House will rejoice over the sinner who repents. The Secretary of State is saying what many people in the House and elsewhere were saying a decade ago. If it were not for the stubbornness of the previous Prime Minister, who insisted that the BBC world television service should follow one pattern alone, that service could have built on the pre-eminent role of the BBC radio world service, and we could have been the No. 1 player instead of coming in late in the day, having allowed others to become pre-eminent. Will the Secretary of State say one word of remorse about that?
Mr. Dorrell: No I shall not, because the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the proposal made at that time. That was precisely that the licence payer should take the commercial risk. The argument in favour of the structure that we have now is that the commercial risk is borne by commercial interests. The licence payer benefits by defraying the cost over a larger audience, and therefore from the reduced price for individual programmes.
Finally, the process of renewing the BBC's charter will now continue and, having heard the views of the House today, the Government will produce draft documents. The agreement, in particular, will be for the House to approve and the other documents will be available, so the House will be able to see the total picture when it makes the decision on the agreement, and will have the opportunity to debate it before it comes into force.
The BBC has been through a time of substantial change and, as is always the case, change has been a bruising process. The BBC has changed and continues to change, and it now has a major opportunity to take advantage of the kind of marketplace that we have been discussing. I hope that the proposals in the White Paper will ensure that the BBC will be well placed to take advantage of that opportunity, and I commend them to the House.
4.51 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: The Opposition, like many other people throughout the country, greeted the White Paper with considerable relief. Compared with what might have been, and with what the Government at one stage actively suggested, much of the White Paper is warmly welcomed, especially the commitment to the BBC as the linchpin of public service broadcasting in this country. We wholeheartedly endorse that commitment.
Before I turn to the detail, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word or two about the director-general's speech in Dublin last Friday. There is a vital need for robust, sometimes acerbic probing of what politicians say and what they mean. That testing process is part of the role of Parliament, and some aspects of our work here are evidence that we can carry out that role well, although others show us carrying it out rather less well.
482
That testing process is also part of the role of the media. I hope that John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman will continue to lift a cynical eyebrow and ask adversarial questions. That process is an essential part of our democracy. If Mr. Birt was telling the "Today" programme in a not-very-coded fashion to be more gentle with the Secretary of State for Health, or indeed with me, I hope that it will take no notice whatever of him.
The director-general has a point, however, when he talks about the need to include in the media's consideration of politics a more in-depth considered analysis of some of the real issues. The clash of sharp question and prepared soundbite is all very well, and perhaps it is inevitable in a fast-paced news programme, but there must be room for something more; otherwise the output becomes gesture politics, and the electorate deserve and will appreciate something better than that. While the media are thinking along those lines, perhaps the Government should do so, too. The need for a proper freedom of information Act has never been more obvious.
With regard to the future of the BBC, the Opposition welcome much of the White Paper. We welcome its commitment to the public service remit and to the licence fee as the primary source of funding. The licence fee is, of course, an imperfect method of funding, but nothing that I have ever heard proposed is any better.
Why must there be a review of the principle before the end of the year 2001? Why put us through all that uncertainty again by putting a limit on the certainty that the Government are prepared to offer? Surely they could have given a longer perspective for the future of the licence fee. In that context, I noted with great interest that the Secretary of State said earlier that the burden of proof would rest with those who argued for change. If that is indeed the Government's position, and if it represents a slightly clearer commitment to the future of the licence fee than exists in the White Paper, I certainly welcome it.
Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that technological change is setting the pace to a large extent? Digital terrestrial television is on the horizon, and there could be 12 channels tomorrow if the Government gave the go-ahead. Two years ago, the technology was not there. Surely it is right for the Government to say that the pace increases and technology moves on, so the BBC and other broadcasting organisations may have to be reviewed in the light of the changes—changes brought about by technology, not by the Government.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that technology is moving on fast, but he would be a little pushed to provide digital terrestrial television tomorrow, because the transmission systems are not yet in place. He is certainly right that, within a couple of years, we could have 12 digital channels, and there are also the possibilities that open up with the provision of broad-band cable networks.
However, the key functions of the BBC as the public service broadcaster seem to me to be best guaranteed by the licence fee system, and I wish that the Government had been a little more forthright in saying that, rather than hedging their commitment with a time limit.
Sir John Gorst: I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question that I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary

483
of State earlier. Is one of his premises the need for the BBC to command a reasonably large audience to justify being financed by the licence fee? If his argument rests on that basis, will he tell the House at what level of audience he would find that the BBC had lost so much support that he would wish to revise his opinions? That possibility could be a justification for taking a second look—perhaps half way through the 10-year period.
Mr. Smith: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question revealed the failings in the first. Although the maintenance of public support through a compulsory licence fee has to be justified by reaching a substantial audience, the precise definition of what qualifies as "substantial" will change in time. There is no evidence that the BBC is losing audience share—indeed, at Christmas it gained it. The two justifications for the licence fee are: first, audience reach, and secondly, equally and if not more importantly, the maintenance of quality standards. That must be taken into account.
The White Paper sounds an ominous note on transmission services. It shows that privatisation of BBC transmission is under active consideration. The Opposition totally oppose such a proposal.
Mr. Fabricant: Would the hon. Gentleman renationalise National Transcommunications Ltd.?
Mr. Smith: I shall come to that in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument, he may get the answer to his question.
I oppose privatisation for two main reasons. First, in such circumstances, the BBC would be at the mercy of prices for transmission that were determined entirely by others, which would almost certainly put up BBC costs.
Secondly, privatisation would bring progress towards digitalisation to a shuddering halt. The BBC already has a substantial technological lead in developing digital transmission. Digitisation, with all the exciting possibilities that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) identified, is a process in which the BBC must remain at the forefront. If one put the BBC through the exercise of transmission privatisation, with all the uncertainties that that would probably generate for about two years, it would put all progress on digitalisation at risk. Some people in independent television argue—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would follow their arguments—that the BBC transmission service needs to be privatised to provide competition for National Transcommunications Ltd. which, as a monopoly supplier, charges high prices to the ITV network. Problems arise because NTL is a monopoly supplier. Privatising the BBC, in the hope of providing competition, is not the answer. Why not free the BBC commercially to offer a competitive service? Then one would gain the benefits of competition without the uncertainties that would arise from privatisation.
While on the subject of digitalisation, when are the Government planning to produce the proposals set out in paragraphs 4.30 and 4.31 of the White Paper? Fundamental changes in the role of the regulators will be necessary as new digital channels become available, and how the new channels are made available will become
484
crucial. I do not want the same process to be used for awarding digital channels as was used when the franchises for Channel 3 were recently awarded.
Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. It is very generous. Does he accept that NTL is at the forefront of the development of digital systems? Is he saying that he wants it renationalised for the same reasons that he gave for not privatising the BBC's engineering department? Why does he not accept that the BBC might well find it cheaper to be able to go, not merely to the duopoly of the NTL and a privatised BBC engineering department, but to other companies—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are becoming too long. If hon. Members persist in making long interventions, they may find it difficult to catch my eye when they want to make a speech.
Mr. Smith: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, too long and not especially enlightening. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is, no, I would not advocate renationalising NTL, but I would advocate providing good public sector competition, by putting the BBC's transmission network into play.
The White Paper contains a clear commitment to enhance the BBC's regional character, as some of my hon. Friends have already said. It is important that the voice of the regions and nations of the United Kingdom should become clearer and be heard more frequently, to counteract what many see as the BBC's metropolitan bias, and it is right for that aim to be established. So far, the BBC's response has been inadequate. It makes 85 per cent. of its network programmes in London and 97 per cent. in England. Only 3 per cent. are made in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where about 17 per cent. of its audience live.
The BBC's radio network broadcasts 35,000 hours of programming a year. BBC Radio Wales contributes just 385 hours.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Surely the Secretary of State clearly accepted that argument.
Mr. Smith: He accepted the aim, but the reality is different. It is crucial that.we insist that the BBC puts its practice where the principles of the White Paper already stand, and that is my argument.
Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: For the last time.
Mr. Wigley: I am grateful, because the hon. Gentleman's argument is right and that matter is critical for the future. Is he aware that we have slipped back in recent years? Between 1985 and 1989, BBC Wales produced 67 hours a year of programmes for the television network, but by 1993–94 it was down to only 41. We therefore need an effective monitoring system to ensure that any commitments are carried out. Any ideas along those lines will be welcome.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. I shall deal with the monitoring mechanism. He might have added that English language programming in Wales has suffered. Indeed, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr, Jessel) might note that, out of six regional outside broadcast facilities, the BBC has recently closed or

485
drastically reduced three—Bristol, Birmingham and Belfast—with a proportional loss of jobs and equipment. He might also like to note that the Belfast design department has closed completely, leaving BBC Northern Ireland—a supposedly significant source of drama—to use facilities in the Irish Republic.
Mr. Maxton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Smith: Yes, but this really is the last time.
Mr. Maxton: One of the dangers is that the BBC could fulfil its commitment simply by sending crews out from London to make programmes in the regions, rather than having them made by the BBC facilities in the nations and regions. I hope that the Minister who replies for the Government will deal with that.
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. It is crucial that programme making is centred on the region or nation and that programmes are not merely made about a region, but made drawing on the skills of people who originate from it.
In response to the White Paper, the BBC said that it would move £75 million of network programmes from London to the English and national regions. Of course that would help, although it would raise the contribution from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland only from 3 per cent. to 4.2 per cent. That, too, answers the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham: fine words are all very well, but if the BBC programme production from those three nations amounts to only 4.2 per cent. of its total programme output, that is not good enough. Yet that is the aspiration put before us by the BBC in response to the White Paper. If it were fulfilled, it would move about six hours of television production a week out of London. The change proposed is minimal, but even that change has not yet been effected. We were told that an announcement was imminent in October, but it has still not been made.
The English regions are faring badly, as well. BBC Radio Cleveland recently announced that its chief engineer had been made redundant, along with 10 others in the northern region. Overall, BBC local radio reaches about 10 million listeners a week, yet Radio Cleveland will be left with only one engineer for the entire station. Such cuts damage the quality of service and fundamentally damage the local, regional and national character of programme making. We deserve better.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asked about monitoring. A crucial monitoring function is performed by the broadcasting councils for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. They have an important role, but it is also important that they have a strategic, not just a day-by-day, monitoring function. It would help if those broadcasting councils made their minutes public so that we knew what they did on our behalf. Surely we also need an English regional council—not just the English forum which the BBC appears to want. That would be a much weakened body; we need a body to match, on behalf of the English regions, the work of the three national councils.
Mr. Cash rose—
Mr. Smith: I have already given way generously and I want to make progress.
486
We also hear that the BBC wants to do away with the general advisory council. That must not be allowed to happen. It plays a vital role as a sounding board, offering advice—sometimes awkward advice—and identifying trends, not just responding to one-off events. The BBC appears to want an ad hoc arrangement, with consultation taking place only from time to time in respect of specific issues. That would not be good enough. We believe that there must be a continuing and consistent role for the general advisory council.
I come next to the role of the board of governors, who are of course the primary guardians of the public interest. Some have argued in recent days that the governors should be elected in some fashion. I suspect that that might be too cumbersome an arrangement, but there does need to be greater accountability.
The White Paper makes an astonishing statement on page 54, in response to the excellent report by the Select Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The Government say:
"the Government does not consider that the appointment process"—
for governors—
"should be made public, nor that the names of prospective Governors should be submitted to the Select Committee for possible interview before the nomination is confirmed"—
Mr. Jessel: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a smell of food in the Chamber which I have never noticed before in all my years here. As some of us are trying, with considerable effort, to concentrate on the hon. Gentleman's speech and the smell of food is distracting, could you ask the Serjeant at Arms to make inquiries and to try to have it stopped?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I know, from having sat in this Chair on many occasions, that this is not the first such instance. I shall, however, try to ensure that the matter is put right.
Mr. Smith: Whatever the BBC board of governors may be responsible for, it is not the preparation of food in the Palace of Westminster.
As I was saying, the Government, responding to the Select Committee, said that having the Select Committee interview candidates for governor before the nominations were confirmed
"risks deterring some candidates, and might make appointments more political."
I fail to understand the logic in that. If the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister make appointments, they are somehow non-political, but if the all-party Select Committee of the House interviews candidates and ratifies appointments, they become political. The very reverse is true. We would look sympathetically on a proposal to insist that candidates for governorship of the BBC be subject to interview and ratification by the Select Committee of the House of Commons.
Furthermore, as well as the BBC presenting its own report to Parliament each year I would argue that the governors should present a report on their work to the Select Committee, and that they should be subject to interview about it. That would at least introduce more accountability and transparency to all the important work of the governors.

487
The British Film Institute has raised a number of problems with the Department to do with the difficulties of film production at the BBC. I note from what the Secretary of State said today that he now appears to remember that the last film he went to see was "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie". Looking at those on the Government Front Bench, I am more reminded of that wonderful old film "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly"—although I do not think that the precise casting has yet been determined.
The BFI has pointed out that when a film produced by the BBC has a good run at the box office before being shown on television, the audience that it can attract on television is greatly enlarged, but that the financial rules governing the operations of the BBC make that difficult. I hope that the Secretary of State will examine those rules to see whether mechanisms for showing films at the cinema before they are shown on television can be explored as a way of raising interest in and increasing the audience for BBC-produced films.
The White Paper includes a proposal to merge the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. We welcome it: it makes sense. When, though, will it happen? Will the Secretary of State consider whether the new, merged body should also take on a proposal made by the National Consumer Council, for a broadcasting consumer council? Surely that much-needed function would provide a good fit with the work of the current two bodies, and it could be usefully folded into the work of the newly merged organisation.
We welcome the advent of BBC World and BBC Prime. They offer major opportunities around the world, some of which the right hon. Gentleman has identified. I share the chagrin of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) about the loss of such a wonderful opportunity to get ahead of the game some 12 years ago. Progress is now under way, which is welcome. However, there must be a one-way valve in relation to the funding of BBC World and BBC Prime. Funds from the licence fee must not be allowed to subsidise commercial operations abroad. Naturally, if those commercial operations are successful and, over time, profitable, those profits can usefully be used to enhance the BBC's domestic work and, perhaps even in the foreseeable future, to ensure a diminution in the licence fee.
The work of BBC World and BBC Prime is particularly important because, as far as I can establish, we have a trade deficit in television programmes. In 1983, Britain's television companies had an £8 million surplus with the rest of the world; in 1993, they had a £115 million deficit. We should take no pride in that, because we have creative skill and talent here and make some of the best programmes in the world. The BBC is a prime mover in that success. We must not allow the all-American import policy of others to take hold any more than it already has. The importance of protecting our British cultural identity and industries is part of that exercise. Successful world television activity from the BBC could, in time, help to put that deficit right.
I hope that the BBC will explore, as it is beginning to, opportunities opening up in education, linking up with the Open university and the British Council to provide English language teaching and education on a worldwide basis. Opportunities in that respect are substantial and I hope that the BBC will seize them.
488
I return to where I began and stress the extreme importance of ensuring that we maintain the quality of broadcasting. A strong BBC with a strong public service remit is our best possible guarantee of maintaining quality broadcasting. We must therefore cherish and nurture the BBC's work while acknowledging that there is scope for improvement. The history is admirable; the future can be even better.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the arrangement for announcing the public sector pay award was discussed. At 4.10 pm the Vote Office had two written replies from the Prime Minister and two reports from the individual pay review bodies. I contacted the office of the Secretary of State for Education at 5 pm to be told by the person who answered the telephone that he had no knowledge of a teachers' pay award and no one was available to advise me about it. I was then referred to the press office, which told me that a press statement was to be made and should be available at 5.30 pm in the Lobby, but no assurances were given that that press release would be available in the Vote Office.
That is extraordinarily discourteous to hon. Members who are anxious to have guidance about increases in public pay awards, and an extraordinarily inefficient way for the Government to deal with those matters. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are not responsible for the availability of papers, but I wondered whether some messages could be relayed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that any press releases issued this evening on those weighty documents are made easily available to hon. Members.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. It is the responsibility of the Minister concerned, not the Chair, although Madam Speaker always hopes that announcements that should be made to the House will be made there first. The hon. Gentleman's point will no doubt have been noted by hon. Members on the Treasury Bench.
5.24 pm
Mr. David Mellor: Although I understand that it is not necessary to do so in these diseased times I shall make doubly sure and declare an interest: these days, I present a few programmes on BBC radio, for which a modest remuneration is appropriate. In commenting on the BBC in a political capacity, I therefore feel rather like the horse in the opera conducted by Sir Thomas Beecham. In a rather indifferent performance, the horse came on and, on arriving centre stage, lifted its tail and did what horses do—loudly and horribly all over the stage. At that point, Sir Thomas said, "Ah, gentlemen. Not just an artist but a critic as well." In the event that it is necessary to double up that role, may I say that there is little for us to criticise this afternoon.
The BBC is one of the successes of my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), whom I am delighted to see in his place. His White Paper has managed to make most people who look objectively at the BBC and recognise its fundamental importance in public service broadcasting in a free society accept that it is not a partisan document. It takes a commonsense view and recognises, chiefly, that the Government's role in reforming the BBC has been much diminished by the energy with which the BBC has

489
set about reforming itself. It is to be more Catholic than the Pope to endeavour to cap the extraordinary pace of change on which the present director-general has embarked.
It is a worthy sign of the learning curve, which even Ministers ascend, that the formulation of policy that led up to the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the reform of ITV pursued a different course. For a considerable time, a small group of Ministers pursued in private a range of proposals. They should have known that, the moment the proposals saw the light of day, they would have to beat a retreat from many of the points that had seemed so clear cut in a small room but would not appear so in the clear light of day before wider consultation.
I was asked with a few weeks' notice to pick up that Bill and take it through the House. The task of those presenting this White Paper to the House is considerably easier because lessons were learnt from that Bill. That is not to say that the Broadcasting Act 1990 was more flawed than one or two matters that have already been acknowledged. The ITV system needed reform, and many of those reforms are much better than their critics are prepared to admit.
Clearly, when dealing with a matter of such fundamental significance to a free society as the provision of information through the major medium of communication—the electronic media—it is crucial that it is done with substantial openness and a lively public debate. The provision of the Green Paper, the subsequent consideration of what was said, and the presentation of the White Paper entirely confirm the Government's wisdom in proceeding in that way.
I have a straightforward view about the BBC, which is that we need it now more than ever. I denigrate neither commercial radio nor commercial television and am delighted to see their expansion. I am pleased to see in their places a number of hon. Members who played a part in the last-minute alteration of the Broadcasting Act 1990, which permitted Classic FM to become a national radio station. They will be pleased to see that that has happened. The success of that station and many others proves that quality and commercialism are not inconsistent principles. An idea that seemed to be prevalent in certain quarters in the 1980s that, as commercial services developed, there would be less need for the BBC, has rightly died a death.
One of the benefits of reform of the BBC is that the BBC has regained its self-confidence. At one time, it seemed to want to compromise, first, by saying that it was minded to accept that as certain things were done by the commercial sector, it would be wise for the BBC to withdraw from them. It risked becoming a cultural ghetto for everything that other people did not want to do. That was an insecure basis on which to impose on everybody what, I suppose, was an early variant of the poll tax—the licence fee.
Secondly, there were agonised discussions about what should be rendered up to the enthusiasm of the privatisers—whether it should be Radio 1 only, or Radio 1 and Radio 2, and so on.
Mr. Tony Banks: It is good to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that
490
democracy needs the BBC; I have been reading some things in the newspaper about whether the BBC needs him. To save me phoning his estimable programme "606", which I never miss on a Saturday evening, will he tell us that he will remain firmly in that chair and continue to answer questions from Chelsea supporters, comme moi?
Mr. Mellor: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that, for want of anything better to do on a Saturday evening, that happy process will continue.
Mr. Maxton: Is that from one Chelsea supporter to another?
Mr. Mellor: To get back on track, as it were; in recent years we have managed to create a climate that is far more favourable to a sensible, objective discussion of those issues than it used to be. It is a recommendation, not a cause for criticism, that there is much common ground throughout the Chamber when we discuss them. In a free, pluralistic society such as ours, there is no merit in the fact that the future of major organisations such as the BBC should be the subject of deep and intense partisan debate.
If the BBC is to preserve its position as a broadcaster that is the recipient of a flow of public resources that no member of the public who owns a television set has any choice but to provide, and which bears harshly on certain members of the community who do not have a great deal of money, the BBC must not retreat into programmes that are thought to be unsuitable for commercial production. It must offer something to everyone; otherwise we are in the ridiculous position of the man in the Putney or Newham or Glasgow council house subsidising the cultural tastes of the dweller in Hampstead—or wherever else the literati and glitterati are supposed to live these days. That argument cannot be sustained.
It is not in the best interests of commercial radio and television that the BBC should privatise services, which then enter into competition for what remain, in radio at least, very limited funds. I am happy to note that the share of the pot taken by commercial radio from advertising is increasing, but the plain fact is that it remains a very limited pot. The last thing that commercial radio needs is a privatised Radio 1—even one with the somewhat decreasing audiences that have recently been contrived. That is the one station on which I do not feature, I am happy to say, so I cannot be blamed for that, irrespective of anything else.
I participated in debates about broadcasting in the House intermittently for the period of more than a decade when I was involved in broadcasting policy. There are always people searching for the holy grail, the alternative to the licence fee but, in my opinion, the alternative to the licence fee does not readily exist. All that talk about subscriptions ultimately founders on the rock of the recognition that often the people who are the most glued to the box are the least able to pay for it. We need not waste much energy on that.
I hope that the licence fee will continue, not least because it is indeed, as David Frost once memorably said, the great strength of British broadcasting that twin rivers of finance flow quite separately into it—from the licence fee and from advertising. One would throw that away at one's peril.

491
The case for the BBC, interestingly, has been extremely well argued in the Institute for Public Policy Research document that was published as recently as this week, which said—I hope that the House will agree that it sums up the argument very well—
"Through its output, the BBC provides an important benchmark of standards below which competitors' services sink at their own peril. In a multitude of ways, from technical standards to the development of innovative programme forms, the very existence of the BBC compels other broadcasters to maintain and improve the quality and character of their own services."
One might add that the contrary is also the case. The fact that there is an active, vibrant and dynamic commercial sector forces the BBC to look to its laurels. From that creative tension, rivalry and competition comes, one hopes, genuine choice for the consumer.
One can go to New York, as I did not so long ago, push one's way through 30 channels on the television and find nothing that remotely engages one's attention. That is not choice; that is the absence of choice. It is,
"Little boxes, all the same".
It is trash and rubbish from the archives, badly presented, thrown into a pot; it is not quality broadcasting of a type that we want to watch.
Mr. Maxton: Is not one of the great beauties of BBC programmes that they do not have any advertisements in them, and that therefore one's concentration is not interrupted by having to watch awful advertisements for awful products?
Mr. Mellor: I think that the advertisements are sometimes a blessed relief from the programme; but if one can fund a programme service without advertisements, why not? We should not find ourselves in a position of insisting that no programmes should have advertisements or that unless everything is commercial, it cannot be justified.
I unashamedly stand up for the things that the BBC stands for, which only the BBC can do. Mention was made of the phrase, "a cultural patron". That may sound emptily pompous, but it means that, for instance, millions of people in the country can go to the Royal Albert hall in the summer and, for next to nothing, become acquainted with the great works of symphonic literature. The BBC should be proud of doing that, and we should be proud that the BBC does so.
We should be proud of the fact that the BBC sustains the quality of musical life throughout the nation, notably in the regions. In Scotland and Wales, there are exceptional orchestras. In Manchester, the BBC Philharmonic is an orchestra of international class.
We should also be proud of the fact that, interestingly, 50 per cent. of Radio 3's production is of recordings, or live relays, of music that was produced specifically for Radio 3. There is a case for simply reaching out, taking down a compact disc and playing that—I do not knock that—but it would be awful if recorded music were played at the expense of live music. If music is not a living thing, it is merely a part of the heritage industry. That would be a bad thing.
I believe in the BBC as a cultural patron. However, obviously the BBC cannot be run in an inefficient, outmoded way merely because it receives the money from the licence fee. I do not suppose that anyone in the House would say seriously that they did not want a BBC. Nevertheless, if we all sat down today and tried to create
492
a BBC, we would not have created the BBC as it was found by the present management—the BBC that employed 28,000 people.
I take no pleasure in witnessing jobs being destroyed, but that was necessary for a radical reform to prune the bureaucracy. It has had enormous benefits, and it is time that I paid tribute to them—the flow of resources from tail to teeth and the fact that, in the past two years alone, about £225 million of additional resources has been liberated by those reforms, to be spent on new programming.
It used to be sickening when, as we sat upstairs in debates on broadcasting, people groped around in their minds for examples of quality broadcasting. We said "The Jewel in the Crown", however old and fuzzy people's memories of it—perhaps they thought that it was of more value the less they could remember the detail of it. Once again, such programmes are being produced, and it is good that the BBC is producing them.
Interestingly, there is an audience for such programmes. If one considers "Middlemarch" or "Martin Chuzzlewit", those productions, which cost many millions of pounds, were possible only because the BBC had liberated resources from the bureaucracy. The fact that "Martin Chuzzlewit"—shown on BBC1, repeated on BBC2—attracted an audience of more than 8 million people, shows that, to misquote Milton, "the hungry sheep look up and are being fed by the BBC".
The series "The Buccaneers"—the Edith Wharton novel—which is on television at the moment, managed to attract an audience of 9 million people the other evening, in competition with the film "Home Alone". That is a sign, not only that the BBC is producing a quality product, but that, contrary to the denigrating and condescending way that people often talk about audiences, the truth is that audiences—the public whom we deserve—are not morons. They are people who, if they are given a quality product, will watch it, and in great numbers.
The budget for "Four Weddings and a Funeral" was £4.25 million. The budget for the new "Pride and Prejudice" that is being filmed at the moment is £5 million—in other words, a scale of budget that might usually be employed on a cinema film. We should be pleased that those resources can go into the BBC. Those are the benefits of the reforms.
The public owe a huge debt of gratitude to two people. First, to "Duke" Hussey, who has often been criticised. If it had not been for his leadership of the governors, it would not have been possible to have initiated those reforms or to have developed the confidence, crucial in the early stages, to make the changes to the BBC. That confidence was essential at the crucial point when the reforms were first introduced. I congratulate Mike Checkland on his role at that time, which was then carried on by John Birt. John Birt is now being lauded to the skies by those who see from the White Paper the benefits of his work. It was not always so, but it needed firm control of the governors that it should be so.
John is, by his own decision, a controversial character. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his Dublin speech, he made it. How easy it is for someone in his position to be mealy-mouthed and say nothing by just filling the space. He said something; people found it controversial. That is the nature of the man. That is what leadership is all about. At a crucial time in the BBC's history, he has shown leadership. I know only too well from working in

493
the bowels of the BBC that that has caused problems—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) wish to intervene or is he trying to be a third-rate Caruso? Does the hon. Gentleman want me to give way?
Mr. Graham Allen: For the next speaker.
Mr. Mellor: That comment is unnecessary and—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I expect good standards of behaviour from all, but particularly from Front-Bench spokesmen.
Mr. Mellor: I am trying to make a serious speech about an issue I know something about; two things that the hon. Gentleman might like to bear in mind for his future contribution.
The problem for John Birt is keeping the confidence of BBC staff at a time when the changes, as they roll out, are seen merely to threaten their livelihood. Those changes have obviously been difficult and have totally transformed the environment in which the staff work. The key thing for the future management of the BBC is that the BBC should be able to show that those changes are not an end in themselves. The impression should not be given that the changes represent an empty Gradgrind approach to efficiency. The BBC must make sure that staff know that reforms are aimed at a purpose—to liberate resources, as they have already done, so that the BBC can produce the quality of programme that will itself win the BBC its audience and guarantee its future.
The BBC should not forget that it needs high morale among its staff. One of its crucial roles in British broadcasting is to produce and train quality personnel, who then become part of the rest of the broadcasting environment.
It is not entirely plain sailing ahead for the BBC. It must battle for audiences. Although I would deeply regret it if the question of the licence fee were to be reopened because of falls in audience, that is inevitable. The BBC knows that the challenge is to prove that it is worthy of that universal levy through the quality of what it produces.
People talk glibly about superhighways and digital transmissions of one kind or another without having any clear idea of how they will work out or their likely impact. We come back to the New York example. I am not excited by the idea of 10 or 12 television stations when we used to have one or two. The number of stations proves nothing unless quality material is produced to fill them up; otherwise they just offer the kind of nonsense to which I have already referred.
International communications represent another problem. The Government have rightly put the BBC and other British broadcasters under pressure to go out to show the world what they produce. We complacently tell ourselves that we have the best broadcasting in the world, but we must go out and prove that. In fact, the BBC does rather well, because it has a net credit balance of some £50 million a year on its sales overseas as against what it buys in. It accounts for an extraordinarily high proportion of European sales of television programmes to the United States.
494
I can understand why it was sad, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, that for whatever reason, the BBC was slow—or perhaps the Government were slow to encourage it—to get into world service television. Cable News Network, CNN, is a success for one reason alone—it exists. Its success is not due to it offering a particularly good service, but because an American entrepreneur had the courage to go out and make it happen. If there is one thing that we stand for in this country, surely it is objective news values and the production of news that people believe and do not take as propaganda.
The challenge for the BBC in the future is to offer such news to the world. That may require it to embrace commercial partnerships, but provided that is done transparently and fairly, let it go ahead and do that. The increasingly dismal Balkanised world of today needs the free passage of news more than anything else. Surely that is something that the BBC is in an outstanding position to produce. That is the challenge of the future.
5.44 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Order Paper makes the point that the second report of the Select Committee on National Heritage, "The Future of the BBC", is relevant to the debate. The Select Committee is gratified that the general framework for the future of the BBC contained in the White Paper is that which the Committee's report recommended.
The charter is to be renewed for another 10 years, and the licence is to be continued as a source of funding. Those at the BBC might well say, "So, that's that, then. We've got our charter; we've got the licence that we advocated and campaigned for; we've been given a vote of confidence, so we can carry on as before."
The BBC has certainly been given a vote of confidence in general. It does maintain high standards of public service broadcasting. It does act as a role model for ITV and Channel 4. It does have a beneficial influence on public service broadcasting throughout the world. It does have a reputation that is respected throughout the world, and a brand name that is recognised throughout the world. All those factors do not mean, however, that everything that the BBC does is good.
Many share my concern at the decline of nationally transmitted BBC radio. That is not a reflection on the contribution of the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). Many are concerned about the reduction in the audience of BBC 1, and about the intermittent vulgarity of Radio 5. They are concerned about the reduction in standards of the BBC flagship, Radio 4. They are concerned about the trivialisation of too much of Radio 3. As I listen to the gibbering and twittering of the early morning programme from 7 to 9, I sometimes think that the intellectual level would be improved if commercials were included.
There is concern, too, about the imperviousness to criticism expressed by dedicated listeners about some of the things that are taking place on BBC radio. The wholly mistaken belief apparently held by Liz Forgan is that the way to retrieve lost radio audiences—the BBC's share of the radio audience is now less than half of it—is to chase competitors down market. The right hon. and learned Member for Putney referred to Classic FM. I do not

495
believe that the future for Radio 3 lies in trying to copy that station, although I fear that far too much of Radio 3 is doing exactly that.
The secure future of the BBC for another 12 years does not mean that the BBC has the right to be complacent. I say "12 years" because we have two years of the present charter still to run, followed by 10 years of the proposed new charter. That complacency is unjustified, not simply because the BBC has had for a long time consistently fewer television viewers than ITV and Channel 4 combined, but because all four terrestrial channels are now on a downward trend, as satellite and cable relentlessly increase their share of the market and as choice therefore increases.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the regulations about the amount of domestic content that govern commercial television should also be extended to satellite television, so that they all compete on a level playing field?
Mr. Kaufman: I do not believe that such a regulation would be enforceable. As the choices proliferate and the number of channels increase, the current regulation of terrestrial television will become less feasible and effective. Of course, the regulations of the European Union require to be observed, but, as the BBC's share of the television audience goes down, one can see the challenge it faces.
At the end of last month, the BBC had 42.7 per cent. of the television audience, compared with 48.6 per cent. at the same time in 1991. In 1991, satellite and cable did not reach audience figures worth counting. By 1992, they had attracted 3.9 per cent., by 1993 the figure was 5.2 per cent., and by 1994 it was 6.1 per cent. Last month, they had 7.5 per cent. of the television audience. The number of households with access to cable and satellite television has risen from 1.3 million in 1990 to 3.9 million by the end of 1994. This week, BSkyB announced in its reports on the latest successes that more than 4 million households now have access to cable and satellite.
The country's streets are being dug up relentlessly. I received a letter from Nynex about large sections of my constituency which are about to be excavated, and I have responded with a serious warning that it had better behave if it is to avoid trouble from me.
Soon, those who are watching satellite and cable will outnumber the audiences of BBC 2 or Channel 4, each of which now has around 10 per cent. Satellite and cable already have 7.5 per cent.
The number of hours being broadcast by terrestrial television is dwindling in proportion to the number of television hours overall. At present, the four terrestrial channels are transmitting 32,000 hours of television per year, whereas satellite and cable are transmitting 100,000 hours per year.
This is only the beginning. On-demand and interactive services have not even started. The interaction of computers, TV games and CD-ROM is not yet happening, but although we cannot forecast the time scale, it is clear that it is only just over the horizon.
The 10 years of the new BBC charter may also be the last 10 years of any BBC charter. By the time the new charter comes up for renewal, the BBC, if it is to survive, will have to he changed beyond all recognition. If it does not, it will dwindle into the British equivalent of the
496
American Public Broadcasting Service, with a small niche audience which responds fitfully to on-air appeals for funds to top up a meagre Government grant.
If that were to happen, the BBC would be providing public service broadcasting which, instead of being produced in-house or commissioned from independent producers as it is now, to our great advantage, would have to be bought in because the BBC would not have a reliable source of funds to finance its own programming.
A niche audience cannot expect the mass of the population to provide licence fees to fund its specialised minority tastes. It is essential for the BBC to transform itself if it is to survive, and if the ethos of public service broadcasting is to survive. The great contribution of the BBC and Britain to world communications is the ethos of public service broadcasting which pervades broadcasting in many parts of the world and would never have existed without the BBC.
The media world now is already much changed, not only from what it was when the present charter was instituted, but even from what it was when our Select Committee report was published and when the Government published their responding White Paper. Already, the boundaries between print, computers, telephones and television are breaking down into one visual continuum. Several newspapers, such as The Times, are available on-line. If one wants to read The Daily Telegraph, one can read it on computer as well as by going to a shop and buying it. Those changes are just beginning; they are relentless, and we cannot pretend that we or the BBC can ignore them.
We live in a world in which cross-media ownership is changing, a world in which the Daily Mirror and Associated Newspapers have their own television stations which are permitted under the cable regulations; we invest in overseas television and, as I shall be pointing out:in a moment, overseas television invests in us. It is a world in which the BBC grows, or, to all intents and purposes, the BBC will die.
Mr. Nigel Forman: An unstated assumption of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, which I have been trying to follow closely for the past few minutes, seems to be that there is a zero sum gain. In other words, as satellite and cable expand and all the new multi-media technologies expand, the BBC is doomed to lose. Is it not at least possible that one of the changes is precisely that people want a variety of media forms to be available, and that the BBC can survive if it does its known thing well?
Mr. Kaufman: Far from the BBC being doomed to lose, if it organises, structures and prepares itself properly, it can be stronger than it has ever been, and can play a major part in future developments. Only if it thinks small and constrictively will the BBC be doomed to lose.
Ten years ago, the BBC's competitors were ITV and Channel 4. Today, BSkyB and other satellite and cable services are biting into its audience, with already dozens of choices for the increasing number of subscribers to non-terrestrial services. Tomorrow—by "tomorrow" I mean a time scale that is impossible to specify, but which, nevertheless, is attenuating as we proceed1there will be hundreds of alternative choices.

497
In their White Paper following up the Select Committee report, the Government say that the BBC should be able to evolve into an "international multi-media enterprise".That sounds very nice. It is a good piece of phraseology, but what does it mean?
May I put to the House what an international multi-media enterprise really is? I quote from an article in the New Yorker of 16 January written by one of the most authoritative commentators on television, Mr. Ken Auletta. This is how he described the scope of Viacom in the United States:
"The company … has branches in almost every area of entertainment, including movie and television production (Paramount Pictures and Paramount Television); music programming (MTV and VH-I); children's television programming (Nickelodeon); pay TV (Showtime, the Movie Channel) books and CD-ROMs (Simon & Schuster).
It owns the world's dominant video-store chain"—
which has nearly 4,000 stores—
"and one of the world's busiest music retailers (Blockbuster), and five regional theme parks. It owns twelve television stations and fourteen radio stations. Its cable systems have a million one hundred thousand subscribers. It has a seventy-eight-per-cent interest in the Spelling Entertainment Group, whose head, Aaron Spelling, is the most prolific television producer in Hollywood. It owns fifty per cent. of the All News Channel and the USA Network and fifty per cent. of the Comedy Central channel. Viacom is the largest single customer of the Hollywood studios (through Blockbuster, Showtime, and the Movie Channel) and of the record companies (through MTV and Blockbuster). It has joint ventures with several other companies, and this month it is launching, with Chris-Craft, a new TV network. Through Viacom Interactive Media, it is also involved with the development and distribution of interactive-television programming, video games and on-line computer services. And it owns a library containing a total of fifty thousand hours of TV programs and feature films."
That is the environment in which the BBC will have to operate; it cannot ignore that fact. If it is to be an international multi-media enterprise, as the Government rightly say it should be, that is the sort of competition it will be up against. Viacom is not the biggest media and entertainment company in the world; it is No. 2, behind the United States company Time Warner.
The White Paper is right when it says that the BBC is competing in a market which is increasingly dominated by aggressive, very large enterprises. How on earth can the BBC compete with leviathans like that? Happily, it has already started to, as it is constructing a global partnership with a British-owned media conglomerate,Pearsons.
I can say without undue complacency that that is exactly what I recommended 18 months ago—I even named Pearsons as the appropriate partner for the BBC. I said that when the director-general of the BBC was still saying that he had lots of time to consider his options. He has certainly learnt a lesson, and I am pleased about that.
With Pearsons—which is a publisher and a newspaper owner, as well as having an interest in television—the BBC has launched its first domestic United Kingdom satellite channel, UK Gold. As the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) pointed out, since last month the BBC has been transmitting a 24-hour international news channel, BBC World, which is funded by advertising. It reaches 1.2 million homes on the European mainland, and has a potential audience of 8.4 million homes.
498
The BBC's European entertainment satellite channel, BBC Prime, which is funded by subscriptions, already reaches 2.3 million homes. Two United States channels are to follow, which will be transmitted by satellite and funded by cable subscription.
Cox Communications, a huge American company, is a partner in the BBC-Pearsons European venture. It is also involved in UK Gold and in another satellite channel, UK Living, to which the BBC supplies programmes. That is, and must be, only the beginning. The BBC's new global partnership, though formidable, is incomplete.
Sir John Gorst: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the role that he describes for the BBC in the future will be compatible with the suggestions from both sides of the House that it should also be concerned with regionalisation? We have heard how the BBC has scaled down its production in various centres outside London. Is it possible for the BBC to maintain its production levels and, at the same time, compete in the world market which the right hon. Gentleman describes so correctly?
Mr. Kaufman: Yes, indeed. We are on the verge of implementing digital compression. When that comes along, we will be able to have not only regional programmes, but local, city and neighbourhood programmes. Advances in technology will allow the BBC to become a global operator and, at the same time, provide programmes of local interest in a way that has not been possible previously with broad-brush television channelling.
The BBC's partnership is incomplete. The BBC is a provider of what is now called "software"—that is, the programmes—and it is allied with the major and powerful publisher Pearsons. However, the BBC must have a guaranteed market at home for its public service entertainment, news and education programmes.
That guaranteed market is the infrastructure that is essential for providing the high-quality programmes which the BBC and its partners can market worldwide. I do not believe—I differ from the right hon. and learned Member for Putney on this point—that the BBC is marketing its programmes as effectively as it should. We refer to that point in our report. If the BBC is to be a strong competitor, it must have a non-terrestrial highway into UK homes which will enable it to provide on-demand and interactive services.
I was very disappointed by the Secretary of State's response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I also regret the extremely short-sighted decision of the President of the Board of Trade about British Telecommunications plc as a potential broadcaster. BT is the most obvious partner for the BBC. It already has access to many millions of homes in this country, it has developed the necessary optical fibre technology, and it is probably the most cash-rich organisation in Britain.
I find it inexplicable that the Government have decided to maintain the ban on BT becoming a broadcaster until into the next century, when, within that time scale, the cable companies will become literally entrenched in this country. Those companies are permitted to compete with BT in offering telephone services, and many of them are owned or part-owned by American telephone companies.
For example, several of the cable companies which are now permitted to broadcast in this country are part-owned by Southwestern Bell, an American telephone company.

499
Telewest owns several other UK cable companies, and it is 74 per cent. owned by two enormous American companies. One company is TCI, a giant which challenges Viacom, and which is the world's largest cable systems operator. It owns 49 per cent. of the satellite Discovery channel and has a 12 per cent. voting interest in Turner Broadcasting, which owns CNN, TNT and the Cartoon channel.
The other company is US West, which is America's fourth largest provider of local telephone services, serving 25 million customers in 14 states. It is a partner with Warner Brothers Filmed Entertainment, which is part of Time Warner—a company even bigger than Viacom, whose scope I have described.
What possible sense does it make to have a regime under which an American telephone company is permitted to broadcast television programmes in this country, but under which the premier British telephone company is banned from doing so? That was an extraordinarily perverse decision for the Government to make, a Government who—I quarrelled with them for doing so—privatised BT, but now prevent it from being a competitor in a market in which advantages are given to enormous United States telephone companies.
Mr. Roger Gale: I have great sympathy with much of what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying, but will he perhaps consider and recognise that, since its creation as a private company, BT has taken a dog-in-the-manger attitude to the use of its ducts for cable, not only through its own companies—by its investment in cable throughout the country—but through other companies? It is, in fact, BT that is denying the House and others who live in Westminster access through Westminster Cable to, for example, the new Channel One cable service in London. If BT took a more positive attitude, perhaps the House would.
Mr. Kaufman: I do not carry any particular flag for BT. I wish that it was still publicly owned. I wish that it had a greater sense of community responsibility, but that is not the argument that I am making. The localised problem in Westminster is nothing compared with the fact that that huge British company, which has the technology and facilities to provide broadcast programmes, is not permitted to do so, whereas American telephone companies are.
Whether the BBC is able to go into partnership with BT, it is clear—to me it is welcome—that the BBC is developing into a major commercial enterprise. It is transcending its original terms of reference by going into partnership with even bigger commercial enterprises here and abroad. Such changes in the BBC's character and structure are, in my opinion, essential if it is to survive and prosper, but further changes are necessary.
At some stage before too long, a new BBC chairman will be needed to succeed Mr. Marmaduke Hussey when he retires. I trust that, when the Government fill that vacancy—when it arises—they will not do so by dipping their hand into the bran tub and coming up with another venerable member of the great and the good.
In this new environment, the next chairman of the BBC should be a young man or woman who is dynamic, has a strong business sense and understands thoroughly the new
500
technology and the new market, who can provide leadership to take on Viacom and Time Warner and have a chance of coming out on top.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Kaufman: I am delighted that my hon. Friends were so enthusiastic about my speech that they were about to give me a standing ovation, but I have a moment or two more in which I seek to detain the House.
In the Select Committee's second report, we said:
"The British Broadcasting Corporation, which was among the world's pioneers in first radio and then television, will, if it is to survive in any form, have to find a role and a structure which enable its enormous strengths and unrivalled international reputation to prevail in this new and exciting environment."
In the somewhat smug briefing note that the BBC sent around in connection with the debate, it repeats the nonsense that revenues from commercial enterprise will be no more than 15 per cent. of the corporation's total revenues. No effectively run commercial enterprise can sensibly place a limit on the business it gets. The BBC had better go for the maximum possible revenue, because, sooner or later, licence payers will revolt against paying a poll tax to maintain an organisation, which, even now, the majority—before long the predominant majority—do not watch as their primary source of entertainment, education and news.
Moreover, if the Government decide—by Government I mean any Government who are in power; my own preference is obvious—to limit or reduce the licence fee in the review scheduled for 2001, the BBC will have to get more commercial income. In any case, at some stage, that income may—I hope it will—exceed the licence income. Any future Government, including a Labour Government, may at that point need to consider whether it makes sense for the BBC to remain in the public sector. It is already a hybrid organisation—part public, part private. The waters on which the new BBC will sail will not be calm—they may be turbulent—but the voyage may be enjoyable as well as exciting, and the destination will be alluring.
For nearly three quarters of a century, the BBC has served the nation well. If it did not make those at Broadcasting house and the television centre even more complacent than some of them already are, I would echo Michael Grade's panegyric of the BBC as a "national treasure". If the whole concept of public service broadcasting is to survive, that treasure needs a new setting. I hope that those responsible for the BBC will have the enterprise and imagination to ensure the organisation's new role in the new and challenging century.
6.15 pm
Sir Peter Lloyd: I agree with much that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, although I shall approach some of the points that he made from a different angle.
I congratulate the Government on producing a rather dull White Paper. Alas, not every Department has the courage to be boring when it needs to be, but this is certainly not the time for the Government to impose radical new departures on the BBC, not because it does not need some radical changes—it does—but because the

501
changes required can effectively come only from the BBC itself. It has made a very impressive start in that direction in recent years.
I am particularly glad that the White Paper recommends keeping the licence fee. It is not very much liked, as the right hon. Gentleman said so clearly, and it cuts very little ice to say, as the BBC so frequently does, that it costs less than the price of a daily newspaper. However, as the Select Committee made clear, for the present and the foreseeable future it is the least bad method of raising the necessary revenue.
Advertising is a very good way of paying for many television and radio channels, but certainly not for all of them. If the BBC went over to advertising, wholly or in part, it would undoubtedly diminish choice. Some struggling competitors would find that they did not get enough advertising to survive. The BBC would certainly become more like its rivals than it is now, further diminishing choice.
The BBC without advertising in the United Kingdom is rapidly becoming much more commercial: first with producer choice, and the internal market. In the early days, there were scarcely muffled cries of pain emerging from Broadcasting house, and stories circulated of idiotic time wasting, and straitjackets imposed by accountants who would not know how to organise a test card and a record of "Sailing By". I have no doubt that many of those stories were true, but it seems as though most of the initial crudities have been ironed out, and producer choice is yielding efficiencies and thus savings, which can be ploughed back into the making and the improving of programmes. If that is so—I believe that it is—it is a very necessary and impressive achievement.
Undoubtedly, producers with set budgets, freed to shop around inside and outside the corporation, become more cost conscious and more interested in the benefits that competition can bring, in economy, naturally, but in ideas as well. In such competition, there is, of course, no new temptation for the BBC to compete for ratings. That already comes from the BBC's knowledge that, the lower its ratings, the harder it is next time around to justify the licence fee, not least to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst).
Audience figures make a direct and immediate financial impact overseas, however. It is too early to say whether the new worldwide BBC satellite television channels in Europe, the middle east, Japan and the Indian sub-continent have all the potential that is hoped for, and whether the BBC and its partners will secure that potential if it is there; but, as the right hon. Member for Gorton suggested, the essential point is that success will depend on its winning and retaining overseas audiences for whom advertisers want to pay.
The more success the BBC has in that regard and the larger the profits that accrue, the more inevitable will be a shift away from the United Kingdom in the BBC's centre of gravity. That will change the corporation's attitude to commercial considerations, notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about keeping domestic services separate from foreign services and commercial broadcasting separate from broadcasting financed by the licence fee. That is possible in accounting terms, but it is not psychologically possible to maintain such a distinction in the organisation.
502
I imagine that the change will be increasingly visible at home as the BBC engages in private sector partnerships to exploit the opportunities offered by digital and cable broadcasting in education and a series of "niche" markets, as well as more general entertainment markets. It is clear that the BBC's future is increasingly and ineluctably commercial, but it should evolve naturally: the BBC should be encouraged to take advantage of the immense opportunities which it has overseas—thanks to satellite and cable television—and at home—thanks to technological developments such as digital broadcasting. That would be better than setting about the corporation with a legislative tin opener, as some have suggested that the Government should do. I am glad to say that those ideas seemed to disperse before the publication of the White Paper, but they were very much in the air a few years ago.
I am not unduly worried that BBC quality, whatever that is, will suffer; rather the reverse, as long as the BBC takes a hard and understanding look at its markets. It knows that its success overseas and in the domestic market will depend heavily on its brand name, and that in the long run its fortunes will rest on the protection and projection of its well-earned but easily lost reputation.
It would be pleasant to think that in due course the BBC's profits in the rest of the world will be so great that it will be able to dispense with the licence fee at home, but it is more likely that the question that has been referred to several times this afternoon will still be there in 10 years' time, and almost as intractable. It will have changed its form because by then digital technology will probably have made encryption and direct-subscription BBC a practical possibility. However, that bridge must be crossed in the next century rather than now.
Like the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), I do not want to return to the question of the licence fee too soon, because I feel that the certainty of the BBC's income in the next few years is vital. The present Government's job is to keep out of the way while the BBC makes its own progress according to where opportunities and audience needs beckon and what technology makes possible. If I read the White Paper correctly, that is essentially the Government's view as well. There is simply not enough money from the licence fee—certainly not enough from the general tax revenue that Governments of any flavour would be willing to invest—to expand BBC activities in any other way. The BBC's task will be to exploit commercial opportunities internationally without losing its public service ethos, as the right hon. Member for Gorton pointed out.
As for the BBC's transmission service, surely the main question is not whether it should be sold off but how and when it can be freed to compete fairly in the market. In that regard, I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. National Transcommunications Ltd. has had a useful period in which to establish itself; it is a fine company, which I was delighted to privatise when I was the Minister responsible for broadcasting. There should be more competition in the market now, however. I should like to see the transmission service at arm's length from the BBC, with a substantial private sector shareholding. I should like the BBC to benefit from the one-off capital receipt from a partial sale, and from a continuing share of the profit that I hope will be earned from the winning of non-BBC contracts by the new, separate transmission company.

503
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not be able to give an idea of the Government's thinking when he winds up the debate, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear; but I hope that a decision will not be long delayed, because it is already overdue.
I am glad that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council are to be merged. The reduction by one in the number of regulatory bodies is welcome, and there should be some saving in overheads. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will make it clear that the Treasury will not take all the savings, and that he will ensure that the new body has enough resources to sustain an effective research programme.
No one else will carry out regular, original, fundamental research on the changing impact of television. The industry will seldom produce more than viewing statistics and audience reaction to different programmes. In a rapidly changing broadcasting environment, programme makers, public bodies and the public at large need a better understanding of the evolving impact of television and radio on attitudes and perceptions, not least those of children. If my hon. Friend feels that he cannot prevail on the Treasury, I hope that he will ensure that appropriate funds are obtained from fees levied on the broadcasters themselves.
6.27 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Let me repeat the apology that I made to the Under-Secretary for State earlier for my inability to be present for his reply to the debate. I am grateful to him for his understanding of the reasons.
In the BBC we have a national institution of the greatest cultural and economic significance, to which every speech that we have heard so far has paid due tribute. The debate has featured a consensus that is remarkable in view of broadcasting debates that took place as recently as four years ago. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I touch on matters that were controversial then but appear rather less so today; I suspect that not only the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) but one or two less vociferous hon. Members still have those arguments at the back of their minds.
For some three quarters of a century, broadcasting on radio and subsequently on television, the BBC has entertained, provoked, educated and inspired the nation. It has been rarely silent, occasionally isolated, but never insignificant. Even in wartime—when the BBC was both weapon, through its broadcasts overseas, and defence, through the uniting power of the home service—it never wavered from its aim of providing, in Lord Reith's words,
"the best of everything, to everyone".
A mass observation diary kept in 1941, in the depths of the war, records:
"Favourite topic on Mondays seems to be the previous day's Brains Trust session. Hardly anyone ever confesses that he didn't hear it, or if they do, take care to give adequate reasons for so doing."
More recently, letters to the Home Secretary calling for an amnesty for a character in "The Archers" showed how deeply entwined in the national consciousness the BBC and its service still are.
504
Our general-felt fondness for "Aunty" should not alone guide Government policy towards the BBC in the 1990s and beyond, for "Aunty" is also a business with an annual income approaching £2 billion a year, over 90 per cent. of which comes from the licence fee imposed on every television owner in the United Kingdom. It employs some 20,000 people full time, and draws on the services of thousands more in producing and distributing more than 17,000 hours of programming on radio and television each year. It broadcasts daily to more than 100 countries worldwide, and gathers news and information by the hour from many more. Its 1994 accounts reveal its assets to be worth some £1.5 billion.
The House has many times presided over the fates of corporations with comparable balance sheets and great social significance. In the past decade and a half, it has approved every proposal that the Government have introduced for the sale of our major public utilities. Today, however, the Government are not proposing the sale of the BBC, or even some half-measure towards privatisation. We owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), whose White Paper this is, that that is so.
Against the trend, we are debating a White Paper that proposes to preserve the BBC as a public institution, funded by the licence fee, constituted under a royal charter, and with its assets held in trust for the nation. Such an approach is all the more remarkable when, for most of the 1980s, Conservative Ministers were regularly to be heard fulminating about the left-wing bias, depravity and unpatriotic tone of the BBC. In her memoirs, the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, commented that those broadcasters disguised their own interests as
"high minded commitment to some greater good".
During that decade, it was not beyond imagination that the BBC would be broken up, its constituent parts privatised and the licence fee abandoned. The White Paper is all the more welcome for that reason. Almost the first phrase in the White Paper is "public service"; it is not "efficiency", or even "commercial freedom".
In the general thrust of its proposals, the White Paper seeks to preserve the strengths of the BBC. As the director-general, John Birt, has said, that can be achieved not by placing the institution in aspic but by enabling the corporation to adapt to the new and fast-developing demands and expectations of a changing world.
The Government have recognised—late, but not too late—that the public service broadcaster need be, not the enemy of competition in television and radio, but a friend and rival. For 40 years, that has been the nature of competition in British broadcasting. For more than half its lifetime, the BBC has had to compete with commercial television. Although heavily regulated, the independent companies have been able not only to compete in quality and choice but to make substantial profits from advertising. Throughout the last decade, however, competition has increased dramatically. It is natural to question the necessity for a public broadcaster in that new expanding marketplace.
In 1983, there were but three channels, but today there are more than 50. The growth has been largely in local and regional cable services, and in the proliferation of satellite broadcasting under the effective monopoly of Rupert Murdoch. The Select Committee on National Heritage nearly fell over itself with enthusiasm for that

505
technological change. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) gave a flavour of that in his remarks earlier in the debate. The Committee declared:
"The Media Revolution is Nigh!"
as its first statement in the report on the BBC's future.
From almost nothing a decade ago, cable television lines now pass 2.7 million homes. Fourteen per cent. of households not passed by cable have satellite dishes. Michael Grade, chief executive of Channel 4, once said that the effect of the BBC on the commercial channels was that it kept them all honest, but if the BBC does its job properly, it can do more than that: it can keep them all on their toes, and it can challenge other broadcasters to compete in the quality, range and inventiveness of their programmes. It does that already.
Research conducted by the Independent Television Commission last year revealed that, in homes that have chosen to invest in cable and satellite services, 70 per cent. of viewing time is still spent with the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. That is the context in which the remarks of the right hon. Member for Gorton should be borne in mind. We have not yet arrived at that revolutionary state to which he drew our attention. Overall, the two BBC television channels account for 1.7 hours of daily television viewing—44 per cent. of the total. Therefore, the role of the BBC in the new marketplace is more, not less, important in raising standards and in forcing other broadcasters to compete in quality and choice. It is our wish to ensure that the BBC will still be able to keep them on their toes in 2005, when as many as 200 broadcasters may be jostling for viewers' attention.
No one, except the BBC, can guarantee the success of the BBC; nor can we know the ultimate shape and scale of the media revolution that is in its early stages. To second-guess those changes and to restructure the BBC according to one favoured projection or another of markets a decade, or more, into the future all but guarantees disaster. Our only prudent course is to provide the BBC and British broadcasting in general with a solid platform on which to evolve in the multi-media age. That is achievable under certain provisions, not all of which the White Paper appears to be prepared to secure.
The first of those provisions is the continuation in public ownership and the retention of the licence fee as the major portion of BBC income. That is assured by the White Paper. The licence fee is a crude form of taxation. It is regressive, expensive to collect and administer, difficult and disproportionately expensive to enforce, and it distances the BBC from the demands of audiences. Because it is set by the Government, it provides Ministers with a means of putting pressure on the BBC by threatening its future income. Furthermore, some people have argued that, as the BBC accounts for an ever smaller proportion of viewing time, the licence fee will increasingly be seen as an onerous requirement on viewers, who may not desire to watch or listen to any of the services for which they pay.
Ian Hargreaves, in his DEMOS pamphlet "Sharper Vision", considers such arguments almost sufficient to justify privatisation of the corporation. He believes that continued state ownership will prevent the BBC from adapting to and exploiting new markets. I do not believe that. The licence fee has certain advantages for the BBC
506
and for broadcasting in general, which could not be sustained under any other funding regime. It expands choice overall by providing a source of income for production which does not come directly from the pockets of other broadcasters or media.
The licence fee is predictable, allowing for investment by the BBC in new programmes and in expensive genres such as drama, against which others must compete in kind. It is secure, providing the safety needed for risk taking, which others have to match.
Of all the problems associated with the licence fee, most are due to its structure rather than to its principle. One, however, consumer sovereignty, is likely to be of increasing importance, and it arises from the mandatory nature of the licence. The 1986 report of the Peacock committee into the funding of the BBC notes that viewers have sovereignty over cable and satellite channels, for they can vote for those services with their wallets; that they have indirect influence over the content of ITV and Channel 4 schedules, for unpopular programmes cannot attract premium advertising revenues; but that the BBC could, if it so wished, ignore that, at least in the short term, and its revenue would remain the same.
The most commonly proposed solution is to introduce an element of advertising into the BBC. Experience abroad has shown, however, that even the injection of a small amount of commercial revenue into the mainstream activities of a public service broadcaster can have a disproportionate effect on the range and quality of programmes.
The only bankable equation for a commercial broadcaster is the ratio of viewers to pounds spent on programming. The more viewers who can be attracted for each pound spent on programming, the greater the broadcaster's profits are likely to be. If an hour of "LA Law" costs only £30,000, but an hour of home-produced drama costs up to £400,000 and attracts half the audience, "LA Law" will win every time. The programmes that will come naturally to dominate schedules will be popular, but predictable, repeated and imported.
The French learnt that lesson to their cost in the 1980s. Within two years of introducing advertising to their public service channels, not only had the range of programming on those stations suffered but the balance had tipped towards a greater concentration on populist programming, such as music, games, and sport, more repeats and more imports. I therefore support the consensus approaching unanimity in our debate this afternoon—although perhaps not in the country as a whole—that we should put the issue of the licence fee well and truly on ice. Alternative mechanisms need to be found to inject sufficient consumer power into BBC programming.
The most appropriate candidates for accountability who are available are the board of governors and the national councils. The board of governors has the duty of ensuring that the public interest is protected in the BBC, that the money from the licence fee is efficiently spent and that BBC programming reflects the needs of audiences.
Those 12 men and women are, like police officers, appointed by the Crown. In theory, their duty is not to the Government of the day but to the public. However, like quango members everywhere, they owe their selection for appointment directly to ministerial patronage. There is a fundamental conflict between those two elements. The

507
whiff of patronage cannot be entirely eradicated from a board that owes its appointment to favour. That is not good for the BBC or for the public.
I note the Select Committee's view that
"the Board is at present seriously unrepresentative of the various sectors of society".
The Select Committee recommended that it—the Select Committee—should approve the appointments. The White Paper, which in so many areas has adopted the Select Committee's views and arguments, disposed of that recommendation by simply confirming that the Government intend to carry on as before.
From paragraph 6.15 of the White Paper, it appears that the Government believe that if members of one party appoint the governors, that will avoid accusations of partisanship in the selection. Perhaps some other hon. Member better schooled than I am in formal logic may be able to explain the reasoning behind that patent piece of nonsense. The only way to secure an independent, unbiased and representative board of governors is to adopt a selection procedure, which, in itself, is independent, unbiased and representative. I am disappointed that the Government rejected all alternatives to the present system without giving their grounds for doing so.
I suggest that approval of proposed appointments by, say, two thirds of the House, could present a workable alternative. The proposals for appointments could still be drawn up by Ministers, but they would do that knowing that cross-party consensus would eventually be required. That mechanism would create an incentive for more open consideration and the extension of the pool of possible candidates to create a more representative board.
Mr. Maxton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the appointment of the national governor from Scotland should be made from Scotland and not by the Department of National Heritage? Certainly, once we have a Scottish Parliament up and running, that Scottish Parliament would make such an appointment.
Mr. Maclennan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
In the circumstances, the governors must be protected more than they are at the moment from the unacceptable pressures from the Government. The White Paper proposes that the governors' duties be laid out in the new charter, but there is no suggestion of what those duties may be. I suggest that they include a specific reference to securing the BBC's editorial independence from the Government.
Independence is the cornerstone of press and broadcasting freedom. Even the slightest sign of meddling by Ministers, for their private or political interests, in editorial decisions can undermine public faith in the media. As a public service, the BBC must be above that suspicion.
No guarantee of independence exists at present, but it is a general principle of law that that which is not specifically forbidden is permissable. There have been too many incidents in the history of the BBC, and in broadcasting in general, where the lack of a specific prohibition of that nature has created sufficient uncertainty for the corporation or other broadcasters to submit to the political demands of Ministers.
When the BBC was founded, it was so constrained by the Government that if one had tuned into the Derby in 1926, one would have heard only the shuffle of hooves
508
on wet earth as the horses ran past the microphone. All commentary was banned by the Postmaster-General, as was the announcement of the result, on the ground that it would damage the newspapers—a rich source of revenue for the Post Office. Even the King's Speech at the state opening of Parliament in 1923 was considered unfit for the wireless because it contained controversial material—an area which the Postmaster-General felt should be left again to the press barons.
Perhaps more relevant to this debate, in more recent times there have been several actual and alleged instances of intervention which are hardly less subtle. The famous Zircon episode in Glasgow, which Scottish Members will remember, and "Slide into Slump", the "Panorama" programme on the economy which was pulled from its scheduled appearance just before the last general election, were arrested in the full glare of public scrutiny. Even an apparent intervention, if it gains currency, can be as damaging to all concerned as an intervention itself.
If the Government are truly committed, in the words of the White Paper, to the "chain of accountability", they will consider seriously the proposal of a specific duty on the governors to protect the BBC from political interference in editorial decisions. Conservative Members may trust their own Ministers not to interfere with the BBC, but I do not know whether they would trust a future Government of a different political view who may be formed during the lifetime of the next charter.
I wonder whether Conservative Members have considered the likely consequences of the White Paper proposal affecting the BBC's regional policy. I heard what the Secretary of State said about that earlier, but I am not entirely convinced that the required degree of commitment exists.
Most of us represent constituencies that are outside London. Our constituents, who form the majority of the population and therefore provide the BBC with its keep, have every right to hear and see something of their own lives and regional interests reported and reflected on television and radio locally and nationally.
The White Paper nods that way. It states that the national councils could "make an input" into the BBC's strategic decisions and policies. For BBC controllers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the White Paper recommends
"a budget for the programmes produced specifically for audiences in each country."
That is not enough. The BBC's motto is
"Let nation speak unto nation".
Something else must have been thought of when that motto was dreamt up. Ours is a country of several nations. In that context, the motto should not mean, as the White Paper portends, a little more of Scotland speaking to Scotland, and of Wales conversing with itself. It should mean, "Let Scotland speak to Wales and Wales to Scotland, and both to England." Today the conversation is all one way.
English voices, outlook and opinion drown out all others in almost every circumstance. Eighty-five per cent. of BBC output originates in London; 97 per cent. in England and the remaining 3 per cent. in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I do not believe that the public are impressed by that distribution. The BBC conducted a corporate image survey in 1991 and 1992 which investigated perceptions of that metropolitan bias. In

509
every region of the United Kingdom outside London, the east and south-east of England, between 35 per cent. and 70 per cent. of viewers thought that the BBC looked to London too much. In every one of those areas, less than half those people felt the same way about their local ITV company. The White Paper says only that the BBC should
"heed these criticisms and respond to them".
The BBC's response to date has been inadequate. The Hatch report, published in April 1994, promised a £75 million boost for BBC regional services. The money, however, will be spent largely on what are called "centres of excellence"—a Manchester bi-media production base, a music production centre in Cardiff and more schools programmes in Bristol. Merely moving money about in that way will not meet the demands of the public to see and hear less of London and more of the rest of Britain.
A genuine regional policy would ensure that a greater proportion of networked production originated outside London, especially in news and current affairs. That would require an effective decentralisation of decision making and management from London to the nations and regions of Britain. We need more of a regional BBC, not a BBC with a regional policy.
The national councils will not provide the impetus. The budgets of the national directors will, by implication, be determined by the centre and they will have only an advisory role—not an executive role—in national BBC policy making. I therefore urge the Secretary of State to reconsider his specific recommendations. He may wish to consider, for example, the proposal of the Broadcasting for Scotland Campaign, to establish specific requirements for monitoring management progress in regional coverage.
A great many opportunities lie ahead for British broadcasters, especially for the BBC. Globalisation and digital technology, new means of delivering large volumes of high-quality signals, interactive and on-demand services, the convergence of diverse media into common formats and increasing sophistication among viewers and listeners are combining to invert or make redundant almost every understanding and assumption about mass media that we have developed over 70 years.
Despite those opportunities, in 1991—the point may already have been made—Britain ran a deficit of £100 million with the rest of world in broadcasting services and material. On current trends, that deficit is projected to rise to £640 million by the turn of the century. We are falling behind and we would be foolish to let ourselves miss the opportunity to shape and profit from developments. The BBC, our largest publisher and broadcaster, with a base of skills across every media form, is a natural vehicle for the fulfilment of ambitions.
As the BBC knows, its name is—perhaps—second only to Coca-Cola in being recognised in almost every country. I see no reason whatever to deny the BBC the benefit of fully exploiting overseas markets. I also welcome the possibility of the BBC's entering into secondary domestic markets, through, for example, subscription cable services which provide repeats of programmes.
The future expansion of terrestrial services will almost inevitably occur through the commercialisation of digital compression technology. The BBC has as much a role to
510
play in those services as it did in, for example, the change from 405 to 653-line television screens, which took many years to accomplish. However, it is unlikely that digital television will replace traditional analogue broadcasting for many years. A smooth and managed transition to digital, which balances the need of the market to expand with the interests of audiences in ensuring wider choice, continuity and programming, is essential.
Essential to the debate is the regulation, or otherwise, of the systems in which consumers must invest if they are to receive digital services. That involves set-top converters—proprietary technology for converting digital signals into images and sounds. If one company were to control access of broadcasters to consumers through control of conversion technology, there would be a considerable danger that, without regulation, a monopoly would develop in digital services, similar to that in satellite services at present.
The BBC argues—I am inclined to agree—that further progress towards digital transmission should not take place without firm guarantees that no such monopoly will be allowed to develop, which may include the BBC controlling its own transmission network, for which privatisation is an option.
Ambitions for a global, digital BBC will be for nothing if it cannot also succeed at home. Strength in Britain is the only basis on which the BBC will be able to build. The White Paper goes some way towards ensuring that. It suggests by no means the best of all possible worlds, but it certainly does not suggest the worst.
6.57 pm
Sir Wyn Roberts: I declare what I would call an old interest, as I was once employed by the BBC in the early 1950s as an all-purpose Welsh and English news man. Since then, I have always been indebted to the BBC for that very educative and valuable experience. Although I did most of my work in Wales, I had the privilege of contributing to national news programmes, such as "Eyewitness" on the home service and "Radio Newsreel" on the light programme.
I deserted the BBC to establish independent television in Wales in 1957, but I have always kept a close, professional eye on the corporation. I have sometimes been highly critical of the BBC when it has, in my view, overplayed its independence of government and of the state, especially in news and current affairs programmes. Occasionally, the BBC has tended to act rather like the Church in the middle ages and become, as the Church was then known, imperium in imperio.
Nevertheless, I am among the first to appreciate the excellence of the BBC, which is why I want to begin by commending the critique of current affairs broadcasting set out by the director-general John Birt in his Dublin speech and reported in The Times on Saturday. It highlighted the concerns of many of us about the relationship between the media and politics; the tendency of the media to disputation and to pressurise excessively; and the media's attempt to dictate policies by seeking instant reactions, leaving no time for reflection and measured judgment. That report in The Times should be compulsory reading for every interviewer and every politician. The thinking behind it is very sound.
At one time, I would have used this debate to consider the arguments for and against privatisation of the BBC or parts of it. Although such a discussion is not appropriate

511
on any scale in this debate, I am not convinced that we should rule out that possibility at some future date. We may have to consider the possibility again in the next decade, such is the pace of change in the media and such is the pressure for resources under which the BBC will come.
I agree with the scenario painted by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who, as Chairman of the Select Committee on National Heritage, certainly knows precisely what multi-media entails. The new multi-media world has changed one's perspective of the BBC and its future is not quite as assured as it used to be. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir. J. Gorst)—alas, he is not in the Chamber—put his finger on the issue when he asked whether the BBC was capable of carrying out a dual role.
There was a time, too, when I would have argued strongly for the break-up of the BBC, primarily on the ground that it was so large in organisational terms and so extensive in its programming that the contents of the programmes were virtually beyond control. There is still some truth in that. There are fresh arguments, which we have heard, for more regional control. One way to such regional control is virtually to break up the BBC. At the same time, the role of the governors has changed for the better, as the White Paper notes, and it is to be more clearly defined in future, on the lines that
"The Governors' role is to look after the public's interest in the BBC, not to manage it."
That happened frequently in the past.
The proposed merger between the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council and the new council's brief
"to carry out research into both the content and scheduling of programmes"
should also help in monitoring and control. At the end of the day, the BBC and its public are very dependent on the individual producers' sense of responsibility and their accountability to professional superiors. Therefore, the ethos of the BBC is important and it will become increasingly so as competition for viewers and listeners becomes ever more acute, with the advent of more choice—seemingly infinite choice—in our multi-media world.
The conclusion of an early chapter in the White Paper on the future role of the BBC strikes the right balance. It states that the primary focus of the BBC's activities must be programming for United Kingdom audiences, but that
"it should develop its role as an international broadcaster, building on its present service for audiences overseas."
All hon. Members are aware of the high standing of the BBC abroad, and it is right that its achievements should be built upon—that is in British national interest. The problem, of course, with the dual role of "Serving the nation" and "Competing world-wide", as the White Paper has it, is, I suspect, that the international role will require much more resources. With finite resources from the licence fee, are we to see more resources devoted to programmes primarily for consumption abroad, and possibly at the expense of programmes which, by their very nature, are suitable only for the home market? That fear appears to be fairly widespread, as indeed is the fear that the regions will be the first casualties in the battle for resources.
512
The BBC is a highly centralised concern—some people think that it is too centralised—in spite of its regional and local services. It tends to be dominated by the metropolis, as we have heard, as indeed are the national newspapers, and it has to be reminded constantly that it is not the London broadcasting corporation but the British Broadcasting Corporation. It has excellent facilities in the regions, and it should make full use of them. After all, the regions are the training ground for much of its talent, both technical and cultural, and they are capable of producing programmes of high quality and originality, too.
The BBC has much to gain from the strong regional presence if it is properly used. I am talking about not only Wales and Scotland but the English regions. If only the BBC could overcome its centripetal tendency, and the belief that little of quality or interest can come from beyond the perimeter of the M25. Of course, some programmes from the cultural peripheries of the metropolis are quite interesting, but much of that programming is filler material. One wonders why the regions do not fill in obvious gaps and give the all-Britain dimension to BBC programming that I find missing from time to time.
The hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) gave us some figures. I am told that only 3 per cent. of network programmes are made in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have 17 per cent. of the audience. The BBC, in the Hatch report, recognised the need for change, but, as I understand from the Broadcasting for Scotland Campaign and the Broadcasting Campaign for Wales, it has not fulfilled the promises that have been made.
It would be remiss of me not to mention Wales specifically. I welcome the White Paper's section on the role of the national governors and national councils and the statement that they
"should make an input into setting the annual objectives for the BBC management as a whole".
Mr. Jessel: That matter is important, and it was raised earlier. Will my right hon. Friend enlarge a little on what he said? Does he say that guidance was given to the BBC that it should have a much larger proportion from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than the 3 per cent. that was mentioned?
Dr. Howells: It is in the White Paper.
Mr. Jessel: That is for the future; I am talking about the past.
Sir Wyn Roberts: It is true that, as soon as the White Paper was published, the BBC announced plans. The situation is summed up by the Broadcasting Campaign for Wales, which states:
"The White Paper does accept the force of the argument for a less centralist BBC and reaffirms the importance of fairer representation of the nations and regions of the UK across all its services. In response to these criticisms, the BBC pledged to implement a new funding commitment to the regions"—
that is the £75 million that we have heard about—
"however, this plan is clearly limited as it still confirms central control of programming and resources and could lead to undermining the regional programming service itself."
I have a similar statement from the Broadcasting for Scotland Campaign.

513
I was talking about the appointment of national governors and the role that is to be given to them. There is no doubt that that role will enable them to assess whether the BBC is ensuring that a reasonable proportion of the United Kingdom output is made in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Some people, including those in the Broadcasting Campaign for Wales, would like the governors' responsibility for regional policy to be stated in the charter. I see no great difficulty with that, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage will deal with the point. Such people then go on to talk about what is basically a quota system of production and resources.
I have enough experience of broadcasting to know that there are dangers in being too specific about programme hours. I do not wish to see quality sacrificed for quantity or anything else. Nevertheless, I hope that everything that can reasonably be done will be done to reassure the regions that they can play their full role. They are very concerned, as anyone who has read the representations of the campaigns for broadcasting in Wales and Scotland will know. There is deep distrust of the BBC's centralising tendency.
The BBC has made a substantial contribution to the success of the Welsh language fourth channel, S4C, in Wales, and long may it continue to do so. A specific commitment to that effect would be most welcome, although I believe that one is already incorporated in the legislation, so it is probably too much to expect it to be doubled up in the charter. But the idea could be considered.
The quality of the BBC's Welsh language output serves to highlight the need for more English programmes produced in Wales—although not, I hasten to add, at the expense of Welsh language programmes. No light entertainment in English, for instance, is made in Wales, and there are no soap operas or children's programmes for non-Welsh speakers. But there is a new policy in the making as a result of the White Paper, and it is to be hoped that that will remedy some of the defects in the regions.
Mr. Wigley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that although there is a paucity or even a total lack of some programmes in the English language in Wales, other programmes are doubled up—sometimes sport, for example, local coverage or even politics? We need a more coherent approach, as has been achieved in the Welsh language through S4C. Can he foresee an organisation growing in the future that would enable programmes from Wales to be brought together to ensure a proper balance, at least, so that the English speakers in Wales could have the sort of balanced service that the Welsh speakers have now?
Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We want a more balanced English output in Wales, corresponding to the scheduling style of S4C, the Welsh programme channel. If the new policy of increasing production in the regions envisaged in the White Paper is vigorously and successfully pursued, the deficiencies may be removed. I believe that if more were produced in the
514
regions, that would pay the BBC handsomely, because it would secure audience loyalty in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
Mr. Flynn: A remarkable unanimity seems to be emerging on that issue among all the parties in Wales. We all agree with every word that the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) is saying. We are all keen to ensure that the English language communities, with their distinctive characteristics, are represented as well as the Welsh language communities. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the unique problem in Wales—that of the language communities—could be best tackled if the sums for each language were not the subject of dispute but were separately ring-fenced?
Sir Wyn Roberts: I am always wary of ring-fencing. Clearly, a view has been taken that the commercial joint venture—the international dimension—should be ring-fenced and the public service element should be open to negotiation. There are dangers in ring-fencing within the public service broadcasting system that the BBC currently runs. I do not want to pursue the point, but it is clear that in Wales, for example, we should like to produce not only for our own consumption, but for the network.
There is a deeply felt need for good quality home-produced British programmes. As more channels become available, those programmes will stand out as different from the mass of international offerings, which I find boringly similar in style and content. Nevertheless I admit that those probably achieve the largest audiences now. But although the BBC's audiences may relish the foreign product today, I believe that in time the novelty will wear off and future audiences will want the home-grown product. Perhaps that belief is a matter of faith on my part; it is certainly the result of my great faith in the people who work in the broadcasting industry.
The Select Committee has produced a comprehensive report backed by a mass of useful evidence, and the White Paper is a well-considered document that provides a sound basis for the BBC's future. In my experience the BBC is a sensible organisation, and my plea is that it should be really sensitive to the critical voices, especially those in the regions, and should enlist the co-operation of the regions to fulfil its primary role—that of producing programmes for United Kingdom audiences.
7.15 pm
Mr. John Maxton: I listened with great care, and much agreement, to the speech by the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts). I only wish that he, as a Welsh Tory, would use the same logic that he applies to the centralised BBC when he talks about the centralised British state, and would argue for the devolution of power from Westminster to the nations of Scotland and Wales and to the other regions of England. If he applied the same logic to that subject as he does to the BBC, he would be forced to that conclusion.
I shall return later to what the right hon. Gentleman said about privatisation and the role of the BBC in the international arena, because I believe that both he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) got it wrong about where the long-term future of the BBC lies.

515
Last September I had cable television installed in my house, and I shall start by asking a rather odd technical question. When I am at home I spend most of my viewing time watching BBC1 and BBC2, and my wife does the same when I am not at home, but we now receive those channels down the cable, not through the aerial. When my right hon. Friend cites figures about the penetration of cable, I wonder whether when I am watching BBC1 and BBC2 via the cable I am listed as a cable watcher or a BBC watcher. If I am not listed as a BBC watcher, all the figures for BBC viewing are being distorted—
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend may be counted twice.
Mr. Maxton: Perhaps; anyway the figures would certainly be distorted, and that may make a big difference to the way in which we think about the future of the BBC over the next few years.
Being able to switch between 45 different channels has reinforced my view that the BBC is the best broadcasting company in the world. My trips to the United States, where I have also been able to watch innumerable channels in hotel rooms, and to other parts of the world where I have had the same experience, have done the same. Every time I come back with the reinforced view that the BBC is the best broadcaster in the world—not only the best public service broadcaster in the world but the best broadcaster across the whole range of entertainment.
Not only did the BBC pioneer the televising of sport but still, in terms of the commentary, the camera work and the programmes later in the evening showing highlights, the BBC coverage is better than anything else. I can now see golf from America every weekend on some channel or other, but the American programmes do not match up in any way to the BBC coverage of the British Open.
The BBC does the best comedy too. What better comedy programmes are there anywhere than those made by the BBC? The programme with the highest rating over Christmas was not a film or anything else but "One Foot in the Grave", a programme with which most people of my age, and yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, identify. Certainly, our children recognise many of the characteristics of the leading character. Over 75 years, the BBC has built up a big reputation.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I may be anticipating the hon Gentleman's argument, but does he not also agree that many people do not have the choice of cable or satellite, because they cannot afford it, and that the BBC offers quality and range at an equivalent cost of less than £8 a month, which ensures that people can have access to such programmes throughout their lifetime, no matter what their wealth?
Mr. Maxton: I agree. The licence is not merely the way in which we pay for the BBC; it is integral to BBC programming. It is part and parcel of it and not just something that we put up with. Without the licence, the nature of the BBC would have been very different during the past 75 years and its future would be different.
The BBC creates a range of high-quality programmes. All of us criticise it at some time or another because we think that it is being unfair to us politically. Perhaps I can
516
add to the complaints that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton listed about BBC radio. Sometimes, BBC Radio Scotland is over-nationalistic.
Mr. Andrew Welsh indicated dissent.
Mr. Maxton: That proves my point. The BBC achieves balance because the hon. Gentleman, who represents the Scottish National party, believes that BBC Radio Scotland is over-weighted towards the Labour party—no one believes that it is over-weighted to the Tory party, but that is another matter.
The BBC achieves balance and an in-depth analysis of current affairs that very few other organisations in the broadcasting world achieve. It is innovative—much of what has happened in television and radio broadcasting throughout the world has stemmed from the BBC. That is evident not merely from dramas, such as "The Singing Detective" but from comedy programmes such as "Steptoe and Son" and "Some Mothers do 'ave 'em"—a range of comedy programmes demonstrates that the BBC has been very innovative—to current affairs programmes such as "Newsnight" and "Panorama" and the sports coverage.
It is a matter of quality and not merely of being innovative. Even the fairly standard drama series, such as "Lovejoy" and "All Creatures Great and Small" are better produced, acted and directed than their equivalents on other terrestrial channels and those equivalents are better than the series that one sees on satellite or abroad.
Those comments show that I have a strong commitment to the BBC and I believe that the licence fee is integral to its quality. The BBC has been financed, both independently of Government—it has not been financed through taxation—and independently of commercial pressures, which has allowed it to develop its expertise and skills. Conservative Members claim that the market can solve all problems, but the BBC is an organisation that proves that, in certain circumstances, the market is best left well out of it. If the BBC had been forced to live in the marketplace, it would be a very different organisation and would not have created such high-quality and innovative programming.
Everyone has accepted that the licence fee is the way in which the BBC should be, and will be, funded during its next period. I am a little worried that no one has pointed out that we ought to consider how those of us who can afford to pay more for the licence fee can do so, so that the BBC has a bigger income. Also, those who cannot afford to pay a full licence fee should be able to pay less. I do not know how we can do it, but we should think about it.
We also ought to consider how to extend the licence—we tend to forget that it is a broadcasting and not a television licence. We have not got the balance right for hotels and should reconsider the amount that hotel chains pay for their televisions, if every room has a set and people are using them all the time.
I listen to radio only when I am in my car and yet I do not have to pay for a licence to have a radio in my car or in my wife's or my son's car—I have three radios, people are listening to them and I pay nothing for that, which is wrong. We must study licensing, but it should remain the basic way in which the service is funded.
Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should have adopted the recommendation

517
in the Select Committee on National Heritage report, that there should be a higher licence fee for homes with two or more television sets?
Mr. Maxton: Yes, they should. I admitted in that Committee that we have four televisions in our house and pay for only one licence—the same as any pensioner. The Government and the licensing authority have said that it is not technologically possible to tell how many televisions are in one house, but it ought to be possible in the near future, and we should consider whether we should pay more for a licence if we have more than one television set. That would help to fund the BBC.
The BBC is not perfect. I am one of its strongest supporters, but I have one major criticism, which has already been voiced. By the way, I congratulate the Broadcasting for Scotland Campaign on the way in which it managed to get its brief to every hon. Member that it thought might speak tonight and on the fact that it has been so widely used. For my constituents in Scotland, however, the BBC often seems very London-based. To put it in the most simple terms, if it were raining and blowing a gale in London, one would think from watching the weather forecast after the main news that the whole of the United Kingdom was suffering bad weather, although we might be having a heat-wave in Glasgow—I admit that it is often the other way round. The weather forecast leaves the impression that all Britain is having an awful day, so people everywhere should wear their raincoats.
All surveys of the BBC show that the further away from London one gets, the lower the regard for its services, and the more its popularity declines. In Scotland, the BBC is nothing like as popular as it is in the south-east. The Broadcasting for Scotland Campaign has made it clear that it is not some form of Scottish independence movement—far from it. We are arguing for a strong British Broadcasting Corporation, but for the devolution of some of its functions to other parts of the United Kingdom. That case matches the case that I would argue for devolution for Westminster. Devolving some of the BBC's functions and powers from its headquarters in London to the regions would strengthen the BBC, just as it would strengthen the United Kingdom if this place gave some of its powers to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
More importantly from our point of view, too much of the talent in Scotland, Wales and the regions of England is sucked to London because the BBC over-centralises its production here. We have a great deal of talent in Scotland and the fact that the BBC's income in Scotland has been cut has meant that we are losing that talent in a flow to London. Some people will go anyway because they want to work in London as they think that it is the centre. Others do not. They want to stay and work in Scotland, but find that they cannot do so.
The idea that the BBC provides a cultural subsidy in the regions—I cannot remember the exact term—has proved very true in Scotland. It allows musicians to work in an orchestra in Glasgow, provides work for other musicians and for actors, which keeps the theatre alive in Scotland, and provides work for technicians, who sometimes work for STV, for private companies and for the BBC. None of them would be there but for the BBC's presence in Scotland.
518
If the money available to BBC Scotland is reduced below a certain critical amount, it will become no more than a local news station, but BBC Scotland is much more than that; it already has a proud record of producing high-quality programmes. It may interest hon. Members to know that the most popular BBC2 comedy over Christmas was "Rab C. Nesbitt", with its Glaswegian language and humour. I confess that I do not like it much—it represents a type of Glaswegian to whom I do not readily relate. Still, in the south of England it was the most popular comedy.
It is most important that the BBC continues to expand its output of such high-quality projects, which sustain the cultural life of Scotland. More importantly, they allow people in the south of England to see that there are other parts of the United Kingdom beyond their own little areas. When they go on holiday, they go to France or Spain—not to Scotland, or certainly not in sufficient numbers.
As for the BBC's future after the next 10 years of the charter, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton tried to look too far down the road, given the speed of technological change. I disagreed with the right hon. Member for Conwy about the BBC's international role. What the BBC can best sell abroad, to the United States and countries such as India, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, are programmes that it has already made for the domestic market. It is not a matter of making new programmes to sell. What makes the BBC so different from the public service broadcasters in the United States is its library of material—newsreels, old programmes and so on—which is ready to be sold to feed the voracious appetite which the cable channels will have for programmes, thereby making enormous sums of money—
Sir Peter Lloyd: There seems to a small contradiction in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is not happy that programmes should be made for Scotland in the south of England, but he thinks that the same programmes will be received with enormous enthusiasm even further away in India. I do not entirely disagree—although there will be pressure, if the BBC succeeds, to make at least some of the programmes broadcast to Asia in Asia. However, there is a definite conflict between what he said about Scotland and the need for local production and his ensuing remarks.
Mr. Maxton: That may be so, but I believe that the largest English-speaking country in the world is India, so there is an enormous audience there. Throughout the world there will be a huge viewing audience for BBC programmes. That perceptive audience is going to want high-quality programmes. English is spoken in a great many countries, and the BBC, more than any other company, provides those countries with programmes. There is a huge market to be tapped.
Mr. Fabricant: While I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general sentiments, I just wonder whether "Rab C. Nesbitt" would be understood in Bombay.
Mr. Maxton: Perhaps not, but as the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) will confirm, there are millions of people of Scottish origin, forced out of Scotland by

519
economic circumstances, living in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, and they will look forward to seeing the programme on cable television.
Mr. Welsh: The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) has misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman. What the hon. Gentleman really means is that we in Scotland want to go beyond Rab C. Nesbitt", good though it is. Scotland has much more potential and talent to offer the wider world. That is the positive note to strike.
Mr. Maxton: It is certainly right that Scottish talent should be used to make programmes—even films of Shakespeare's plays, for instance. When the Scottish national orchestra puts on a concert in Glasgow it does not necessarily play Scottish music, so why should BBC Scotland be limited to making programmes about Scotland?
I also differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton in that I have no objection to a publicly owned company making money which can then be used for the benefit of those who truly own public companies: the British public. Just because the BBC can make money abroad selling programmes does not mean that it has to be privatised. Let us keep it in the public sector and use the money that it makes abroad to make better programmes and to keep making high-quality programmes—without undue commercial pressure arising from the fact that it can make and sell good programmes abroad. With a bit of luck, making money in that way might enable the BBC to reduce the licence fee. Surely that is the right way forward.
I hope that the Government will pay heed to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said about BT. It is enormously inconvenient for our constituents when their pavements are dug up unnecessarily; certainly, they want cable, but they do not want the streets dug up to lay down more cable when BT already has cables in place. They resent that—they would rather not have it done.
More particularly, it should be noted that BT is the biggest British technological company. Almost every other cable company is either directly American-owned or a wholly owned subsidiary of an American company. Do we really want to hand over our telephone, television and computer interactive systems to American companies when we have a British company that could do the job?
I disagree, however, with my right hon. Friend's argument that the BBC should work with BT as joint private companies. There is an alternative, although it is not always popular to state it in the Labour party these days. Instead of privatising the BBC and joining it to the privatised BT, perhaps, because it is so important to the future of the nation, the Labour party should seriously consider taking BT back into some form of public ownership. That would give us a publicly owned BBC working with a publicly owned BT with a monopoly of broadcasting cable. The resulting company should be allowed to operate in the world markets as a private company.
Mr. David Shaw rose—
Mr. Maxton: After the attacks that the hon. Gentleman made on my late friend John Smith, I shall never give way to him in this House, because his conduct in that regard was disgraceful. Anyway, I had finished my speech.
7.38 pm
Sir Norman Fowler: Until the end of the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), I found quite a lot with which I could agree. Then the mask slipped and the real Labour party revealed itself. Conservative central office, with which I used to have some connection, will doubtless be taking down the hon. Gentleman's words at this moment.
Mr. Maxton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will note that I am speaking from the Back Benches.
Sir Norman Fowler: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will stay exactly where he is, probably in all circumstances. On a more serious note, I agreed with much of what he said about the quality of the BBC.
I shall be brief because many hon. Friends still wish to speak and one or two speeches have been delivered at a leisurely pace. Matters are not made easier when those who make such speeches, particularly the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, then disappear.
First, I declare an interest. I have been a member of the National Union of Journalists for more than 30 years. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House who act as freelance writers are also members of that union. I am also the non-executive chairman of Midland Independent Newspapers, but I am one of the few ex-members of the Cabinet and shadow Cabinet who do not have their own BBC programme. I make no complaint about that and it is certainly not a job application.
Almost 30 years ago, as a journalist I covered the middle east war on the Arab side of the conflict. I remember the beginning of that war in Beirut. Authoritative news was hard to come by. Censors and phone taps prevented news from getting in or out, and propaganda was all-pervasive. The scene that sticks in my memory is that of two American journalists outside our hotel trying to tune in their radio so that they could hear what was happening outside the country. Of course, the service that they were trying to pick up was the BBC world service.
The position has changed since then. We saw the great advances that a channel like CNN made during the Gulf war. For all that, one thing has remained constant: the BBC still maintains an international and national reputation for the quality and objectivity of its news. I emphasise that I am talking about news, not the so-called prestige programmes like "Today" and "Panorama", or the prestige interviewers like the brothers Dimbleby or even Mr. Paxman, who, I see today, has been voted the most offensive interviewer in the country; personally, I think that that is just a public relations attempt on his part. I am certainly not talking about high-class chat shows where small groups of like-minded souls sit around a microphone filling in that awkward hour between 9 and 10 o'clock on a Monday morning. What I am really talking about is the serious business of gathering, evaluating and broadcasting news so that it is put to the public, who can then be properly informed. The work is done by reporters and correspondents on the ground, not interviewers safely anchored in their studios.
We are constantly told, and have been constantly told in this debate, about the media revolution through which we are living, the vast new horizons that stretch before us, and all those other analogies and metaphors that are

521
used. Hon. Members on the Front Benches have used those terms this afternoon and the Select Committee said succinctly that the media revolution was nigh. The Government put the point more prosaically, although it was the same point, in their White Paper.
The irony is that, although the opportunity to deliver more programmes obviously exists, it by no means follows that we shall see more news organisations or, for that matter, better news. We may have television, cable and programmes transmitted down the phone line, but that could simply lead to the prospect of more soaps, old films, game shows and talk shows. The media revolution alone does not guarantee good news programmes. It does not guarantee well-reported news that is objectively presented either on television or by any other medium.
The man in the street or on the train—some of us on the Conservative side still like travelling by train—may not see the benefits of those policies. The reasons for that are clear. First and foremost, news gathering is an expensive undertaking and the media revolution does not alter that. It is cheaper to slap someone in front of a microphone and take questions than to keep a staff of reporters ready to dig into issues of concern. Views are free, whereas gathering news costs money. The danger is that, if television is viewed purely as a balance sheet operation, news is relegated so that it does not interrupt the films or series.
The position might be easier to bear if trends in the national press were more encouraging. I shall leave others to speak about the regional press, where, as one would expect, I would argue that standards are different and better; but in the national press there has been an unmistakeable trend towards the ideological. I refer here to the so-called "quality papers", the broadsheets, rather than the so-called "tabloid press". As those papers pursue their causes, the divisions between the editorial leader columns of views and the columns of news become increasingly blurred. Some papers take strident views on issues such as Europe, which spill over into their news columns. Their leaders, articles, columnists and news reports all point the same way. The reporter gets to know the story that is required and the story that is not. He knows what will lead the paper and what will appear on page 7.
For those reasons, I applaud the news coverage of the BBC. The extent of its news service is unsurpassed and the standards at which its reporters aim are right. Its reporting is good and lively but fair. The BBC stars—I choose people with whom I rarely have professional dealings—are reporters like Martin Bell, Kate Adie and John Simpson. They are the standard bearers of the BBC. I am a strong admirer of BBC news reporting standards.
The House may recall that I was a Cabinet Minister for 11 years and at Conservative central office for another two. I am quick on the uptake and recognise that my view is not necessarily held by all my colleagues. As a close observer of two Prime Ministers, I cannot remember the cry, "God bless the BBC" coming too often to their lips; indeed, I cannot remember it ever coming to their lips. My recollections of the Wilson years are exactly the same: I do not remember Harold Wilson having a better view of the BBC in action when he was Prime Minister. I am afraid that the trouble with Ministers—shadow Ministers are just as guilty—is that they want their views to be
522
publicly related, not reported. No self-respecting media organisation will do that; nor should it. Such organisations should make a judgment on the true position. What politicians can rightly expect is that reports should be balanced and fair, and the BBC comes closer to achieving that aim than any other media organisation that I know.
Of course, mistakes are made. The hour-by-hour demand for news makes a reporter's job more difficult than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Organisations like the BBC should have the maturity to correct stories when they are wrong. In my experience, it most often does that and is much better at doing so than my old newspaper, The Times, which used to have a reputation for pursuing that kind of correctness. I remember the famous—or perhaps infamous—story in 1992 about the Prime Minister entitled,
"Can Major take the strain?"
in which The Times tried to examine the state of his mind and said:
"Sarah Hogg, the … head of the … policy unit … has two young children and likes to get home to see them."
The children were aged 19 and 22, so I imagine that they would have been surprised if their mother went back to see them. The report also said:
"Mr. Major leads a surprisingly solitary life at Downing Street. His temporary flat in Admiralty Arch was small and poky."
Having visited that small and poky flat in Admiralty house, I must say that I know that income standards under Mr. Murdoch have undoubtedly improved on The Times since my day, but I did not realise that it regarded that rather palatial accommodation as a small and poky flat.
In spite of the complete absurdity of that story, The Times refused to correct it, although it was self-evidently wrong. What has been good about the BBC is that, when it has got it wrong, it has tried to put those things right. I wish that other parts of the media would follow its example.
That brings me to my second and last argument about the BBC and the media. There is an enticing theory about the media—that the great technological revolution means that national boundaries no longer exist, that we are an international marketplace. Michael Green of Carlton Television says it most directly:
"The present system of regulating media ownership in Britain serves only one useful purpose: to encourage an international vision of our independent broadcasting industry as a cottage concern—charming little English thatched villages in a worldwide industry that is today dominated by skyscrapers. I want some of those skyscrapers to be ours".
It is all moving stuff.
I am in favour of British media organisations seeking international markets—I support the BBC in the efforts that it will obviously make—but I am in favour of it, provided we recognise where the first duty of a media company in this country lies.
In a democracy, broadcasting organisations and newspapers have a specific importance and a specific influence. They are not like simple consumer products; the media have a power for good or for evil. Therefore I assert that a media company's first duty is to its own audience, be that audience national or local. The person who comes first is the domestic customer—the listener, the viewer.
Different countries have different traditions and different strengths. That, after all, is what much of the European debate is about. We do not want British

523
television to be turned into ever more mid-Atlantic flaff. That is not in the interests of this country. We do not want BBC programme making to be dominated by the type of market that those programmes may obtain overseas.
Mr. Maxton: In support of that, I do not think that the audience that it will sell to abroad want it either. They want the British-based, British programme.
Sir Norman Fowler: I agree.
Michael Grade of Channel 4 will probably be alarmed to hear that I agree with him, but I agree with a great deal that he said in his article in the Evening Standard last night. What matters is what is being done for the consumer here. So, in pressing their case, people such as Michael Green must answer questions for themselves. They must answer the question, has Carlton improved television in London? They must answer the question, has Carlton, by taking over Central Television, a commitment to a city such as Birmingham? To phrase it as gently as I can, I would say that the jury is still out on both those questions.
I am aware that some of the developments in television in the past years that I would at least question have taken place under the current Government. I draw attention to the fact that we all have skeletons in our media cupboard. The Labour party has the skeleton of being opposed to the introduction of commercial television and leaving the BBC as a monopoly. If the truth is known, all Governments have a great deal to be modest about in their handling of the media, and it would be wise for us all to accept that.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State now has an opportunity. We have, I believe, reached a satisfactory conclusion on the BBC. We have come off the idea of pay-as-you-watch television as the way of financing the corporation, and not a moment too soon. We are committed to the licence fee. I have to say to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that that licence fee provides more than £1.5 billion a year for the corporation. That is not a bad financial base, by most commercial standards, for any organisation to be based on. Doubtless, improvements can be made, but I hope that, above all, the structure will now be allowed to settle.
I must remind my hon. Friend the Minister—I should like him to discuss the subject when he replies to the debate—that in other areas of the media the position is anything other than settled. The review of the rules governing cross-media ownership appears likely to rival "The Mousetrap" for its length of run, yet no one can be remotely happy with the present position. I do not pretend that the decisions for the Government are easy, but I would be very cautious about some of the opinions that have been expressed, which are aimed simply at making the bigger media organisations even bigger and more powerful. I would be especially cautious about that, given the lack of performance so far, with some of those organisations wishing to grow.
It is beyond dispute that some conclusion from the Government on the cross-media ownership debate needs to be reached. It was described as an urgent matter for discussion and decision in the House about 12 months ago. I believe that nothing has happened since then. I wait to hear my hon. Friend the Minister's reply; I know that he will guide us on what the Government have in mind.
524
I welcome the fact that, if nothing else, we appear to be settling the process of the BBC debate. I believe that the BBC has high standards, and that those standards are recognised throughout the world. I expect nothing more from it than that it seek to maintain those high standards, and I look forward to resuming the normal political hostilities with the BBC at the earliest opportunity.
7.56 pm
Mr. Jim Callaghan: I was interested when the former Secretary of State for National Heritage, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), quoted from Milton. It nudged a memory bank. One of my earliest memories is of listening, as a little boy, to a radio programme about the life and work of Milton. I became an immediate fan of Milton, and also of the BBC. I therefore declare an interest—I am a fan.
I congratulate the present Secretary of State for National Heritage on his report. It is superb. I welcome it, as I am sure Labour Front-Bench Members do, with minor reservations here and there. I did not expect it, and I congratulate the Minister. I was surprised by the parallels between the Government report and the report of the Select Committee on National Heritage. Both are entitled, "The Future of the BBC". As a member of that Select Committee, I declare an interest.
If I may crave the indulgence of the House, I wish to show the parallels between the two reports. As the BBC's present royal charter, granted in 1981, expires at the end of 1996, the Government and the Select Committee on National Heritage regarded that event as a rare opportunity to consider the role, objects, organisation and funding of the BBC in the years ahead, and both the Government and the Select Committee published consultation documents and reports entitled "The Future of the BBC".
The National Heritage Select Committee's inquiry noted that the Broadcasting Act 1990 created a new statutory framework for commercial television and radio, for local cable and satellite services, with the aim of increasing the number of services and choices for audiences. In its report it said that, against that background, the role, functions and organisation of the BBC were bound to change too in the near future.
In its inquiry, the Committee invited interested organisations to submit their opinions, and received 170 such submissions. It also held 14 sessions, taking oral evidence from 40 separate groups of witnesses. It noted that in the BBC 1981 royal charter there were three terrestrial channels, with a fourth due to transmit in November 1982.
Our Committee also noted that the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 was passed in anticipation of developments in cable and satellite broadcasting. The speed of change in that medium necessitated further legislation in 1990. There is no doubt that those rapid changes transformed the broadcasting scene from that which had existed in 1981.
The nature of broadcasting has been significantly changed by the development of cable and satellite. By the end of 1993, the Independent Television Commission had issued licences for more than 120 cable and satellite programme channels. Our Committee was told by the director general of Cable TV Associations that the system was currently capable of carrying 50 television channels

525
and 30 radio channels. It is a rapidly changing scene. The industry had licence obligations to feed 14 million homes—70 per cent. of the population—by 1998.
Four years ago, the satellite channel, BSkyB, doubled the number of television channels for the United Kingdom audience. According to BSkyB, in July 1993 nearly one in five homes had a dish or was connected to cable, which meant that nearly 10 million people were able to watch cable-satellite programmes. The BBC forecasts that by the year 2000, 50 per cent. of the population will have access to satellite and cable services.
With all that new technology, the BBC, too, must change and adapt. For all its good work, the BBC can never expect or hope to be in the same position in the future as it is now, as viewing share will force it to come under increasing pressure because of the huge potential expansion of choice. The BBC could become a minority service provider along the lines of public service television in the USA. I hope that it does not, but if it did, it would then be difficult to justify the retention of a licence fee, paid by the overwhelming majority of viewers who would not be watching a great deal of BBC television.
As regards the licence fee, the Committee gave a great deal of thought as to the best way of funding the BBC. It did not consider that the licence fee was an attractive method of funding. It is a regressive tax that bears heavily on those least able to pay. Collection is expensive and, in addition, the amount of evasion is considerable. The BBC estimated that 1.7 million people evaded payment in 1991–92, with the resultant loss of £130 million of income. A further £35 million was lost from those in households with colour televisions who buy the cheaper black and white licence. That meant that, in 1991–92, the BBC had to forgo £257.5 million of potential income.
The Committee therefore considered alternative ways of funding the BBC. It considered allowing advertising on the BBC, but the ITC thought that that would imperil the future independence of Channel 4 and severely restrict the continuing development of the satellite and cable industry. Giving the BBC access to advertising revenue would take at least between £300 million and £400 million from the ITV channels. Channel 4 stated that the introduction of advertising on the BBC would mean the end of the channel. Granada said that it would have a disastrous effect on it.
In the light of the evidence, the Committee rejected the idea of making the BBC rely on direct advertising. The second option considered by the Committee was sponsorship, but it came to the conclusion that that could do no more than supplement the BBC's main source of revenue. The Committee was concerned, however, about the transmission of tobacco-sponsored events. It noted with satisfaction the BBC's decision not to broadcast future events that were sponsored by tobacco companies.
After considering all the options for funding the BBC, the Committee came to the conclusion, with great reluctance, that the present flat-rate licence system met with the least number of objections. The Committee also believed that the BBC should be permitted to maintain its radio services and that those services should not contain advertising. It also considered, however, that if the BBC
526
wished to advertise under its new charter, it should have a right to make an application to Parliament for the appropriate changes.
The BBC has also experienced an unprecedented growth in and success of programmes provided by world service radio. The service has a regular audience of 124 million people, who listen at least once a week, and it provides truth to those living under dictatorships.
The Committee published its findings on 2 December 1993 and came to the conclusion that the BBC's charter should be renewed for 10 years. No doubt after studying the Select Committee's recommendations, the Secretary of State published his White Paper on the future of the BBC in July 1994. I welcome the general thrust of that paper and I believe that the Secretary of State has taken note of a good proportion of the Select Committee's report.
I welcome most of the conclusions in the White Paper. I shall mention some of them to highlight the parallels between that paper and the Select Committee's report. The Government believe that the BBC should continue to be the United Kingdom's main public broadcaster. I completely agree. They believe that the BBC should be able to evolve into an international, multi-media enterprise, building on its present commercial services for audiences in this country and overseas. The Government believe that the BBC should continue to broadcast a wide range of radio and television programmes for people with different tastes and of all ages. They also believe that world service radio should continue and that the BBC should develop further world service television.
The Government believe that the BBC should extend its commercial activities at home and abroad and that it should exploit its assets and generate income from its programmes as well as publishing magazines, books, videos and audio cassettes. They believe that it should plan for joint ventures with commercial companies around the world. Finally, the Government believe that the BBC should keep its licence fee as the main source of income for public services for at least five years.
I welcome the aims and objectives of the Government's White Paper. In the next 10 to 15 years, the number of broadcasting services of all kinds will increase and evolve into multi-media services, using different means of distributing a wide range of materials. Through the choices that they make in selecting services, it will be the British public who ultimately determine the standards of audio-visual material available in the United Kingdom in the next century.
I believe that the Secretary of State has listened to the arguments put forward by the Select Committee—incidentally, it is an all-party Committee and the report was agreed unanimously by it. The Government have put forward proposals to assist the BBC to survive and compete as a public broadcasting authority in the next century. I welcome their report.
8.6 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan), who makes a most notable contribution to the work of the Select Committee on National Heritage.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we worked together on our report on the BBC, which was completed in December 1993. As he and others have said, a large part of what we

527
recommended was accepted and adopted by the Government in the White Paper published in May last year.
As BT has been mentioned several times, I declare a quasi interest as it has sponsored charity concerts in which I have performed on the piano in aid of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Although I was unpaid, what took place was sufficient to give me a favourable bias towards BT.
Tonight we are considering the BBC. The first thing that must be said about it is the absolutely outstanding quality of a large proportion of what it produces. It has high standards of excellence in its output of news, features and drama, among other things. I am particularly proud that "Middlemarch", which was mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), was produced by Dr. Louis Marks, my constituent and my near neighbour at Hampton Court Green. A great many other people too took part in that magnificent production, which continues to redound enormously to the credit of the BBC.
The BBC's achievements in the arts are generally superb. Last night, on Radio 3, I heard the live relay of "Cosi fan tutte" from Covent Garden. It was beautifully done and beautifully broadcast.
Reference has been made already to the several BBC symphony orchestras. The Proms are a tremendous national asset; they are a great cultural festival and a great British festival and represent something that the BBC does for Britain of which we should all be enormously proud.
Britain is one of the most musical nations in the world and I believe that we should build on our strengths. It is not for nothing that it is called the British Broadcasting Corporation. It ought constantly to project what is British and what is best about Britain. I agree with an hon. Member who said earlier that the growth in the use of the English language worldwide is now unstoppable. Hardly anyone mentions Esperanto any more, and there is enormous export potential for film and other BBC products in future all over the world where the English language is increasingly used.
We should have more Gilbert and Sullivan, particularly the Lord High Executioner's song from the Mikado that is called,
"I've got a little list—I've got a little list"
with its verse which refers to
"the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
all centuries but this one, and all countries but his own."
The White Paper says that the BBC should promote the British side. The Secretary of State, who has just come in, is sitting not on the Front Bench but below the Gangway. I remind him that paragraph 2.6 of the White Paper says that the objectives of the BBC should include
"reflecting the national identity of the United Kingdom. The BBC should broadcast events of national importance. It should ensure that the rich cultural heritage of all parts of the United Kingdom is represented in its programmes and is available throughout the nation."
There have been many interventions about the proportion of Scottish broadcasts produced in Scotland and Welsh broadcasts produced in Wales, but it seems to me that there is something slightly synthetic about how those interventions and interruptions have been organised.
528
I received a paper from the BBC this week, that, in a passage headed,
"More Money for the Regions"
states:
"The BBC has been increasing the programming output of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions. Under its new regional policy, launched in spring 1994"—
that was between the Select Committee report and the publication of the White Paper—
"it plans to double the amount of drama made in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales in 1997; double light entertainment output from the regions within four years; more than double music and arts production in the regions over the same period; triple the amount of Continuing Education and Schools programmes produced in the regions by 1996–1997; and quadruple the proportion of children's programming made outside London."
As the complaint was that only 3 per cent. of programmes were produced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to go on the national network, if one multiplied that by three or four, the percentage would be not far short of the proportion of the population of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland to that of the United Kingdom.
It cannot be done all at once. The BBC will have to make sure that it has staff who are living in the right place. Some of them will not want to move house. Their children will be at a particular local school or their wives will be used to having their hair done at a particular place. Not everyone moves quickly and easily, but the BBC is clearly taking a big step in that direction. Those who go on and on about it seem to be asking for something that is being done already.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) would do me the courtesy of ceasing to distract my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's attention from my speech, because my remarks are addressed to my right hon. Friend through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The White Paper provides for the charter being renewed for 10 years from 1996 to 2006. That has been welcomed enthusiastically by the whole House. I agree with those who have said that the 10 years from 1996 to 2006 might possibly produce the last charter for the BBC in its present form. Deep changes are taking place and it will be difficult to sustain the charter after 2006, despite the tremendously high standard of much of the output.
Those changes include a falling share of the market. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to a fall from 48 per cent. to 42 per cent. in the past three and a quarter years. There have been numerous technical changes. In about 10 to 15 years' time it will be possible for people to dial on their telephones to get just about any video programme that they want, and have the costs put on their telephone bill. People will get used to that and it will influence their attitude to the payment of a licence fee of £80, £100, or £120 a year. They will be used to paying as they go along and will not want to pay a set amount as they have been willing to do in the past.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton said that the licence fee tends to fall most heavily on those least able to pay. The BBC has a bee in its bonnet about the concept of the licence fee. The concept of a licence fee is almost a traditional sacred cow within the BBC. One can understand the historic reasons for that. It is partly that the BBC wants a direct relationship with its

529
viewers and listeners and believes that that buttresses its independence and neutrality, but I do not believe that the system can survive the next 10 or 15 years.
It is not just that after that time people will have got used to paying as they go for other programmes and wonder why that does not apply to BBC programmes, nor is it just that, on present trends, some 80 per cent. of the listening public will be listening to other channels. There is also a serious problem with licence evasion.
The Select Committee was told that the evasion rate was about 7.5 per cent. in 1993, despite the strenuous use of detector vans to catch television licence evaders. The proportion has oscillated since then, but has not changed substantially. In 1993, about 1 per cent. of those 7.5 per cent. were caught and brought to justice. The detector vans went round by day, which is cheaper than by night because the people in the vans do not have to be paid overtime.
Of the 1 per cent. who were caught watching their television sets without a licence, almost three quarters were women, including a large proportion of young mothers—largely single-parent families—or women pensioners. It is a demographic fact that women live for six years longer than men, so far more female pensioners than male pensioners will be home in the daytime.
Many of those women live alone. Some are at home all day and are not well off financially, whether they are pensioners or young mothers. Some, but not all, are in poverty. People in that position are likely to pay first for those services which might be cut off, whether it is their electricity bill, their gas bill, their telephone bill or their water bill. Those bills are civil debt. They are likely to leave payment of their television licences until last, perhaps intending to pay later and hoping that they will not get caught in the meantime.
Anyone who gets caught not paying the licence fee—which is not a civil debt—has committed a criminal offence and can then be surprised to find that he or she has a criminal record. The only parallel is the annual car tax, which it is also a criminal offence not to pay. If we decriminalised the licence system, the evasion rate could leap from 7 or 8 per cent. to anything between 10 or 20 per cent. That would make the licence system completely unworkable from the BBC's point of view as it would be impossible to convince the public to accept such a high evasion rate. The Select Committee recommended that it should not be decriminalised. However, it is not an ideal system and we were not happy about it.
I am rather surprised that so many right hon. and hon. Members have sounded positive about the licence system. The Committee recommended—it is endorsed in the White Paper—that the licence system should continue until it becomes technically possible to disconnect licence evaders in the same way as it is now technically possible to disconnect services when people do not pay their telephone, gas, electricity or water bills. However, it will be quite a few years before that is technically feasible. It is a race against time as to whether the licence system can survive until then.
I do not believe that the licence system makes the BBC quite as impartial as it thinks. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is a former party chairman, said that the BBC was balanced and fair. I am quite satisfied that the BBC tries to be fair
530
in presenting the views of the political parties, especially during general election campaigns. That is a BBC tradition and it is scrupulous in adopting a non-biased approach to the political parties.
However, I do not think that the BBC is completely impartial on contentious issues in other respects. For example, BBC programmers tend to invite on to quiz programmes—especially radio quiz programmes—a disproportionate number of extremists from both of the main parties because it makes for a more exciting broadcast. Those with more moderate views in either main political party tend to be left out. I will not mention any names; we can all think of the types of people I mean. In doing that, the BBC is effectively creating a bias towards the Liberal party because it is depicting both of the main parties in a way that is unlikely to appeal to floating voters. I think that we must watch that trend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) intervened earlier in the debate and, although he did not actually mention Europe, I could tell that that was what he meant as I sympathise with his views. There is a politically correct point of view on the subject of Europe, and the hierarchies within all three political parties and the nationalist parties tend to have a positive attitude about the European Union. However, that politically correct standpoint is not shared by half the people of the country and that proportion is tending to increase. On this question the BBC must be careful to be more impartial.
I turn to the arts. I praised BBC Radio 3 fulsomely at the outset of my speech. However, under the regime of Sir William Glock, Hans Keller and others in the 1960s and 1970s, the BBC music department was allowed to let rip virtually uncontrolled. Sir William and Mr. Keller surrounded themselves with staff in the BBC music department who shared their bias towards the inter-war Vienna 12-tone school of music and composers such as Berg, Schoenberg and Webern. As a result, there were appalling ping-pong noises on Radio 3 for years on end and an entire generation of young British listeners were put off contemporary music. We are still suffering the consequences of that.
That was a terrible thing for the governors to do. I shall send a copy of this extract of my speech to the chairman of governors and I shall seek his assurance that he will establish a mechanism within the BBC to ensure that no such disaster ever occurs again.
I end where I began by praising the BBC. We believe in the set-up and we have endorsed and encouraged it. However, I do not believe that the charter will be renewed in 2006 and it will certainly not be renewed in 2016. We must be conscious of the decisions which were made last year and this year which will be applied next year. However, we must also look to the BBC's long-term future. That is what the White Paper and the Secretary of State have begun to do.
8.25 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: All hon. Members, at least on Opposition Benches listened with rapt attention to that very interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). I was struck by what he said about music. It is interesting to read the BBC report of 1922—which I am sure that all hon. Members refer to regularly—in which Lord Reith said that if the country was exposed to chamber music everyone would enjoy it and it would become a popular musical form.

531
Outrageous as that claim seemed at the time, it came close to being realised during the war. There was a limited range of broadcasts on the radio and people from all sections of society developed a deep appreciation, understanding and knowledge of music. It is sad that our children now hear a much more limited range of music and that that rich experience is denied to them.
You will be delighted to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as will the House—that I have abandoned my carefully prepared speech because the points that I wanted to make about BBC regional broadcasting have been made far more eloquently by the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) and other hon. Members. I agree with all of the points that they have made on that subject. It may have something to do with the fact that certain briefings came into our hands at the same time.
However, I claim the right to make a few more points. I have the rare distinction, which I prize immensely, of having once chaired the Broadcasting Council for Wales for a record period—it was a record then and I am sure that it will remain for all time. I chaired the Broadcasting Council for Wales for 15 minutes, having served on it for five years.
I resigned after 15 minutes because my appointment coincided with the Conservative Government's announcement that they would not go ahead with the establishment of a separate Welsh language channel. That announcement was contrary to all that I had worked for in broadcasting in Wales for the previous decade within my party. Happily, the Government reversed that decision—not because I resigned, but due to events involving other parties.
I am happy to look back at that period and to record that the S4C Welsh language channel has been a sumptuous success and has exceeded all of our expectations. It has been successful not just in broadcasting terms or in its important contribution to the Welsh language, but it has contributed enormously to the Welsh economy and the creativity of our young people. Young people have had the opportunity to learn skills both in front of and behind the camera and the microphone. Their talents, skills and creativity have been allowed to blossom. The channel has proved an enormous asset to Wales and long may it continue to serve Wales in its current form.
There have always been difficulties with Welsh broadcasting. They date back to the 1920s when Wales had to compete with the west of England for broadcasting time and allocation of money. I am sad to say that that is still happening today. There is no clear distinction between the moneys for English language and Welsh language broadcasting. There should be some ring fencing to get rid of some of the tension and the futile waste of energy between those two groups.
I make a plea, too, for English language broadcasting, because the constituency that I represent, like many other areas in Wales, has a robust, distinctive and unique community—a very tough one. Although I live in the heart of my constituency, within two miles of my home, the accent and the culture changes. Risca is a valley community. If one moves throughout Wales, one finds an infinite variety of groups of people who find it difficult to express their personality through broadcasting.
On the BBC world service, sadly there was not the mea culpa that I had asked for from Ministers. It is a sad story. Twelve years ago, in the House and outside, many voices
532
were clamouring that we must build on the world reputation of BBC world radio. At that time, if a BBC world television service had been launched, the cost, I am informed, would have been half the price that we paid to clean Victoria Tower. It was a minute amount. We could have gained. It was a vacuum out there. We could have gained the world reputation that has been stolen from us by lesser terrestrial stations.
We must fight every inch of the way to restore that now. We might never reach the pre-eminent position that really was ours for the taking and which was denied to this country by ideology, by the belief that it had to be a commercial channel, and that it had to be on the one basis only. It would have been a magnificent investment for our countries and for the languages of our nations. The prized people on whom I look back—from the days when I had something to do with the BBC—are people like Charles Curran, a gifted-director general who, I believe, spoke Irish, and Alasdair Milne, a man in a lesser position but who also spoke a Celtic language—Gaelic. We can look with some pride at the achievements of broadcasters in the nations of Britain in promoting and giving us an opportunity to use all the beautiful languages of this island—English and others as well.
The BBC has a unique role for all of us. It has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House that we must keep it out of the hands of the idealogues. There have been threats from all sides. Everyone will want to move in and control and run it. I believe that the BBC is unique to all our lives. It has made a great contribution to all of us. In the war, the radio was our channel for information. It was our friend, our companion, our teacher, until television arrived as well. Other channels are coming in and producing programmes of great quality, but the BBC has a special place within the heart of the nation.
A Hungarian writer talked about language and said that the nation lives within her language. It is a striking image of a nation living in a place, and the place was the language. We can all say—the people who live in these islands—that, to us, the nation resides not in the great institutions of state, not in the Church or royalty, but within the BBC. All the languages of these islands of ours owe a great debt of gratitude to the BBC. The nations of Britain live within the BBC. We hold that in trust. They must never betray that trust.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): In the 47 minutes available before the winding-up speeches, four hon. Members hope to catch my eye. I hope that they will be able to do so.
8.34 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: I shall do my best to be brief.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the debate takes place against a background of a fast-changing marketplace. He is correct. I took the opportunity a few moments ago to talk to him, knowing that, unfortunately, he had to leave the Chamber. I wanted to make the point to him that I now wish to make to the House.
Those who sat on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill which became the Broadcasting Act 1990 made a fundamental mistake in permitting one

533
broadcaster, one publisher, to have an undue influence in the marketplace. I was one of those—I fully concede this—who was instrumental in stating that I believed that the Murdoch organisation should be allowed to have the control it had over satellite television and newspapers. I believe that I was profoundly wrong. I have said so publicly in the past, and I take no particular pleasure in placing that fact on the record tonight.
The fact is that we cannot put that jack back in the box. That being so, I want to say, through my hon. Friend the Minister, to my right hon. Friend that I believe that he can and should move swiftly to free other participants from the shackles of restricting cross-media ownership regulations, so that UK-owned television, newspaper, telephony and data companies can create alliances to compete in the development of world markets. We heard from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) of the impressive array of holdings of Viacom. Hon. Members know only too well of the impressive array of holdings of the Murdoch corporation. Others are equally large.
If UK Ltd. is to have a major stake not only in the domestic but in the European and world marketplace, the time has come to take the brakes off and let competitors to Mr. Murdoch form alliances and move into the field. I say that with this proviso: the obligations of franchise agreements entered into by existing commercial television companies should and must for the foreseeable future be for ever and beyond. It is in that context, that kind of commercial, international broadcasting, that the debate takes place. My right hon. Friend was right to draw attention to that at the start of his remarks.
I shall touch briefly on a number of matters raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
There is no doubt in my mind that we need a public service broadcasting organisation in the United Kingdom. Every western democracy that has started from the position of having only commercial radio and/or television has had to invent a public service system, and none that has been created has been anything like a match for the services offered by the BBC. In my view, the BBC has provided the benchmark for domestic radio and television services throughout the world—certainly throughout the former Commonwealth. The BBC's services have been and are respected worldwide. We should, perhaps, contrast that with what I know as "Murdochvision" throughout the world.
Rupert Murdoch is a man who exchanges nationality for a few United States newspapers. He has now revealed himself in his true colours—in my view, as a born again collaborator. Mr. Murdoch and his organisation have done what no journalist who calls himself a journalist could possibly do: surrendered editorial control of a section of his broadcasting to the Chinese, in exchange for a censored market share.
Can one imagine the BBC doing that? The BBC's world service is pre-eminent among international broadcasters because of its integrity. If anything demonstrates the need for BBC world service television, for the European service and the European entertainment services, it is the standards—or lack of them—of the BBC's competitors. It has been said that it is a shame that the BBC did not enter the marketplace sooner. I agree. On the other hand, the BBC has had the opportunity to
534
learn, perhaps, from other people's mistakes, and it is entering the marketplace with a clear vision of where it needs to go.
We do not normally feel privileged to serve on Standing Committees dealing with statutory instruments, but I felt very privileged indeed the other day to serve on the Committee on a statutory instrument that gave the legal go-ahead to the BBC's co-operative venture into European television. I wish it well: I think that it will be a tremendous success. It is the need for a respected and reliable news service first and foremost, internationally and of course nationally, that the BBC satisfies.
It was, I believe, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Carthcart (Mr. Maxton) who said that the BBC was the best broadcaster in the world. I wonder whether some of us would have said that even three years ago. One of my hon. Friends said earlier that he had changed his view, and I have changed mine. I have changed my view of what I used to regard as a monolithic organisation, over-bureaucratic and militating against the programme makers, largely as a result of the work of one man. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), I pay tribute to the director-general of the BBC, John Birt.
As far as I am aware, the director-general does not speak Irish like Charles Curran—although he may, come to think of it—and I am fairly certain that, unlike Alasdair Milne, he does not speak Gaelic. What he does speak is common sense. It is because of his efforts—largely and for a long time unpopular, and prompting vitriolic criticism that was a source of personal grief to him—that the BBC is now able to invest money at the sharp end to make good programmes. More money is now going into programmes and less into administration than at probably any time in the past, and certainly at the time when I worked for the BBC.
I also pay tribute to the speech that the director-general made in Dublin on 3 February. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) marred an otherwise excellent speech by criticising what the director-general said. I wonder whether he read the speech in context; certainly most of the journalists who reported it had not.
Among other things, John Birt said:
"But if we journalists are to play our part in building a better world, it can only be built on a firm foundation of truth … on a sense of the sacred and solemn nature of fact; on a political foundation which is calmer, less frenzied—more restrained, composed and considered; on an acceptance that people and institutions have strengths and virtues as well as shortcomings; on a recognition that scepticism and rigour, insight and detachment, fairness and integrity, must be the prime journalistic virtues."
I doubt that any journalist in the House or outside it could disagree with that.
What caused offence was the observation:
"Reporters who pretend that answers and remedies are obvious; that everyone in the world but them is an incompetent fool; overbearing interviewers who sneer disdainfully at their interviewees; the sub who composes a crass and unfair headline; the columnist at his or her desk pontificating arrogantly—all exhibit attitudes which are unattractive in a journalist, and rarely appropriate … For journalism is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end."
I agree with that. I think that John Birt was right and courageous to say it, and I think that it needed to be said. I think that he was trying to make the point that the media are powerful, that television is extremely powerful and

535
that that power must be exercised with responsibility. Surely he was trying to say that that was the rock of self-control on which the BBC and its reputation for integrity had been founded. If we lose that, we shall lose a great deal, and it behoves us to pay attention to what the director-general said.
On regional quotas, I am a dissenting voice—not because I believe that the regions do not deserve their fair share of production or that they do not have perhaps more than their fair share of talent to contribute, but because—as I have told the general advisory council of the BBC—I do not want production to be moved out of London, where the basic production facilities, the majority of actors and actresses and a great number of writers can be found, simply for reasons of tokenism. That would only waste money that could otherwise be invested in an area of broadcasting that has been mentioned far too little today: truly local broadcasting.
I entirely approve of funding the BBC with the licence fee, but if we are to continue to do so, we must examine the corporation's functions carefully. I do not want to cut those functions, but we must ensure that they are directed properly. Given all the broadcasting services that are becoming available, we must ask whether we can sustain two national public service television channels and four national public service radio stations.
Might it not be better to ask the BBC to consolidate some of its broadcasting services, and to make room for the creation and release of resources, not for the regional tokenism that I fear might result if production were simply transferred out of London, but for genuine bi-media radio-television stations throughout the country? They would be truly local, serving truly local needs.
I believe that the BBC is neglecting and underfunding a public service requirement. It is removing resources from local broadcasting when it should be strengthened: more money should be provided to beef up not only local radio but local television. That money does not grow on trees. I do not believe that the BBC can fulfil all those functions and expand into world broadcasting, as we all appear to agree it should, without making cuts somewhere; I do not want an elitist channel to be created, but I question whether some of the programmes on BBC1 and BBC2 are worth the making, given the BBC's reputation.
The BBC's transmission service has been mentioned. It is an important subject that bears further consideration. National Transcommunications Ltd. is a good company, set up on wholly commercial lines, but is it right to subsidise a competitor that is allowed to sell its spare capacity in the marketplace in the knowledge that, with the advent of digital transmission, that spare capacity will increase and the BBC will therefore have a larger market?
I think that the best proposal we have heard tonight is that the transmission service should be an arm's-length operation. The BBC should be able to hive it off, gain the benefit of an injection of finance, and release a commercial organisation to compete with NTL on equal terms in the open market in the provision of services, not only for the BBC but for other commercial organisations. Undoubtedly we shall return to that debate.
The licence fee has also been mentioned, not only in connection with the way which the BBC should be paid for, but, in particular, in connection with the way in which it is applied. I was very interested by what the hon.
536
Member for Cathcart said about wanting a fairer system: I share his feelings, and have been advocating such an improvement for some time.
I hope that Ministers will think again—despite the White Paper's rejection of the idea—about the possibility of a basic-rate fee of £1 a week for a single television set, an enhanced fee of around £120 for a domestic unit of two television sets and a video recorder—a video recorder is, of course, a receiver—and a third tranche of around £200 for anything more than that.
Such an arrangement would provide a bedrock public service system for pensioners, single-parent households and others who cannot afford, or do not want, more than one television set. It would provide a fair service at a fair price—slightly more than double—for households that use and can afford what are effectively free receivers, and a service at a further enhanced price for those who can afford, and therefore use, even more than that.
That would be an interim measure, to operate between now and the day when the technology is introduced to allow us to collect the licence fee by encryption. I am not talking about pay-per-view. At that point, the arguments about how many sets a household has and how the number can be checked will go out of the window. We should return to that matter and consider it seriously.
I am delighted that my hon. Friends have decided to merge the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council. I wish only that we could move further towards the recommendation in the Select Committee's excellent report, and consolidate all the complaints commissions and standards councils into one body for both independent and BBC television. If we did that, we would cut much bureaucracy and create a much better reference point for complaints.
I welcome the White Paper, and I hope that it will lead to the perpetuation of the BBC as one of the best broadcasting services in the world, as it has been already described.
8.50 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall follow your request to be brief.
On the speech of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), I do not want tokenism in programme production replacement, but I do not support his preference for the self-fulfilling prophecy of concentration in London. If carried out in full, the BBC's commitment to moving the production of £75 million-worth of network programmes from London would mean that the total contribution from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would rise from 3 per cent. to only 4.2 per cent. That becomes even less impressive in view of the fact that, in recent years, control of £55 million-worth of network programming from elsewhere was centralised in London, and £40 million was taken out of the regional programming budget.
It cannot be healthy or acceptable that 97 per cent. of network output comes from one source, but guess who take the decisions, and guess where they are based? I ask Conservative Members to look on this not as a girn or a whine, but as a problem to be solved. Scotland in particular has a great deal to contribute, but the reality of tightly controlled centralisation in London prevents that from happening.

537
I wish in general to compliment the BBC on its massive range of output. We recognise how good the quality of its output is if we compare it with that in the United States of America. We then realise the quality, depth and range of the product offered. Quality is the key word, and should be the overall aim in broadcasting output. Quantity is no problem. Technology makes quantity easier and easier to achieve. Now that communication is easy, the content of that communication becomes all-important. As we have heard this evening, technology is making the problem very much a moving target, where old certainties no longer exist.
My criticisms are specific, and are basically a plea for opportunity. The debate on the future of the BBC has been pursued with much energy in Scotland. When the Government invited responses to the Green Paper, a large number of Scottish organisations commenced a programme of discussion and debate, which resulted in a number of important statements. What was most impressive was the general consensus that arose—an agreement that, although the staff and management of the BBC were of high calibre, the way in which BBC structures operated weakened the BBC north of the border.
Many of the organisations that wanted change are closely allied to the television and radio world. The Celtic Film and Television Association, a professional body that has a membership of people who work in television and film in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Brittany, and that holds a highly successful annual festival, attracting the cream of Scottish broadcasting talent, argued especially well for a new structure for the BBC, which would allow management control to be vested in Glasgow, rather than in London.
Those views, which are also held by a wider consortium of groups under the title Broadcasting for Scotland, were made known to the BBC, not just through the Green Paper exercise, but in many informal meetings both in London and in Scotland.
Mr. Wigley: And in Wales.
Mr. Welsh: Indeed.
It is a measure of the arrogance and the insensitivity of the BBC in London that it has substantially ignored those views, but the most public response to date has been the appointment as the national governor for Scotland of someone whose everyday qualifications are the headship of one of the few Scottish private schools, and who is married to the daughter of a peer. He is hardly a "lad o'pairts". He is the voice of the very British BBC in Scotland; he is not the voice of the Scottish viewer of the BBC.
Similarly, the dispersal of management power and programme-making autonomy has been treated with disdain by John Birt and his centralist colleagues, including the BBC chairman. Lip service is paid in the White Paper to decentralisation, but actions, as ever, speak louder than words.
In the past six months, the largest independent radio commission ever granted in Scotland was decided on in London and given to a London company, which, on a grace and favour basis, may or may not spend some of its revenue gains in Scotland. The contract for the United Kingdom-wide helpline that will be established by the
538
BBC, and that will be based in Glasgow was also decided on in London and given to a London-based charity which had never operated north of the border.
On the board that made that decision sits an individual who had only recently ceased to be a director of that charity. The Scottish bidder for that contract described the selection interview as
"taking part in a charade".
I hope that the Minister will deal with those problems, because they are strongly felt in Scotland and in other parts of the UK.
In the past month, BBC drama in London has cancelled a major Scottish project by a respected Scottish writer in a casual and cavalier fashion. There will be an expansion in children's programmes to be made in Scotland, but that single success does not make up for the rest of the dismal draining of power from BBC Scotland. I am not talking just about an ordinary work. It was a winner of the Whitbread award, and it has been described by some people as the best Scottish novel of the 20th century, yet it has been dismissed in that way.
I am convinced that, in the BBC, fury exists at many of those decisions, but BBC staff are unable to speak, so I shall try to speak for them tonight. The BBC is weakening the loyalty and effectiveness of its Scottish staff and the impact of its Scottish output by holding tightly to the reins of London control. An independent and autonomous Scottish broadcasting company is required, free of outside control.
Scotland deserves the best in broadcasting, and it can have it, if it spends the licence fee it collects on Scottish output. The people of Scotland export their money to pay for a service that is poorer than it would be if they kept that money at home. Until that independent corporation is established, I want the BBC in Scotland to manage its own affairs, taking the best from London as it wishes, but making the best programmes for Scotland—not just in Scotland, but wherever such programmes need to be made. I commend the initiative of "Europa", a Gaelic language current affairs programme series which reports on Europe from Europe. Such an initiative could be followed by a range of other programmes. The talent, ability and technology are there, but they must be unleashed and allowed to flourish.
When BBC Scotland is allowed to be its own master, it performs well. Indeed, it out-performs many other broadcasting companies. However, the trend in the BBC is to crush initiative and independence with an iron fist of management control and accountants' double-speak. The people of Scotland are watching John Birt. However, if he goes on as he is now, very few people will be watching his programmes in Scotland. That situation is wasteful and completely unacceptable.
Some Conservative Members may dismiss my plea. My plea is not artificial. The plea is heartfelt, from Scotland and from Wales. The problem cannot be dismissed; it must be dealt with. The output and talent are ready to be unleashed, and they can be shared with a wider world. However, that decision must be taken at management level, and so far the BBC has failed to take it. I regret that, and I make an earnest plea to the Minister to turn that around for everyone's benefit.
8.58 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): It is a great privilege to take part in this debate. However, as tail-end Charlie on the Conservative Benches, I feel that my colleagues and Opposition Members have already said much of what I intended to say. I shall not repeal those points. It is also, my privilege to be a member of the National Heritage Select Committee. Many of the issues in the White Paper have been taken directly from the Select Committee's report, which is most gratifying.
Hon. Members have rightly stated that the BBC occupies a unique place in world broadcasting. Michael Grade's phrase, "a national treasure", has been quoted many times. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said that the BBC is the best broadcasting company in the world. Whether it is or not, it is interesting to note that BBC television won 256 awards in 1994, more than in any other previous year, and what a range of awards for such a range of programmes.
I shall name just a few of the award winners from what is a very long list. They ranged from "Absolutely Fabulous", which won an Emmy for the best popular entertainment, to "File on Four", which won a One World Broadcasting Trust premier award. "One Foot in the Grave" received an award from the Royal Television Society for its brilliant construction. "Red Dwarf', a personal favourite of mine, won an Emmy. "The Bullion Boys" also won an Emmy and "The Snapper" won a BAFTA production award and the Prix Italia.
"Sport on 5" and "Radio 5 Live" have become a tremendous success under Jennifer Abramsky. She has raised "Radio 5 Live" like a phoenix from the grave of Radio 5 which was dying a death. "Radio 5 Live" is a very successful radio network in its own particular niche. "The Wrong Trousers", a marvellous cartoon, won a BAFTA and an Oscar for best animation. It is worth noting that BBC television won an unprecedented five international Emmy awards. That was the largest number won by a broadcaster since the awards began.
It is not simply a case of quality within the BBC:, it is also a matter of efficiency. Before I became a Member of this House, I was involved in the construction, financing and management of radio and television stations. My company set up radio and television stations in 52 countries. I saw for myself how the BBC operated, as it was a client of mine. I also saw how broadcasters very close to the United Kingdom, such as the Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, the Dutch state broadcasting service, and Rikisut Varpid in Iceland, operated. I also saw how broadcasters operated further afield in Jakarta, Zimbabwe, south America and the United States.
It is interesting to note how efficient the BBC is in the use of its studios. When I entered radio stations and television studios in Hilversun, I saw empty studios. The BBC has come top in the European Broadcasting Union in utilising its resources. Its television studios have a 68 per cent. resource rate. That applies to the number of days in production and preparation excluding refurbishment and statutory maintenance. That is a tremendously high percentage when compared with that of other broadcasters. No one can accuse the BBC of wasting licence payers' money.
As time is short, I want briefly to raise several specific points, some of which may not have been raised so far. With regard to the White Paper's main recommendations,
540
I support the licence fee. It is not my natural inclination to have organisations funded in that way. My natural inclination would be to say, "Come on, let's privatise the BBC." However, that is simplistic, for the reasons that hon. Members have set out today with regard to programming thresholds and financing. It would also be a little simplistic to say that the BBC is exclusively the public service broadcaster. I heard one Labour Member say that "The Jewel in the Crown" was produced marvellously by the BBC. As I recall—
Mr. Maxton: The mistake was made by a Conservative Member.
Mr. Fabricant: I am told by the hon. Gentleman that the mistake was made by a Conservative Member. Of course, "The Jewel in the Crown" and "Brideshead Revisited", both often credited to the BBC, were excellent, quality programmes made by Granada Television. However, that does not decry the point that the BBC is the major public service broadcaster not only in the United Kingdom but in the world.
Mr. Maxton: Is not, in fact, the reverse true? The fact that everybody thinks that such high-quality programmes are made by the BBC reinforces the point that it makes high-quality programmes.
Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, sums it up completely accurately.
As I said in an earlier intervention, I am slightly disappointed that—the hon. Member for Cathcart, whom I am tempted to call my hon. Friend, also raised this point—the Government will not raise the licence fee for those people who have two or more television sets. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been advised by his officials that, technically, one cannot measure whether a house has one or two television sets operating at any one time, but they are wrong. I speak as—possibly—the only fellow of the Institution of Electrical Engineers who happens to be a member of the House. Without modification, a detector van may detect the operation of two television sets in a house. The Government should think about whether it may be worth charging homes with more than two television sets a slightly higher licence fee.
The Government are right to accept the White Paper's recommendation that the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission should be merged. That makes clear sense.
I also had the privilege of sitting on the Statutory Instruments Committee—as did the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—which enabled the BBC to branch out into international television broadcasting.
Mr. Allen: The Opposition prayed against that measure, otherwise it would have been passed without the House having any say or any participation in the process.
Mr. Fabricant: I do not condone that view. The subject produced an interesting debate in the Standing Committee, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out at the time. In all my two and a half years' experience in the House, it was unique to witness a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments having a decent debate and a thorough discussion. I am delighted that that SI has enabled the BBC to produce BBC World and BBC Prime.

541
There is no question but that the BBC has a unique reputation not only in the United Kingdom but overseas. In 1940, the BBC had the courage to broadcast the bad news. So, in 1943 and 1944 when the war began to turn in our favour and the BBC reported it, people believed that that was so. The voice of the United Kingdom was the BBC.
The BBC's reputation is still strong. I was working in Moscow, as Radio Moscow was my client a few years ago, when there was a movement of troops in the streets of Moscow. We did not know what was going on. It was just prior to the coup that occurred a month later. Everybody on Radio Moscow, the national state broadcaster, was concerned about what would happen. People feared that they might have to return to the bad old days of Stalin and lose their ability to operate without a great deal of censorship.
In the main newsroom, nobody knew what was going on. The TASS feed told us nothing. Then, a friend of mine called Valentin Khlebnikov, the director of engineering at Radio Moscow at that time, took me into his office. He locked his door, pulled out the drawer of his desk, took out a shortwave radio and stuck it on his window sill. I remember that, behind the radio on the window sill, I could see the golden domes of the Kremlin. Yet, where was he getting his news? It was from the BBC world service, broadcasting in Russian, despite the fact that the news was being made within 200 or 300 m of the very building on Pyatnikaya Ulitsa in which I was standing. That is a sign of how important the BBC still is as a world broadcaster. In fact, I believe that the BBC has more listeners world wide than Radio Moscow, Deutsche Welle, Voice of America and Radio Beijing combined.
I wish to cover some further brief points. I have already dealt with BBC engineering in an intervention, so I shall not speak now at length. The BBC transmission department cannot operate as a commercial entity while it is still part of the BBC. Despite the fact that the BBC has produced an excellent document about fair trading, in practice, it is not possible for such an organisation to trade fairly. Although revenue costs may be isolated from BBC mainstream operations, it would be impossible to separate out the infrastructure and the BBC's capital assets. This is unfair on National Transcommunications Ltd. and other companies that might want to come into the market.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seriously to consider breaking the NTL monopoly and producing a real alternative by privatising Transmission Engineering. In any event, it is based in a separate building in Warwick, it is encapsulated, and that could easily be done.
I pay tribute to John Birt. He has had to make some very difficult decisions. I pay tribute also to Marmaduke Hussey, whom I met for the first time, some 15 years ago in Brighton, before he worked for the BBC. He and I were trying to set up a radio station in Cornwall. He could not carry on because he was then made chairman of the BBC. We should never underestimate the difficulties that Marmaduke Hussey has endured as chairman of the board of governors in getting it to support some of the initiatives and changes that John Birt has instituted.
I briefly acknowledge John Birt's statement in Ireland and his excellent article in Saturday's edition of The Times. I shall not quote huge chunks of his article,
542
because I shall run out of time—indeed, it has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). All that I can say to John Birt is, "Fine. Many of us agree with your sentiments, but you are the director-general, so now do something about it."
On the whole—99 per cent.—I support the White Paper, and I commend it to the House.
9.11 pm
Mr. Stephen Timms: I thank hon. Members who curtailed their remarks so that others might have a few minutes in which to speak.
By and large, the reaction to the White Paper has been relief—relief that the Government have not surrendered to the Conservative Back-Bench free market ultra-enthusiasts and have abandoned the doctrinaire solutions to the corporation's future that some have proposed. I wish to sound a more critical note about the White Paper than has been expressed so far. Although there is relief at what the Government have not done in the White Paper, it could hardly be said that there has been great enthusiasm for what they propose to do in the White Paper. The reason is that the Government propose to do remarkably little in the White Paper.
The Government have rightly rejected the way forward which was advocated by some in terms of privatisation, but they have not been able to propose a convincing mission of their own for public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom. There is a sense that there is a holding operation that is designed to place the BBC on an uncontroversial back-burner and avoid damaging public rows about its future while the Government fight for their survival on other fronts. That is made clear at several points in the White Paper. I was particularly interested in the paragraphs about the future of the BBC's transmission services, to which several hon. Members have referred, including the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant).
One paragraph of the White Paper tells us about the current position with the transmission services. The next paragraph tells us that, in 1989, the Government wanted to privatise the transmission network. A later paragraph tells us that, after five years of careful deliberation, the Government now do not know what they want to do. There is no conclusion on that subject in the White Paper. Although I am pleased that the Government are moving back from privatisation, contrary to Conservative Members' views, I believe that there has been a flagrant loss of nerve on their part. That is a telling pointer to the vacuum that exists at the heart of what ought to be the Government's policy.
The BBC's transmission network could, and should, be an important element in the development of the United Kingdom information super-highway. The fact that, after years of deliberation, the Government clearly do not know what to do about it is symptomatic of the wider inertia gripping them in that context, to the deep detriment of the national interest.
That vacuum is most damagingly apparent in section 2 of the White Paper, which contains the discussion of the
"BBC's role in the United Kingdom".

543
Paragraph 2.6 rightly states:
"it will be necessary for the BBC to have clear objectives as a public service broadcaster after 1996."
That is undoubtedly true, but what should those objectives be? What exactly is the BBC for?
Here the Government's difficulties are greatest. Ideology presses, for privatisation, but pragmatism has rightly ruled that out. That leaves the Government unable to produce a convincing answer to the question: what should the key objective of our main public service broadcaster be? Their ideological hostility to the public sector has prevented them from formulating a convincing statement of that mission.
The White Paper presents a bland list of desirable somewhat bureaucratic attributes that the corporation should exhibit, and it is hard to argue with any of them. For example, the first of the 10 objectives is
"giving priority to the interests of audiences".
That should indeed be an objective, but it will hardly be one whose pursuit will engage the passions and energies of the people whom we shall need to drive forward Britain's key player in the coming multi-media revolution.
The other nine objectives listed for the BBC are no more helpful than the one that I have quoted. At the heart of the White Paper, where there should be clarity and vision, there is a void. I suggest that the primary objective for the BBC should be to provide the United Kingdom benchmark for quality in the multi-media era that we are entering.
We are all aware that the danger attached to the coming explosion in broadcasting quantity is that it will be accompanied by a collapse in quality. The continued operation of the BBC independently within the public sector, financed by the licence fee, is our guarantee that that need not happen. That is a vital mission, worthy of the talents and skills of the corporation. Quality of service to the whole nation must be built on a BBC that remains in the public sector.
The BBC's public service role is not an outdated relic of a bygone age that will eventually subside into extinction, as several Conservative Members, while supporting the White Paper for now, have suggested. I do not accept that idea. The public service role is the key to ensuring that broadcasting in the information age will be stamped through with the hallmark of quality.
The public sector commitment is a guarantee of quality of service in a rapidly changing environment. It will ensure long-term investment in talent, skills, and research and development, and will provide the stability and freedom in which creativity and, above all, quality and universality of service can thrive within broadcasting. We cannot afford to allow quality to be reduced to being the preserve of an exclusive market niche. It must be maintained as the consistent hallmark of United Kingdom broadcasting, available to everyone.
There are several unresolved issues within the White Paper. It suggests two distinct roles for the BBC but does not explain how those are to be reconciled. If the advertising revenues of the commercial operations of the BBC began to fall, what would be the implications? How far would the quality of broadcasting be preserved under such commercial pressures? Would the BBC's reputation for impartiality and quality be compromised and undermined?
544
The White Paper makes it clear that the aim of the commercial arm is to generate money to supplement income from the licence fee. One would assume that that would enable the licence fee to be reduced, as some hon. Members have suggested, but the implication of that trend is made clear in the Select Committee report, which states:
"it might be very difficult, if not impossible, to justify the existence of a licence fee at all."
The more successful the commercial arm, the greater the threat to a publicly funded broadcasting service enjoying the benefits that freedom from commercial pressures allows.
The Government may claim that the licence fee will never be replaced, but will such a claim survive when a future Minister assesses the request from a profit-making BBC to increase the licence fee?
We can choose. Are we going to embrace the opportunities of the new communications technologies, which are presenting themselves to us, and make them work for us, or are we going to sit back and watch the future unfold? The White Paper is welcome, as far as it goes, but it leaves many important issues unresolved and we cannot allow many of them to remain so for much longer.
Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In my rush to allow the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) to speak, I did not remember to declare an interest. From time to time, I advise the BBC on certain technical matters.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suppose that that is as near a genuine point of order as we ever get in this place.
9.20 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: I am delighted that this White Paper has finally been brought before the House for debate. I am equally delighted to be making my first speech in the Chamber in my new capacity as a spokesperson in the shadow Heritage team of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).
While we welcome the White Paper, we have some criticisms of it. None the less, it is far better balanced than we could possibly have hoped for at one time. I do not want to be too much of a party pooper—there seems to have been a cosy consensus across the Floor of the House—but some of us remember the way in which the BBC has been browbeaten, cowed and intimidated during the past 16 years by an orchestrated campaign by the Conservative party and Conservative Members. We also remember when the attack on the media was compounded by the dog's breakfast of the Broadcasting Act 1990. Some of the eulogies that we have heard, especially from Conservative Members, must be taken with a relatively large pinch of salt.
Those who care about the quality and independence of television in the United Kingdom, regardless of party, can breathe a sigh of relief that the BBC has thankfully been regarded as a privatisation too far. The BBC is a public service broadcaster. As we have heard from all parties tonight, it is an institution in which the people take great pride, and I welcome the decision to spell out that public service role in the new royal charter—a charter that we in this House will not be able to debate directly.

545
There is much to value in the BBC's traditions and yet the BBC must always be open to change. The new technology that is driving the changes is exciting and we welcome the prospect of a new generation of interactive citizens, in addition to today's passive viewers. We must always remember, however, that the increase in channels, which digital, cable and satellite will undoubtedly open up, is meaningful only if it represents a choice of high-quality, watchable programmes—the sort of programmes to which the British public are used—rather than an excuse for channel surfing through trash and trivia. Replication should never be confused with choice. The next Labour Government will continue to look to the BBC to set the quality benchmarks by which we shall judge all television output.
The four, core terrestrial channels are still the only services for 80 per cent. of households and will continue to be for some years; hence there must be a balance in our judgments today between preparing the BBC for its future in cyberspace and ensuring that it plays to its traditional strengths. Equally, it must continue to earn its reputation, not least in news. A BBC that took its lead from the tabloid pack, that regurgitated No. 10 briefings undigested, and that collaborated in soundbite-ism would be a BBC less worth defending.
Modern public service broadcasting, in John Birt's words on Friday,
"must put reflection as high as disputation."
He of course knew that most of us would hear those words before today's debate. His challenge, and ours, is to do something about them.
In the absence of an effective Parliament, it is often the BBC which bears the added burden of being the nation's political health service; and public understanding of the issues is the BBC's most effective immunisation campaign. The BBC and journalists everywhere will be helped in this task by an incoming Labour Government introducing a freedom of information Act—strongly promoted and fought for not least by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)—and enshrining the freedom of the press for the first time in British law by incorporating in it the European convention on human rights.
Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman will know that I support the idea of a freedom of information Act. However, if we had such an Act to enable journalists to explore matters that should be in the public domain—Robert Maxwell when he was alive, for instance—should there not also be privacy legislation to protect people against intrusions into their privacy which have nothing to do with the public interest?
Mr. Allen: One of the articles in the European convention on human rights confers on all British citizens, for the first time ever, a right to privacy which would need to be balanced against the freedom of speech that is also to be found in the convention.
Hon. Members from all parties have agreed that the media world is changing rapidly and that, to continue its role as the United Kingdom's public service broadcaster, the BBC will have to change too. In recent years, it has tried to prepare itself for the road ahead, but we should
546
not forget that the toll exacted to avoid privatisation and to retain the licence fee as its main source of income has been a human one. The words spoken today by the Secretary of State in support of the licence fee did not come easily; they were won by the jobs of 6,000 people who no longer work for the BBC. It has been a painful process, but it has allowed the BBC to survive in a hostile political climate. In effect, it was out to compulsory competitive tendering, and, at a cost, it won back its own job. History may judge that to have been a brilliant political operation, but we should never forget that it was achieved at a very high price.
The White Paper represents a fundamental contradiction that the Government have posed for the BBC: that of maintaining its values while accommodating the demands of commercialisation. That is a contradiction which will haunt the broadcasting industry for the duration of the BBC's new charter. We see that already, with advertising appearing on the two new channels, BBC World and BBC Prime, and with links between BBC1's "Big Break" and the Daily Mirror and between "Antiques Roadshow" and The Sunday Times. Already, the ITV companies are getting anxious about the possibility of unfair competition.
Mr. Jessel rose—
Mr. Allen: Can the hon. Gentleman be brief?
Mr. Jessel: Yes. Given what the hon. Gentleman has said about commercialisation and the position of the Government, may I ask him whether he is aware of the fact that the National Heritage Select Committee, whose report in a sense helped to pave the way for the White Paper and which is chaired by a distinguished member of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), argued—as the right hon. Gentleman has also personally argued—that the survival of the BBC will depend in future on commercialisation? Will the hon. Gentleman read the views of his right hon. Friend on that point carefully?
Mr. Allen: As I shall explain later, it is clear that the Labour party fully supports how the BBC is making the most of its assets. We agree that those assets should be utilised 100 per cent. abroad as well as domestically. But that is, in essence, to preserve the BBC as we see it: fundamentally, a public service broadcaster—that is certainly our priority. It is in no sense to give it schizophrenia, whereby one day it is a commercial broadcaster and the next a public service broadcaster. That is certainly our priority.
As well as the implications for the service provided by the BBC, serious political implications must be considered. The BBC's independence and integrity are its most valuable assets and must not be compromised. Yet by entering into deals with satellite and cable companies as well as other terrestrial broadcasters, the BBC may be drawn into conflict over issues of ownership, control, fair competition and autonomy. It is a danger, and we and the BBC must guard against it.
Many hon. Members have referred to the funding of the BBC and the licence fee. The Labour party's position is crystal clear: while the licence fee is far from perfect, it remains the best means of raising the bulk of the BBC's revenue, both today and for the foreseeable future. The stability of income which the licence fee represents

547
safeguards the BBC's most important assets: the ability to make long-term plans and commitments, and to promote the regions and nations of the United Kingdom.
Dr. Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are special problems in the relationship between BBC Wales and S4C, the Welsh Channel 4? BBC Wales has spent a considerable part of its funding on making Welsh language programmes for S4C, with the result that precious few funds remain for making English language programmes for the 80 per cent. of us in Wales who do not speak Welsh and, moreover, programmes that could help BBC Wales to break into nationally networked programming in a much bigger way.
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend makes eloquently the point made by several other hon. Members tonight. The Labour party would press the BBC to ensure that adequate sums of money are allocated to Wales and Scotland, but specifically to Wales, so that English language programming can be developed as my hon. Friend suggests is appropriate. I would go so far as to say that, under an incoming Labour Government, a Welsh Assembly would wish to deal with that issue rapidly.
The BBC's dependence on the licence fee allows it to take such steps, provided that pressure from my hon. Friend and other colleagues is made clear. It also allows the funding of minority programmes and allows the BBC to retain its editorial independence. Sadly, all that may be undermined by the Government's failure to guarantee the licence fee beyond 2001. It is an unnecessary uncertainty, which is rapidly becoming the trade mark of the National Heritage Department.
We accept the logic behind encouraging the BBC to become a more commercial entity but we want to ensure, as do all interested parties, including the BBC itself, that that is done fairly and in a way that does not risk the BBC's strict public service obligations. The ITV companies are understandably concerned that the BBC will compete with them and, if it used the licence fee to subsidise sales of programme rights, the BBC could obtain an unfair advantage. We want a healthy, competitive BBC but, equally, we want to ensure that it is not at the expense of ITV and Channel 4.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 is not a good precedent for the Conservatives' stewardship of television's finances. Farcically low bids for the ITV franchises and the dog's breakfast of the Channel 4 funding formula proved that. For the sake of broadcasting, let us hope that the commercialisation of the BBC does not produce such unintended consequences.
As we would expect, the Conservative White Paper does not adequately discuss democracy and accountability. Opposition Members feel that the BBC is too important an institution to be the mere creature of the Executive. It should be established legitimately by Parliament in statute law. An Act of Parliament would allow open public debate about the role of the BBC and its future.
The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) mentioned the statutory instrument. It was amazing to realise that something as significant as BBC World or BBC Prime would have been established without the official knowledge of the House—let alone a debate—had not the procedural device of praying against the order been used in this place.
548
Constitutional safeguards would be necessary, were the BBC to be established by Act of Parliament. I believe that the tyranny of a passing elected majority could be almost as unhealthy as the tyranny of the Secretary of State, but it is not beyond the wit of Parliament to devise safeguards, especially with the new Government committed to reinventing our democracy. It is an undemocratic outrage that the House is prohibited by the Executive from examining or amending the royal charter when it deals with such important matters as the public service obligation and the strength of our commitment to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
The board of governors also needs to be reviewed. Even the governors do not claim to be representative, and they are accountable only to the Government of the day. The National Heritage Select Committee recommended that the process by which the governors are appointed should be made "more extensive and public". We agree, and we would suggest that, as a minimum, that must mean the ratification of any proposed appointments by the National Heritage Select Committee.
Equally, in addition to the annual report and accounts, the Government should ensure that Parliament is given a full day on the Floor of the House each year to debate media matters, and the BBC specifically. If we can do it for the armed forces—next week, we shall do it for the Royal Navy—we should do it for the BBC. An institution as important as the BBC requires equal treatment.
We are also worried about the handling of viewers' complaints and regulations, a subject mentioned in the White Paper. The Broadcasting Standards Council, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, the ITC and the separate regulatory bodies for radio and telecommunications appear a confused and confusing arrangement to the consumer wishing to complain or to find something out.
We welcome the proposal to merge the BSC and the BCC. However, as the ITC will now have regulatory responsibility for BBC World and BBC Prime, we need to consider whether it would make sense to take the merger one step further. In an age of convergence of media and communications, we could have a unified organisation for all broadcasting organisations, possibly an umbrella organisation, which could have the ability to monitor issues of ownership and output throughout the range of electronic communications.
Whatever the framework, we must master the new technological environment, not be mastered by it. The information super-highways should not become the conduit for second-hand, second-rate imports. We must match every technological leap with enhanced British programming. We must develop our own cultural agenda and, where necessary, fight for it as fiercely as the French have done for their cultural agenda. That must include fighting to sustain parts of the BBC service that could be threatened by increased commercial competition.
For instance, the coverage of important sporting events should remain a priority of the BBC. The list of key sporting events such as the cup final, Wimbledon and the grand national is part of our cultural heritage and, as such, those events should be available on terrestrial television.
The BBC should not fear the growth of cable and satellite. On the contrary, the potential for new developments is immense. An active Government will in future encourage the cable companies to continue to develop sub-regional, or even city, channels, perhaps

549
building on the work of the Channel 5-to-be. Their demand for high-quality, locally made programming could dramatically boost the BBC in co-operation with ITV, the independents and local authorities. We need to ask the BBC directly what it is doing to capitalise on those opportunities, for there are tremendous opportunities in education, health and local services.
Many cable companies are already cabling schools for free and are crying out for high-quality television and services to offer with that cabling. Much as we support BBC and ITV regional television, it, too, must change and exploit new challenges. It must increasingly be a resource to nourish the localities and less an outpost for the centre. It will be encouraged in that role by the regional and national assemblies that an incoming Labour Government will create. Those assemblies will want to see a bouquet of audio-visual industries grow locally. The development of that local skills base will be the seedcorn of, and underpin, our global position in the next century.
The White Paper records the BBC's intention to launch digital services, which will allow for a large number of new channels by the end of 1997. We await a Government who have the vision to encourage and promote those initiatives in partnership with the private sector. The information super-highway is, however, the latest example of how the Government have missed the opportunity to help the private sector to work in partnership with the public sector. The Department of National Heritage is silent, I am afraid, on that matter, as it is on so many others—the interactive are being led by the inactive.
The Department has offered no super-highway initiatives, no ideas on Channel 4 funding, no proposals on privacy and freedom of the press and no White Paper on cross-media ownership and restrictions. As his answer to the question posed the other day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made clear, the last film seen by the Secretary of State was "Doctor Dolittle". Little has been done either to promote the digital revolution that will open up the possibility of dozens of niche channels. That will require conditional access mechanisms that can scramble signals and allow them to be decoded only by recognised subscribers. The Government should be acting now to prevent consumers being forced to buy a number of different decoders.
It would also be unacceptable if a de facto standard which conferred monopoly power on the owner and offered the danger of unfair price increases were to emerge. The Government should start working now, perhaps for a common European interface, enabling a choice of conditional access systems, to ensure fair competition and consumer choice in the digital broadcasting market.
The final issue raised in the debate was transmission. The change there is basically a sop to the rabid right which feels cheated that the whole of the BBC has not been privatised. There is no guarantee, however, that if the BBC's transmitter network was privatised the result would be lower transmission costs across the board. Indeed, the privately owned NTL has a monopoly of transmission services to the ITV companies, which complain continually that their transmission costs are higher than they need be. With all the opportunities of
550
digitalisation about to come on stream, it would be nonsense were the BBC transmission services to be diverted into a privatisation battle. That would mean delay and contracts governing which managing director got which salary cut and which share option. The privatisation tail would be wagging the digital dog.
In conclusion, the White Paper is to be welcomed, if only as a disaster avoided. The result of a Government running out of steam, allied to nimble political footwork, has been the survival—at a cost—of the BBC as one of Britain's key assets. The next Labour Government will ensure that the BBC spends its energy not on survival or on confusing commercialism with efficiency but on seizing the opportunities for growth presented by new technology and on continuing to set a standard for public service broadcasting both here and abroad.
9.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. lain Sproat): It is an unusual pleasure to be asked to reply to a debate in which there has been such a large measure of cross-party agreement. It has also been an exceptionally well-informed debate. I should like to take the various speakers chronologically and answer the points that they raised.
I start with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). I was very grateful for the general welcome that he gave the White Paper and that was echoed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) from the Front Bench. However, he raised a number of points where there was at least a shade of criticism of what we had done. For example, he welcomed the retention of the licence fee as a means of providing the BBC with £1.6 billion a year, but wondered why we had to have a review in five years' time.
The Government decided on a continuation of the licence fee, but, as a number of hon. Members said, the extraordinary speed and complexity of the change in technology means that we do not want to set ourselves into a straitjacket on any matters on which we can help the BBC.
One or two hon. Members—including my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) and for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), in his extremely good speech—mentioned that not everybody was happy with the idea of a licence fee.
Many people outside the Chamber do not like having to pay for their licences when they can get ITV for free because of the advertisements. It is proper that the House of Commons should say that it is a vexed question. The majority of those who have spoken have been in favour of the licence fee, but the Government thought that it would be right to review it in five years' time and I am sure that that is correct.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury asked when we would bring forward proposals for digitalisation. That is a good question. It is also a complicated question, and trying to work out what the regulations should be when we have to multiply by six or 10 the number of frequencies that can operate on digitalisation as opposed to analogue is extremely complex. However, later this year we intend to bring before the House our proposals on that extremely important matter, particularly the regulatory framework to deal with it.

551
The hon. Gentleman—and many others—raised the important issue of the regionalisation of the BBC. Perhaps it would be helpful if I gave a few facts for hon. Members to ponder now and later when they read Hansard. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) speaks from a Labour point of view about what should happen in Scotland. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) speaks from a rather different point of view. I certainly have no doubts about the seriousness with which the matter is regarded in Scotland, although I would differ from him as to the solution that I would impose.
As the House will know, in 1993, the director-general asked his adviser, Mr. David Hatch, a senior manager at the BBC, to perform a wide-ranging review of regional network production and the representation of the entire United Kingdom on the network. The BBC's new regional policy resulted directly from the recommendations of the Hatch report.
The BBC's aim is that by 1997 the proportion of network production—that is, television and radio programmes for broadcasting throughout the UK—made outside London and the south-east will increase from one fifth to one third—an increase of 67 per cent. That amounts to a shift of £75 million out of the south-east of England—£65 million in television and £10 million in radio-increasing expenditure on network programming outside London from £188 million to over £250 million a year, an increase of 33 per cent. The amount of drama made in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be doubled by 1997, to nearly 20 per cent. of all BBC drama. At present, each year the BBC spends about one third of its total income—some £496 million—in the regions, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That covers the cost of local, regional and network services.
The House will have a chance to debate the matter, probably after Easter this year, when we lay before the House the royal charter and the agreement that the BBC will make with the Department of National Heritage. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North said that we would not be able to debate the subject, meaning that hon. Members would not be able to change details of the royal charter through debate in the House. However, hon. Members will have the opportunity to debate the matter extremely fully.
Mr. Maxton rose—
Mr. Sproat: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cathcart, but I shall go on to reply to what hon. Members have said during the debate.
Mr. Maxton: I reiterate the point that I made earlier. The BBC can fulfil its regional programming commitment simply by sending crews from London to Scotland to film a series of plays. They stay for a couple of months and then return to London. That is not giving production back to the regions; that is simply retaining it in London and making films outside London. I hope that that is not what the BBC means in making its commitment.
Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I understand that the BBC does not just want to make films or programmes in Scotland about Scotland for the Scots; it wants to make films and programmes in Scotland that will be screened throughout the United Kingdom network. We are not talking about the Jameson syndrome, where someone from London travels to Scotland to make a programme with no Scottish character or flavour.
552
I come to a question that is perhaps rather difficult to explain convincingly. It concerns whether the governors of the BBC should be elected or whether, as the National Heritage Select Committee recommended, they should be selected by that Committee—not an unusual proposition. When the Government of the day select the governors of the BBC, they do not do so with party political issues in mind.
I have no idea how most of the present governors of the BBC vote. They comprise a former Chief Whip of the Labour party and a prominent member of the trade unions. I do not believe that asking the House to choose—whether on the Floor of the House or in a Select Committee—the governors of the BBC will do anything other than polarise the issue and make it more political. I think that that would also be true of a Labour Government. Although allowing the Government to select the governors may seem to be politicising the issue, in my experience that is not so and it is proven by the present membership of that group.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to the deteriorating balance of trade in television programming. It is a worrying matter. However, any balance of trade deterioration in programming is not due to a deterioration within the BBC. In fact, the BBC's import and export of television programmes is in credit. The programming balance has shifted throughout television because there are so many satellite and cable stations using American films. Of course, that does not mean that it is not sad that we do not have a balance of British films on television, including on cable and satellite. The hon. Gentleman did not suggest that, but as this is a debate about the BBC, I think that the House should know that the BBC's balance of trade in programming favours British programmes.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should not have recommended that the general advisory council be abolished and that there should be an English regional council. As far as the general advisory council is concerned, the BBC takes advice from many bodies. The Government believe that the BBC should increasingly seek specialist advice and also directly consult its own audience. In that context, we do not believe that the charter should continue to require the BBC to maintain a general advisory council. The BBC has set up 10 English regional councils, the chairmen of which meet in the English regional forum, and the BBC board of governors is advised by the forum on policy in the regions.
A matter that was mentioned by a number of hon. Members, although the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury raised it first, was the merger of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The hon. Gentleman said that he welcomed the merger, and, obviously, we are grateful for that support. But my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) went further and said that, although he welcomed it, he hoped that the new body would have the opportunity to research matters such as the effect of television programmes on children, and so on. That was not something that I had originally thought that the new body would do, but it is an interesting idea and we shall certainly look at it closely.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) raised a point regarding Mr. John Birt: although Mr. Birt has had to put up with much criticism about the number of jobs lost and other changes

553
in the BBC—the hon. Member for Nottingham, North said that the loss of some 6,000 jobs has been a heavy price to pay—it is the pruning of the bureaucracy in the BBC that has enabled it to put an additional £100 million a year into programme making. It has been a price to pay, but it has not been frittered away. It has gone right to the heart of what we all want to see the BBC doing.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who courteously told me that he would not be able to stay to hear the end of the debate, made a rather dazzling speech. Those who sat on the Select Committee are no doubt used to that dazzle, but I found it very effective. He said that, too often, the BBC is, or appears to be, impervious to listeners' views. I do not know what it used to be like, but from now on it will not be a case of being impervious, because it has as well structured a programme as one could ask for in the circumstances. It will be conducting a series of local seminars throughout the United Kingdom, to hear what listeners and viewers have to say about what it does.
Information about what the BBC intends to do will be set out in its statement of "Promises to Audiences"—a slightly creepy title, so perhaps we can find a better one. The promises made in that statement will be sent to all viewers with their reminder to pay their television licence. The viewers will be told, "Here is what the BBC said it would do. If you do not think that it has done it, write in and say so, and the BBC will, in all reasonable circumstances, take action on what you say."
A rather more careful consideration of complaints made to the BBC will in future be made by the BBC itself. It has set up a new complaints unit. In the first eight months of operation, the unit received some 590
554
complaints, of which it upheld 102, which is quite a serious number for a body that investigates complaints about itself to justify.
No doubt the package of the statement of promises and the complaints unit is not perfect—no doubt there is more that the BBC can do and it will not stop the BBC making mistakes—but it is certainly a refutation of any charge that the BBC is impervious to the criticisms that listeners and viewers might make.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has been extremely ill, and I thank him very much for rising from his sick bed and coming to the Chamber today. He gave the White Paper a slightly back-handed welcome and said that it was not the best of all worlds, but that at least it was not the worst of all worlds. He asked about the Government naming the Scottish governor. I should make it clear to the House, particularly to the hon. Member for Angus, East, that although it might be the Government who make the decision, the appointment of the governor of the Scottish BBC is made on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is, perhaps, not quite as far as the hon. Gentleman would like to go, but at least it is not, as he was saying in another context, a decision made in London on a London basis.
This has been an impressive and exceptionally valuable debate. It is a rather melancholy thought that the further we move from automatic party lines, the better debate we have. We shall have a chance to return to the subject when the royal charter and the agreement are laid before the House; we hope that that will happen at Easter or thereabouts.
Mr. Michael Bates: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Housing Renewal (Birmingham)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
10 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for allowing me to raise the issue of urban and private sector housing renewal.
On Tuesday this week, Birmingham city council's urban renewal committee reported to the full council
"That the Committee's inability to reduce the backlog of Mandatory Grant Inquiries with existing resources is a serious source of concern. That the backlog of inquiries in December was over 9,000. That the Urban Renewal Division is receiving an increasing number of applications which have to be dealt with in six months and that this is adversely affecting the planned grant programme which is based upon date order inquiry."
I intend to spell out what is behind that concern, using my own words and information that I have gathered from many sources around the city, for which I take full responsibility.
I shall draw attention to the need for a major policy change in the way in which we fund urban renewal; although I shall concentrate on my constituency of Perry Barr and the city of Birmingham, I am aware that what I shall say applies to virtually all inner-city areas in our great conurbations.
Of course we have a resource problem; it would be futile to ignore it. The scale of that problem is clear from, for instance, the existence of 9,500 inquiries about urban renewal grants in the city of Birmingham. If only half those qualify and the average is £10,000, that will mean £47 million. Birmingham's housing investment allocation for the whole city—for private, council and housing association homes—is only £38 million.
It goes without saying that I believe that we are not investing enough. I shall not insult the Minister by spending time on an issue with which I understand he cannot deal, but I hope that he can deal with the reallocation of current funding. Let me explain why I think that he should act as quickly as possible.
Following the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, a new concept of urban renewal was introduced involving renewal area schemes and a new right to a mandatory renovation grant for poor owner-occupiers. Birmingham—always at the forefront of quality urban renewal—declared four renewal areas in 1991, that in central Handsworth being in my constituency. It has drawn up a 10-year programme to deal with the physical, social and economic aspects of community life rather than dealing only with housing, as did the old system of housing action areas.
My constituency is the largest in Birmingham. Three of its wards—Oscott, Perry Barr and Kingstanding—are in the outer city, and were farmland 70 years ago. Handsworth, my inner-city ward, contains housing more than 100 years old. About a third of that ward was designated a renewal area. It contains 2,800 dwellings, 95 per cent. of which are in private ownership—that is, owned by the occupiers.
In 1991, 82 per cent. were either unfit for occupation or qualified for relevant works, and 54 per cent. of residents were in receipt of means-tested or unemployment benefit. The ethnic mix, measured by head of household, is as follows: 44 per cent. are white, 23 per
556
cent. black and 25 per cent. Asian. Obviously, the figures for the population are slightly different—31 per cent., 21 per cent. and 44 per cent. respectively.
Central Handsworth, therefore, well met the criteria for a renewal area. It is a goodly sized area, a vast number of people there are on means-tested unemployment benefit, and a massive amount of housing is unfit and requires attention. I accept, of course, that poor owner-occupiers in poor-quality housing live elsewhere in that ward, but it is not possible to declare a bigger area that meets the criteria.
Area renewal—the concept of doing up whole roads and adjoining roads as part of urban renewal—has been tried and tested as the best means of improving the quality of life, including the health of residents. It is better than isolated, one-off house improvements, known in the trade as "pepper-potting". That may be okay for the householder concerned, but it does nothing to uplift an area and so encourage investment, economically and socially. Furthermore, if an area is not dealt with, it will eventually literally fall down or have to be pulled down, along with those pepper-potted improvements, so wasting an awful lot of public money.
Owner-occupiers have a responsibility to look after their homes, to maintain repair, and, where possible, to make use of the equity of the asset to assist in renewal. I wish a lot more could be done on that latter point.
Not all owner-occupiers are well off, as is shown by the figures that I gave earlier. However, there is a wider collective community responsibility to ensure that each generation passes on to the next the universal benefit of good-quality housing. Otherwise, we bequeath to future generations an horrendous position. Every house will virtually have to stand for between 3,000 and 4,000 years at the present rate of renewal and rebuild.
So what is the problem? After the first four years of the renewal scheme, I and the city council recognised substantial slippage in the programme. Not only have minor works ended, but, in the Handsworth renewal area, there has been an absence of community and economic development work, which was envisaged in the renewal area strategy. No work on industry or on the social side of the community has been undertaken.
In addition, the same roads and dwellings of my constituents have slipped off the end of recent annual programmes—for example, the remaining part of Crompton road, Hill grove, Leslie road, Willmore road and part of Wellington road. Many others are at risk. It will cause premature concern if I list them tonight, so I shall not do so.
Why is that so? Birmingham is the lead authority on urban renewal. We invented the concept of enveloping. In one year, some time ago now, when greater flexibility existed in the rules, the city council managed to secure externally more than 9,000 dwellings, although it did not do the work itself. By securing, I mean re-roofing and looking after the external part of those old properties, so that they would at least be standing and be fit and available for internal work at a later date. The urban renewal work of Birmingham is used as a model, not only in this country but abroad.
The reason for the problem is the mandatory renovation grant system. It applies to any dwelling that meets the unfitness standards, irrespective of where it is. in Birmingham, more than 9,500 current inquiries are taking

557
place in relation to renovation grants. Those inquiries, not applications, are in a queue that is based on date order—that is the way the city council decided to do it. The queue is being dealt with starting from before April 1991. There is almost a four-year queue. I am told that it might advance by two months in the summer, so slow progress is being made.
There is, however, systematic jumping of the queue in the city. That is wrecking the concept of area renewal. Application forms are freely and legally available. They are more than 30 pages long. The law allows for a fee for filling in forms, assessing the professional work involved, and obtaining the quotations for the work. At least three firms of private agents in the city—Lawrence and Wrightman, Herrington Associates and Independent John Woodcock—are operating via two firms of solicitors—Tyndallwoods and Millichip and Southall and Co.—in touting for business in the shape of the 10 per cent. fee.
That is legal, but I question whether it is fully decent and honest. It helps some poorer owners on a one-off, pepper-potting basis. At the moment, there are more than 250 applications from those firms, costing an average of £10,000 each per grant. That is £2.5 million of the urban renewal budget. It is completely unplanned, and totally unrelated to restoring areas or even parts of roads.
Once an application is accepted and agreed, the grant, by law, must be paid within six months or court action follows—when, of course, those legal firms will receive more money via legal aid. That is how the queue jumping works. It is fine for the individuals, but it is crucifying hundreds of poor families waiting in the renewal areas. Those firms of professionals will not be bothered if the dwellings are demolished later as a result of forced clearance. They will have received their fees, which, at 10 per cent., amount to £250,000 so far. They are legally helping a few, while conditions of large groups in planned renewal areas worsen.
I am told that the work claimed on the applications is well over the maximum of £20,000 per dwelling, because obviously those companies are claiming far more than the minimum amount of work. After checking by the city council and, I presume, negotiation, the average grant is, as I have said, working out at £10,000 a dwelling.
The city council is responsible for planning expenditure on the urban renewal budget and for making commitments to my constituents and others to the effect that, for example, next year the council will be able to deal with a road or two adjoining roads in a renewal area. However, such commitments are meaningless. The city council has no idea how many applications will arrive each week. Rumours abound that hundreds of applications, averaging £10,000 each, are in the pipeline.
In public expenditure terms, such dwellings cost more to work on than dwellings in the renewal areas, because, in the renewal areas, the city council can package a series of renovation grant applications from home owners into one large contract with a building company or companies, and reap the benefits of scale. That means that more poorer home owners can receive help. That is what I am about: I want more help for more poor home owners whose homes will last longer because the area will last.
I will not accept it from anyone that I am raising the case for stopping poor inner-city home owners receiving their lawful grants. The opposite is the case. I believe that
558
the agents and solicitors are attacking the rights of the majority of poorer home owners for their own commercial interest.
I am concerned about my community of constituents; I am not seeking political patronage from one-off, pepper-potted residents. To do anything else would be a betrayal of trust, and I am not in public life to betray the trust of my constituents. Regrettably, the operation of the mandatory grant system of the renovation grants allows it to be used for the purposes of political patronage in Birmingham.
The actions of the firms to which I have referred are sending out a powerful message about resource shortage, and they are presenting a stark contrast about their views on competing cases. In other words, they are not really bothered. The firms want the money for themselves, not social justice for the communities.
The system should not allow those with inside knowledge, who think they know how to play the game with public funds, to exploit others. That must be stopped. Furthermore—I choose my words with care—they are building up ethnic tensions in the city and creating social fragmentation. I will have none of this, and where I see it, I will seek to expose it here or in my constituency.
Somehow, the Minister and the Government, using the weapons and tools of this House, must break the link between the mandatory grant and the fitness standards. We could then move to meeting people's needs, both in the renewal areas and outside. We could use discretion over minor works, which we used to carry out in the past and which have been completely abandoned in my constituency due to the activities of the agents and solicitors to whom I have referred in the Sparkbrook, Ladywood and Small Heath areas of the city.
If we broke the link between the mandatory grant and the fitness standards, we would be able to offer residents single element grants outside the renewal areas for real items that would improve matters and stop residents worrying about their houses, such as a rewiring exercise or the replacement of that bad roof. Such work would have a major impact on their lives, without the need for major building works.
Another way out of the problem, but one which I would argue against, would be to reduce the maximum renovation grant, which is currently £20,000. It could be reduced to £5,000, as some have suggested, and the system could remain the same. However, that would not solve the problem of the systematic undermining of the concept of area renewal. I do not seek any other way in which to renew our great conurbations and our inner cities than on an area basis.
I also appreciate that there are at least two other factors at work, one being the grants for aids and adaptations for people with disabilities. Under community care, the transitional money is being well spent in the inner city and the outer areas of Birmingham. When that money is absorbed into the revenue support grant in the year after next, I am concerned that it may be lost. Therefore, to protect those grants, the money should be kept under the aegis of the Department of Health, rather than under the Department of the Environment.
All people, whether in the inner city or the outer city, want to be able to keep their independence with the onset of disability. Those grants should be met from a

559
ring-fenced budget and not be forced to compete with the urban renewal programmes, which are legitimate in their own right.
The other factor is more difficult to explain, but it must be placed on record, because it cannot be ignored. A full renovation grant should secure a 30-year life for a dwelling. Obviously, one must compare the grant with the value of the dwelling. In our inner cities, there is not an open market on house prices.
Since many members of ethnic minorities are understandably reluctant to move out to the suburbs because they fear—and receive—harassment and feel lonely away from their culture, and there are fewer suitable large houses to buy, they somehow find the money in their families to remain in the inner city. That creates a false market, in which house values are set higher than the properties are worth—therefore attracting larger grants.
That bodes ill for the future, especially if the Government fail to tackle the problem that I have raised and clearance returns on a large scale, because the false market will be exposed and rehousing made much more difficult for the families concerned.
A change in policy would make the existing money go further. It would prevent area renewal from being undermined, it would prevent agents and solicitors from wrecking the concept of area renewal, it would prevent the misuse of the current system as a potentially corrupt means of political patronage, and it would give more help to more poor home owners in our inner cities. I invite the Minister to address the core issue.
10.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on securing the debate, and on the helpful and informed way in which he has put his points. I found my visit to the university of Central England in his constituency and the work that it is doing to encourage cross-disciplinary teaching in the housing and construction sectors interesting and very impressive.
The debate is timely, because we are currently engaged in a review of the private housing renewal programme. In that context, I shall address the points that have been raised.
What is clear beyond any doubt is that many local authorities in the country are pursuing extensive and successful private sector renewal programmes. I have visited authorities, including Birmingham and Wolverhampton in the west midlands, which have been keen to outline their strategies for tackling disrepair in the private sector, and have been proud to show the resulting successful initiatives. Indeed, it is only two months since I visited areas in need of regeneration in Birmingham and had a useful discussion with partners and organisations involved in the urban care initiative. I also visited an area in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) at the same time.
I want to put in context the task facing local authorities. Most home owners are willing and able to maintain their own homes. Provisional estimates from the English house condition survey and family expenditure survey suggest that expenditure by households on improvements has increased significantly since 1986, with an estimate for 1991 in the region of £20 billion.
560
The 1991 English house condition survey showed real improvements in housing conditions between 1986 and 1991, with a reduction in the number of unfit dwellings and a reduction in average repair costs in the private sector. However, there were still about 1.1 million unfit dwellings in the private sector in 1991. Of those, we estimate that 460,000 are owned by people who are eligible for grants under the present criteria, with the remaining properties occupied by non-eligible owners, owned by private landlords, or empty. Within the population of eligible owner-occupiers, the estimated average cost of making "just fit" is £4,700, which is considerably less than the current renovation grant average of £9,000.
Our overall aim is to bring a decent home within the reach of every family. Provisions to make decent the privately owned homes of people who require works but cannot afford to do the works themselves are part of that policy. But the resources for that provision are not unlimited. There have to be priorities. We believe that local authorities should be helped to target resources on the worst-condition housing, having a close regard to minimum habitable conditions as represented by the statutory fitness standard.
Any activity should also focus on the poorest and most vulnerable households, taking account of ability to contribute or meet the cost of required works, thus ensuring that public money is available as a safety net and not as a source of cheap finance to enhance the value of a private asset.
Another priority is that local authorities should act strategically over an appropriate time frame, in line with their wider housing role, while allowing urgent intervention where necessary. That can currently be achieved through area-based renewal, to which I will return later. It is also a priority that the regime for assisting private sector renewal should be simple to understand and easy to administer.
When the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 was introduced, a range of mandatory and discretionary grants and delivery mechanisms were given to local authorities to help to improve the unfit stock. The duty on housing authorities to consider the condition of the housing stock in their areas once a year, the duty to take action in relation to unfit dwellings, the availability of mandatory grants to deal with unfit dwellings, and the powers for area-based improvements, were all seen as important parts of a overall approach. It was felt that, taken together, they would provide a wide range of options that would give local authorities the means of deciding their priorities for private sector renewal, while ensuring that those least able to help themselves were given some form of assistance.
In practice, local authorities have not had the level of freedom originally intended, mainly because the demand for mandatory grants has taken a greater proportion of the resources than expected and distorted the underlying strategic nature of the 1989 Act regime.
Local authorities have explained to me that, instead of carefully selecting the most appropriate course of action and programming improvements in a sensible way over a reasonable time scale, they are increasingly being forced to pepper-pot grants in response to demand. In those circumstances, it is difficult to maintain a coherent strategy reflecting a considered view of local priorities.

561
Those conflicting priorities were clearly set out in the consultation paper issued in 1993. No solution was offered, but a number of options for change both in the short term and in the longer term were explored. In the short term, we have reduced the grant ceiling for mandatory grants' to £20,000, with the aim of helping a greater number of people, either through increased numbers of grants or by freeing resources to enable local authorities to take strategic action.
Guidance issued to local authorities suggests that, where mandatory grants are awarded they should not necessarily be for works with a 30-year life. Rather, the authority should look with care at what is actually needed to make the property fit and not at what might be desirable in an ideal world. There should be close scrutiny of individual grant applications and adequate systems in place to ensure that the works specified are appropriate to the circumstances of each case.
In the longer term, the objective must remain to deliver help to those least able to help themselves. The issue facing us all is how that can be best achieved from the resources available. Many local authorities have been willing to share their thoughts with my Department, through responses to the consultation paper and also, more recently, at the housing investment programme meetings that I attended and my general visits to local housing authorities.
There has been no shortage of advocates, such as the hon. Member for Perry Barr, for the benefits of strategic renewal and of renewal areas in particular. It is clear that many feel that a greater benefit can be achieved by agreeing a co-ordinated approach to improving an area over time. Even with the current mandatory grant pressures, 52 local authorities have been able to declare 83 renewal areas, and have been continuing to do so at a rate of about 14 a year.
We are keen to see such broad-based area strategies for housing improvement. A renewal area can provide the means of improving the living conditions and the general amenities of an area through comprehensive and planned activity on housing, social, economic and environmental problems. It is a focus for concentrating public and private resources to maximum effect, and for encouraging the confidence of residents and of the private sector in the future of the area, thereby stimulating investment. It is important that, where possible, employment opportunities are maximised and the area is made a better and safer place in which to live.
As the hon. Gentleman has already told the House, the city of Birmingham seeks to maintain a balance between area-based and individual activity, targeting resources on the worst housing and the most disadvantaged people. As well as responding to applications for mandatory grants, it has therefore declared four renewal areas. One of those, Handsworth, is within the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Like most larger authorities, Birmingham has found its ability to concentrate resources on such areas weakened because of the need to respond to mandatory grant applications throughout the city. When I visited Birmingham last year, the local authority made it clear that it would welcome greater freedom to enable it to pursue its renewal area strategy more actively. It regarded the abolition of mandatory grants as a price that both Birmingham and many other authorities would be willing
562
to pay to gain that freedom; we shall have to keep that in mind when making proposals following our review. Strategic activity should not, of course, exclude help to those who are in great need but whose homes are not within a renewal area—but the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not yet in a position to suggest how that can best be arranged.
So far, I have concentrated on the mechanisms already available to local authorities to secure housing renewal, but I know that the hon. Gentleman takes the view that, where an authority wishes to clear unfit housing, a new approach could have considerable benefits in some areas. That would centre on the provision of a new grant in addition to the usual compensation payments to those whose properties had been demolished. The main objective would be to ensure that those owners had the resources necessary to purchase a new property in the same area. That would mean that close communities that might otherwise be disrupted by a clearance programme could stay together.
The hon. Gentleman first explained his views during the passage of the 1989 Act. The Government were happy to respond by agreeing to establish a pilot study so that the proposal could be fully researched. The study has been conducted over the past three years, in conjunction with the city council, in the South Saltley area of Birmingham. My understanding is that it resulted in 16 home owners taking up the offer of grant, and that the last of those moved into their new property late last year.
The final report from the research study team is expected soon. Clearly we shall want to consider the findings very carefully to determine whether there is a case for making such grant assistance more widely available. If there is, we shall need to decide what steps to take to provide for that. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, at this stage, I can only assure him that we shall try to reach a view as quickly as possible.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will also be pleased to know that an essential part of any future proposals for improving the grant regime will be the removal of potential opportunities for exploitation and abuse. They are few and far between, but it is important that they be removed where possible.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the pressures currently being exerted on some local authorities by solicitors working on behalf of applicants for mandatory grant. I am aware that that is becoming an issue in some parts of the country, and especially in Birmingham.
Solicitors perform a vital role in helping individuals to secure their legal rights, but there should be no need for them to become involved in the grant process. It is the responsibility of local authorities to adhere to the legislation and to meet their commitments within the resources available. Authorities' decisions on grant applications should be based on a full knowledge of the needs within their areas.
Therefore I cannot believe that it is helpful to have a solicitor pushing a particular grant applicant's case at the expense of other equally worthy applications. Although one would like to think that the solicitor is acting primarily in the interest of the grant applicants, the hon. Gentleman has suggested that, unfortunately, that is not always the case. In considering possible future changes, we shall aim to reduce the scope for the unnecessary involvement of lawyers.

563
Overall, it is essential for local authorities to ensure that grant-aided work on private sector housing secures the maximum benefit from the investment of public funds. I acknowledge that some local authorities are finding it increasingly difficult to meet the conflicting demands placed on them, but I know that most are maintaining
564
effective private sector renewal programmes. It will be important to ensure that any changes arising from the current review build on this good work.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information is not available for the full period covered by the question. According to the best information available, our total expenditure on external consultants in 1992–93 was £3.531 million at 1993–94 prices.

  Consultants are used in a variety of activities designed to produce different benefits. Much of their work is linked to the requirements of Government programmes such as training and designing IT systems, rather than simply cost-cutting exercises. In addition, consultants are often only one of a number of contributory elements in projects that may produce savings. In these circumstances, it is not possible to quantify the annual savings which have resulted from the use of consultants.

  The Lord Chancellor is responsible for three agencies: Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office. As the question concerns specific operational matters on which the chief executives of the three agencies are best placed to provide answers, I have accordingly asked the chief executives to reply direct.

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 7 February 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your parliamentary question listed on 6 February 1995, regarding expenditure on external consultants.
  The Public Trust Office's (PTO) expenditure since 1987 is as follows:

  Year

  Consultants

  Actual spend

  Spend in 1994 prices

  1992–93

  Ernst and Young

  26,508.00

  27,865.49

  P-E International

  6,110.00

  6,422.90

  Total

  32,618.00

  34,288.39

  1993–94

  Ernst and Young

  1,917.60

  1,955.95

  P-E International

  8,460.00

  8,629.20

  Total

  10,377.60

  10,585.15

  1994–95

  Price Waterhouse

  65,742.55

  65,742.55

  Total

  65,742.55

  65,742.55

  338
  The Price Waterhouse report is still under discussion and decision are expected in the next month. The P-E International work resulted in savings of £91 kpa. The Ernst Young project did not lead to quantifiable reduction in cost. However it enabled the PTO to establish a corporate planning process which has helped us to plan for and achieve Executive Agency status without any additional cost in overall terms.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 February 1995:
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION—EXPENDITURE ON CONSULTANTS IN IIM LAND REGISTRY
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, since 1987. I can provide the following information:

  Year

  Actual Cost£

  Cost 1994 prices £

  1987–88

  17,956

  25,719

  1988–89

  37,149

  49,872

  1989–90

  42,900

  53,833

  1990–91

  48,062

  55,836

  1991–92

  98,539

  107,710

  1992–93

  54,224

  57,001

  1993–94

  157,022

  160,162

  HM Land Registry has not used consultancy services extensively (the actual cost in 1993–94, for instance, represented only 0.08% of its total expenditure) and its main engagements are for specialist tuition and information Systems business services—the latter being provided throughout the period by the Government Centre for Information Systems (CCTA), particularly providing advice and services on procurement. Consequently, it has not been possible to quantify annual cost savings. Consultants' services have made a contribution to the overall cost savings achieved by the Registry which, for example, in 1993–94, amounted to a 2.97% reduction in unit costs in real terms over the previous year, equivalent to an overall saving of £5.9 million.

  I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary but please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 February 1995:
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION: EXPENDITURE ON EXTERNAL CONSULTANTS
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your question about expenditure on external consultants since 1987, and the quantified annual cost savings which have resulted from this expenditure.
  1. The Public Record Office's annual expenditure on consultants (in 1994 prices) was:

  1986–87: nil

  1987–88: nil

  1988–89: £80,276

  1989–90: £46,745

  1990–91: £243,000

  1991–92: £349,111

  1992–93: £971,568

  1993–94: £674,305

  2. The above includes £87,954 spent over 1992–93 and 1993–94 on consultancy to support the market testing programme, which has resulted in an annualised net saving of £291,000 per annum.

  339
  3. Other consultancies have been to carry out necessary specialised work beyond this department's normal scope, rather than to realise direct cost savings. They have related primarily to the construction of a new building, also to the installation of computer systems and training.

  Government Legal Departments
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the actual annual expenditure on Government legal departments in each year since 1979, in 1994 prices; and if he will provide the breakdown of such expenditures between(a) courts services, (b) legal aid, (c) magistrates courts and (d) salaries of the judiciary; and if he will provide similarly tabulated data showing expenditures on the Public Record Office.

  Table 1—Lord Chancellor's Department

  £ million

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  Year

  Court services

  Legal aid

  Magistrates courts

  Salaries of the judiciary

  Total expenditure

  1979–80

  132

  295

  192

  22

  631

  1980–81

  141

  351

  212

  29

  733

  1981–82

  131

  388

  214

  30

  763

  1982–83

  118

  380

  208

  32

  738

  1983–84

  159

  400

  216

  32

  807

  1984–85

  167

  447

  219

  34

  867

  1985–86

  166

  486

  224

  40

  916

  1986–87

  169

  537

  237

  46

  989

  1987–88

  204

  598

  246

  48

  1,096

  1988–89

  250

  630

  200

  49

  1,129

  1989–90

  283

  700

  204

  47

  1,234

  1990–91

  322

  780

  285

  48

  1,435

  1991–92

  382

  971

  297

  51

  1,701

  1992–93

  415

  1,123

  293

  53

  1,884

  1993–94

  391

  1,212

  290

  55

  1,948

  Source:

  Governement's expenditure plans.

  Table 2—Northern Ireland Court Service

  £ million

  (a)

  (b)

  (d)

  (e)

  Year

  Court services

  Legal aid

  Salaries of the judiciary

  Total expenditure

  1979–80

  9

  —

  2

  11

  1980–81

  13

  —

  2

  15

  1981–82

  14

  —

  2

  16

  1982–83

  14

  7

  2

  23

  1983–84

  14

  11

  2

  27

  1984–85

  13

  9

  2

  24

  1985–86

  12

  12

  2

  26

  1986–87

  15

  12

  3

  30

  1987–88

  17

  13

  3

  33

  1988–89

  19

  17

  3

  39

  1989–90

  20

  15

  3

  38

  1990–91

  22

  16

  3

  41

  1991–92

  20

  17

  3

  40

  1992–93

  21

  22

  3

  46

  1993–94

  23

  18

  3

  44

  Source:

  Appropriation accounts and Government's expenditure plans.
  340
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The readily available figures for the Lord Chancellor's Department are those published in the Government's expenditure plans. They are set out in table 1. Column(a) is net of receipts and includes court building. To allow comparisons between years, the figures have been adjusted to include superannuation contributions, inter-departmental transfers and the transfer of responsibility for magistrates courts from the Home Office in 1992.

  Figures for the Northern Ireland court service are set out in table 2. The Northern Ireland court service took over responsibility for legal aid in April 1982 and before that figures are not available. Column (a) includes the magistrates courts, which in Northern Ireland are an integral part of the court service and separate figures are not available.

  Figures for the Public Record Office are shown in table 3.
  341

  Table 3 Public Record Office

  £ million

  Year

  Total expenditure

  1979–80

  5

  1980–81

  6

  1981–82

  6

  1982–83

  6

  1983–84

  14

  1984–85

  15

  1985–86

  15

  1986–87

  15

  1987–88

  15

  1988–89

  13

  1989–90

  20

  1990–91

  22

  1991–92

  23

  1992–93

  27

  1993–94

  36

  Source:

  Supply estimates.

  Notes:

  1. 1993–94 prices—adjusted by the GDP deflator published 29 November 1994.

ENVIRONMENT

  Care in the Community
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the housing implications for local authorities of the care in the community programme.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The impact of care in the community on local housing policies was raised with my Department by a number of local authorities during meetings to discuss the 1995–95 housing investment programme.

  Housing Grants, Sandwell
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses in Sandwell are in a condition qualifying them for repairs or renovation grants; and what is the average cost per household and grants.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The only data on condition available are Sandwell's estimates of the number of private sector unfit dwellings which, subject to the household test of resources, would be eligible for a mandatory renovation grant. The authority estimated that there were 13,600 dwellings in this category at 1 April 1994. The average mandatory renovation grant payment in England is £8,600; this relates to grants where final payment was made during the financial year 1993–94.

  Dog Licensing
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further consideration he has given to introducing a system of dog licensing in England and Wales similar to the scheme operating in Northern Ireland.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government have no plans to introduce dog licensing in England and Wales.
  342

  Nirex
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters his Department has received calling for a wide public inquiry into the Nirex rock characterisation facility.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  About 340 letters have been received by the planning inspectorate requesting a wide-ranging inquiry into UK Nirex's planning appeal against Cumbria county council's refusal of permission for the rock characterisation facility.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses his Department has received to its consultation on the radioactive waste management review.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) on Tuesday 29 November,Official Report, column 647.

  Uranium
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for line Environment if he has yet discovered the source of the depleted uranium tailings found at Poplar farm, Chelveston.

  Mr. Atkins
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is investigating the origins of the depleted uranium swarf found in a field at Poplar farm, Chelveston, Northamptonshire. It has uncovered evidence which may point to the likely source of at least some of the material. However, the investigation is continuing and at this stage it would be premature to release information until all the evidence has been fully substantiated and future action decided.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will issue directives to enforcing agencies to ensure that the deadline of 1 October set out in guidance note PG5/1 relating to clinical waste incinerators is enforced in a rigorous and timely manner;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to remove any disparities of environmental standards imposed on clinical waste incinerators of differing sizes by guidance note PG5/1 and regulations IPR5/2.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) by the Under Secretary of State for the Environment on 19 January 1995,Official Report, column 659.

  Local Planning Authorities
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if local planning authorities have an obligation to protect the local community from the effects arising from opencast mining sites and other large land obligations.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Mineral planning guidance note 3 advises mineral planning authorities to take into account the effect of opencast coal mining on local communities, together with any steps that the operator proposes to take to minimise these effects, before deciding whether
  343
  planning permission should be granted for opencast coal proposals. Where permission is granted, appropriate planning conditions should be attached to the permission to protect the interests of local communities. In addition, the Coal Industry Act 1994 imposes an environmental duty on the coal industry, and mineral planning authorities are required to have regard to the extent to which the operator has complied with the duty.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in respect of the obligation of bonds imposed by local planning authority on the owners of opencast mining sites and other large land obligations for the restoration of such sites.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is Government policy that sites used for opencast mining should be properly restored to a beneficial use when extraction has ceased. This policy objective should normally be achieved through implementation by the mineral operators of appropriate planning conditions attached to the permissions. Therefore local authorities should not usually have to require a bond to secure site restoration, in addition, through a planning agreement or obligation.

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987 in 1994 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not held centrally by my Department and is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Credit Liabilities
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the purposes to which the provision for credit liabilities may be applied.

  Mr. Gummer
  Amounts set aside by local authorities as provision for credit liabilities under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 may be applied to meet liabilities in respect of borrowing and credit arrangements. Such amounts may also be applied to meet capital expenditure, subject to the use of a credit approval. However, authorities with no long-term debt and negative credit ceiling may spend or transfer their provision for credit liabilities in accordance with regulations under the 1989 Act.

  Valuation Tribunals
  Mr Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response was received to the consultation paper on the appointment of members of valuation tribunals in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The list of responses received has been placed in the Library of the House; copies of individual responses may be obtained from my Department's Library. In addition, one response was submitted by an individual on a confidential basis. Amendments to regulations will be introduced shortly to give effect to the following measures: the limit on billing 344
  authority members to one third of the total membership is to be extended to include county councillors; to extend the period of membership of a chairman at the end of his or her appointment until a replacement has been re-elected; the president, on election, is to fill the post of one of the chairmen; tribunals may elect a deputy president from one of the chairmen; employees may not be appointed as members; and the president may apply to the Secretary of State for a case to be heard by a different tribunal if it involves a former member or employee.

  Scrap Metal
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to provide exemptions from waste management licensing for the recovery of scrap metal and the dismantling of waste motor vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  On 8 November 1994, I published a consultation paper setting out our proposals for exemptions from waste management licensing under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for the recovery of scrap metal and the dismantling of waste motor vehicles. We have considered the responses to that consultation exercise and have now laid before Parliament the Waste Management Licensing (Amendment etc.) Regulations 1995, S.I 1995 No. 288.

  The Government's policy is that the controls applied to waste should be proportionate to the risks involved and the benefits to be obtained and should not impose unjustifiable or disproportionate burdens on those subject to control, especially small businesses. The scrap metal and waste motor vehicle dismantling industry plays an important role in the recovery of waste.

  The aim of the exemptions from licensing provided in the regulations is to encourage the recovery of scrap metal where the industry's activities do not pose a threat to the environment or human health. To ensure that this aim is fulfilled, the exemptions we have provided specify the types and quantities of waste and the conditions under which the industry's activities will be exempt. Any scrap metal or waste motor vehicle dismantling yards which do not meet these conditions will be subject to waste management licensing.

  Our consultation paper invited comments on whether the fragmentisation of scrap metal and waste motor vehicles should be the subject of an exemption. We have considered the comments made on this issue. Our conclusion is that it would not be appropriate to provide an exemption for fragmentisation and that this activity should remain subject to licensing.

  The main purpose of the regulations is to provide exemptions for scrap metal recovery, but they make certain other provisions. These provisions include an extension of the transitional arrangements which exempt certain people from the requirement to demonstrate technical competence when applying for a waste management licence. The new exemptions will apply to people who have managed waste facilities authorised under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and managers of facilities which did not need a licence under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The regulations also extend the list of equipment prescribed as mobile plant for the treatment or disposal of waste.
  345
  We will publish as soon as possible a circular providing guidance on the regulations and waste management paper No. 4A, which will provide guidance on those scrap metal recovery activities remaining subject to licensing.

PRIME MINISTER

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for his Department; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

  The Prime Minister
  There has been no expenditure by my Office on external consultants, including management consultants, since 1987.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

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

  Permanent Secretaries
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the pay of permanent secretaries.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government announced in Cm. 2748 presented to Parliament on 26 January that they intended to introduce new arrangements for the pay of Permanent Secretaries from 1 April, and that they would make a further announcement in conjunction with its response to the report of the senior salaries review body. The Government have now considered the recommendations of the review body.

  As foreshadowed in the Command Paper, a remuneration committee will be established to advise Ministers on where individual permanent secretaries should be placed within the pay range. The full terms of reference are given.

  The final decisions on the pay of individual permanent secretaries will be for the Government, who expect normally to accept the recommendations of the committee.

  There will be five members of the committee—three members of the review body, the head of the civil service and the head of the Treasury. The chairman of the review body will normally chair the committee.

  The three external members will, sitting alone, make recommendations to the Government on the salaries of the Heads of the civil service, the Treasury and the diplomatic service.

  Sir Michael Perry, who will succeed Lord Nickson as chairman of the review body in April, has agreed to chair the committee. Mr. Gordon Hourston and Ms Yve Newbold, both members of the review body, have agreed
  346
  to serve on it. I am grateful to all of them for undertaking this important additional task.

  The review body proposed a pay range of £90,000-£150,000. The Government accept this recommendation. The salaries of individual posts will, be published in £5,000 bands once each year in the following annual report of the review body. Parallel arrangements will be made for the most senior ambassadors.

  TERMS OF REFERENCE OF 'THE REMUNERATION COMMIT ITEE

  Membership

  1. There shall be a committee on the pay of Permanent Secretaries of whom the members will be:

  3 members of the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB); the Heads of the Home Civil Service and Treasury.

  2. The chairman of the committee will be one of the members, normally the Chairman, of the SSRB.

  Remit: Permanent Secretaries other than the Heads of the Home Civil Service, the Diplomatic Service and the Treasury

  3. The purpose of the committee is for the three SSRB members to make proposals to Ministers on the pay of individual Permanent Secretaries save insofar as their pay is determined by the terms of an individual appointment.

  4. The pay of Permanent Secretaries will be accommodated within the pay range to be determined from time to time by the Government. The committee may not propose other forms of remuneration or benefit than pay falling within this range.

  5. In making proposals the committee shall take the following factors into account in relation to individuals:

  the relative level of responsibility of the post occupied;

  the performance of the Department in executing the policy of Ministers and the personal contribution the individual has made in terms of policy advice and efficient management, including where appropriate meeting the measured objectives of the Department;

  the experience of the individual in the present post or in others occupied at Permanent Secretary/Head of Department Level;

  in the case of those newly promoted, the level of pay in their previous post;

  any views which the Minister, to whom the Permanent Secretary is principally responsible, may wish to offer to the committee;

  the individual's own assessment of his/her achievements and the main requirements of the job.

  6. The committee should also take into account these wider factors:

  the pay levels of other staff in the Senior Civil Service, and in particular those immediately below Permanent Secretary;

  the increases recently given to, or likely to be given, in the period ahead, to civil servants generally, and the pay progression available to them;

  the extent of the change for any individual as well as the absolute level of pay, and the presentation of both;

  any movement in the pay range as a whole;

  the nature and terms of the Civil Service pension scheme;

  any statements made by the Government on public sector pay;

  the maintenance of the confidence of the individual, that recommendations have been properly and fairly determined;

  the need to ensure recommendations are consistent with the Government's equal opportunities policy.

  Remit: Pay of Civil Service members of the Remuneration Committee and Head of the Diplomatic Service

  7. The SSRB members of the committee will, sitting alone, make proposals to Ministers on the pay of the Heads of the Home Civil

  347
  Service, of the Diplomatic Service and of the Treasury. For this purpose they will take account of all the factors noted in paragraphs 4–6 above as relevant to the pay of Permanent Secretaries.

  Review Bodies
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the review body reports.

  The Prime Minister
  The 1995 reports of the review bodies on the pay of schoolteachers, senior civil servants. the senior military, the judiciary, the armed forces, doctors and dentists, nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and the professions allied to medicine have now been published. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. The Government are grateful to the members of the review bodies for the time and care which they have put into the preparation of the reports.

  The Government's policy is that increases in pay must be fully met from existing budgets. Pay increases for public sector staff therefore have to be paid for by greater efficiency or by other economies. This position was reaffirmed in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on public sector pay on 14 September 1994, and in the Government's evidence to the review bodies. It is fundamental to the Government's response to their recommendations.

  The review bodies have made the following recommendations:

  The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has recommended a range of increases in daily rates of between 2.5 and 2.9 per cent., averaging 2.6 per cent. for the various ranks in its remit group.
  The Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine has recommended a 1.0 per cent. increase in national salary rates to be supplemented by local negotiations on pay and, where appropriate, leads and allowances and/or conditions. The Review Body has said it expects that, in the majority of cases, the outcome of local negotiations would provide improvements for the staff concerned totalling between 1.5 and 3 per cent., including 1 per cent. increase in national rates.
  The Doctors and Dentists Review Body has recommended pay increases of 2.5 per cent. generally for members of its remit group, and 3 per cent. in the intended average net remuneration of general medical practitioners. It has recommended that Trusts able to conclude local agreements with the profession should proceed accordingly. It also recommends an alternative system of transititional local pay for hospital consultants accepting a divergence from the nationally determined scale subject to a maximum increase of 5 per cent. in consultants' average salary in each Trust.
  The School Teachers' Review Body has recommended a 2.7 per cent. increase in teachers' pay.
  The Senior Salaries Review Body has recommended:

  (i) an increase of 2.5 per cent. in the budget for performance related pay for civil servants in Grades 2 and 3 and increases in the relevant pay ranges.

  (ii) a new pay range for Permanent Secretaries to replace the existing system of spot rates with pay decisions to be made on the basis of advice from a new remuneration committee.

  (iii) a range of increases between 2.5 and 3.8 per cent., averaging 3.2 per cent., in the pay of senior armed forces officers.

  (iv)a 2.5 per cent. increase in the pay of the judiciary.

  The Government have taken their decisions on these recommendations on the basis of our approach to public sector pay. We accept the recommendations and propose to implement them from the due date of 1 April. The costs will be met from the public expenditure totals published at Budget time. There will be no new money to finance
  348
  these pay increases, and for the third year running there will be no call on the reserve.

  The Government in particular welcome and support the recommendations of the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine for the development of local pay determination for members of its remit groups. Negotiations with the staff sides at national level need to be concluded quickly to facilitate additional local payments. The Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body has reaffirmed its support for moves towards local pay determination and negotiations are being held with the professions on changes to the distinction awards scheme for consultants which should lead to much greater local involvement. The review body had advocated brisk progress and both sides expect these negotiations to be concluded in the next few months.

  I am making a separate announcement on the arrangements for determining the pay of individual permanent secretaries.

  Summary of Main Pay Recommendations

  Main pay increases per cent.

  Paybill cost1 £ million

  Per cent.

  DDRB (Doctors and Dentists)

  22.5–3.0

  144

  2.9

  NPRB (Nurses and Allied Professions) Nurses and Midwives

  1.5–33.0

  117–234

  1.5–3.0

  PAMs

  1.5–33.0

  15–31

  1.5–3.0

  All NAPRB groups

  1.5–33.0

  132–265

  1.5–3.0

  SSRB (Senior Civil Service, Military and Judiciary) CS Grades 2–3

  4—

  1.2

  2.5

  Senior Military

  2.5–3.8

  0.4

  3.2

  Judiciary

  2.5

  3.9

  2.8

  All SSRB groups

  5.5

  2.7

  AFPRB (Armed Forces)5

  2.5–2.9

  140

  2.6

  STRB (School Teachers)

  2.7

  294

  2.7

  Notes:

  (1) Pay bill costings include employers' national insurance and superannuation payments.

  (2) Plus up to 2.5 per cent. on average salaries for consultants under trasitional local pay arrangements

  (3) Comprising 1 per cent. on national pay scales and the NPRB estimate of additional amounts likely to result from local pay negotiations.

  (4) No across-the board increases 2.5 per cent. to be paid through the performance pay budget.

  (5) Increase on daily rates.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Saharawi Refugees
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Algeria concerning their policy on the needs of the Saharawi refugees resident in that country.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have held no discussions with the Government of Algeria on this subject.
  349
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid has been provided(a) directly by the United Kingdom and (b) through bilateral procedures to the Saharawi people who are victims of floods at their refugee camps.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom has provided no aid directly or through bilateral procedures to the Saharawi people. However, we provide support for refugees through UNHCR on a regular basis and in response to special appeals from them and other interactional agencies. UK contributions to UNHCR in 1994–95 so far amount to over £20 million. In 1994, UNHCR earmarked £4 million for assistance to Saharawi refugees in Algeria and have earmarked a further £4 million this year.

  EU Overseas Development Programmes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements exist in the United Kingdom for monitoring and evaluating overseas development programmes of the European Union.

  Mr. Baldry
  The primary responsibility for the monitoring and evaluation of European Community development assistance rests with the Commission. Monitoring is undertaken by in-country delegations and staff in Brussels administering the various programmes, supported as required by consultants. The evaluation unit in directorate general VIII of the Commission has a wide-ranging work programme covering EC assistance to Africa, the Caribbean, the Pacific, Asia, Latin America and the Mediterranean. Evaluation systems have been established to cover the more recent Poland and Hungary assistance for economic restructuring and Tacis programmes in eastern and central Europe and humanitarian aid—ECHO.

  The United Kingdom has pressed successfully for the findings of mid-term reviews to be discussed by member states in management committees. We participate in the regular meetings of heads of evaluations services from the Commission and member state aid administrations. We play an active role in joint evaluations of EC and member state assistance.

  Reproductive Health Programmes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reproductive health programmes are currently being funded by the European Union for developing countries.

  Mr. Baldry
  The European Community is currently supporting at least 50 population and reproductive health programmes in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. These seek to improve maternal and child health, access to family planning services and contraceptive supplies. In some programmes, these activities are undertaken as elements of broader health care initiatives.

  We continue to encourage the Commission to develop strategies for increasing support to population and reproductive health activities following the 1994 Cairo conference on population and development.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to fund reproductive health activities in Botswana.
  350
  Mr. Baldry
  At present, there are no plans to support reproductive health programmes in Botswana. The Government of Botswana have agreed that British aid should focus on education, natural resources and public sector financial management. Support for health services is provided by other aid donors and from Botswana's own resources.

  Education Projects
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the breakdown of spending on education projects within the Overseas Development Administration in the year 1993–94; how much of the total is allocated to(a) basic education for children, (b) literacy for adults, (c) secondary and tertiary education, (d) buildings, for educational purposes, and (e) other services to education beyond a basic level.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 7 February 1995]: Total ODA spending on education projects during 1993–94 amounted to just over £117 million. The figures include all project aid and technical co-operation as well as the ODA's grant to the British Council.

  The categories given correspond as closely to those in the question as the ODA economic sector codes covered by education allow.

  ODA expenditure on education in 1993–94

  Category

  Expenditure (£000)

  Primary education

  8,532

  Adult education and literacy

  660

  Secondary and tertiary education

  17,806

  Buildings for educational purposes

  1,735

  Other education services (including ODA's grant to the British Council)

  88,665

  Total Education

  117,398

  Note:

  "Other education services" includes:

  1. ODA grant to the British Council (£31m).

  2. Education expenditure allocated to the ODA's general education economic sector code and not broken down to a lower level. This will include expenditure in all categories of education including those specifically covered in the question.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Companies House (Sickness)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the President of the board of Trade what assessment he has made of the reasons for the relative rates of sickness of staff(a) at Companies House and (b) the Laboratory of the Government Chemist.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department's agencies are assessed against a range of measures and have good records of meeting targets and improving their performance from year to year. I am, however, looking into the issues raised by my hon. Friend's question.
  351

  Shipbuilding Intervention Funding
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's policy on the level of shipbuilding intervention funding during 1995.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have decided that the United Kingdom's maximum level of support for large ships from 1 January 1995 shall continue to be 9 per cent., including shipbuilders' tax relief of 2 per cent. This follows a decision of the European Commission, notified to member states on 27 January 1995.

  I have similarly decided that the maximum level of support for small ships from 1 January 1995 shall continue to be 4.5 per cent., including shipbuilders' tax relief at 2 per cent.

  Those levels are at the maximum permitted by the EC shipbuilding regime.

  This is the last year in which shipbuilding intervention will be available for new contracts. The OECD agreement respecting normal competitive conditions in the commercial shipbuilding and repair industry prohibits direct subsidies from 1 January 1996.

  Biological Warfare
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, in his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) of 28 February 1994,Official Report, column 541, in respect of exports to Iraq, what licences were (a) required for the exports referred to and (b) issued for such exports in the 10 years prior to 1986.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The agents referred to were not subject to export control before July 1985.

  From 1985 to 1992, the toxicological agents were licensable only if adapted for use in war. The agents became licensable in their own right by virtue of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992.

  Records prior to 1986 are not available except at disproportionate cost, and even then are unlikely to be complete.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he consulted local government planning authorities when preparing the restructuring scheme in the Coal Industry Act 1994;

  (2) what considerations he gave to the interests of local planning authorities when including schedule 2 in the Coal Industry Act 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  When the Bill was introduced, the Department made widely available to interested parties, including to all those mineral planning authorities which expressed an interest, general guidance on its privatisation proposals.

  The restructuring powers under the Coal Industry Act 1994 provide for the transfer of existing property, rights and liabilities of British Coal to successor companies to enable privatisation to take place. The powers are general in nature to deal with many different forms of property, rights and liabilities which had to be transferred.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if Clydesdale district council made representations to Her Majesty's Government before the Coal Industry Act 1994 in respect of the dangers of transferring personal planning 352
  consent to the new coal owners without first referring it to the local planning authority.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Her Majesty's Government received no such representation before or during the passage of the Act. Representations on the matter were made to my officials by the district council in October 1994.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what considerations led Her Majesty's Government to allow full discretion of schedule 2 to the Coal Industry Act 1994 to treat the transferee as the same person in law as the British Coal Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ensure that the ongoing operations of British Coal could continue without disruption on transfer to a successor company, it was necessary for the transferee to be treated as the same person in law as the British Coal Corporation.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Trade and Industry Minister in the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, was explaining Government policy when he said on 3 May 1994,Official Report, column 1056, that if a coal owner became bankrupt the Coal Authority would be responsible for any costs of restoring the site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My noble Friend made two salient points on a number of occasions: he drew attention to the important duty of the Coal Authority to secure so far as practicable, that operators are able to finance their operations and the discharge of associated liabilities, and he noted that where the Coal Authority is the owner of land, underground workings or coal reserves the associated responsibilities fall on its lessees or, where there is no lessee, on it.

  Opencast Mining Sites
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who will be responsible for the cost of restoration to opencast mining sites in the event of the new owners going into liquidation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The obligation to restore a site of opencast coal extraction generally falls on the owner of the surface. Its enforceability during and following an insolvency would depend on the relevant facts.

  Rom Data, Falmouth
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will begin an investigation into the running of the Rom Data computer firm in Falmouth.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The company is in liquidation. The Department will consider any information regarding the affairs of Rom Data Ltd. forwarded in the usual manner.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from hon. Members in connection with the Rom Data computer firm in Cornwall.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  One. I had a meeting with the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) on 23 January 1995.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount in grants given to the Rom Data computer firm by his Department and if he
  353
  will make a statement about his Department's funding of Rom Data.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The total grant paid to Rom Data Ltd. was £825,000. This grant was made under the criteria for regional selective assistance, which is a grant available to projects which create or safeguard employment in the assisted areas.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is his intention, when contracting out the functions of the Official Receiver's Insolvency Service, to include the local office information system; and if contractors will have to bid for this.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In the absence of any decision to contract out the functions of official receivers, the question of whether the local office information system, LOIS, will be included in any contract specification has not yet been considered.

  Consultants have been engaged by the Insolvency Service to work up a specification, bid documentation and evaluation criteria and will consider matters such as this as part of their work.

  Additional Export Licensing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which countries or destinations were subjected to additional export licensing procedures from April 1991 for dual-use or other technologies.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The following countries are currently subject to special licensing procedures:

  Afghanistan

  Albania

  Algeria

  Angola

  Argentina

  Armenia

  Azerbaijan

  Belarus

  Brazil

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  Bulgaria

  Burma (Myanmar)

  China

  Croatia

  Cuba

  Egypt

  Estonia

  Georgia

  India

  Iran

  Iraq

  Israel

  Kazakhstan

  Kyrgyzstan

  Latvia

  Libya

  Lithuania

  Macedonia

  Moldova

  Mongolia

  North Korea

  Pakistan

  Romania

  Russia

  Slovenia

  Somalia

  South Africa

  Syria

  Taiwan

  354

  Tajikistan

  Turkmenistan

  Ukraine

  Uzbekistan

  Vietnam

  Changes since April 1991 have included the removal of central European countries, and the addition of the CIS republics and those countries which were formerly part of Yugoslavia, except Serbia and Montenegro, which are subject to UN sanctions.

  Amoco Fabrics
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent offers of regional selective assistance have been made to Amoco Fabrics in relation to jobs created at Consett, County Durham.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  None.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury on 6 February 1995, Official Report, column 69.

  Domestic Gas Appliances
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report column 396, if he will list the qualification of those engineers engaged in the servicing of domestic gas appliances; and what assessment he has made of the consequences for safety standards if no other engineers were employed in gas maintenance.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994 require anyone who works with a gas fitting, including servicing of a domestic gas appliance, or a gas storage vessel to be competent. The Health and Safety Commission's approved code of practice, "Standards of Training in Safe Gas Installation", published in 1988, provides practical guidance on the scope of training necessary for those engaged in gas installation work.

  No assessment has been made of the consequences for safety of a shortfall in the availability of competent gas fitters to undertake gas maintenance work, because I cannot foresee circumstances in which such a shortfall would arise.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fisheries Guidance Grants
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when application forms for financial instrument for fisheries guidance grants will be made available for the period 1994 to 1999; and for what reasons application forms are not available in January.

  Mr. Ancram
  The United Kingdom fisheries sectoral plan under Council regulation No. 3699/93 was not
  355
  approved by the European Commission until 29 December. It will be necessary to introduce secondary legislation to provide the UK national or regional aid required to trigger EU aid and advise interested parties when the scheme is open for application. We are proceeding with the implementation as quickly as possible, including the preparation of application forms.

  Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why he has not yet provided the information about next steps agencies requested by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton in his question of 20 January.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Because of the number of next steps agencies involved, the information took some time to compile. It was, however, provided to the right hon. Member on 7 February.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans are presently under consideration at the Department of the Environment for the creation of agencies to carry out its functions; and if he will list(a) the areas identified, (b) the expected work force within each agency, (c) the stage which each agency proposal has reached and (d) what consultation has taken place with elected Northern Ireland members.

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 7 February 1995]: There are already four next steps agencies in the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) covering rate collection, driver and vehicle testing, Ordnance Survey and driver and vehicle licensing.

  On 19 July 1994, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) announced that the Public Record Office would become a next steps agency from 1 April 1995 and that the Water Executive would become an agency from 1 April 1996—Official Report, 19 July 1994, column 193. The Public Record Office will have a work force of 94, including three part-time staff, but decisions have not been taken about the workforce for the Water Executive.

  On 18 January 1994, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) announced that the functions of the planning, roads and environment services and the Land Registry were potential candidates for next steps agencies and that the possible "prior options" of abolition, privatisation or contracting out would be considered in each case, Official Report column 521. On 21 July, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield announced that a prior options study of Works Service would also be undertaken, Official Report, column 443. These studies are undertaken in pursuance of the Government's policy that, where the prior options of abolition, privatisation, market testing and contracting out do not apply, executive functions within Departments are best carried out in next steps agencies. A report on the DOE studies was completed in December and is currently under consideration. When conclusions have been reached, an announcement will be made regarding any further agencies to be created.

  I should be glad to discuss with Northern Ireland Members of Parliament the action being taken to create next steps agencies and other initiatives directed at improving efficiency and value for money in the Department of the Environment. I will write to them shortly on this matter.
  356

  Mink Farming
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many licences were issued for mink factory farms for each county of Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 8 February 1995]: There has only ever been one licensed mink farm in Northern Ireland. It was situated in County Down and was issued with an annual licence in 1990 and 1991. No licences were issued in 1992, 1993 or 1994.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the extent to which appropriation in aid was taken into account in his answer of 28 October 1994,Official Report, columns 895–96, in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service's cash and running cost limits for 1994–95.

  The Attorney-General
  The revised running costs limit of £224,392,000 reported in my earlier answer took account of appropriations in aid of £91,000. Gross expenditure without such deduction determines the gross running costs limit. Following the transfer of £80,000 to the Department of Social Security, the Crown Prosecution Service's running costs limit will therefore now be £224,483,000.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the actual annual expenditure on(a) the Treasury Solicitor's Department, (b) the Crown Prosecution Service, (c) the Serious Fraud Office and (d) the legal secretariat to the Law Officers, in each year since 1979, in 1994 prices.

  The Attorney-General
  The gross expenditure is given in the table in 1994 prices. Superannuation contributions have been included from 1987–88 although until 1992–93 these were borne centrally.

  Year

  Expenditure £000

  (a) Treasury Solicitor's Department

  1979–80

  13,467

  1980–81

  14,969

  1981–82

  14,205

  1982–83

  14,524

  1983–84

  17,328

  1984–85

  18,106

  1985–86

  20,380

  1986–87

  19,881

  1987–88

  23,966

  1988–89

  26,023

  1989–90

  29,265

  1990–91

  30,179

  357

  Year

  Expenditure £000

  1991–921

  37,601

  1992–93

  39,056

  1993–94

  43,126

  (b) Crown Prosecution Service

  1986–872

  112,800

  1987–88

  205,200

  1988–89

  226,000

  1989–90

  244,600

  1990–91

  263,200

  1991–92

  282,400

  1992–93

  306,900

  1993–94

  307,300

  (c) Serious Fraud Office

  1987–883

  1,288

  1988–89

  9,528

  1989–90

  11,896

  1990–91

  15,724

  1991–92

  19,867

  1992–93

  22,666

  1993–94

  19,609

  (d) Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  1979–80

  675

  1980–81

  809

  1981–82

  776

  1982–83

  827

  1983–84

  1,085

  1984–85

  1,045

  1985–86

  1,124

  1986–87

  1,161

  1987–88

  1,253

  1988–89

  1,220

  1989–90

  1,268

  1990–91

  2,006

  1991–92

  2,071

  1992–93

  1,815

  1993–94

  2,052

  1 The figures from 1991–92 onwards include VAT on bills raised under a repayment regime which was introduced on 1 April 1991. Since that date administration and operational costs discharged on behalf of client departments or bodies have been recovered from those clients through repayment.

  2 The figures are for part year only, the CPS being established during the course of 1986.

  3 The figures are for part year only, the SFO being established in June 1987.

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Attorney-General what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

  The Attorney-General
  The expenditure is given in the table in 1994 prices. Such consultants were engaged primarily to advise on matters of management or to develop new systems and, while their advice is considered to have contributed very significantly to efficiency, it is not possible to quantify the annual cost savings attributable to this expenditure.
  358

  Expenditure in £000

  Year

  Treasury Solicitor's Department1

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Serious Fraud Office

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  1987–88

  Not known

  182

  Not known

  —

  1988–89

  Not known

  378

  Not known

  —

  1989–90

  26.2

  632

  339

  —

  1990–91

  Not known

  487

  199

  —

  1991–92

  57.9

  480

  96

  —

  1992–93

  345.3

  678

  118

  —

  1993–94

  428.0

  697

  155

  —

  1 Including expenditure by the Government Property Lawyers agency, established on 1 April 1993.

  2 Approximate figure.

SCOTLAND

  Housing Associations
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effects on existing council tenants of the wholesale transfer of council housing stocks to housing associations; and what further assessment he has made of the effects of such transfers following local authority reorganisation and of the influence such activity will have on the ability of new authorities to provide housing services to all districts within their jurisdiction.

  Mr. Lang
  There has, as yet, been no wholesale transfer of council housing stock to a housing association in Scotland. However, there has been a steady flow of smaller scale transfers with over 15,000 council houses having transferred to the private sector, mainly to locally based housing associations.

  While transferring tenants change from secure to assured tenancy agreements, they generally continue to enjoy at least the same rights as before on a contractual basis, including the right to buy their home. Furthermore, tenants are also usually offered a rent guarantee for at least the first few years after transfer. As investment in the transferred stock no longer counts as public expenditure, tenants can also expect to benefit from accelerated investment in improving the stock. Tenants also often have the opportunity to become directly involved in the management of their housing through participation in the activities of the housing association and representation on its management committee.

  The wholesale transfer of housing stock will enable local authorities to concentrate on their strategic and enabling role in meeting housing needs in their area, free from the day-to-day burdens of acting as a landlord. Part of any receipt arising from the stock disposal can, with the consent of the Secretary of State, be used to support new housing investment and the establishment of nomination rights with the acquiring landlords will enable authorities, and their successors after reorganisation, to perform their statutory duties in ensuring that the housing needs of the area are met.

  Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses he has received on his
  359
  consultation on the boundaries of the Strathclyde passenger transport authority and executive following local government reorganisation in Scotland; how many supported (a) map 1 in his consultative document, (b) map 2 in his consultative document and (c) the whole of the present Strathclyde region; if he will list the organisations which supported each of the three options; and if he will make a statement on how he now proposes to proceed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Although the consultation period ended on 31 January 1995, responses are still being received from organisations which had difficulty in responding within the deadline. The responses have come from a wide variety of sources including local authorities, community councils, voluntary and representative bodies, Members of Parliament, councillors and individuals, and have covered a range of issues including the options contained in the consultation document. The responses will be carefully assessed before any decision is taken.

  Negative Equity
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homes in Scotland were in negative equity for each of the past three years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We do not hold this information centrally. Recent studies have shown that the problem of negative equity is less pronounced in Scotland than in any other region of the United Kingdom.

  Sheriffdom

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Glasgow and Strathkelvin

  63

  69

  43

  44

  41

  64

  42

  36

  Lothian and Borders

  82

  135

  37

  49

  38

  67

  54

  48

  North Strathclyde

  77

  123

  19

  27

  59

  38

  29

  83

  South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway

  110

  116

  68

  26

  62

  47

  54

  66

  Tayside, Central and Fife

  142

  115

  31

  45

  48

  48

  151

  48

  Grampian, Highland and Islands

  227

  156

  81

  42

  75

  70

  43

  65

  Total

  701

  714

  279

  233

  323

  334

  373

  346

  Health Education
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been spent on health education programmes in schools designed specifically to dissuade children from smoking cigarettes in each of the past five years in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Scottish schools the management and content of the curriculum in matters relating to health education, including the effects of smoking policy, are the responsibility of education authorities and headteachers. The information sought is not held centrally by the Scottish Office. In Strathclyde, the life skills approach to drug, alcohol and smoking education will continue to be the core of education programmes rather than a focus on individual substances like tobacco. No separate allocation of money is therefore spent to dissuade children from smoking cigarettes.

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the performance of the
  360

  Repossessions
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the number of house repossessions for mortgage default in Scotland in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We do not currently hold this information centrally. Figures supplied by the Council of Mortgage Lenders suggest that, in 1993, 2,330 properties were taken into possession in Scotland. This represents 0.29 per cent. of the total number of properties with mortgages outstanding, which is around half the proportion for the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Warrant Sales
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many warrant sales have been conducted in Scotland in each year since 1987 in each sheriffdom; and if he will list for each sheriffdom, the numbers instigated by(a) local authorities, (b) Government Departments, (c) private firms and (d) private individuals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Figures for the number of warrant sales reported to the Sheriff courts from 1987 to 1994 are set out by sheriffdom in the table. The figures for 1994 are provisional only. A breakdown of the numbers by(a) local authorities, (b) Government Departments, (c) private firms and (d) private individuals is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency against its targets for 1994–95 and the setting of targets of 1995–96.

  Mr. Lang
  The agency is on course to meet the key performance targets for 1994–95 which I set out in my answer of 2 March 1994, columns 777–78.

  For 1995–96 I have set the agency the following key performance targets:

  fulfilment of the service level agreement with the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department within the running costs voted to the agency for 1995–96;

  recovery of full economic costs on average for charged services;

  formal consultation with all major customers on the quality of the work done by the agency in 1995–96;

  completion of 90 per cent. of all scientific tests and analyses within the timescales set by customers;

  increase by 1 per cent. in the proportion of the agency's full cost attributable to scientific activities rather than support services.

  Radioactive Waste
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what records, maps and other data are
  361
  maintained showing (a) the radioactive inventory, (b) the nature and (c) the precise location of low-level radioactive wastes disposed of on authorised landfill sites; and to what extent this information is available to members of the public.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: Details of low-level radioactive wastes disposed of by controlled burial in landfill sites are held by the operator of the landfill site, usually the local authority. Operators are not required to publish this information. However, a request for such information to the operator would be considered within the framework of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992.

  Mink and Fox Farming
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions in the last 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.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 February 1995]: During the period in question, a veterinary officer was present at the killing of Arctic foxes at one farm. The method used was injection of pentobarbitone. There are currently no fur farms in operation in Scotland.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Mr. Gianfranco Fini
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what arrangements have been made for the visit of Mr. Gianfranco Fini to the House; which hon. Member was responsible for inviting him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I am unaware of any such invitation to Mr. Fini.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases the Child Support Agency has applied for a liability order; how many cases have been heard to date; and what has been the outcome of these hearings.

  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 Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 9 February 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of liability orders for which the Child Support Agency has applied.From April 1993 to the end of November 1994, the Agency has referred a total of 1,010 cases to court for liability orders. Figures are not available for the number of cases heard and the outcome of those cases, but a new system for collecting this information has been introduced from this month.362
  Sir John Cope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions section 2 of the Child Support Act 1991 has been applied to reduce the amount of child maintenance paid by an absent parent.

  Mr. Burt
  I have recently written to my right hon. Friend in reply to his letter to me on this matter. The information that the right hon. Member requires is not available. The law used in making decisions should be recorded on individual files, and notified to the client, but there is no requirement to keep or collate records centrally.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for replacing provision for the care and mobility needs of disabled people, currently made through disability living allowance, with private insurance against long-term disability.

  Mr. Hague
  We have no plans to do so.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total sum paid as family credit for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) on 12 December,Official Report, column 534.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will break down the amounts recovered by the compensation recovery unit in cases of industrial disease and illness by the disease or illness suffered, for each of the last five years.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 8 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for the amounts recovered by the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU) in cases of industrial disease and illness, by the disease or illness suffered for each of the last five years.Information is not available in the exact format requested. This is because data prior to April 1994 is no longer held on the computer system and to obtain such information would be at a disproportionate cost. The information that is collated covering the period 1 April 1994 to 31 January 1995 is provided at Annex A.I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A

  £

  Noise induced hearing loss

  73,499.03

  Asbestosis

  893,937.82

  Cancer

  461,308.45

  Asthma

  7,507.74

  Vibration white finger

  68,465.46

  Dermatitis

  305,970.03

  Paralysis

  21,741.44

  Repetitive strain injury

  236,582.19

  Others

  973,122.62

  Total

  3,042,134.48

  363

  Habitual Residence Rule
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many British(a) women and (b) men aged (i) 24 to 35 years, (ii) 35 to 55 years and (iii) 55 years and over have been denied benefits under the habitual residence rule;

  (2) how many British citizens with children (a) under five years, (b) over five years and (c) under 16 years have been denied benefits under the habitual residence rule;

  (3) how many (a) Canadian, (b) Australian and (c) New Zealand citizens have been denied benefits under the habitual residence rule.

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

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Secutiry what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for her Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Expenditure on external consultancy since 1987 at current and constant 1994–95 prices

  £ million

  Current prices

  1994–95 prices

  1987–88

  23.2

  33.2

  1988–89

  49.5

  66.5

  1989–90

  43.3

  54.3

  1990–91

  83.2

  96.7

  1991–92

  69.7

  76.2

  1992–93

  136.4

  138.3

  1993–94

  138.0

  138.8

  1 Figures for 1992–93 onwards now refer solely to expenditure on consultancy services following work undertaken for the efficiency scrutiny into the Government's use of external consultants.

  Figures for earlier years include the costs of contracted services.

  The additional information requested in respect of quantified annual cost savings is not available.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the value of unemployment benefit, in actual and 1994 terms, for each of the years 1964, 1974, 1984, and 1994.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in tables 5.3a and 5.3b of the "Abstract of Statistics for Social Security Benefits and Contributions, and the Indices of Retail Prices and Average Earnings—October 1994", a copy of which is in the Library.
  364

  TRANSPORT

    Consultants
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants. for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

    Mr. Norris
    In each of the financial years from 1990–91 to 1993–94 the expenditure on external consultants, at 1993–94 prices, was as follows:

    Year

    Expenditure £ million

    1990–91

    185

    1991–92

    196

    1992–93

    229

    1993–94

    198

    Figures from 1987–88–1989–90 are not available except at disproportionate costs.

    It is not possible to quantify the annual cost savings resulting from this expenditure, the vast majority of which was for specific deliverables such as road schemes. Most of the expenditure was incurred on highways-related work.

    Underground Trains (Speed Restrictions)
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report from the chairman of London Transport indicating which sections of the underground network have train speed limits of 20 mph or less; what are their locations; what are the reasons for this restrictions; and what plans there are to take remedial action.

    Mr. Norris
    No, these are operational matters for London Transport.

    Driving Test Examiners
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is(a) the number and (b) the percentage of employees conducting tests to award driving licences in the Greater London area who are from an ethnic minority background.

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

    Letter from L M. Manley to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 9 February 1995:
    The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about the number of Driving Examiners conducting driving tests in the Greater London area who are from an ethnic minority background.There are 219 Driving Examiners conducting driving tests in the Greater London Area. Six (2.7℅) of these Examiners are from an ethnic minority background.365

    Sickness Absence
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 881, how many staff suggestions have led to initiatives to reduce stress levels and sick absences among employees of his Department.

    Mr. Norris
    In the last three years, the Secretary of State for Transport has received no staff suggestions which have led to such initiatives.

    Risk Assessments
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 881, if he will list (a) for each agency and (b) for his Department, the number of risk assessments conducted.

    Mr. Norris
    The details are as follows:

    Number

    (a)

    Coastguard Agency

    232

    Driving Standards Agency

    820

    Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

    2,191

    Highways Agency

    232

    Marine Safety Agency

    21

    Transport Research Laboratory

    672

    Vehicle Certification Agency

    1

    Vehicle Inspectorate

    n/a

    (b)

    Department (CTG)

    55

    1 Not included those in the process of being conducted, n/a Not available.

    Hesketh Report
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the conclusions and recommendations of the Hesketh report on the state of the signalling infrastructure on Britain's railways; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library.

    Mr. Watts
    The Hesketh report was an internal British Rail document and not an official report for external release. Responsibility for signalling infrastructure passed to Railtrack on 1 April 1994. We expect Railtrack to publish its first investment plan later this year.

  HEALTH

    Antibiotics
    Mr. Gapes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost to the NHS of general practitioners prescribing antibiotics.

    Mr. Malone
    The annual cost to the national health service for antibacterials prescribed by general practitioners for the last available year—1993–94—in England is:366

    Prescriptions (millions)

    Net ingredient cost (millions)

    43.3

    £171.3

    Notes:

    1. The term antibiotics is taken to mean antibacterial drugs as defined in the British national formulary, section 5.1.

    2. The figures cover prescriptions written by general practitioners and dispensed by community pharmacists and dispensing doctors.

    3. The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of the drugs before discount and does not include any dispensing costs or fees.

    National Register for Carers
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to recognise the work carried out by the national register for carers, assessors and verifiers in combating the employment of dangerous carers; and what assessment she has made of the work carried out by the national register for carers.

    Mr. Bowis
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle under Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on 25 January, column 254.

    Anthrax Vaccines
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual cost of(a) hospital-prescribed anthrax vaccine and (b) GP-prescribed anthrax vaccines in the years 1990 to 1993; to what extent such vaccine was obtained (i) commercially and (ii) directly from government sources of supply; if these vaccines were suitable for use against penicillin resistant anthrax strains; and if he will place in the Library guidance on the use of such vaccines.

    Mr. Sackville
    Anthrax vaccine, whether prescribed in hospital or by a general practitioner, is obtained front a common Government source and is not commercially available in the United Kingdom. The annual costs of supply were as follows: 1990, £34,000; 1991–92, £52,000; and 1993, £58,000. The breakdown of this cost between hospital and GP-prescribed vaccine is not readily available.

    Anthrax vaccine creates protective immunity to the toxin produced by the anthrax bacillus. The vaccine is, therefore, effective against all strains of anthrax, irrespective of their antibiotic sensitivity.

    Guidance on the use of anthrax vaccine is contained in the memorandum "Immunisation against infectious disease", copies of which are available in the Library.

    Blood
    Mr. Illsley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) chief executives and senior managers have left the national blood transfusion service since June 1994 and (b) zonal managers have been appointed in advance of the conclusion of the consultation process by the National Blood Authority;

    (2) if she will list the joint ventures entered into, both in the United Kingdom and abroad, by the National Blood Authority.

    Mr. Sackville
    This is a matter for the National Blood Authority.

    Mr. Illsley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list(a) the total number of units of blood collected by the blood transfusion service in 1994 and (b)

    367
    her future projections of the demand for blood for the years for which projections have been made.

    Mr. Sackville
    We are informed by the National Blood Authority that in 1994 the number of donations collected increased by 5 per cent. to 2.4 million. The NBA's current demand projections estimate an annual increase of around 4 per cent.

    Mr. Illsley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to introduce screening of blood products and blood for Anti-HTLVI and II and Anti-HBc.

    Mr. Sackville
    None.

    The last advice which we received from the expert committee in September 1992 in the case of anti-HTLV and in November 1993 in the case of anti-HBc was that routine screening of blood donations for these antibodies should not be introduced. The expert committee is keeping its advice under review.

    Mr. Illsley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when she expects to receive analysis of responses to the consultation document of the National Blood Authority together with its final proposals and publish the final proposals for reorganisation of the National Blood Authority;

    (2) if she will publish (a) all the responses to the National Blood Authority consultation document and (b) a list of all the organisations and individuals who have opposed the reorganisation proposals of the National Blood Authority;

    Mr. Sackville
    The National Blood Authority is currently considering the comments received during its thorough and widespread consultation. The authority will in due course produce and publish its final proposals, having taken account of the comments received, but cannot yet provide a firm date for this. The format of the publication is a matter for the NBA. The authority has announced the appointment of an independent panel who will ensure that the comments made on the original proposals receive due and objective consideration.

    Mr. Illsley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria were used in the selection of the independent committee members appointed to consider responses to the National Blood Authority's consultation process.

    Mr. Sackville
    This is a matter for the National Blood Authority.

    Mr. Illsley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each regional blood transfusion centre(a) the date it received a Medicines Control Agency licence, (b) the date it acquired accreditation under BS5750 and (c) the date it made any unsuccessful application for either (a) or (b).

    Mr. Sackville
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on 1 November 1994, columns 1078–79. The manufacturers licence held by the National Blood Authority covering all centres was first issued on 8 August 1994 and was last updated on 7 December 1994. The wholesale dealers licence, No. WL/I3733/1, held by the authority was issued on 27 July 1994 and was last updated on 15 November 1994. No unsuccessful applications for licensing of blood transfusion centres has occurred. Accreditation under BS5750 is not a statutory requirement for the NBA. The pursuit of accreditation by individual transfusion centres is a matter for the NBA.
    368
    Mr. Illsley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will identify and list the immunoglobins currently exported by the National Blood Authority.

    Mr. Sackville
    The Bio Products Laboratory, a part of the National Blood Authority, occasionally exports human normal intramuscular immunoglobulin when it has supplies available which are surplus to requirements in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Illsley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the joint ventures entered into, both in the United Kingdom and abroad, by the National Blood Authority.

    Mr. Sackville
    Apart from those entered into in the course of research or normal commercial contracting activity, the National Blood Authority is not involved in any joint ventures either in the United Kingdom or abroad.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. David Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to implement full public disclosure by trusts of(a) ambulance waiting times and (b) hospital bed shortages.

    Mr. Sackville
    Information on ambulance response times is published centrally by the Department in "Patient Transport Services—Summary information for KA 34: England", copies of which are available in the Library.

    Information on bed availability is published in "Bed Availability for England", copies of which are also available in the Library. There are no plans to extend this information. Trusts must aim to meet current needs, while demand for beds is unpredictable.

    The new patients charter for England introduced a fresh standard that from 1 April 1995 patients who need to be admitted to hospital through accident and emergency departments will be given a bed within three hours to four hours, improving to two hours from 1 April 1996. All health authorities will be required to monitor the performance of their provider hospitals in meeting the new standard and publish local information about their achievements in their annual reports.

    GP Fundholders
    Mr. MacShane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the amount of money saved from general practitioner fundholding budgets which is being used to increase the value of the premises owned by fundholding general practitioners.

    Mr. Malone
    None. Paragraph 24 of the National Health Service (Fund-holding Practices) Regulations 1993 states that general practitioner fundholder audited savings may be used to supplement future budgets, to purchase material or equipment and to improve practice premises for the benefit of patients.

    Family health services authorities are responsible for monitoring fundholders' expenditure, including savings, to ensure that they are used, in accordance with regulations, for the benefit of patients.

    Many fundholders have used efficiency savings to purchase additional services, or improve their premises, for example, to build extra treatment rooms for community nurses or visiting consultants or to bring more services into the practice. This investment in primary care

    369
    improves convenience for patients and the cost-effectiveness of the service.

    Diabetes
    Mr. Elletson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the NHS budget is currently allocated to(a) research into diabetes and (b) the treatment and continuing care for diabetes sufferers.

    Mr. Sackville
    The national health service funds a range of research and development work into diabetes. Detailed information on the amount and proportion spent is not available centrally.

    Treatment and continuing care for diabetes sufferers is provided throughout the country by general practitioners and diabetic centres. Information on cost is not collected centrally.

    Intervention Butter
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to offer NHS trusts advice on the sale of EEC intervention butter in out-patients' and visitors' buffets and coffee shops.

    Mr. Sackville
    None. Advice on the European Community regulations relating to supply of subsidised butter to hospitals and other organisations through the EEC Intervention Board is set out in the board's leaflet, LP18.

    GP Administration Costs
    Mrs. Beckett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hours have been spent per general practitioner on administration(a) in each year since 1979 and (b) in each of those years when surveys have been undertaken.

    Mr. Malone
    The full-year results of the 1992–93 survey of general practitioner's work load will be made available shortly. It will contain the most recent information on time spent on practice administration.

    Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
    Mrs. Beckett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health which countries have set up compensation programmes for people developing Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease caused by human growth hormone.

    Mr. Sackville
    I understand that the French Government have offered to compensate families of children treated with growth hormone between January 1984 and May 1985 who contracted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease provided they agree not to proceed with the litigation over the treatment programme. The extent to which this offer was taken up is not known. In the United Kingdom, the treatment was provided in good faith and conformed with the best known scientific and medical advice available at that time. In the circumstances, compensation is not appropriate without proof of negligence.

    Junior Doctors
    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health with whom junior hospital doctors will make their contracts following the reform of the health authorities; and if she will make a statement.
    370
    Mr. Malone
    The Government intend that the training programmes of registrars and senior registrars and, in future, those of doctors in the proposed new unified training grade, will be managed at regional level by postgraduate medical deans. Discussions continue with postgraduate deans and with the medical profession more widely on the appropriate locus for employment contracts.

    Consultants
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are her latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for her Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

    Mr. Sackville
    The Department of Health has spent the following amounts, in 1994 prices, from running costs on consultancy since its establishment as a separate Department.

    1990–91: £20,974,000

    1991–92: £26,007,000

    1992–93: £18,977,000

    1993–94: £15,933,037

    The Department is unable to separately identify those savings that were made as a direct result of consultancy expenditure.

    Physical Punishment (Children)
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to respond to the report of the United Nations committee on implementation of the UN convention on the rights of the child regarding her policies with regard to the physical punishment of children; and if she will make a statement.

    Mr. Bowis
    None.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Rwanda
    Mr. Gapes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of(a) France and (b) other EU countries in respect of (i) the establishment of normal political and commercial relations with the Government of Rwanda and (ii) granting permission to the new Government of Rwanda to draw on loan facilities offered by the Bretton Woods institutions.

    Mr. Baldry
    It is not for the British Government to explain the policies of other European countries.

    Zaire
    Mr. Gapes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about current EU relations with Zaire; and if Governments of the United States, Belgium and France still agree on how to take forward the troika negotiations with Zaire which they have been conducting on behalf of the OECD countries.

    Mr. Baldry
    The European Union continues to attach great importance to progress in Zaire towards democracy,
    371
    greater respect for human rights and economic reconstruction. I understand that the informal co-ordination of policy towards Zaire between the United States, Belgium and France continues.

    Russia
    Mr. Elletson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed human rights in Russia with the Russian Government; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. David Davis
    We and our partners in the European Union have made clear to the Russian Government our concerns about violations of human rights following their military intervention in Chechnya. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed this with Foreign Minister Kozyrev most recently by telephone on 19 January, and will have another opportunity when he meets him in Stockholm on 14 February. We have encouraged the Russians to accept assistance of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in finding a solution in Chechnya, and one of the focuses of its attention will be human rights issues.

    Social Development Summit
    Miss Lestor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria will govern his decision on who will represent his Department at the world summit for social development in Copenhagen in March.

    Mr. Baldry
    A final decision on attendance at the summit will be taken nearer the date.

    Miss Lestor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the inclusion of a new commitment on health and education in the programme of action for the world summit on social development as proposed by the G7 at the final PrepCom in New York in January.

    Mr. Baldry
    We welcome the proposal for a new commitment on education, which may include health issues. The final text of this commitment will be negotiated during the summit.

    Miss Lestor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to strengthen the commitment relating to debt relief in the programme of action for the world summit on social development, with particular reference to multilateral debt relief.

    Mr. Baldry
    The United Kingdom sees debt relief as an important factor in alleviating poverty and will continue to work for improved references in the documentation in line with UK policy initiatives.

    Public Bodies
    Mr. Patten
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. Goodlad
    A full list of public bodies for which the FCO retains responsibility is published in the index to "Public Bodies 1994".
    372
    It was announced in the Queen's Speech on 16 November 1994 that the Government plan to introduce legislation in the current Session of Parliament to transfer the Crown Agents to the private sector. It is expected that the transfer will be completed within a few months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.

    In addition, the Natural Resources Institute, currently an agency of the Overseas Development Administration, has been identified as a candidate for transfer of ownership to the private sector.

    Indonesia
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if United Kingdom sales of arms to Indonesia meet the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe principles on arms sales; and if those principles were agreed by Her Majesty's Government.

    Mr. Goodlad
    Yes. The principles governing arms transfers agreed by the forum for security co-operation of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe in November 1993 are among the criteria we consider in examining applications for licences to export defence equipment.

    Mr. Sergei Kovalev
    Mr. Elletson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consult the Russian Government in respect of its policy towards Mr. Sergei Kovalev, Russia's human rights ombudsman.

    Mr. David Davis
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will have the opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues, including human rights questions, when he meets Foreign Minister Kozyrev in Stockholm on 14 February.

    Mr. Elletson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's ambassador to Russia last met Mr. Sergei Kovalev, Russia's human rights ombudsman, to discuss human rights.

    Mr. David Davis
    Her Majesty's ambassador to Russia last met Mr. Sergei Kovalev on 31 January 1995.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice has been given by Gibraltar's customs, port and police authorities to ship's masters whose transhipments within Gibraltar's waters were illegal under the imports and export ordinance; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. David Davis
    Ship's masters are informed that it is an offence to trans-ship goods without the prior permission of the Customs Department, and that offences are liable to heavy penalties and imprisonment.

    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking with the Spanish authorities on their advice to ship's masters to ignore the attempts by the customs, port and police authorities endeavours to enforce the imports and exports ordinance within Gibraltar's waters; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. David Davis
    In the wake of two recent incidents, we believe that the Spanish authorities are fully aware of
    373
    the requirements of the imports and exports ordinance, and of Gibraltar's determination that it shall be enforced.

    Consultants
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

    Mr. Goodlad
    The table shows the relevant information for expenditure on external consultants by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic and aid wings in 1992–93 and 1993–94 and estimated expenditure in 1994–95 as at 31 December 19941

    Similar information on expenditure from 1987 to 1991, and quantified annual cost savings resulting from expenditure on external consultants since 1987, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    1Most of the expenditure by the aid wing has been incurred on the engagement of consultants under the overseas aid programme.

    £ million

    Diplomatic wing

    Aid wing

    1992–93

    13.2

    107

    1993–94

    14.2

    252

    1994–95 (to 31 December 1994)

    9.7

    257

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Fishing Quotas
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the balance of Hague preference losses and gains in terms of fish quota accruing to the United Kingdom for each of the years 1955, 1994 and 1993.

    Mr. Jack
    The overall balance was a net United Kingdom loss of 525 tonnes in 1993 and a loss of 1,285 tonnes in 1994. Figures for 1995 will depend on the agreement to be reached with Norway on total allowance catches for jointly managed stocks in the North sea. This agreement is due before the end of March 1995. The application of Hague preference before 1993 resulted in significant net gains for the United Kingdom.

    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the losses of quota from the United Kingdom due to application of the Hague preference on fish stocks in the sector VII(a) of the Irish sea in 1995.

    Mr. Jack
    As a result of the application of Hague preference in the Irish sea—area VII(a)—the United Kingdom's 1995 share of the quota allocation for cod, whiting and plaice was reduced by 2,210 tonnes.

    Sheep Scab
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is 374
    undertaking into the spread of sheep scab in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Browning
    Official records on the number of sheep scab outbreaks are not available following the deregulation of sheep scab controls in April 1992. Unofficial reports indicate it has been found in every county in Britain.

    A surveillance exercise at markets carried out in March 1994 by the state veterinary service found 177 batches of sheep in which sheep scab was suspected at 869 market days surveyed; this exercise will be repeated this spring.

    Official veterinary presence at sheep markets was significantly increased on 1 September 1994. Since that, date, 2,086 market visits have resulted in 326 cases of suspected sheep scab being detected.

    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations his Department has received on the subject of(a) sheep scab and (b) organophosphate sheep dips in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Browning
    The Department has continued to receive a number of representations on both subjects in the past 12 months.

    In response to representations on the increasing incidence of sheep scab early last year, a surveillance exercise was carried out by the state veterinary service at markets and sales in March 1994. While the results were not conclusive, they indicated that a minority of farmers were failing to keep their flocks free from scab and that the number of infested sheep had increased. A substantial publicity campaign was therefore carried out last autumn to encourage farmers to treat their sheep for scab. In addition, the official vet presence at markets was significantly increased; animals suspected of scab infestation are being withdrawn from sale and treated and the owner risks prosecution. A further surveillance exercise in markets and sales by the state veterinary service is planned for the spring of 1995 to measure the impact of the stricter market enforcement measures and of the publicity campaign.

    Representations have also included concerns about the possible human health effects arising from the use of organophosphorous sheep dips. The safety of these products was reviewed by the independent veterinary product committee 1993. It concluded that there was no scientific justification for banning OP sheep dips, but they must be used correctly, and that includes the wearing of appropriate protective clothing. The Government accepted the VPC's recommendations, one element of which was the introduction of a certificate of competence scheme for those wishing to continue to purchase OP sheep dips, aimed at improving awareness of the safety precautions to be taken when using these products. From 1 April 1995 therefore, sale and supply of OP sheep dips will be restricted to those holding certificates or their representatives.

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 643, what plans he has to make those responsible for exporting consignments of livestock obliged to provide information about deaths of animals in transit.
    375
    Mrs. Browning
    We do not consider that such an obligation would produce worthwhile information.

    Agricultural Development Advisory Service
    Dr. Strang
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what requirements he has placed upon the merchant bankers that he has appointed to advise on the privatisation of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service in respect of the assessment of the forecast made available to them by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service board.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    Charterhouse Bank Ltd. has been asked to advise on a range of possible options for the future of ADAS. It will, inter alia, consider and advise on any financial projections submitted by the ADAS board.

    Dr. Strang
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made as to(a) the level of staff cuts and (b) other measures that will be necessary to ensure the commercial feasibility of a privatised Agricultural Development Advisory Service.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    Since no decisions have yet been taken on privatisation, no such assessments have been made.

    Dr. Strang
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the report by Charterhouse Bank Ltd. on possible options for the privatisation of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service to be published; and if he will place it in the Library.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    Charterhouse is expected to report in February. The report will not be published.

    Dr. Strang
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of Government expenditure to date on the report by Charterhouse Bank Ltd. on possible options for the privatisation of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    Details of individual contracts are a matter of commercial confidentiality.

    Dr. Strang
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information and documentation has been supplied by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service to Charterhouse Bank Ltd. to enable it to meet its remit to examine the commercial background of the agency.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    Charterhouse representatives have had extensive with ADAS Directors and have visited three ADAS offices. Information has been supplied as requested.

    Dr. Strang
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made as to which of the assets presently owned by his Department would be eligible for transferral into the private sector as a consequence of the privatisation of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    The assets that might be transferred will depend on the future needs of the Ministry and would need to be discussed with the purchaser. The Ministry will, of course, take account of any legal restrictions on disposal.

    Ante-mortem Inspections
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Ministry's policy of using only 376
    veterinary surgeons for ante-mortem inspections accords precisely with the practice followed in all the other EU member states; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Browning
    We have decided that the meat hygiene service, when it is launched in April, should be allowed to make use of experienced meat inspectors acting under the responsibility of the official veterinary surgeon to assist with the ante-mortem inspection of young animals. The OVS will be required personally to inspect all adult animals and casualty animals, and any other animals detained by the meat inspector for veterinary examination.

    We believe that these arrangements will be consistent with the practice in several other member states. All EU member states, including the United Kingdom, accept the principle of veterinary responsibility for hygiene and inspection of fresh meat. Some member states use veterinary surgeons for all meat hygiene and inspection work.

    Public Bodies
    Mr. Sykes
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which quangos his Department has abolished since 1979.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    [pursuant to his reply, 24 November 1994, column 311]: I regret that some of the information provided in my answer of 24 November 1994 to this question was inaccurate. A revised list showing non-departmental public bodies abolished, or reclassified, between 1979 and 1993 is as follows. This has been checked as thoroughly as possible without incurring disproportionate cost.

    Public bodies abolished since 1979

    1979

    1. Advisory Council for Agriculture and Horticulture in England and Wales.

    2. Farm Settlements Advisory Committee for Selection of Tenants.

    3. Plant Variety Rights Advisory Panels (12).

    4. Poultry Disease Panel.

    5. Torry Research Station Advisory Committee.

    1980

    1. Advisory Committee on the Banana Trade (replaced by Banana Trade Advisory Committee).

    2. Tate and Lyle Customer Safeguards Committee.

    1981

    1. White Fish Authority (abolished October 1981 and replaced by SFIA).

    2. Agricultural Construction Industry Liaison Group.

    1982

    1. Thames Barrier Advisory Team.

    2. Flood Protection Research Committee.

    1983

    1. Committee on Artificial Insemination of Cattle.

    2. 'Food Additives and Contaminants Committee'. and 'Food Standards Committee' amalgamated to form 'Food Advisory Committee'.

    3. Fisheries R and D Board.

    4. Kew Scientific Advisory Panel.

    5. Scientific Panel for Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs.

    6. Wakehurst Place Consultative Panel.

    7. Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation (functions taken over by 'Food from Britain', March 1983).

    377
    1984

    1. Joint Consultative Organisation for R and D in Agriculture and Food (abolished May 1984—replaced by Priorities Board for R and D in Agriculture and Food).

    1985

    None

    1986

    Eggs Authority.

    1987

    Agriculture Chemicals Approval Scheme Scientific Advisory Committee.

    1988

    1. National Seeds Development Organisation Ltd. (sold to the private sector).

    2. Agricultural Economics Technical Committee (renamed Agricultural Economics Commissioned Work Advisory Committee, not classified as NDPB).

    1989

    Apple and Pear Development Council (replaced by Apple and Pear Research Council).

    1990

    Reading Cattle Breeding Centre Advisory Committee.

    1991

    Land Settlement Association Ltd.

    1992

    1. Agricultural Statistics Consultative Committee.

    2. Experimental Centre Advisory Committees in England and Wales ('Husbandry Farms' and 'Horticulture Stations').

    3. Area VII White Fish Industry Advisory Committee (change of status).

    1993

    I. Steering Group on Chemical Aspects of Food Surveillance (reclassified).

    2. Banana Trade Advisory Committee.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Prisons Officers Association
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the agenda for his next meeting with the Prison Officers Association.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    My right hon. and learned Friend met the Prison Officers Association on Thursday 26 January. No further meeting has been requested.

    Identity Cards
    Mr. Dunn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his plans for the introduction of a national system of identity cards.

    Mr. Howard
    We plan to publish a Green Paper on identity cards in spring which will set out options for a national identity card scheme and invite views upon them. We will consider the way forward in the light of the comments we receive.
    378

    Prisons Service (Morale)
    Mr. Cunliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the current staff morale in the Prison Service.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    Whenever I have visited a Prison Service establishment I have been impressed by the dedication and enthusiasm of the staff who do a difficult job well.

    Pornography
    Mr. Whittingdale
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking against computer-generated pornography.

    Mr. Maclean
    New powers have been taken in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, including extending the law on child pornography to cover computer-simulated images and ensuring that computer transmissions are covered by the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

    Bail (Reoffenders)
    Mr. Brazier
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in taking measures to deal with those who offend while on bail.

    Mr. Maclean
    We expect to bring into force within the next two months the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act which are designed to tackle the problem of offending on bail. We have also made sure that the courts have the powers they need to deal more severely with those who offend on bail.

    Crime, Merseyside
    Mr. John Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to visit Merseyside in the near future to discuss levels of crime.

    Mr. Maclean
    I have no plans to visit Merseyside:in the near future but hope to do so later in the year. Levels of crime would be among the subjects for discussion, as would the measures the Government have put in place to tackle crime.

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of closed circuit television in combating crime; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Maclean
    Research, and evidence from local schemes, has shown that closed circuit television can be extremely effective both in preventing crime and in helping to convict criminals. My Department is currently carrying out a further evaluation of the effectiveness of town centre CCTV schemes with a view to identifying best practice.

    Police Custody (Deaths)
    Mr. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths in police custody are being investigated by the Police Complaints Authority; how many of them have occurred in the last six months; and if he will make a statement.
    379
    Mr. Maclean
    At the end of January this year, the Police Complaints Authority was supervising the investigation of 30 deaths in police custody. Of these, 27 had occurred in the last six months.

    The term "death in police custody" includes, for these purposes, any death which occurred in the presence of the police, whether or not the deceased was under arrest or in a police station at the time, and which has been referred to the Police Complaints Authority because it may give rise to public concern.

    IRA Terrorists
    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted Irish Republican Army terrorists have been transferred to complete their sentences in Northern Ireland prisons since 31 August 1994.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    Since 31 August 1994, two prisoners convicted of terrorist offences have been granted permanent transfers to Northern Ireland to complete their sentences. These transfer will be effected as soon as operational and security considerations allow. In addition, four prisoners convicted of terrorist offences were temporarily transferred to Northern Ireland on 1 September 1994 to receive visits.

    Police Funding
    Mr. Eastham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from chief constables with regard to the impact of the grants formula for policing on police numbers.

    Mr. Maclean
    Nineteen chief constables have made representations.

    Prison Discipline
    Mr. Butler
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to improve the disciplinary regime in prisons; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    I am currently considering the prison disciplinary system and expect to reach conclusions shortly.

    Prisoner Categorisation
    Mr. Page
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure the correct categorisation of prisoners.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    The criterion and procedures to be used in decisions on categorisation are set out in circular instruction 7/1988 and the Prison Service manual on security, copies of which are available in the Library. Security category assessment is a continuous responsibility of Prison Service staff both at establishments for prisoners categorised B, C and D, and at headquarters for category A prisoners.

    Sussex Police
    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the proposed funding for Sussex police.
    380
    Mr. Maclean
    For 1995–96, £145.78 million will be available to Sussex police. That is an increase of £14.2 million, or 10.8 per cent., over 1994–95. In addition, the police authority has been allocated £7.62 million for building projects and the purchase of equipment.

    On top of all that, the way in which police grant has been calculated for 1995–96 means that Sussex will not have to find a further sum to pay for common police services such as the police national computer. For 1994–95, that is costing Sussex £1.14 million.

    These significant increases in resources will help Sussex police to continue their excellent performance.

    Electoral Register
    Mr. Skinner
    To ask the Secretary State for the Home Department what steps he taking to increase the numbers on the electoral register.

    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    The vast majority of eligible people are included in the register. The Government run television advertising campaigns to encourage people to register to vote, and we also give advice on best practice to electoral registration officers based on annual research.

    Public Houses
    Mr. Fabricant
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to public house licensing hours on week days; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    I am considering arguments both for and against some relaxation in the licensing hours for public houses on weekday evenings. No conclusions have yet been reached.

    Safer Cities
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in respect of the future of safer cities projects.

    Mr. Maclean
    None.

    Middlesex Probation Service
    Mr. Livingstone
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes are to be made in the Middlesex probation service following the 1994 Budget statement.

    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    The 1994 Budget Statement will result in a specific grant cash limit for 1995–96 for the Middlesex probation service of £12.9 million plus a further £0.6 million to support probation service partnerships with the independent sector previously funded separately by the Home Office. It will be for the Middlesex probation committee to decide what specific changes within the service should be undertaken on the basis of the total expenditure limit implied by this level of grant support.

    Mr. Livingstone
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed and at what grade by the Middlesex probation service, on 30 June 1992, 30 June 1993 and 30 June 1994.
    381
    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    Information is given in the table:

    Staff employed by the Middlesex probation service, in post at 30 June, whole-time equivalent1, by grade and type.

    Number of staff, whole time equivalent

    30 June 1992

    30 June 1993

    30 June 1994

    Probation Officers

    Chief

    1

    1

    1

    Deputy Chief

    2

    2

    2

    Assistant Chef

    7

    8

    8

    Senior

    42

    41

    41

    Main grade

    202

    212

    214

    Total probation officers

    254

    264

    266

    Non-probation grade staff

    Probation Services' Officers2

    54

    53

    57

    Clerical/secretarial

    127

    138

    137

    Administrative

    38

    45

    46

    Other non-probation grade staff, excluding hostel staff3

    30

    24

    25

    Hostel staff

    13

    15

    15

    Total non-probation grade staff

    262

    276

    279

    Total probation staff

    516

    540

    545

    1Whole-time staff plus whole-time equivalent of part time staff. Figures rounded to the nearest whole number. Components and totals are rounded independently and so components may not add precisely to totals.

    2Formerly ancillaries.

    3Figures include sessional supervisors on community service schemes, staff employed in student training units and on miscellaneous functions.

    Mr. Livingstone
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many court reports were compiled by Middlesex probation service during 1992 and 1993.

    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    Middlesex probation service completed 8,382 pre-sentence reports, social inquiry reports, family court reports and other reports for courts in 1992 and 8,607 reports in 1993.

    Mr. Livingstone
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders were supervised by Middlesex probation service on 30 June 1994.

    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    The latest available information is for December 1993, when the number of offenders supervised by Middlesex probation service was 5,227. This is on the basis of the information published annually in probation statistics—table 12.1 of the 1993 issue—and excludes offenders on community service orders.

    Mr. Livingstone
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes were made in respect of the Middlesex probation service following the November 1993 Budget statement.

    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    The 1993 Budget statement resulted in a specific grant cash limit for 1994–95 for the Middlesex probation service of £13.1 million, 6.8 per cent. higher than for 1993–94. It was for the Middlesex probation committee to decide what specific changes within the service should be undertaken on the basis of this level of grant support. The committee's report covering the current financial year will be available from the secretary in due course.
    382

    Exclusion Orders
    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently subject to exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts; what is the name and nationally of each such person; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Howard
    A total of 66 persons are currently subject to exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, of whom 14 are excluded from the United Kingdom. Fifty from Great Britain and two from Northern Ireland. It is not the practice to identify those excluded. All those subject to orders are believed to be citizens of this country or the Irish Republic, or both, but more detailed information is not available.

    Consultants
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

    Mr. Howard
    Information on expenditure on all external consultants let by the Home Office during the period specified is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Ethnic Minorities
    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from local authorities over the announcement of section 11 bids; what reports he has received about the timing of his announcement on local authority budget making and employment contract obligations; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    Various local authority representatives have made clear their concern about budgetary timetables and the contractual position of staff. That is why we are maintaining our target of announcing the results of the bidding round by the end of February, despite extending the bidding period by a month, as stated in my reply to the hon. Member of 17 January,Official Report, column 382.

    Metropolitan Police Committee
    Mr. Mates
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the membership of the Metropolitan police committee; and what are the terms of reference of the new committee.

    Mr. Howard
    Following consultation with the chairman Sir John Quinton, I have today appointed the following as members of the Metropolitan police committee:

    Miss M. V. Callaghan

    Mr. T. Chan

    Mr. M. J. Hastings

    Counsellor M. Heaster

    Major General M. P. J. Hunt

    Counsellor Mrs. M. A. O'Neill

    383

    Mrs. S. Sadeque

    Mr. M. Souhami

    Mr. I. S. Uppal

    Mr. R. J. Watts

    Ms R. E. Whittaker

    The committee will formally take up its duties on 1 April. Its task is to advise me in relation to the discharge of certain of my functions as police authority for the Metropolitan police. The functions in question are based on those which, outside London, are the responsibility of the police authorities established under the Police Act 1964, as amended by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. In particular, the Metropolitan police committee will be required to advise me about: establishing priorities for policing, in consultation with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and local communities, particularly the consultative bodies established under section 106 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; approval and publication of an annual costed plan for policing designed to achieve both the objectives set for police forces outside London under section 28A of the Police Act 1964 and those I have approved for the Metropolitan police district; monitoring by reference to the policing plan the financial and other performance of the Metropolitan police during the year; considering proposals for expenditure which require my approval; and publication of annual performance results in a standard form to allow comparison of performance against other forces.

    The Metropolitan police committee will be required to advise me on other matters relating to the Metropolitan police as necessary.

    Mr. Quddus Ali
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the investigation of the assault upon Mr. Quddus Ali, including details of admissions to taking part in the attack, what the police did with such admissions; what representations have been received about the police handling of this case; and if he will make a statement upon this.

    Mr. Maclean
    The Commissioner has kept my right hon. learned Friend informed of the police investigation into the assault upon Mr. Quddus Ali. My right hon. learned Friend has received a number of representations, including a petition of local residents.

    Police Paperwork
    Mr. Spellar
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to reduce the volume of paperwork involved for the police in processing cases; and what consideration has been given to creating software for use on personal computers to ease this burden.

    Mr. Maclean
    The Government have set up an efficiency scrutiny, which is examining the administrative burdens faced by the police in the context of their role in the criminal justice system as a whole. The scrutiny aims to build on existing initiatives, including those arising out 384
    of a study carried out in 1993 by external consultants. The consultants' report, "Opportunities for Reducing Administrative Burdens on the Police", made 16 detailed recommendations, all of which were accepted by the Government. Good progress has been made in all areas.

    As recommended by that report, standard computer systems for all forces will be developed under the terms of the national strategy for police information systems, which my right hon. and learned Friend launched last November. A standard case processing system is among the highest priorities for development under the terms of the strategy.

    Electric Shock Equipment
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 152, (1) if he will take steps to ensure that electric shock equipment will never be used against members of the public;

    (2) what police forces in the United Kingdom have applied to his Department for permission to hold or use electro-shock equipment;

    (3) in what circumstances electro-shock equipment would be used against the civilian population;

    (4) if he will list the police forces which possess electro-shock shields and prods for use against ferocious dogs;

    (5) on what occasions electro-shock equipment has been used anywhere in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Maclean
    It is for chief officers of police to ensure that the electric shock equipment which their forces may possess for use against ferocious dogs is not used against members of the public. No police force has asked for the permission of my right hon. and learned Friend to hold or use such equipment: there is no requirement for them to do so, except in the case of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I am sure that no police force in this country would use such equipment against people. Information about which forces possess electric shock equipment for use against ferocious dogs is not available within the Home Office. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers is currently gathering information on this subject. It is for chief officers of police to decide how best to protect their officers against physical attack.

    Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel
    Mrs. Roche
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many members of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel he expects to appoint;

    (2) how many of the nominees for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel have been (a) rejected and (b) appointed; and if he will list the names and sources of nomination of the appointees so far;

    (3) how many nominations he received for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel; and from which sources these nominations came.

    Mr. Maclean
    [holding answers 6 February 1995]: We expect in due course to appoint between 40 and 50 members to the appeals panel.
    385
    We have received 212 nominations from the following sources:

    Source

    Number

    Public Appointments Unit (OPSS)

    40

    British Medical Association

    15

    British Dental Association

    1

    Trades Union Congress

    12

    Chief Whip's Office

    6

    Victim Support

    2

    Department of Health

    19

    Welsh Office

    7

    Self-nomination

    110

    The following have so far been appointed to the panel:

    Name

    Source of nomination

    Chairman

    Mr. M. Lewer QC

    Existing Member of CICB

    Members

    Sir Derek Bradbeer OBE

    Existing Member of CICB

    Mr. D. J. Brown

    Public Appointments Unit

    Miss D Cotton QC

    Existing Member of CICB

    Mr. K. Drummond QC

    Existing Member of CICB

    Dr. A. Fingret

    Public Appointments Unit

    Mr. D. J. L. Gabbitass

    Public Appointments Unit

    Dr. H. E. Godfrey

    British Medical Association

    Mr. F. J. Howard

    Trades Union Congress

    Mr. J. Leighton Williams QC

    Existing Member of CICB

    Ms G. Lindley

    Public Appointments Unit

    Mr. C. Lindsey QC

    Existing Member of CICB

    Mr. H. Lumsden

    Public Appointments Unit

    Lord Macaulay of Bragar QC

    Existing Member of CICB

    Mr. D. S. Mackay QC

    Existing Member of CICB

    Mr. H. J. Malins

    Public Appointments Unit

    Mr. J. R. Miles

    Self nomination

    Mr. T. A. Molloy

    Trades Union Congress

    Mr. M. Park CBE

    Existing Member of CICB

    No nominations have been formally rejected, but no further appointments will be made until the final outcome of the legal challenge to the tariff scheme is known.

  EDUCATION
  Pupils under five years of age in maintained nursery schools in each LEA in England January 1994

  LEA

  Pupils1

  Percentage of population

  Camden

  73

  2

  Greenwich

  674

  10

  Hackney

  168

  3

  Hammersmith

  578

  15

  Islington

  329

  7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  252

  7

  Lambeth

  452

  6

  Lewisham

  233

  3

  Southwark

  544

  8

  Tower Hamlets

  711

  12

  Wandsworth

  216

  3

  Westminster

  189

  5

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  550

  7

  Bexley

  0

  0

  Brent

  223

  3

  Bromley

  0

  0

  Croydon

  462

  5

  Pupils under five years of age in maintained nursery schools in each LEA in England January 1994

  LEA

  Pupils1

  Percentage of population

  Ealing

  429

  5

  Enfield

  0

  0

  Haringey

  239

  4

  Harrow

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  120

  2

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  219

  6

  Merton

  0

  0

  Newham

  934

  12

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  70

  2

  Sutton

  241

  5

  Waltham Forest

  320

  5

  Birmingham

  2,325

  8

  Coventry

  205

  2

  Dudley

  70

  1

  Sandwell

  217

  3

  Solihull

  0

  0

  Walsall

  807

  11

  Wolverhampton

  826

  12

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  580

  5

  St. Helens

  75

  2

  Sefton

  315

  4

  Wirral

  326

  4

  Bolton

  522

  7

  Bury

  161

  3

  Manchester

  563

  4

  Oldham

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  914

  14

  Salford

  973

  15

  Stockport

  925

  12

  Tameside

  344

  5

  Trafford

  0

  0

  Wigan

  193

  2

  Barnsley

  181

  3

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  401

  6

  Sheffield

  851

  6

  Bradford

  515

  4

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  569

  5

  Leeds

  92

  0

  Wakefield

  478

  5

  Gateshead

  64

  1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  623

  9

  North Tyneside

  224

  5

  South Tyneside

  426

  10

  Sunderland

  1,035

  13

  Avon

  1,830

  7

  Bedfordshire

  1,497

  9

  Berkshire

  2,161

  10

  Buckinghamshire

  569

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  732

  4

  Cheshire

  839

  3

  Cleveland

  134

  1

  Cornwall2

  116

  1

  Cumbria

  802

  6

  Derbyshire

  1,569

  6

  Devon

  303

  1

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  2,575

  16

  East Sussex

  299

  2

  Essex

  296

  1

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  300

  1

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  1,762

  6

  Humberside

  1,153

  5

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Pupils under five years of age in maintained nursery schools in each LEA in England January 1994

  LEA

  Pupils1

  Percentage of population

  Kent

  85

  0

  Lancashire

  3,532

  9

  Leicestershire

  50

  0

  Lincolnshire

  242

  2

  Norfolk

  397

  2

  North Yorkshire

  403

  2

  Northamptonshire

  612

  4

  Northumberland

  128

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  609

  2

  Oxfordshire

  1,185

  7

  Shropshire

  173

  2

  Somerset

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  2,128

  7

  Suffolk

  97

  1

  Surrey

  418

  2

  Warwickshire

  757

  6

  West Sussex

  483

  3

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  England2,3

  52,262

  4

  1Excludes pupils who became five years of age by 1 January 1994.

  2 Includes the Isles of Scilly.

  3.Includes the Corporation of London

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many three-year-olds and four-year-olds there are in nursery classes in schools, not including primary reception classes, in each local education authority in England and Wales; and what percentage this represents of the population in those age groups for the latest figures available.

  Mr. Forth
  [pursuant to his answer, 1 February 1995,c. 7281]: I regret that the table shown was incorrect. The corrected version, which includes revised figures for January 1994, as follows:

  Pupils under five years of age in maintained nursery schools in each LEA in England January 1994

  LEA

  Pupils1

  Percentage of Population

  Camden

  955

  24

  Greenwich

  2,573

  37

  Hackney

  2,162

  35

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,059

  28

  Islington

  1,532

  32

  Kensington and Chelsea

  610

  18

  Lambeth

  1,960

  28

  Lewisham

  2,418

  34

  Southwark

  2,524

  35

  Tower Hamlets

  2,388

  41

  Wandsworth

  2,144

  33

  Westminster

  988

  26

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,833

  40

  Barnet

  2,039

  25

  Bexley

  1,395

  23

  Brent

  2,385

  35

  Bromley

  166

  2

  Croydon

  1,081

  12

  Ealing

  3,119

  39

  Enfield

  1,690

  23

  Haringey

  2,442

  42

  Harrow

  1,015

  19

  Havering

  486

  9

  Hillingdon

  3,052

  45

  Hounslow

  2,516

  43

  Kingston upon Thames

  961

  27

  Merton

  2,676

  55

  395

  Pupils under five years of age in maintained nursery schools in each LEA in England January 1994

  LEA

  Pupils1

  Percentage of Population

  Newham

  3,618

  46

  Redbridge

  1,198

  19

  Richmond upon Thames

  785

  18

  Sutton

  1,609

  35

  Waltham Forest

  2,311

  34

  Birmingham

  8,288

  27

  Coventry

  2,009

  23

  Dudley

  2,862

  35

  Sandwell

  4,444

  53

  Solihull

  1,837

  35

  Walsall

  3,561

  48

  Wolverhampton

  2,981

  42

  Knowsley

  2,718

  55

  Liverpool

  5,873

  47

  St. Helens

  1,598

  34

  Sefton

  2,181

  28

  Wirral

  1,961

  21

  Bolton

  2,635

  34

  Bury

  1,395

  27

  Manchester

  6,942

  51

  Oldham

  2,429

  37

  Rochdale

  1,206

  19

  Salford

  2,550

  40

  Stockport

  1,048

  14

  Tameside

  2,207

  34

  Trafford

  2,189

  38

  Wigan

  1,982

  23

  Barnsley

  2,777

  46

  Doncaster

  3,497

  42

  Rotherham

  2,853

  39

  Sheffield

  4,913

  37

  Bradford

  5,766

  39

  Calderdale

  1,836

  34

  Kirklees

  3,846

  36

  Leeds

  8,594

  44

  Wakefield

  4,295

  48

  Gateshead

  1,772

  35

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,331

  33

  North Tyneside

  2,380

  49

  South Tyneside

  1,810

  44

  Sunderland

  2,317

  29

  Avon

  3,523

  14

  Bedfordshire

  4,039

  25

  Berkshire

  4,271

  20

  Buckinghamshire

  2,204

  12

  Cambridgeshire

  1,500

  8

  Cheshire

  4,697

  18

  Cleveland

  9,117

  57

  Cornwall2

  1,546

  13

  Cumbria

  2,244

  18

  Derbyshire

  8,126

  32

  Devon

  2,490

  10

  Dorset

  839

  5

  Durham

  4,597

  29

  East Sussex

  1,301

  8

  Essex

  2,266

  5

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  1,691

  4

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,287

  7

  Hertfordshire

  7,161

  26

  Humberside

  7,991

  34

  Isle of Wight

  176

  6

  Kent

  1,959

  5

  Lancashire

  4,282

  11

  Leicestershire

  5,341

  21

  Lincolnshire

  1,192

  8

  Norfolk

  467

  3

  396

  Pupils under five years of age in maintained nursery schools in each LEA in England January 1994

  LEA

  Pupils1

  Percentage of Population

  North Yorkshire

  3,475

  19

  Northamptonshire

  2,338

  14

  Northumberland

  2,907

  38

  Nottinghamshire

  12,901

  47

  Oxfordshire

  1,778

  11

  Shropshire

  1,808

  16

  Somerset

  485

  4

  Staffordshire

  4,761

  17

  Suffolk

  2,916

  16

  Surrey

  2,450

  9

  Warwickshire

  1,425

  11

  West Sussex

  596

  3

  Wiltshire

  578

  4

  England2,3

  294,331

  23

  1Excludes pupils who became five years of age by 1 January 1994.

  2 Includes the Isles of Scilly.

  3.Includes the Corporation of London

  EDUCATION

    College Buildings
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans she has to provide funds for the maintenance of college buildings, in response to the report of the Further Education Funding Council;

    (2) what response she has made to the finding in the Further Education Funding Council's report on the extent of hutted accommodation;

    (3) what is her response to the findings of the Further Education Funding Council on the necessity for major and minor building programmes for colleges.

    Mr. Boswell
    Capital investment in the further education sector has more than doubled since colleges left local authority control, and we have taken steps to increase it still further. In 1992–93—the last year of their control—local authorities spent £102 million. In 1993–94, the Further Education Funding Council and colleges spent 386
    £224 million, to which the Department contributed £152 million. We contributed £157 million in 1994–95, and plan to contribute £159 million in 1995–96,1996–97 and 1997–98. From April, colleges will be able to use their capital allocations to service loans or other finance raised from the private sector, as well as to incur direct expenditure. This will permit another substantial increase in their capital programmes.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has for initiatives to encourage colleges to provide learning support and specialist advice for people with physical disabilities.

    Mr. Boswell
    There are already comprehensive provisions in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to ensure that the Further Education Funding Council and Local Education Authorities take into account the support and advice needs of students with learning difficulties and disabilities. Nevertheless, the Government are committed to reviewing the provisions for SLDD in further education in the light of their new policies on disability. In doing so, the Government will look at the availability of advice to people with disabilities.

    Equal Opportunities
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to encourage colleges to monitor their equal opportunities policies.

    Mr. Boswell
    The charter for further education emphasises the importance of equal opportunities policies in FE sector colleges, and makes it clear that students have a right to expect colleges to explain what they are doing to foster equal opportunities. Within this framework, colleges are responsible for the day-to-day management of their affairs.

    Teachers (Administration Duties)
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she will take to ensure that teachers spend less time on administration.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    It is for teachers, under the direction of head teachers, to manage their own workload. The Government have taken steps to reduce the burden imposed by the national curriculum and assessment.

    College Library Books
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make it her policy to increase the provision of college library books in line with the increases in student numbers.

    Mr. Boswell
    The Further Education Funding Council has developed a new funding methodology after wide consultation; its proposals gained a high degree of acceptance. The new methodology provides a direct link between funding and the numbers of students recruited and retained. Allocations to colleges are made monthly as a block grant, and colleges are free to determine how best to use the resources made available to them.

    Science Subject Exams
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration she has given to the
    387
    introduction of a stronger vocational element in the GCSE, GCE and Business and Technician Education Council science subjects.

    Mr. Boswell
    We have set in place a new qualifications framework comprising general education qualifications—GCE A-levels and GCSE, general vocational qualifications—GNVQs, and occupationally specific qualifications—NVQs. GNVQs are becoming well established as a regular vocational alternative to general educational qualifications, with comparability at the appropriate level. Science GNVQs are now widely available post-16 at intermediate level and advanced level and are being piloted at foundation level. BTEC is one of the three GNVQ awarding bodies.

    Staff Development
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what priorities she attaches to staff development in colleges, and what assessment she has made of disparities of funding in this area, region by region.

    Mr. Boswell
    My right hon. Friend attaches great importance to staff development in colleges. The new Further Education Development Agency will have a major role in improving management training and development for college staff. It is, of course, for colleges to determine the level of resources they allocate to staff development in the light of their individual circumstances. The funding of FE colleges is a matter for the Further Education Funding council.

    A preliminary review of occupations in the further education sector and closely related areas is being undertaken during the first half of 1995. The outcome of the review will help inform decisions on possible future lead body arrangements and the development of national vocational qualifications for college staff.

    National Vocational Qualifications
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she will take to lessen the drop-out rate on the GNVQ courses, to ensure documentation arrives on time, and that the documentation is written in clear English to the GNVQ specifications.

    Mr. Boswell
    Such evidence as we have to date suggests that the rate of non-completion of GNVQ courses is not a cause for special concern. We, together with the vocational awarding bodies and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, shall continue to monitor the situation.

    We have asked the NCVQ and the vocational awarding bodies to take action to improve the timeliness and clarity of the relevant documentation. We understand that they are pursuing these matters urgently.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans she has to inspect the NVQ training provided by private companies and employers' in-house training schemes;

    (2) what steps she will take to reduce teaching discrepancies in the NVQ training around the country.

    Mr. Boswell
    NVQs are primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The National Council for Vocational Qualifications has overall responsibility for assuring the 388
    quality of NVQs. The Government will provide additional funding to enable the national council to employ a local field force to give added impetus to quality assurance.

    The quality of NVQ provision in colleges of further education is subject to inspection by the FEFC inspectorate, along with other courses provided in colleges.

    Teachers' Pay Increases
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the total cost to each local education authority and nationally of the teachers' pay increases in (a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and of a 2.7 per cent. increase in 1995–96.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The table below sets out the cost of updating the 1992–93 expenditure recorded by LEAs in England for teaching staff salaries in nursery, primary, secondary, and special schools by the teachers' pay awards of 1.5 per cent in 1993, 2.9 per cent. in 1994 and 2.7 per cent. in 1995 to arrive at the notional cost of the increases in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. The 1992–93 expenditure figures are the latest available for LEA-maintained schools. The figures in the table take no account of changes in teaching numbers or other factors that affect the teachers' pay bill.

    LEA Expenditure on Teachers' Salaries

    (Nursery, primary, secondary and special schools)

    1992–93 (actual) £000

    1993–94 increase (1.5 per cent.) £000

    1994–95 increase (2.9 per cent.)1995–96 increase (2.7 per cent.) £000

    £000

    Corporation of London

    428

    6

    13

    12

    Camden

    36,778

    552

    1,083

    1,037

    Greenwich

    57,441

    862

    1,691

    1,620

    Hackney

    42,157

    632

    1,241

    1,189

    Hammersmith

    25,144

    377

    740

    709

    Islington

    40,339

    605

    1,187

    1,138

    Kensington and Chelsea

    15,969

    240

    470

    450

    Lambeth

    45,081

    676

    1,327

    1,271

    Lewisham

    43,850

    658

    1,291

    1,237

    Southwark

    43,037

    646

    1,267

    1,214

    Tower Hamlets

    57,235

    859

    1,685

    1,614

    Wandsworth

    41,485

    622

    1,221

    1,170

    Westminster

    29,064

    436

    855

    820

    Barking

    34,134

    512

    1,005

    963

    Barnet

    61,723

    926

    1,817

    1,741

    Bexley

    43,229

    648

    1,272

    1,219

    Brent

    48,628

    729

    1,431

    1,371

    Bromley

    37,052

    556

    1,091

    1,045

    Croydon

    56,379

    846

    1,660

    1,590

    Ealing

    48,569

    729

    1,430

    1,370

    Enfield

    57,216

    858

    1,684

    1,613

    Haringey

    46,196

    693

    1,360

    1,303

    Harrow

    38,397

    576

    1,130

    1,083

    Havering

    49,716

    746

    1,463

    1,402

    Hillingdon

    32,850

    493

    967

    926

    Hounslow

    48,723

    731

    1,434

    1,374

    Kingston upon Thames

    26,672

    400

    785

    752

    389

    LEA Expenditure on Teachers' Salaries

    (Nursery, primary, secondary and special schools)

    1992–93 (actual) £000

    1993–94 increase (1.5 per cent.) £000

    1994–95 increase (2.9 per cent.)1995–96 increase (2.7 per cent.) £000

    £000

    Merton

    34,380

    516

    1,012

    970

    Newham

    55,156

    827

    1,624

    1,555

    Redbridge

    48,178

    723

    1,418

    1,359

    Richmond upon Thames

    25,951

    389

    764

    732

    Sutton

    26,067

    391

    767

    735

    Waltham Forest

    49,215

    738

    1,449

    1,388

    Birmingham

    226,986

    3,405

    6,681

    6,401

    Coventry

    68,241

    1,024

    2,009

    1,924

    Dudley

    61,409

    921

    1,808

    1,732

    Sandwell

    67,116

    1,007

    1,976

    1,893

    Solihull

    44,663

    670

    1,315

    1,259

    Walsall

    57,957

    869

    1,706

    1,634

    Wolverhampton

    52,823

    792

    1,555

    1,490

    Knowsley

    34,957

    524

    1,029

    986

    Liverpool

    106,122

    1,592

    3,124

    2,993

    St. Helens

    40,656

    610

    1,197

    1,146

    Sefton

    58,695

    880

    1,728

    1,655

    Wirral

    71,520

    1,073

    2,105

    2,017

    Bolton

    58,731

    881

    1,729

    1,656

    Bury

    33,786

    507

    994

    953

    Manchester

    98,210

    1,473

    2,891

    2,769

    Oldham

    57,609

    864

    1,696

    1,625

    Rochdale

    44,279

    664

    1,303

    1,249

    Salford

    51,731

    lie

    1,523

    1,459

    Stockport

    58,114

    872

    1,711

    1,639

    Tameside

    46,054

    691

    1,356

    1,299

    Trafford

    39,523

    593

    1,163

    1,115

    Wigan

    72,263

    1,084

    2,127

    2,038

    Barnsley

    40,094

    601

    1,180

    1,131

    Doncaster

    61,082

    916

    1,798

    1,722

    Rotherham

    59,486

    892

    1,751

    1,677

    Sheffield

    95,070

    1,426

    2,798

    2,681

    Bradford

    113,897

    1,708

    3,353

    3,212

    Calderdale

    40,476

    607

    1,191

    1,141

    Kirklees

    83,022

    1,245

    2,444

    2,341

    Leeds

    144,719

    2,171

    4,260

    4,081

    Wakefield

    65,138

    977

    1,917

    1,837

    Gateshead

    41,420

    621

    1,219

    1,168

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    54,297

    814

    1,598

    1,531

    North Tyneside

    43,475

    652

    1,280

    1,226

    South Tyneside

    31,785

    477

    936

    896

    Sunderland

    64,315

    965

    1,893

    1,814

    Isles of Scilly

    599

    9

    18

    17

    Avon

    179,711

    2,696

    5,290

    5,068

    Bedfordshire

    116,753

    1,751

    3,437

    3,292

    Berkshire

    133,913

    2,009

    3,942

    3,776

    Buckinghamshire

    116,645

    1,750

    3,433

    3,289

    Cambridgeshire

    121,295

    1,819

    3,570

    3,420

    Cheshire

    193,359

    2,900

    5,692

    5,453

    Cleveland

    136,127

    2,042

    4,007

    3,839

    Cornwall

    86,734

    1,301

    2,553

    2,446

    Cumbria

    94,791

    1,422

    2,790

    2,673

    Derbyshire

    187,005

    2,805

    5,504

    5,273

    Devon

    179,197

    2,688

    5,275

    5,053

    Dorset

    99,774

    1,497

    2,937

    2,814

    Durham

    122,305

    1,835

    3,600

    3,449

    East Sussex

    115,326

    1,730

    3,395

    3,252

    Essex

    279,683

    4,195

    8,232

    7,887

    Gloucestershire

    87,598

    1,314

    2,578

    2,470

    Hampshire

    281,689

    4,225

    8,292

    7,944

    Hereford and Worcester

    133,454

    2,002

    3,928

    3,763

    Hertfordshire

    195,847

    2,938

    5,765

    5,523

    Humberside

    184,702

    2,771

    5,437

    5,209

    390

    LEA Expenditure on Teachers' Salaries

    (Nursery, primary, secondary and special schools)

    1992–93 (actual) £000

    1993–94 increase (1.5 per cent.) £000

    1994–95 increase (2.9 per cent.)1995–96 increase (2.7 per cent.) £000

    £000

    Isle of Wight

    24,255

    364

    714

    684

    Kent

    257,412

    3,861

    7,577

    7,259

    Lancashire

    290,367

    4,356

    8,547

    8,188

    Leicestershire

    192,009

    2,880

    5,652

    5,415

    Lincolnshire

    94,889

    1,423

    2,793

    2,676

    Norfolk

    129,927

    1,949

    3,824

    3,664

    North Yorkshire

    137,936

    2,069

    4,060

    3,890

    Northamptonshire

    17,669

    1,765

    3,464

    3,318

    Northumberland

    62,703

    941

    1,846

    1,768

    Nottinghamshire

    204,216

    3,063

    6,011

    5,759

    Oxfordshire

    102,211

    1,533

    3,009

    2,882

    Shropshire

    87,570

    1,314

    2,578

    2,469

    Somerset

    83,851

    1,258

    2,468

    2,365

    Staffordshire

    201,758

    3,026

    5,939

    5,690

    Suffolk

    126,106

    1,892

    3,712

    3,556

    Surrey

    151,970

    2,280

    4,473

    4,286

    Warwickshire

    90,879

    1,363

    2,675

    2,563

    West Sussex

    128,140

    1,922

    3,772

    3,614

    Wiltshire

    105,215

    1,578

    3,097

    2,967

    England total

    9,371,750

    140,576

    275,857

    264,281

    Private Schools
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many (a) secondary school age pupils and (b) primary school age pupils attended private schools in each local education authority for the latest year for which the information is available.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The numbers of pupils aged five to 10 and 11 to 16 years of age in independent schools in each LEA area in England are shown in the table.

    Pupils aged 5 to 10 and 11 to 16 years of age in independent schools in each LEA area in England

    LEA

    Pupils aged 5–10

    Pupils aged 11–16

    Total pupils aged 5–16

    Corporation of London

    209

    1,024

    1,233

    Camden

    2,896

    1,620

    4,516

    Greenwich

    618

    700

    1,318

    Hackney

    1,780

    848

    2,628

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    903

    1,868

    2,771

    Islington

    119

    75

    194

    Kensington and Chelsea

    5,097

    2,357

    7,454

    Lambeth

    889

    325

    1,214

    Lewisham

    569

    1,139

    1,708

    Southwark

    1,307

    2,270

    3,577

    Tower Hamlets

    79

    144

    223

    Wandsworth

    2,308

    1,417

    3,725

    Westminster

    2,087

    2,083

    4,170

    Barking and Dagenham

    0

    0

    0

    Barnet

    2,344

    2,001

    4,345

    Bexley

    473

    20

    493

    Brent

    1,429

    205

    1,634

    Bromley

    2,049

    1,795

    3,844

    Croydon

    2,488

    3,303

    5,791

    Eaiing

    2,413

    2,280

    4,693

    Enfield

    800

    200

    1,000

    Haringey

    849

    963

    1,812

    Harrow

    1,290

    2,319

    3,609

    Havering

    413

    115

    528

    391

    Pupils aged 5 to 10 and 11 to 16 years of age in independent schools in each LEA area in England

    LEA

    Pupils aged 5–10

    Pupils aged 11–16

    Total pupils aged 5–16

    Hillingdon

    1,560

    1,134

    2,694

    Hounslow

    330

    230

    560

    Kingston upon Thames

    1,360

    1,103

    2,463

    Merton

    1,408

    1,302

    2,710

    Newham

    98

    53

    151

    Redbridge

    1,767

    1,135

    2,902

    Richmond upon Thames

    2,594

    2,530

    5,124

    Sutton

    804

    552

    1,356

    Waltham Forest

    357

    827

    1,184

    Birmingham

    2,413

    2,359

    4,772

    Coventry

    716

    1,320

    2,036

    Dudley

    147

    100

    247

    Sandwell

    104

    0

    104

    Solihuil

    639

    808

    1,447

    Walsall

    339

    107

    446

    Wolverhampton

    464

    908

    1,372

    Knowsley

    0

    0

    0

    Liverpool

    988

    1,541

    2,529

    St. Helens

    339

    215

    554

    Sefton

    1,048

    1,887

    2,935

    Wirral

    1,506

    2,117

    3,623

    Bolton

    620

    1,501

    2,121

    Bury

    498

    1,399

    1,897

    Manchester

    1,037

    3,460

    4,497

    Oldham

    479

    932

    1,411

    Rochdale

    286

    78

    363

    Salford

    905

    598

    1,503

    Stockport

    1,726

    2,086

    3,812

    Tameside

    61

    52

    113

    Trafford

    1,333

    1,636

    2,969

    Wigan

    0

    0

    0

    Barnsley

    31

    27

    58

    Doncaster

    339

    262

    601

    Rotherham

    158

    23

    181

    Sheffield

    932

    917

    1,849

    Bradford

    1,190

    1,707

    2,897

    Calderdale

    321

    650

    971

    Kirklees

    435

    1,013

    1,448

    Leeds

    1,780

    2,101

    3,881

    Wakefield

    870

    1,882

    2,752

    Gateshead

    518

    210

    728

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    1,543

    2,766

    4,309

    North Tyneside

    336

    486

    822

    South Tyneside

    27

    21

    48

    Sunderland

    504

    330

    834

    Isles of Scilly

    0

    0

    0

    Avon

    3,782

    6,847

    10,629

    Bedfordshire

    1,824

    2,901

    4,725

    Berkshire

    4,993

    7,899

    12,89

    Buckinghamshire

    3,745

    2,758

    6,503

    Cambridgeshire

    2,035

    3,337

    5,372

    Cheshire

    2,678

    3,856

    6,534

    Cleveland

    596

    871

    1,467

    Cornwall

    746

    1,349

    2,095

    Cumbria

    747

    1,788

    2,535

    Derbyshire

    1,651

    2,354

    4,005

    Devon

    3,472

    5,202

    8,674

    Dorset

    2,673

    3,802

    6,475

    Durham

    755

    1,232

    1,987

    East Sussex

    4,098

    4,962

    9,060

    Essex

    5,976

    3,373

    9,349

    Gloucestershire

    2,658

    3,142

    5,800

    Hampshire

    7,117

    8,710

    15,827

    Herefordshire and Worcester

    3,162

    5,272

    8,434

    Hertfordshire

    5,819

    8,345

    14,164

    Humberside

    1,338

    1,474

    2,812

    Isle of Wight

    278

    580

    858

    Kent

    6,884

    7,016

    13,900

    Lancashire

    3,018

    4,739

    7,757

    392

    Pupils aged 5 to 10 and 11 to 16 years of age in independent schools in each LEA area in England

    LEA

    Pupils aged 5–10

    Pupils aged 11–16

    Total pupils aged 5–16

    Leicestershire

    2,619

    4,143

    6,762

    Lincolnshire

    1,582

    1,770

    3,352

    Norfolk

    2,228

    2,907

    5,135

    North Yorkshire

    2,621

    4,241

    6,862

    Northamptonshire

    2,307

    2,250

    4,557

    Northumberland

    365

    282

    647

    Nottinghamshire

    2,541

    2,316

    4,857

    Oxfordshire

    3,642

    6,033

    9,675

    Shropshire

    1,834

    2,336

    4,170

    Somerset

    2,072

    4,901

    6,973

    Staffordshire

    1,650

    2,455

    4,105

    Suffolk

    2,495

    3,935

    6,430

    Surrey

    13,150

    13,123

    26,273

    Warwickshire

    2,120

    2,659

    4,779

    West Sussex

    3,717

    4,555

    8,272

    Wiltshire

    1,901

    2,796

    4,697

    England

    185,208

    225,947

    411,155

    Nursery Education
    Sir Ralph Howell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much Government proposals on the provision of nursery education will cost (a) nationally and (b) in Norfolk.

    Mr. Forth
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been consulting widely before drawing up detailed proposals on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's commitment to provide, over time, a pre-school place for all four-year-olds whose parents wish to take it up. The cost will be determined as part of this work.

    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many year and four-year-olds there are in nursery schools in each local education authority in England; and what percentage this represents of the population in those age groups for the latest figures available.

    Mr. Forth
    Information about the number of pupils under five years of age being taught in maintained nursery schools in each local education authority area in England in January 1994 is shown in the table.

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are her latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for her Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

  Mr. Boswell
  The figures requested, at 1994 prices, are as a follows:

  Year

  £

  1987

  502,221

  1988

  569,882

  1989

  673,650

  1990

  1,096,699

  1991

  1,597,599

  1992

  2,012,962

  1993

  1,629,000

  1994

  1,800,000

  The information is not readily available to enable resultant cost savings to be calculated.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of state for education how many schools became grant maintained in each local education authority in England in each school year from 1989–90 and in 1994–95 to date.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  397

  School Years

  LEA area

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95 (to January 95)

  Total January 1995

  Avon

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Barking

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Barnet

  2

  —

  —

  1

  9

  —

  12

  Barnsley

  —.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Bedfordshire

  1

  —

  1

  8

  3

  1

  14

  Berkshire

  1

  1

  6

  5

  4

  3

  20

  Bexley

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  —

  8

  Birmingham

  2

  2

  —

  6

  13

  —

  23

  Bolton

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  4

  Bradford

  —

  —

  1

  4

  4

  4

  13

  Brent

  1

  —

  1

  3

  8

  1

  14

  Bromley

  —

  1

  8

  4

  2

  3

  18

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  2

  2

  7

  5

  2

  18

  Bury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Calderdale

  —

  2

  1

  2

  6

  3

  14

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  2

  16

  4

  —

  22

  Camden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Cheshire

  1

  —

  1

  2

  2

  1

  7

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Corporation of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Coventry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Croydon

  —

  —

  1

  1

  7

  3

  12

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  5

  6

  21

  5

  37

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  2

  8

  9

  4

  25

  Devon

  1

  —

  —

  3

  3

  —

  7

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Dorset

  —

  1

  4

  4

  2

  —

  11

  Dudley

  1

  —

  —

  2

  4

  —

  7

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Ealing

  —

  —

  5

  2

  2

  —

  9

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Enfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  6

  Essex

  —

  1

  10

  42

  88

  2

  143

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Gloucestershire

  1

  3

  3

  13

  18

  9

  47

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  —.

  1

  —

  1

  Hammersmith

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hampshire

  —

  1

  5

  9

  15

  1

  31

  Haringey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Havering

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  4

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  —

  5

  Hertfordshire

  —

  3

  5

  8

  17

  6

  39

  Hillingdon

  —

  1

  7

  7

  8

  —

  23

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Humberside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  Kent

  1

  3

  20

  21

  35

  7

  87

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  5

  Kirklees

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Lambeth

  1

  —

  1

  4

  5

  4

  15

  Lancashire

  2

  1

  3

  1

  3

  1

  11

  Leeds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Leicestershire

  1

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  5

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Lincolnshire

  3

  3

  12

  7

  22

  7

  54

  Liverpool

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  4

  Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Merton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Newham

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Norfolk

  —

  1

  11

  9

  4

  5

  30

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Northamptonshire

  1

  1

  5

  8

  6

  2

  23

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  398 399

  School Years

  LEA area

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95 (to January 95)

  Total January 1995

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  3

  Oldham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Oxfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1

  3

  8

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Salford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Sefton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  —

  1

  7

  3

  11

  Shropshire

  —

  1

  —

  2

  4

  2

  9

  Solihull

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Somerset

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  5

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  1

  8

  1

  10

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  1

  8

  Stockport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Surrey

  —

  1

  12

  4

  11

  6

  34

  Sutton

  1

  —

  4

  3

  3

  —

  11

  Tameside

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Trafford

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  4

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Walsall

  —

  —

  —

  3

  5

  1

  9

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  2

  6

  —

  —

  8

  Warwickshire

  -1

  —

  5

  2

  1

  —

  8

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Wigan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  1

  3

  24

  4

  32

  Wirral

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Wolverhampton

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  3

  England

  30

  32

  154

  277

  437

  104

  1034

  Access Funds
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if she will list(a) at current prices and (b) in cash terms the allocation of access funds to each further education institution in each year since 1992–93;

  (2) if she will list the total number of students in receipt of access funds of each further education institution in each year since 1992–93.

  Mr. Boswell
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly with the information requested.

  LEA expenditure per pupil (in 1993–94 prices)

  Teaching staff

  Books and Equipment

  Repairs and Maintenance

  Year

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1984–85

  857

  1,230

  38

  68

  73

  89

  1985–86

  867

  1,271

  38

  68

  70

  86

  1986–87

  935

  1,403

  42

  85

  78

  96

  1987–88

  987

  1,509

  43

  87

  79

  100

  1988–89

  1,021

  1,587

  42

  92

  72

  99

  1989–90

  1,021

  1,592

  47

  97

  80

  108

  1990–91

  1,015

  1,561

  47

  91

  76

  109

  400

  Pupil Costs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average cost per pupil in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools for (i) teaching staff, (ii) books, (iii) equipment and (iv) premises refurbishment, as estimated by the Government, in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows LEA expenditure per pupil in pre-primary, primary and secondary schools on (i) teaching staff, (ii) books and equipment combined, and (iii) repairs and maintenance. Figures disaggregating expenditure on books and equipment are not collected. Equivalent information on grant-maintained schools is not available.
  401

  LEA expenditure per pupil (in 1993–94 prices)

  Teaching staff

  Books and Equipment

  Repairs and Maintenance

  Year

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1991–92

  1,057

  1,609

  58

  99

  75

  112

  1992–93

  1,116

  1,672

  61

  101

  73

  101

  1993–941

  1,100

  1,596

  61

  101

  71

  94

  1 provisional—figures include unchecked data on 85 LEAs and estimated figures for 24 LEAs.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average cost per pupil in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools for (i) teaching staff, (ii) books, (iii) equipment and (iv) premises refurbishment, estimated for each local education authority in the last two years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have placed tables in the Library showing LEA expenditure per pupil in pre-primary, primary and secondary schools on, (i) teaching staff, (ii) books and equipment combined, and (iii) repairs and maintenance. Information is given for 1991–92 and 1992–93, the latest year for which final figures for each LEA are available. Figures disaggregating expenditure on books and equipment are not collected. Equivalent information on grant-maintained schools is not available.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average cost per pupil in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools of meeting the requirements of the national curriculum for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Forth
  Schools meet the requirements of the national curriculum largely from within their own unhypothecated resources. Central Government expenditure specifically on the implementation of the national curriculum in the financial years in question has been:

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–951

  Expenditure

  90

  99

  131

  140

  141

  127

  Expenditure per pupil

  15

  17

  22

  23

  23

  22

  1Estimate

  Most of this expenditure has been in the form of grants for education support and training and, to a much lesser extent, grants to the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority and its predecessors: it is not possible to separate out this expenditure as between primary and secondary education other than pro rata to pupil numbers.

  Further Education Funding
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total allocation of funds from the European social fund under objective 3 to ruther education colleges in 1994; and what was the total allocation for each region designated by the Further Education Funding Council.
  402
  Mr. Boswell
  The total allocation of funds from the European social fund under objective 3 to further education colleges in England in the calendar year 1994 was £43.503 million. The total allocation for each region was:

  £ millions

  East Midlands

  3.349

  Eastern

  2.725

  London

  6.866

  Northern

  4.790

  North west

  6.267

  South east

  3.165

  South west

  3.060

  West Midlands

  7.340

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5.941

  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many colleges of further education have been visited by the Further Education Funding Council's audit service; and how many of these were found to have unreliable internal audit systems.

  Mr. Boswell
  The questions raised by the hon. Member are matters for the funding council. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total allocation of funds from the European social fund under objective 3 to further education colleges in the last three years for which figures are available in(a) cash prices and (b) current prices.

  Mr. Boswell
  The total allocation of funds from the European social fund under objective 3 to further education colleges in England in the last three calendar years for which figures are available, in cash and current prices, is:

  Year

  Cash prices £ million

  1995–96 prices £ million

  1993

  41.783

  44.004

  1994

  43.503

  44.917

  1995

  44.030

  44.030

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current average cost per pupil under the assisted places scheme for 1993–94 for each participating school in the scheme in Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested, which relates to the academic year 1993–94, is given in the table:
  403

  School name

  Average cost per. assisted pupil £

  Dame Allan's Boys

  2,239

  Dame Allan's Girls

  2,507

  Central Newcastle High

  2,267

  La Sagesse Convent

  2,962

  Newcastle upon Tyne Church High

  2,194

  Royal Grammar, Newcastle

  2,182

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the marginal tax rate implied by the withdrawal of support against income under the assisted places scheme means test; and when the means test scheme was last revised.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Parents whose incomes are above the threshold for full fee remission—currently £9,352 for academic year 1994–95—are required to pay a proportion of their income towards assisted place fees in accordance with a parental contribution scale. The scale has six successive income bands, and three percentage rates in each band according to the number of children holding assisted places in the family. For 1994–95, the lowest percentage required in respect of one assisted place holder is 9 per cent. of the income in the first tranche above the threshold. The corresponding percentages in the successively higher income bands are 12 per cent., 15 per cent., 21 per cent., 24 per cent. and 33 per cent.—the later percentage applying to that part of income exceeding £18,183.

  Parental contribution scales are reviewed annually. The uprating proposed for academic year 1995–96 compared with 1994–95 is set out in the answer given to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr. Spring) on 26 January, Official Report, columns 316–17.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, column 219, if she will make a statement indicating for the financial year 1993–94 for each school covered by the assisted places scheme which is not covered in that answer in descending order the amounts which each school received, the number of pupils covered by the assisted places scheme at each school, the proportion of the school roll covered by the assisted places scheme and the fees charged for assisted places scheme pupils at each school.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 26 January 1995]: The information requested, as collected for the academic year 1993–94, has been placed in the Library.

  Inflation
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her Department's estimate of inflation for education costs in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No such estimate is made by the Department.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many staff are employed to formulate the national curriculum and at what cost.
  404
  Mr. Forth
  Formulating, and monitoring, the national curriculum in England is the responsibility of the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority. The SCAA advises the Secretary of State for Education on all aspects of the school curriculum, not just the national curriculum, and of school examinations and assessment. The SCAA employs 200 staff at a staff cost of £5.8 million—1994–95 estimate. It is not possible accurately to apportion these staff between their work on the national curriculum and their other work.

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils were in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in England and Wales for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The numbers of pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools in England in January for years 1985 to 1994 are shown in the table. Pupil numbers in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools in England Position in January each year

  Year

  Primary (millions)

  Secondary1(millions)

  1985

  3.75

  3.46

  1986

  3.76

  3.32

  1987

  3.79

  3.18

  1988

  3.84

  3.01

  1989

  3.91

  2.87

  1990

  3.98

  2.79

  1991

  4.05

  2.77

  1992

  4.09

  2.82

  1993

  4.17

  2.87

  1994

  4.24

  2.94

  1 Excludes pupils in sixth form colleges which ceased to be classified as schools in April 1993

  Further Education
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in how many cases, and in which local education authorities the Education Assets Board has been called in to determine the ownership of land or assets following the transfer of further education institutions from local authority to Further Education Funding Council control.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Education Assets Board has determined, or is determining, 99 disputes involving the transfer of land or other property from 44 local education authorities to colleges in the further education sector.

  Local education authorities where disputes over the transfer of property to colleges in the further education sector have been or are being determined by the Education Assets Board

  Avon

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnsley

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Birmingham

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Cornwall

  405

  Cumbria

  Devon

  East Sussex Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Hampshire

  Harrow

  Hillingdon

  Kirkless

  Kent

  Lambeth

  Leeds

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Manchester

  Northamptonshire

  North Yorkshire

  Oxfordshire

  Richmond upon Thames

  Sefton

  Sheffield

  Shropshire

  Somerset

  Staffordshire

  Sunderland

  Sutton

  Tameside

  Tower Hamlets

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what grounds the Education Assets Board is required to consider when making decisions about the transfer of assets from a local authority to institutions funded by the Further Education Funding Council.

  Mr. Boswell
  Under schedule 5 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the Education Assets Board may determine disputes about the transfer of property only where it appears unlikely that agreement will be reached, or where agreement has not been reached within a prescribed period.

  The board may determine whether assets were being used or held for the purposes of the institution on the transfer date, or whether they were being used or held for other purposes of the authority. In the first case, the assets will have transferred to the institution on the transfer date, in the second they will have remained the property of the authority.

  If the board determines that assets were used or held partly for the purposes of the institution and partly for other purposes of the authority, the board must, where the nature of the property permits, divide or apportion the assets in such proportion as may be appropriate. Where division or apportionment is not feasible, the board must direct that the assets be either transferred to the institution or retained by the authority in accordance with the criteria laid down in paragraph 1(3) of schedule 5. In any such case, the board must direct that arrangements be made for the protection of the party who does not keep or receive the assets.
  406

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the severance payments made to special advisers in the last five years, indicating(a) the amount and (b) the date.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury gave on 6 February 1995,Official Report, column 69.

WALES

  Speech Therapists
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to provide bursaries for postgraduates pursuing two-year courses to qualify as speech therapists.

  Mr. Richards
  It is for employers to consider whether bursaries for postgraduates are needed to recruit and retain staff.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of speech therapists per head of population in(a) Wales and (b) Clwyd.

  Mr. Richards
  Provisional figures for 31 December 1994 show that there were 7.5 whole-time equivalent NHS speech therapists per 100,000 population in Clwyd and 6.2 per 100,000 population in Wales as a whole.

  Art Collection
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when and where the Welsh Arts Council's art collection is likely to be housed in the immediate future;

  (2) what was the total purchase value of the Welsh Arts Council's art collection; and what is its present estimated value;

  (3) where the Welsh Arts Council's art collection is currently held;

  (4) when the Welsh Arts Council's art collection was last examined for inventory purposes.

  Mr. Richards
  This is a matter for the Arts Council of Wales, and I have asked the chief executive to write 10 the hon. Member. A copy of his reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of Ste for Wales how many representations he has received the subject of the provision of chiropody services in(a) Gwynedd and (b) Wales during 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Office received 11 representatives about the provision of chiropody services in Wales in 1994, one of which concerned services in Gwynedd.

  Housing
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) residential and (b) non-residential properties there are currently in (a) Wales and (b) each Welsh constituency; and if he will make a statement.
  407
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on residential properties, for Wales and for district council's, is published in table 1.4 "Welsh Housing Statistics", No. 14, 1994 and on non-residential properties in table 9.1 of "Welsh Local Government Financial Statistics", No. 18, 1994, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Equivalent information for Welsh constituencies is not available.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the percentage of existing residential property built before 1945 for(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Wales and (c) each Welsh constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information for Wales and the United Kingdom is in table 6.3 of "Regional Trends 29", 1994, published by the Central Statistical Office, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Information is not available for each Welsh constituency.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the population is aged 65 years or over for(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Wales, (c) each Welsh county and (d) each Welsh constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The latest available information for the United Kingdom, Wales and each Welsh county is from the 1993 mid-year estimate and for each constituency from the 1991 census of population, as given in the following tables:

  Percentage of residents aged 65 or over

  Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  15.8

  Wales

  17.3

  Clwyd

  18.0

  Dyfed

  19.1

  Gwent

  16.2

  Gwynedd

  20.0

  Mid Glamorgan

  15.6

  Powys

  19.1

  South Glamorgan

  15.7

  West Glamorgan

  17.8

  Source:

  1993 mid-year population estimate—Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Percentage of residents aged 65 or over

  Constituencies

  Per cent.

  Aberavon

  18.2

  Alyn and Deeside

  14.1

  Blaenau Gwent

  17.3

  Brecon and Radnor

  19.9

  Bridgend

  17.7

  Caenarfon

  19.6

  Caerphilly

  13.2

  Cardiff Central

  13.7

  Cardiff North

  20.0

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  16.2

  Cardiff West

  15.9

  Camarthen

  19.3

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  19.9

  Clwyd North West

  23.5

  Clwyd South West

  18.1

  Conwy

  22.0

  408

  Percentage of residents aged 65 or over

  Constituencies

  Per cent.

  Cynon Valley

  17.2

  Delyn

  17.4

  Gower

  19.3

  Islwyn

  15.6

  Llanelli

  20.4

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  20.4

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  16.2

  Monmouth

  18.7

  Montgomery

  17.7

  Neath

  18.3

  Newport East

  14.1

  Newport West

  16.4

  Ogmore

  14.5

  Pembroke

  16.6

  Pontypridd

  13.8

  Rhondda

  18.1

  Swansea East

  14.8

  Swansea West

  19.4

  Torfaen

  14.8

  Vale of Glamorgan

  14.8

  Wrexham

  16.1

  Ynys Mon

  17.6

  Source:

  1991 census of population—Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 747, on what grounds the information requested cannot be provided by the hospitals; and on what grounds the consent of GPs is necessary.

  Mr. Richards
  The information on waiting times requested is routinely provided by hospitals but, by agreement with the General Medical Services Committee (Wales), data identifying individual GPs or GP practices are not issued or published without their individual consent. As information on average waiting times by general practitioner practice is not regularly published, no steps have been taken to obtain the necessary consents for such publication. To provide the requested information would therefore entail disproportionate costs in obtaining individual consents.

  Contagious Epididymitis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the cases of contagious epididymitis in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No cases of contagious epididymitis—B. ovis—have occurred in Wales since 1985.

  Departmental Parking Spaces
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) bicycle and (b) car parking spaces there are for use by staff in (i) Gwydyr house office and (ii) Cathays Park office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are six car parking spaces at Gwydyr house. Welsh Office personnel are also able to park up to seven vehicles in the adjacent MOD car park. There are 47 spaces available for bicycles in that car park.

  There are 533 car parking spaces and spaces for 72 bicycles at Cathays Park.
  409

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

  Mr. Redwood
  Expenditure on management and other consultants engaged by the Welsh Office since 1987–88 is as follows:

  £000

  Current prices

  1994–95 prices

  1987–88

  345

  494

  1988–89

  479

  643

  1989–90

  342

  429

  1990–91

  229

  266

  1991–92

  1,109

  1,212

  1992–93

  1,416

  1,489

  1993–94

  1,454

  1,483

  1994–951

  475

  475

  1 Year to date.

  Information on savings resulting from consultancy work is not recorded centrally.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 423, what further consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency pursuant to the resignation of the executive director, finance; if he will place a copy of his letter to the chairman relating to the breaches of the procurement rules in the Library; and if he will make a further statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 27 January.

  The resignation of the chief finance officer is a separate matter and I understand that his decision was connected with his wish to return to the private sector.

DEFENCE

  Winter Training
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what activities are included in winter training.

  Mr. Soames
  The British Army's winter training exercise includes cross-country skiing, downhill skiing, operating on snow shoes, survival in arctic conditions, live firing in the sub-arctic, tactical training over snow and ice up to unit and force level, logistic support in arctic conditions and maintenance and operation of vehicles, predominantly BV 206s.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's horses have been killed as a result of winter training in the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  No horses have been killed as a result of winter training.
  410

  Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the collocation of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency.

  Mr. Soames
  Following issue of a consultative document on 18 October 1994 recommending collocation of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency on a single site, representations were made by trade unions, a number of local authorities, Members of Parliament and an action group based at Colchester. Full and careful consideration was given to all of these representations and the criteria of the original investment appraisal has also been subject to close scrutiny and recalculation where additional relevant factors have been drawn to our attention. Following this work, I am satisfied that the basis of the original recommendation was sound and I have decided to proceed with the collocation of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency on part of the former RAF Bicester site at Caversfield, Bicester. This work will be undertaken in accordance with the phased programme published in the consultative document. We will of course continue to consult staff and trade unions about the detailed implementation of this programme.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the licence number granted by the Medicines Control Agency and who are the listed manufacturers of anthrax vaccine.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  The product licence number of anthrax vaccine is PL 01511/0058. Information about manufacturers can be commercially sensitive and is not normally disclosed. However, in this case I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 19 December 1994, Official Report, column 995–96.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the savings for the overall reduction in staffing at AWEs.

  Mr. Freeman
  Estimated savings are expected to rise to some tens of millions of pounds.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for liaising with representatives of the local community regarding the future of AWE Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Liaison with the local community is undertaken by the company managing AWE, Hunting-BRAE. The company will be discussing the consequences of rationalisation with local representatives when its Cardiff liaison committee next meets.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which functions of AWE Burghfield are to be transferred to AWE Aldermaston and which are to be discontinued.

  Mr. Freeman
  Some work on rubber, plastics, salts, high explosives components and detonators will be transferred from AWE Burghfield to AWE Aldermaston. No functions will be discontinued.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the estimated savings from the proposed closures
  411
  of(a) AWE Cardiff, (b) Foulness and (c) the proposed cuts at Burghfield.

  Mr. Freeman
  Eventual estimated savings for the proposed closure of AWE Cardiff, for rationalisation of work from AWE Foulness, and for the proposed changes at AWE Burghfield, will be substantial. Costs of the defence nuclear programme have been regarded by successive Governments as inappropriate for public disclosure.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional activities will be carried out by AWE Aldermaston as a result of the recent review.

  Mr. Freeman
  Some component manufacture, including work on rubber, plastic, salts, high explosives components and detonators, as well as some laboratory work from Foulness, will move to AWE Aldermaston.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the annual operating cost of AWEs(a) in the year prior to contractorisation and (b) in the year after contractorisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The costs of the defence nuclear programme have been regarded by successive Governments as inappropriate for public disclosure. With contractorisation, AWE operating costs have also become commercially sensitive.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for liaising with representatives of the local community regarding the proposed changes at AWE Burghfield and AWE Aldermaston; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Liaison with local communities is undertaken by the company managing AWE, Hunting-BRAE. I understand it is meeting local representatives today.

  Polaris
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the running costs at current prices of Polaris for each year since the programme began.

  Mr. Soames
  The running costs of Polaris from 1991–92, at 1993–94 prices, are as follows:

  1991–92: £176,000,000

  1992–93: £156,000,000

  1993–94: £103,000,000

  This includes the costs of manpower, stores and spares, refits and the in-service support of warheads, submarines and their weapons systems. The annual running costs of Polaris since it first entered service could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tornado GRI Aircraft
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average annual running cost of a squadron of Tornado GRI aircraft.

  Mr. Soames
  The average cost of operating a Tornado GRI squadron, including the variable hourly flying costs and the apportionment of the station's fixed costs and overheads is £71,000,000 per annum.

  RAF Running Costs
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the annual running costs of RAF Marham, RAF Honington and RAF Bruggen.
  412
  Mr. Soames
  The annual running costs, including staff costs, utilities, contract services and property management of RAF Marham, RAF Honington and RAF Bruggen for the last financial year 1993–94 were:

  Station

  £

  Marham

  60,200,000

  Honington

  47,100,000

  Bruggen

  90,600,000

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 January, to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)Official Report, column 448, how chemical weapons and munitions disposed of by methods other than being sealed in sunk cargo vessels were disposed of; and at what dates and locations such other methods were used.

  Mr. Soames
  Surviving records of sea dumping indicate that between July and October 1945 some 14,000 tonnes of 5-in artillery rockets filled with phosgene gas were dumped in Beauforts Dyke explosive dumping ground in the north channel. The munitions, contained within ammunition crates, were jettisoned from vessels and sunk. Current scientific evidence indicates that chemical weapon dump sites present no significant risk to human health or to the marine environment and the living resources it supports. On exposure to sea water, phosgene gas rapidly decomposes to non-toxic compounds through dilution and hydrolysis.

  US Reconnaissance Systems
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom has direct access to the information produced by the United States of America satellite reconnaissance system; and what agreements or treaties govern such access.

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our practice to comment on such matters.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and in what circumstances United States high altitude long-range reconnaissance aircraft are based in Britain; if new types of such aircraft have been located, or are being considered for location in Britain; and what treaties or agreements authorise any such arrangements.

  Mr. Soames
  The basing of all United States Air Force aircraft in the United Kingdom is governed by arrangements mutually agreed between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States in accordance with the operational need pertaining at the time. No new types of high-altitude, long-range reconnaissance aircraft have been based or are being considered for basing in the UK.

  Equipment Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) of 25 January,Official Report, column 286, if he will list the changes in accounting conventions relating to the Defence Export Services Organisation.
  413
  Mr. Freeman
  Receipts from the disposal by sale of equipment belonging to the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force have been disaggregated from the DESO budget to the relevant service principle accounting officer budgets. Receipts from the disposal for Defence Research Agency equipment have, since the establishment of the agency, also been disaggregated.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies are being undertaken with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies into the risks posed by proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; if these studies include(a) defences against ballistic missiles, (b) defences against theatre missiles and (c) defences against cruise missiles; and what time scale is intended for their completion.

  Mr. Soames
  At the NATO summit in January 1994, alliance leaders agreed that NATO should develop a policy framework to address the risks posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The first phase of this work, which assessed the risks posed to the alliance by the proliferation of these weapons, has been completed. This assessment did not examine specific defensive measures, though future work is likely to do so. We hope that significant progress will have been made by the end of this year.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in respect of the conclusions of the NATO assessment of proliferation risks.

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom has welcomed the NATO report on the risks posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means. We believe that it will form a good basis for the future work of the alliance in addressing risks posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

  Navy and Army Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which countries buyers have been, or will be, invited to the Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition.

  Mr. Freeman
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to release details of invitations issued to attend British forces equipment exhibitions. Invitations are issued on a confidential basis and it would be a breach of trust to release details.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition will be held; and on which days it will be open to(a) overseas customers, (b) the press and (c) the public.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition will be held at Pegasus Village, Aldershot, with daily ships visits to Portmouth, from 3 to 10 September 1995. The exhibition will be open to overseas visitors from 4 to 8 September, to the national press on 3 September only, and to the trade press for the whole week. The exhibition is not open to the public. Trade visitors are admitted on 7 and 8 September.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who will be opening the Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition.
  414
  Mr. Freeman
  As with the previous Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition, the opening ceremony is expected to be performed at ministerial level.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of the Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition.

  Mr. Freeman
  The cost of the exhibition will not be available until the list of participants has been finalised. There will, however, be no direct cost to the MOD since this will be covered by participating companies.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which categories of guests will be invited to the Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition.

  Mr. Freeman
  Invitations to attend the Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition are extended to appropriate overseas Government officials and industrialists, members of the United Kingdom national and technical press and British representatives from the trade.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many visitors are expected at the Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition.

  Mr. Freeman
  Based on the attendance at the previous Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition, between 20,000 and 25,000 visitors are expected to attend.

  Army Regiments
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many regiments there are currently in the British Army.

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently 32 regular and 2.3 Territorial Army infantry regiments in the British Army.

  Land Rovers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the tonnage of Land Rovers currently used by the Army; when they first came into operational use; and what major refurbishments have been carried out on them.

  Mr. Soames
  The Army currently has three basic Land Rover variants: the half-ton truck utility light, TUL, the three-quarter-ton truck utility medium, TUM, and one ton which is being replaced by the truck utility heavy, TUH, and by the TUM, heavy duty; the replacement is expected to be completed by 1996, when the final buy of TUM, heavy duty, is completed.

  In service, the Army currently has the following numbers in each category:

  TUL—4,584; this is made up of Land Rover Series III and Land Rover Defender 90 vehicles, all but three of which entered service after 1973.

  TUM—10,824; this is made up of Land Rover Series III and Land Rover Defender 110 vehicles, all but five of which entered service after 1973.

  1 Tonne—573; all these vehicles are of the one type which initially entered service in 1972.

  Apart from routine maintenance, none of these vehicles has been subject to a refurbishment programme. Engines and major assemblies from the vehicles are routinely overhauled and refurbished through the Army base repair organisation.
  415

  RB44 Army Light Vehicles
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RB44 Army light vehicles have been purchased; what was the total cost; and when they became operational.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department purchased 846 RB44 vehicles from Reynolds Broughton Ltd. at an approximate cost of £24,000,000. First deployment was made in May 1992.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what technical and operational concerns resulted from the trials of the RB44 Army light vehicle at Larkhill; what actions were taken to remedy them; and how much it cost;

  (2) what technical and operational difficulties his Department has found with the RB44 Army light vehicle during its operational service;

  (3) what plans his Department has for the RB44 Army light vehicle.

  Mr. Freeman
  During the initial operational deployment to Larkhill a problem associated with the handling of the vehicles while braking was experienced. The manufacturer proposed and demonstrated a modification which was accepted by my Department. The modification was incorporated at the manufacturer's expense. Following acceptance into service there have been further technical problems of a similar nature which are being investigated by my Department in conjunction with the manufacturer. All vehicles have been taken out of service until the problem has been rectified.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many accidents in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Bosnia have involved the RB44; and what was the cause of these accidents.

  Mr. Soames
  Since its introduction into service, 25 accidents have been reported which have involved the RB44—22 in the UK, two in Bosnia and one in Germany.

  Except for one in Bosnia, where a vehicle overturned on a greasy road, all the accidents were of a minor "road traffic" nature. In seven cases, the MOD driver was not at fault, the other 17 can be attributed to driver error.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current position in relation to the RB44 Army light vehicles at Larkhill.

  Mr. Soames
  There are 33 RB44s currently located at Larkhill. They were issued to meet the approved requirements of the two Royal Artillery units stationed there.

  The vehicles are currently out of use while a steering under braking defect is investigated and are subject to appropriate maintenance to ensure they do not deteriorate.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the Army light vehicle capability; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Army light vehicle fleet is currently able to meet all its tasks. As a result of "Options for Change", all units have had their vehicle requirements scrutinised to ensure that they are suitable for the units' new roles. A review of future requirements and developments in the light fleet area is currently being undertaken by my Department.
  416

  Somalia
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part United Kingdom naval forces have played in aiding the withdrawal of(a) Indian and (b) Pakistani UN troops from Somalia.

  Mr. Soames
  Indian UN troops completed their withdrawal from Somalia in December 1994 under their own arrangements. United Kingdom naval forces were not involved. The Royal Navy has deployed a ship to support the withdrawal of the remaining elements of the UN force, including the Pakistani contingent.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part United Kingdom forces have played in the withdrawal of United Nations troops from Somalia.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on 30 January,Official Report, column 545.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what logistical support the United Kingdom is providing for United Nations operations in Somalia.

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom has made a ship available to support the operation to withdraw United Nations forces from Somalia. No logistic support is being provided.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice on drug abuse is available to British forces serving in the former Yugoslavia on behalf of the United Nations.

  Mr. Soames
  All service personnel, wherever they are serving, are aware of the armed forces' policy on the misuse of drugs. Army personnel serving in the former Yugoslavia were informed of the Army's intention to introduce compulsory random testing in January 1995.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the incidence of drug abuse among British forces serving in the former Yugoslavia on behalf of the United Nations;

  (2) how many members of the British forces serving in the former Yugoslavia on behalf of the United Nations and of what rank have been the subject of (a) investigation and (b) disciplinary proceedings for drug abuse.

  Mr. Soames
  One corporal, two lance corporals and four private soldiers have been investigated for alleged drug offences in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. Of these, one lance corporal and three private soldiers are awaiting disciplinary proceedings. No evidence was found against the other service men investigated. At present, investigations are being conducted into alleged drug offences by two further lance corporals and one private soldier. Although we view all cases involving the misuse of drugs with concern, the total number of personnel investigated represents less than 1 per cent. of the British forces serving in the former Yugoslavia.

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for
  417
  his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

  Mr. Soames
  Individual budget holders in my Department have delegated powers to employ external consultants as they think fit within the limit of their resources and consistent with all requirements for propriety and value for money.

  The information requested is, therefore, not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Diversification
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met representatives of local authorities to discuss defence diversification.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: In the course of implementing the decisions of the recent defence costs study, local authorities' representatives are consulted as and when necessary to facilitate, where possible, productive use of sites following withdrawal of my Department's activity.

  The suitability of specific schemes for funding under the EC's Konver programme is a matter for the DTI.

EMPLOYMENT

  Investigations
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what firms have been investigated by his Department or agencies in the last five years; and what was the reason in each case.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In the last five years, the Employment Service. an agency of the Employment Department, has successfully prosecuted 215 collusive employers—that is, those who actively encourage their work force to claim unemployment benefits fraudulently. The yearly breakdown is as follows:

  1989–90: 6

  1990–91: 9

  1991–92: 40

  1992–93: 55

  1993–94 100

  Details of individual employer investigations are not held centrally. Records are held at the Employment Service sector fraud office responsible for the investigation. There are 65 sector fraud offices throughout England, Scotland and Wales.

  The Health and Safety Executive, NDPB of the Employment Department, also prosecutes those in breach of health and safety regulations. The figures for such prosecutions are given in Command Paper 2205. "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96: Employment Department Group and earlier papers".

  It would not be possible to obtain details of individual employers and companies prosecuted in the last five years except at disportionate cost.

  Contractors
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what safeguards ensure that his Department 418
  or agencies do not engage firms as contractors that have been investigated for breaches of the law.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Employment Department contracts require contractors to take reasonable measures to ensure that their employees are not drawing benefit and are legal residents of the United Kingdom. A revised contract will allow termination of the contract if the contractor's behaviour is prejudicial to the Department's interests of reputation.

  Previous records are taken into account, as is any substantiated evidence of illegal activities.

  If it were discovered after the award of a contract that a contractor had been found guilty of an offence which had a material bearing on his ability to perform the contract, appropriate action would be taken.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the contractors who have been removed from the Department's approved list of contractors in the last year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Contractors leave the supplier lists for many reasons, most of which have nothing to do with issues of propriety. Three suppliers were removed from the Department's approved suppliers list in the last year. The names of our suppliers are confidential.

  Burns International
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which contracts let by his Department or agencies have been awarded to Burns International in the last year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  None at present, though it is the intention of the Employment service to award three contracts to Burns International from 3 April 1995.

  Burns International was also used three times on a casual basis by the Health and Safety Executive's estates management contractor to guard scaffolding overnight whilst renovations were carried out to the HSE area office in Edinburgh. That work finished in June 1994.

  Earnings
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers have earnings(a) above the national insurance contributions maximum payments ceiling and (b) below the lower earnings limit; and how many in each case are women.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  It is estimated that in April 1994 there were 3.1 million employees earning above the national insurance upper earnings limit and 3.1 million employees earning below the national insurance lower earnings limit. The corresponding numbers for women were 0.5 million and 2.3 million respectively.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the credit rating of training and enterprise councils is assessed; and how contractors on the TECs can ascertain it.
  419
  Mr. Paice
  The Government do not check the credit ratings of training and enterprise councils. They keep in touch with TECs' own statements of their financial position through regular scrutiny of their management accounts, which they receive on a commercial-in-confidence basis.

  The Government also examines TECs' annual statutory accounts, which they are required to lodge with this Department by 31 July and with Companies House by the end of the January following each financial year.

  Until the date by which the statutory accounts have to be lodged at Companies House, they are commercial-in-confidence, but as this Department receives them, copies are placed in the Library.

  Credit rating organisations in the private sector offer assessment of TECs as part of their normal business. These would be available to training providers as are the statutory annual accounts lodged with Companies House.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men aged 55 years and over were employed in British coal mines as underground workers for each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Estimates of the numbers of employed persons by industry are collected by the Employment Department's "Labour Force Survey". However, no information is available for the age group requested, because the sample size is too small to provide reliable estimates.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether it is his policy that those administering the jobseeker's allowance be set financial targets for disqualifying claimants of unemployment benefit; and whether any of their pay will be related to the financial outturn for unemployment benefit under the performance-related pay policy.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is no policy of setting targets for disqualifying claimants.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what special help will be provided for directing persons from minority groups who are seeking entitlement to the jobseeker's allowance.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: The Employment Service currently provides help for people from minority groups through specialist inner city officers and outreach officers. Key leaflets are also produced in the main ethnic minority languages. Interviews with clients whose first language is not English and who need help with translation are arranged to take place in the client's own language or with a translator. These provisions will continue when the jobseeker's allowance is introduced.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria will be used to specify the skills required by Employment Service officers in undertaking the role of assessor for the purposes of entering into the jobseeker's agreement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: The criteria will be based on what is needed to ensure that the jobseeker clearly understands the entitlement conditions and how these relate to the local labour market.
  420
  A full programme of training is being prepared for Employment Service staff before the proposed introduction of the jobseeker's allowance.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in relation to the jobseeker's allowance, what is the composition of the business assurance committee; how often it has met; and what is its cost.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: The Employment Service and Benefits Agency have both set up business assurance committees to ensure that the jobseeker's allowance is developed in accordance with the business needs of each agency. Although set up in slightly different ways, each committee is made up of representatives from the agency's field organisation and from its head office. The committees meet, as necessary, and the only costs incurred above normal staff salaries are travel costs.

  South Thames TEC
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the training providers for South Thames TEC currently known to the receiver; and what assessment he has made of whether the list is comprehensive.

  Mr. Paice
  There are 124 youth training and training for work providers, and four South Thames enterprise programme providers contracted to South Thames TEC currently known to the receiver. To the best of the Department's knowledge, this list is comprehensive.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 539, when the information relating to contractors to the South Thames TEC will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Paice
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to her on Tuesday 7 February 1995,Official Report, column 183.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the cost to(a) South Thames TEC and (b) his Department of the use of outside consultants, accountants and the receiver in investigating the financial difficulties at South Thames TEC from 28 November 1994 to date.

  Mr. Paice
  I am not in a position to estimate the cost to South Thames TEC of the use of outside consultants and accountants. This is a matter for the receiver. The cost to the Department of the use of outside consultants and accountants was £32,182 as of December 1994. This is the latest estimate available. As is normal commercial practice, the receiver's costs are a first charge on the assets of South Thames TEC. These have not yet been fully established.

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  421

  Wages
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average wage of workers in England in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The average wage of adult full-time workers in England is published in table X5 of part A of the "New Earnings Survey" reports. That of adult part-time women is published in table 180 of part F. Copies of these reports are available in the Library.

TREASURY

  Paris Club
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Cuban Minister of Finance and Prices about the Paris Club; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  I met Mr. Rodriguez, the Cuban Minister of Finance and Prices, on 30 January 1995. We discussed a variety of issues, including Cuba's external debt and the Paris Club.

  International Bodies (Parliamentary Scrutiny)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he intends to bring forward to improve parliamentary scrutiny of activities at(a) the World Bank and (b) the International Monetary Fund.

  Mr. Nelson
  The United Kingdom's contribution to the World Bank group is part of the aid programme and as such is subject to scrutiny from Parliament and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Parliamentary approval is also required for the UK's contribution to capital increases or replenishments. The UK's quota as the IMF is financed from the national loans fund, which is audited by the National Audit Office. The accounts are laid annually before Parliament. We believe these existing arrangements provide ample scope for oversight by Parliament.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the terms under which the Treasury civil service jobs unit was established; how many civil servants work in it and for how long; and what is the annual cost of the unit's operation.

  Mr. Nelson
  The purpose of the unit is to help surplus Treasury staff to find jobs in other parts of the civil service. It takes up part of the time of a grade 5 and a personal secretary who both have other duties. The unit was set up in November 1994 and will remain in being, although not necessarily with the same staff, while there are staff surpluses to resolve. The annual cost is approximately £20,000.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the annual cost of the career decision seminars, the career transition or self-marketing workshops and the career centres which his Department has established for civil servants leaving the Treasury;

  (2) what contract his Department has given to Focus Ltd., professional outplacement consultants; how long the contract will last; and how much it is costing the Treasury.
  422
  Mr. Nelson
  Following a competition, a two-year contract was let with Focus Ltd. in September 1994 to provide a range of services, including counselling, career decision seminars, self-marketing and other job-search training on a call-off basis. As use of the contract depends on demand, it is not possible at present to give costs on an annual basis. Expenditure to date is £23,546. The career centre is staffed by a member of the Treasury at an annual cost of approximately £17,000.

  World Summit on Social Development
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to seek international support for his multilateral debt initiative at the World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen.

  Mr. Nelson
  I understand that the world summit on social development will discuss the problems of poor countries when it convenes in March, including developing countries' debt. We shall encourage participants at the summit to support the Chancellor's multilateral debt initiative.

  The next step for the multilateral debt initiative will be to secure support from other members of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. We intend to pursue this at the institutions' spring meetings in April.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rules and regulations in his Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which his Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what impact this will have on his Department's manpower.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: The areas of the Treasury which deal with public expenditure control and pay are keeping the level of Treasury delegations to Departments under regular review, but have not withdrawn any rules or regulations in the last 12 months.

  The rule requiring the Treasury to certify new ordinary save-as-you-earn schemes has been removed.

  The Department is continuing to identify rules and regulations for withdrawal. Those for withdrawal in the next 12 months will be announced as and when consultations are completed.

  The manpower implications are taken into account in the Department's central manpower plans, which will be published in the departmental report on Her Majesty's Treasury in March.

  Single European Currency
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned or intends to commission in order to ascertain the views of British business and financial concerns towards the establishment of a single European currency.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 7 February 1995]: Tsreasury Ministers and officials have frequent meetings with representatives of the business sector, including financial services, to hear their views on a variety of subjects.
  423

  European Investment Fund
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the establishment and operation of the European investment fund as described in the conclusions of the presidency of the Edinburgh summit.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 8 February 1995]: The establishment of a European investment fund, or EIF, was one element of the declaration on promoting economic recovery in Europe, agreed by the European Council at Edinburgh, in December 1992. The new fund was envisaged as a joint venture, with a share capital of 2 becu, £1.55 billion, allocated between the European investment bank, 40 per cent. the EC itself, 30 per cent., and EC financial institutions and banks, 30 per cent. It was proposed that the EIF should provide guarantees for loans to trans-European networks, TENs, and to small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs, throughout the Community. These guarantees would be a form of insurance to the lender, for which a premium would be charged. It was also envisaged that the EIF could, after two years of operation, take equity stakes in SMEs or TENs, subject to the agreement of its shareholders.

  The creation of the fund required an amendment to the statute of the EIB, which is itself a protocol of the treaty of Rome. Therefore it could not be established until the treaty had been amended, and the amendment ratified by all EC member states. This process was concluded, and the amendment came into force, on 1 May 1994, and on the 25 May the governors of the EIB—EC finance Ministers, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the UK's representative—took the formal decision to
  424
  establish the fund. The EC and the financial institutions were then formally invited to become members of the EIF, and its inaugural general meeting was held on 14 June 1994.

  The fund began operations in July 1994. By the end of that year, 11 guarantees had been approved, with a total value of some 711 mecu or £551 million. Of these, seven operations, representing 75 per cent. of the total value of guarantees approved, were in the TENs sector, while the remaining four operations involved SMEs.

  All figures converted at 1994 average annual £/ecu conversion rate £1=1.289273 ecu.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for his Department; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

  Mr. Newton
  Expenditure of £14,500 was incurred in 1994 by the central drugs co-ordination unit in respect of research conducted on its behalf by the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence. This work was not undertaken for cost-saving purposes.

  No other relevant expenditure has occurred since 1987, nor does the Privy Council Office have any current plans to engage external consultants.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Personal Statement: The Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should like to make a personal statement. Last week I sent a memorandum to the sub-committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, on declaration and registration of interests. It was not my intention that the memorandum should be made public, but unfortunately it was leaked to the press, by whom I know not, although I am satisfied that the leak took place outside this House. In the present circumstances I am asking to be heard by the sub-committee at an early opportunity to explain my views publicly.
I ask your Lordships to accept that in making my submission to the sub-committee I believed that I was acting in the best interests of the House. I profoundly regret the embarrassment that my note and its public disclosure have caused to this House and to another place. It caused me great personal distress. I apologise for having inadvertently caused offence to the House and risked blemishing its reputation.

EC Judgment: Implementation
3.2 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to implement the judgment of the European Court of Justice concerning redundancies and the transfer of undertakings.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the relevant legislation on all but one of the points covered by the judgments was amended by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. The Government are presently considering what action needs to be taken on the remaining issue concerning consultation with employees' representatives.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that unsatisfactory reply; perhaps he will go a little further. Will he accept that this is another example of the Government refusing to take at face value the spirit of the directives and what is clearly being said? Does he accept that as a result since the mid-1970s workers have been denied simple rights? The Government cannot go on saying that the employer will decide where consultation shall lie. It is clear that that is unlawful. Will the Government say when they intend to publish their views on this matter? Will they also say whether
302
their attention has yet been drawn by the Commission to their own attitudes and whether they have had a letter from the Commission along those lines?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asks a number of questions. The important point about the decisions in the two judgments is that it is for the employees to determine who their representatives will be. As the noble Lord will know, the judgments and the law in this area are far from straightforward. We are anxious to make sure that we consider the matter properly. Subsequently we shall discuss our ideas before bringing proposals forward. In this area of the law it is instructive to look back to when the original directives came into effect. In one instance it was four years after the directive came into effect that British legislation was put on the statute book. In the other instance it also took a long time to make sure that we had got it right.
As to the more general question of workers' rights, it is relevant that it was put on record by the noble Lord himself in your Lordships' House that the opposition party's proposals for implementing the acquired rights directive had it won the general election in 1979 would have broken the terms of the directive.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister in connection with his last answer. Am I to understand that when he talks about discussions on introducing what remains of the judgment of last June the intention is that there will be discussions with employees' representatives? This is a very complex issue. Will there also be discussions with employers' representatives?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I understand that the matter has already been broached between the Government and the Trades Union Congress and that in addition there will be discussions with employers.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the judgments have the force of law because in the European Communities Act 1972 Parliament, in the exercise of its sovereignty, so decided? Will he further agree that the only question can be about how and not whether we implement them?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is absolutely correct in his analysis of the constitutional position. I can confirm that he is correct that it is not a matter of whether but how these matters are dealt with.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can the Minister say why the Government always adopt such a minimalist approach to these matters? After all, they had to amend their position relating to trade union reform and employment rights legislation and change the TUPE regulations because they were not adequate. There had to be a statement by the Attorney-General spelling out rights in relation to pensions as regards TUPE. Why can the Government not get it right first time instead of having constantly to come back with amending legislation?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I should like to make two points. The first concerns what the noble Baroness

303
describes rather grudgingly as a minimalist approach. Each member state has discretion as to how it implements directives. We wish to exercise that discretion in the manner we think most suitable for our country.
My second point concerns the nature of amendments to regulations and legislation. It is relevant that in this instance the major problem with which the two judgments were concerned was not identified by anyone in this country but by the European Commission. It is accepted on all sides that this branch of the law is extremely complicated. As I have mentioned, the original legislation that was put in place by the party opposite when in power had to be amended because it was defective.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord says that I asked many questions. I asked two questions. I think he will agree that he answered neither of them. He throws dust in our eyes. I ask that the next time he wants to insinuate that I said something which I cannot remember and he does not cite he gives me advance notice of the so-called statements I am supposed to have made. Will he even now say whether the Government have had any communication from the Commission and when the Government are likely to decide this question?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I am not aware of the most recent communications between the Commission and the Government about this matter. The remarks of the noble Lord to which I alluded were those he made in this House on 10th December 1981, reported in Hansard at col. 1486.

Murder/Manslaughter Charges
3.10 p.m.
Lord Carver Lord Carver asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in its 14th report in 1980 relating to the charge of manslaughter rather than murder to be brought against a person who kills another person by using excessive force in legitimate self-defence or in the prevention of crime.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is considering the recommendation as part of the review of the law on murder, which he announced on 24th January in response to the concerns expressed by this House sitting in its judicial capacity in the case of Private Clegg.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that encouraging reply. Does she agree it is regrettable that in the almost 15 years which have passed since that recommendation was made nothing has been done to put it into effect? The result has been that members of the Armed Forces, when called upon to act in aid of the civil power, have continued to find
304
themselves liable to prosecution for murder, with its statutory penalty of life imprisonment, when they reasonably believed that they were doing their duty.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, both the Government of the day and subsequent Governments have taken the view that it was not necessary to review that aspect of the law. The Private Clegg case has clearly thrown that issue into relief. My right honourable friend now believes that it is timely to review the situation.
Perhaps I may also make the point that the Criminal Law Revision Committee, the Law Commission Report in 1989 and the Select Committee of the House of Lords which considered murder and life imprisonment were not referring only to security forces. Their considerations encompassed all aspects of security and non-security personnel.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that if the Government had accepted the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee and the decision of this House when it debated the issue, the problem regarding Private Clegg would not have arisen in the first place? Is she not aware that the real problem relates to the mandatory life sentence? It means that a mercy killer and the person who destroyed the aircraft over Lockerbie are regarded in precisely the same manner?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not agree with that. First, it would be quite wrong for me as a politician at the Dispatch Box, or for this House, to second guess the judiciary in these matters. Whether that situation raised a problem for Private Clegg, or whether the recommendation would have made a difference, we know that at both the first appeal in the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal and subsequently at the House of Lords appeal the judges questioned having at their disposal at least the flexibility of the lesser charge of manslaughter. That is the matter now being looked into.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the mandatory sentence takes justice out of the hands of the court and puts it into the hands of the police? The sentence depends entirely upon the section under which the police prosecute.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no, it certainly does not put the matter into the hands of the police. This young man went before the courts; a judgment was made; and subsequently the appeal judges in both appeals said that they would have liked to have at their disposal at least the possibility of considering—that is all it was—the lesser charge of manslaughter.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree—but I must formally ask her whether she does so—that, had the recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee and of your Lordships' Select Committee been implemented, the following would have been the consequences. First, the whole range of sentencing options from life imprisonment downwards would be available to cover the situation being discussed, thus making it possible to fit the sentence to the crime—the "just deserts" philosophy urged by the Government during the passage of the Criminal Justice

305
Bill 1991. Secondly, the period actually served in prison would have been determined judicially on relevant facts, in public, and subject to appeal; whereas, as the matter now stands, it is determined by a politician, in private, upon undisclosed facts with no appeal. If the noble Baroness so agrees, why has it taken this length of time to remedy the situation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that range of options would have been available to the court. That was the question raised by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal and the House of Lords' judges in their summing up. My right honourable friend has responded to that.
All I can say is that in the intervening period, between the report by the Criminal Law Revision Committee and today, the Government took the decision not to review the issue. In the light of the Private Clegg case, they have now decided to review the issue.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, underlying the question by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and supplementary questions, is the role of soldiers in Northern Ireland since they first went there when the RUC was overwhelmed. I do not suggest that the Army withdraws from Northern Ireland. However, given the change in the RUC's strength and role, has the time not come to consider whether British soldiers should be on street corners in Belfast facing that situation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot answer that question in this context. What I can say is that the soldiers on the streets of Northern Ireland are, as are soldiers anywhere, bound by the yellow card rules of engagement. As I have already said, there is to be a review. The status of the yellow card rules of engagement will be taken into account in the course of that review.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, is not the present situation regarding the use of self-defence totally insupportable when a person who is recognised as having the right to use force in self-defence finds himself with only two choices: doing nothing or of using force which, by its very nature, is bound to be excessive?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not a lawyer, but I understand that in the case of Private Clegg it was possible to pray in aid self-defence or provocation. That was open to the courts to consider. My understanding is that the issue was properly considered and the conclusion of the courts was that it was not an action in self-defence. Therefore, as I said earlier, it would be inappropriate for me, or indeed for this House, to second guess such a judgment, or the judgments of the appeal courts.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, clearly one sympathises with my noble friend in her present situation because of her lack of legal qualification.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, am I wrong? I apologise at once, unreservedly, if I am wrong. However, still feeling sympathy with her, notwithstanding any mistake I may have made, may I
306
ask her whether, in the case of Private Clegg, four shots were fired, three of which were in self-defence, and whether the fourth shot was decided not to be so? Is that not an absurd situation? Is it not absurd that anyone of that age, in a battle scenario, faced with that situation in the dark, should be charged with the abominable crime of murder?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, tempting though it is to get into the debate raised by my noble and learned friend, I really must not. I believe that to do so would be improper, with or without knowledge of the law. However, the specific point raised by my noble and learned friend is precisely why this area of policy is to be reviewed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Loris, the noble Baroness referred to a government review. Will she include in that review the more numerous cases of domestic violence which involve the issue of justifiable force? Will she also consider looking again at some of the judgments involving cases between husband and wife?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the focus of the review has been triggered by the specific case of Private Clegg. However, as I have already said, the three major reports which addressed the issue did not confine themselves to the security forces. I would expect the review to take that consideration into account.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, in view of the close interest which members of the Armed Forces clearly will have in the review, will the Minister assure the House that the views of chiefs of staff will be obtained in the course of that review?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure that I am in a position to give a personal guarantee that that will take place. I believe that it is essential that their views are taken into account. However, I have to make two points. First, the issue does not exclusively relate to security forces. Secondly, because that specific case is the focus of the inquiry, I believe that that will happen. If I am wrong in my answers, I shall write to the noble Lord.

The Building Industry
3.20 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
What discussions they have had with representatives of the building industry about current trends in that industry.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, Ministers and officials from the Department of the Environment regularly meet representatives of the construction industry to discuss topical issues. In addition, a joint working group comprising officials and

307
representatives of the main trade organisations meets to produce a twice-yearly report entitled The State of the Construction Industry. Copies of the latest issue, which was published on 7th February, have been placed in the Library.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the Latham Report which, from the news release, appears to be or could be of some significance, not least because Sir Michael Latham is highly respected in both Houses?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. Coming out of the Latham review, which was set up jointly between the industry and the Government, Sir Michael reported in Constructing the Team. The Government and the industry have agreed to set up a construction industry board to oversee the continuing work of the working groups which were set up in the wake of the review. The board will also channel comments by industry and clients on any subsequent legislation which may be required.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we have seen the news release to which the noble Viscount referred and which sets up the construction industry board. Can the Minister tell the House where is the urgency in it? Sir Michael Latham drew attention to the urgency of reducing the cost of construction projects by 30 per cent. by the year 2000. We have no promise of legislation in the review, unless the noble Viscount can tell me differently. As I understand it, all we have is a proposal that Mr. Gummer himself will be president of the board and will take the chair at least twice a year. Is that a true sense of urgency?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Review Implementation Forum which followed the Latham review of midsummer 1994 had a six-month period in which it set up a number of working groups. One of them has already reported. As the noble Lord said, there is a target of 30 per cent. by the year 2000. We felt that the best way of supervising the remaining work—and there is much to be done on changing the nature of the industry to stop it being so adversarial—is that it needs to be overseen by such a board. That is the first time that the construction industry has come together in one single identity in order to tackle the important tasks that it has and to try to deliver the target.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, reverting to the current trends in the building industry, is the Minister aware of the most recent report of the National Council of Building Material Producers? It reports a recent deterioration in order volumes and business confidence as continuing in the first months of this year, pointing to a sluggish performance. Is that not disturbing? How will it be put right?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, there is no doubt that the recovery is patchy in the construction industry. However, output began to increase last year after three-and-a-half years of decline. New orders are increasing and the growth is expected to continue. There is sustained construction growth at home and British
308
firms are also doing well abroad. However, it is a large industry with various facets to it. One or two of the areas are perhaps not doing so well as others.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the information he has given is rather thin? It is to be hoped that the House will have more information before too long. In particular, will he say whether there will be trade union representation on the new body which has been set up? Further, will the Government not lose sight of the great importance of the building industry to employment? It affects employment in a number of ways, as the Minister knows. That is the main reason why, as my noble friend said, there is considerable urgency about action on it.
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, but it should not be considered by the House, or the industry, that the target set by the Latham review is easy to achieve. There is no quick fix, and there is a need to change the whole culture of the industry. There may be requirements for legislation, but in order to ensure that the industry fully backs the legislation we need to consider it carefully. Of course, I am extremely worried about the level of unemployment in the construction industry. I am glad to say that over the past 12 months it fell remarkably and was less than in the previous three years.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I apologise for rising once more but will the Minister answer my question about trade union representation on the new organisation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at the moment the representation is from a number of the industry's bodies. I am not aware of the trade union representation on those bodies.

Mexico: IMF and BIS Loans
3.25 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent United Kingdom taxpayers will be at risk if the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements proceed to grant loans totalling 27.8 billion dollars to Mexico.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, the International Monetary Fund loan can be financed within the IMF's existing funds. IMF finances are sound and its resources are subject to rigorous and prudent management. We do not believe, therefore, that the exposure of United Kingdom taxpayers has been increased significantly.
Turning to the proposed loan from the Bank for International Settlements, neither the Treasury nor the Bank of England has yet seen any formal proposals. The Bank of England, as United Kingdom member of the BIS, would need to seek appropriate security before participating to ensure that the risk to the Bank of England and the Exchequer was minimised.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his partly reassuring reply. However, turning

309
to the second part, will he agree that there is no way in which Mexico can realistically provide adequate security for a loan of that magnitude? If Mexico were to default, that could only have an extremely adverse impact upon the British taxpayer, among others.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would rather not comment on the position of the Mexicans. All I can say at the moment is, as I said in my original Answer, we have not seen any formal proposals and I think that it would, therefore, be wrong to comment in advance of any.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government were consulted prior to President Clinton's announcement of his rescue package for Mexico? That package effectively committed Britain to supporting the rescue, particularly through the Bank for International Settlements. If the Government were consulted, what was the British position conveyed to President Clinton prior to his announcement? If the British Government were not consulted, what representations have the Government made to President Clinton since his announcement?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the important point to stress is that we support the IMF's involvement and its provision of substantial funding for a strong reform programme. We believe that Mexico has the appropriate track record of economic reform in conjunction with the IMF. I can say that we had some technical reservations, following the proposals, about how the IMF proposed to provide support. In particular, we believe that the initial finance should have been tranched so that a larger proportion of the fund's resources would have been disbursed, subject to economic policy remaining on track.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the Minister answer my question? Were the British Government consulted prior to President Clinton's announcement which actually committed British funds?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was trying to stress that the question of consultation is irrelevant. We are committed and we strongly support the IMF's involvement on this occasion. As the noble Lord will be aware, we normally do not reveal how we voted. However, the noble Lord will be aware that we abstained on this occasion, but that was for the technical reservations which I mentioned earlier.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, the crisis in Mexico seems to have taken not only the US Administration but also the IMF and the BIS somewhat by surprise. Can my noble friend assure the House that the British Government will do their best to ensure that such situations are more closely monitored so that we are not bounced into making decisions at short notice?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is always easy to say that we have been caught unawares and, with hindsight, easy to say that things should have been done somewhat differently. However, as my noble friend stressed, I believe that there are lessons to be drawn and we shall certainly consider them with other members of the IMF,
310
as well as with the fund itself. I can give the assurance that my right honourable friend the Chancellor also considered them with his colleagues at the regular meeting of the G7 finance ministers last weekend.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, while I deplore any possible lack of consultation, when the International Monetary Fund considers the restructuring proposals for Mexico, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that one of the reasons for the loss of confidence in the peso was the level of social injustice, which led to great political instability in Mexico, notably in the state of Chiapas?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would rather not comment on internal matters relating to Mexico, other than to repeat that we strongly support the IMF's involvement in this loan.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Britain is the second largest investor in Mexico and, secondly, that it is a very important trading partner for Great Britain? Does he agree that by supporting this endeavour to ensure that Mexico—which is a country of enormous economic resources—will continue to be operational Her Majesty's Government have taken action that is very worth while?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can agree with most of what my noble friend said. Mexico has made good progress over the past few years on open market policies. I believe that her difficulties are possibly short-term. Very strong policy action is being taken to tackle them. Therefore, I believe that it is right for the United Kingdom to join concerted international support for them.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, was the collapse of the Mexican currency that gave rise to the need for this loan in any way directly or indirectly due to the action of currency speculators of the Soros type? If so, can the noble Lord tell the House in a few words what measures the international community is now taking to prevent that happening to country after country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, all that I can say is that the peso is now floating. The loan is not being used in any way to support the currency.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the late 1970s this country was very grateful to the International Monetary Fund for its support?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I remind the House that it was not a Conservative government that called in the IMF on that occasion; it was in fact a Labour government.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is it not the case that, since the debt crisis of the early 1980s, the Mexican Government have pursued policies that were imposed

311
upon it by the IMF, and indeed with the support of the British Government? Do we not therefore bear some responsibility for that country's present plight?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords, I do not believe that we do. But we are offering our support for this particular loan.

Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision, in relation to cases where a dwelling-house is, has been, or was intended to be, the home of two or more persons as to their respective rights of occupation; to make provision for preventing the molestation of one person by another; to enable a court to include in certain orders under the Children Act 1989 provision relating to the occupation of a dwelling-house; to make provision for the transfer of tenancies between spouses and persons who have lived together as husband and wife; to apply Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 to persons who live together as husband and wife; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMIIIEES in the Chair.]
[Amendment No. 263 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Lewis of Newnham Lord Lewis of Newnham moved Amendment No. 264:
Before Clause 75, insert the following new clause:
("Air Quality
Air quality management
—(1) With a view to establishing air quality standards in Great Britain and improving air quality, the Secretaries of State shall as soon as possible—

(a) prepare a statement ("the strategy") containing their objectives for improving air quality in Great Britain; and

312

(b) issue guidance to every local air quality management authority on methods which may be used to achieve these objectives.

(2) In this section the term "local air quality management authority" ("the authority") means a district council, a metropolitan district council, a London borough council or a unitary authority; and in Scotland, a Scottish district council or a Scottish islands council.
(3) The Secretaries of State may from time to time modify the strategy.
(4) The Environment Agency or, in Scotland, SEPA, shall—

(a) advise the Secretaries of State on matters relating to subsection (1) above; and

(b) advise the Secretaries of State on criteria for the establishment of air quality management areas, namely those areas where air quality standards are likely to be exceeded.

(5) It shall be the duty of every local air quality management authority, having regard to guidance issued by the Secretaries of State—

(a) to prepare a review of air quality within its boundaries;

(b) to designate air quality management areas within its boundaries;

(c) to prepare a local air quality management plan which shall include a statement of the authority's methods for attaining the objectives specified in subsection (1) (a) above;

(d) to undertake a further review of air quality every two years, and from time to time to modify the local air quality management plan in the light of further review and guidance; and

(e) to consult with every bordering authority in the preparation of its review and plan, and any subsequent modifications.")

The noble Lord said: In submitting this amendment, I am very conscious of the fact that this environmental Bill covers so many aspects of environmental problems. But it is interesting to note that it says very little about air pollution. I find that rather surprising, when one considers the high level of public concern that exists over health problems and air pollution. I refer primarily of course to the many respiratory ailments that are associated with pollution. Also, it is fair to say that the current measurements to protect and improve air quality are fragmentary. For example, industrial pollution is controlled by HMIP and by local authorities. Pollution from transportation comes under four ministries: the Department of Transport; Environment; Trade and Industry; and the Home Office. Agriculture, which is one of the major causes of the pollution problems that we face in this country, is controlled by a code of practice from MAFF. Finally, domestic emissions are under the control of local authorities.
Although many changes have occurred in air pollution control over the past two decades, internationally agreed guidelines are routinely being exceeded. Emissions from road transport have increased. That is reflected in the very detailed survey that was carried out by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and also much of the documentation that has come from the National Society for Clean Air. I note with considerable interest that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is dealing with some of the problems that are associated with traffic pollution. I should like to say how delighted I am to see these particular amendments coming forward. But it is important to emphasise that the amendment with which

313
we are now dealing deals with pollution on a national basis, whereas I believe that of the noble Lord is far more concerned with local authorities.
It is important to recognise that over the past four or five years there has built up a consensus view on the conditions for improving air quality, and indeed generally considering air quality management. The Government produced in the past year two very important documents which encapsulate these sentiments. The first was Improving Air Quality, and the most recent, Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge, was published within the past two weeks. It can be seen that the Government are moving forward very much in this particular direction.
However, it is important to recognise that if the aims to be attained are as set out in these particular documents, particularly in relation to the timescales that are projected, then there is an immediate need for legislation. This Bill provides a very good opportunity for such legislation.
I believe that there is now a consensus view on the strategy for air quality management. The first important aspect is to establish air quality standards. That has now been done for quite a large number of potential pollutants, and it is interesting also to note that in Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge the list has been extended. I congratulate the Government on that particular move.
This should then allow for a general air quality review to take place, which should give us a very clear understanding of the distribution of air pollution problems throughout the country.
Three important aspects must be considered. The first is monitoring and sampling. The second is the standardisation of data, particularly any computerisation of data, so that that is compatible across the country as a whole. The third is the interpretation of data.
I recently attended a conference sponsored by the National Society for Clean Air, where there was a grouping of various interested parties in air pollution control and monitoring. This involved industry, government, local authorities and various other interested groupings, including universities. One of the features that came through loud and clear was that, first, a considerable amount of interest and effort is being expended on these particular problems. However, although the data are there, very often they are not compatible. Very often one runs into problems over sampling. I was particularly impressed by the Meteorological Office, which has done very extensive surveys and has shown how critical sampling can be in giving the correct data. I believe that this is merely a matter of addressing the protocol that is involved in approaching this problem. That is not insoluble. But it Is tremendously important to appreciate that if we do not get this right, all that we will end up with is a lot of data which are rather meaningless.
In order to accomplish that, this amendment makes the following general proposals. The Secretary of State would be responsible for setting up the air quality standards. The determination of the strategic approach would then be up to air quality management. It would provide guidance particularly on the techniques to be
314
used locally to characterise air quality. We believe that in all these matters the Secretaries of State should have regard to advice from the environmental agencies which are now being set up in the Bill.
It is equally important that local authorities should be responsible for the review of air quality and the establishment of air quality management areas. We believe that it is of major importance that the involvement of local authorities should be statutory to ensure a uniform and co-ordinated coverage of monitoring and data assessment.
An important consequence of this type of approach is that it would allow for what I call an effects-based approach to the setting of air quality standards rather than relying on fixed emission limits and giving a flexibility to take account of the receiving capacity of the local environment, as applies to water. It is an approach that has been applied extremely successfully to the control over water and it avoids the air not being able to deal with what are reasonable approaches to emissions from various local authorities or industry as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Nathan: In supporting this amendment, I point out that the main theme of the Government, particularly in relation to Part I of the Bill, has been an emphasis on sustainable development. Therefore, in that context it came as a surprise to find no adequate reference in the Bill to problems relating to air pollution. They are there by implication in relation to HMIP, whose responsibilities are confined to exceptionally difficult industrial emissions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, said, there has been increasing concern among the public generally on health grounds, particularly perhaps in relation to asthma. It is said that one in seven children now suffer from asthma. It is quite generally thought that some air pollution is responsible for that trouble. It seems to me, and others, that provision in the Bill relating to air pollution is of the first importance.
That view is clearly shared by the Government. On the second day of the Committee stage of the Bill the Government issued their paper relating to their policy on air pollution. It was, if I may say so, an excellent paper. I believe that this amendment, though drafted and published before that document was issued, is closely in line with the Government's policy, as disclosed in that paper.
The amendment lays the foundations for effective air pollution control, which would ensure that investment is related to risks to health, amenity and conservation; that air quality is protected and improved at least cost by a balance between national and local measures; that local measures are focused on point, mobile and diffuse sources related to the locality and cost-effectiveness of pollution abatement; and that pollution control is carried out at the level appropriate to the task.
Subsection (5) of the new clause places a statutory duty on local authorities, as local air quality management authorities, to prepare local air quality management plans and to revise them periodically to keep them up to date. Using central guidance, they will identify the most cost-effective and socially acceptable

315
package of measures to achieve nationally agreed air quality standards in their locality. It is important that the duty to prepare plans should be statutory, otherwise the current position of air pollution monitoring, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, referred, will recur: patchy coverage with poor co-ordination and often a waste of resources.
I emphasise a number of points. First, with regard to the designation of air quality management areas, it is in these areas that the most active control measures will be taken. Concentrating effort where the air quality standards are, or are likely to be, exceeded saves cost and effort. The long experience of local authorities in air pollution control and the expertise of the environmental health officers give the assurance that they will be able to do the job.
Consultation and co-operation with neighbouring authorities are routine. But the southern England radiation monitoring network, covering West Sussex, Hampshire, Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, is worth mentioning as an example of co-ordinated operation involving common standards, co-ordinated at Southampton University, of monitoring by sample—for instance, seaweed and growing crops, shellfish and air quality. The local authority radiation monitoring control committee was established in that context. So there is nothing unusual in foreseeing co-operation between local authorities in the context of air pollution control, as proposed in the amendment.
The Government expressed their intention to achieve air quality targets by the year 2005 in the document to which I referred. That means that the wheels must be put in motion now. I believe that the Government must take this legislative opportunity. They cannot afford to wait for another.
Finally, I must refer to money. However cost-effective and efficient the arrangements, inevitably they will involve expenditure. Local authorities must be funded adequately by express provision for the purpose. I hope that the Government will give an assurance that that will be done.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Lewis and Lord Nathan. I also support, in the following group, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. This is the one legislative opportunity that we have to put into effect the Government's proposals on air quality. It is opportune that their document was produced during the passage of the Bill. It is an occasion for them to seize the opportunity to amend the legislation, if we ourselves do not achieve that today.
The Government are to be commended for proposing the establishment of a framework of national standards which focus on the main pollutants that concern us. They do not go far enough in dealing with the problem of car emissions, which nowadays is the major pollutant. It used to be the burning of coal fires and so on and the clean air Acts dealt with that. We need now to adopt a
316
strategic approach to managing air quality based on setting clear national standards, as was said by the mover of the amendment.
Also, it is essential that air quality considerations are integrated with planning, transport and other agencies. One of the omissions in the Government's plans is the provision of a good quality public transport system, so that people are less tempted—as we all are—to use their cars to get to work.
The amendments are supported by the local authority associations. They see very little that is controversial in them and much that is commendable. They also accept that air pollution does not respect local authority boundaries and that each authority should face a duty to act as an air quality management authority. Therefore, it is vital that the new scheme has nationwide coverage and it is not left to local authorities to implement on a piecemeal basis.
As I said, the key weakness of the Government's proposals is in the area of transport. We need to address that issue. Most of the 20 recommendations in the Government's report are of a research, planning or policy nature. Apart from the promise of more testing for London taxi exhausts and the possible addition of a new statutory measure covering exhaust fumes, there are very few new policies or commitments. Therefore, the Government's paper does not go far enough. We need legislation at this stage. We should seize this golden opportunity to legislate today and take action, as in the following group of amendments, against excessive emissions from vehicles. We should also be conscious that motor vehicles contribute to the greenhouse effect. That may be discounted by some experts; nevertheless it is clear that we are pumping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere.
We enthusiastically support these amendments and those in the following group.
Lord Renton: Any proposal to reduce air pollution deserves serious consideration. I have lived with this subject for 40 years, since I had the responsibility of helping to pilot the first of the clean air Acts through another place. Pollution arises from three causes—industrial, domestic and vehicles—and I will say a quick word about each of them. In the last century attempts were made to control industrial pollution, but they were very unsuccessful through lack of enforcement. They are still not perfect. As to domestic pollution, the Clean Air Act was very effective in dealing with that. It was a good Right-wing effort. The late Lord Duncan-Sandys piloted the Bill through. He introduced it as Minister of Transport with the help of his Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Enoch Powell, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, your humble servant.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I should like to make a very small point. I believe it was the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, not the Ministry of Transport.
Lord Renton: Did I say the Ministry of Transport? I am sorry. The noble Lord is quite right, it was the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It was a slip of the tongue, for which I apologise.

317
That Act, I am glad to say, has been pretty effective. The reduction in the use of coal—bituminous coal especially—for domestic heating has been one of the principal causes of the improvement.
The main trouble now is the pollution caused by vehicles—that is, motor vehicles and mechanical vehicles of all kinds. That is why the amendments which are to follow will require even more serious consideration than this one. As to this amendment, what worries me is that it would overlap with existing arrangements for monitoring and enforcement, and the cost would be quite considerable. Therefore, with deep respect to the noble Lords who have moved and supported the amendment, I somewhat doubt whether it is really necessary. I will be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about it.
Lord Moran: I should like to express my strong support for the amendment. We all know about the serious problems of air pollution in London and other cities, but air pollution affects not only towns but is also a significant problem in the countryside. In 1994 the expert panel on air quality standards, reporting on ozone, pointed out that in 1990 the standard was exceeded on 56 days—a considerable number—and that that applied to many parts of the countryside.
As to monitoring, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Lewis. The quality and extent of monitoring at present are none too good. The United Nations, under its environmental programme, reported recently on air pollution in the mega-cities of the world and expressed concern about the quality of monitoring in London. Monitoring should be standard and comprehensive throughout the United Kingdom and, above all, related to where the problem is most acute. It is no good monitoring the level of air pollution in London from the top of buildings; it should be done at what I would call pushchair height.
Let me make a brief point about public information. Last October the Transport Committee in another place, in its sixth report on transport-related air pollution in London, recommended that where air quality falls to levels which have potential health implications, bulletins should be issued to the public. That is important and I hope that the Government will pay attention to it. It is important that when pollution is bad the public should be informed by means of radio, television and the press.
Finally, I ask the Government what is happening about the admirable recent 18th report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. There seem to be a lot of plans and strategies but not, so far, very much action. For example, nobody is stopping the cars coming down the Cromwell Road. So far, plans to control traffic in order to reduce air pollution seem to be missing.
Viscount Ullswater: I have listened with great interest to what noble Lords have said on this important topic. The debate is timely. Let me make clear immediately how much the Government welcome the initiative of the noble Lords, Lord Lewis and Lord Nathan. The Government propose to build on it in taking forward their strategy for maintaining and improving air quality.
318
The Committee will be aware that, following publication last March of the discussion paper Improving Air Quality, the Government published on 19th January Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge, a framework of strategic policies for maintaining and improving air quality. It represents a major step. Rapid progress has been made and the Government are determined to maintain that progress. We have proposed a new national air quality strategy, based on clear standards and targets, a system of local air quality management to underpin it, and an action programme of some 20 measures for improving transport emissions. I can now confirm that it is the Government's intention that relevant provision be made in the Bill now before us.
The Government will therefore bring forward their own proposals at a later stage. Since it is likely that for reasons of timing and procedure they will come forward in another place, I should like to take the opportunity this afternoon to set out clearly the Government's intentions.
Legislative provision will be made, first, for establishing the national strategic plan for maintaining and improving air quality. The duty to establish the strategy should, as noble Lords propose, reside with the Secretaries of State. Key elements should indeed include setting clear national standards for air quality and reduction targets for important pollutants, with timetables for achieving them. The strategy will not be an end-point. It will be a framework against which the Government test relevant policies for industry, transport and other matters in future. It will also be the framework for the new system of local air quality management proposed by the Government. It will be revised and adapted in the light of new evidence and better techniques.
The new system of local air quality management will be focused particularly on areas at risk. But the Government intend also to see that air quality considerations are better integrated with local planning, transport and other policies throughout the country. The Government have therefore proposed that all local authorities should have a duty to review air quality periodically.
The Government agree that local authorities will need detailed advice in order to carry out their new functions properly. As with the national strategy, advice for local authorities and their own plans must evolve and adapt over time. The Government would expect that most matters could be dealt with by guidance, as proposed by noble Lords in the amendment. But, as we have seen in long experience of the operation of smoke control areas, and of more general controls on black smoke, it may sometimes be necessary to state details in regulations.
The Government will be looking for constructive participation from local government, industry and others in developing both legislation and subsequent guidance. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, will be happy to know that we shall be involving the National Society for Clean Air and any other bodies that noble Lords may wish to suggest in that. Issues to be covered include techniques for assessing air quality and its effects,

319
criteria for identifying air quality management areas, and methods for managing air quality in these and other localities including, I am sure, sampling and monitoring.
There is also the question of the powers of local authorities. While it is the Government's view that many of the actions to be taken locally are already in the hands of local authorities, their use may need to be made more explicit. Furthermore, the Government do not rule out the possibility that some special powers may need to be available within air quality management areas rather as they already are within smoke control areas. In accordance with the precedent of smoke control areas, the Secretaries of State should be able, following consultation, to bring forward regulations concerning the functions of local authorities within air quality management areas.
It should be clear from what I have said that I am in agreement with the spirit of much of the noble Lord's amendment. As I have explained, the Government intend to bring forward their own provisions which will cover the issues which Amendment No. 264 identifies as important, extended in the ways in which I have indicated. With that assurance to the Committee, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Nathan: Perhaps I may make two points. First, I wish to emphasise the point which other noble Lords have made regarding the existence of air pollution outside the centres of great cities and in particular the impact of agricultural activity on air pollution. I am thinking of nitrogen, let alone methane. Those are matters of considerable concern. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the department concerned in this area. The Minister might care to take that into account.
The other point to which I would refer is the vexed and disagreeable subject of money. It would be helpful if the noble Viscount could say something about his proposals in that regard. He accepts—and I am appreciative of it—the main burden of the points made in the amendment, although his colleagues will bring forward amendments of their own. That is fine. But I think it would be a mistake to think that an effective system of air pollution control and management will arise without the injection of some money from some source.
Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps I may respond briefly to those two points. I indicated that this would be a national strategy with national standards for air quality and reduction targets for the important pollutants. I hope that that will give the noble Lord some assurance on the first point.
On the second point, for the core functions of reviewing air quality and taking into account more fully land use and transport planning, the costs are unlikely to be significant. For the most part, it will be a matter of doing differently things which most relevant local authorities already do. Nevertheless, the Government have indicated that local authorities will be able to bid
320
for resources where necessary. We anticipate that that matter will be covered when the proposals come forward in another place and we are in touch with local authorities.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: I thank the Minister for his clear exposition of what is an important case. He has covered all the points that we would wish to make. We will look with great interest at the report when it comes forward. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Beaumont, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, for helping me with. this proposal. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 264A:
Before Clause 75, insert the following new clause:
("Emissions
Emissions from stationary vehicles
.—(1) Save as provided in subsection (2) below, the person in charge of a motor vehicle shall, when the vehicle is stationary on a road, stop the action of any machinery attached to or forming part of the vehicle so far as may be necessary for the prevention of the emission of smoke, fumes or vapour.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) do not apply—

(a) when the vehicle is stationary owing to the necessities of traffic;

(b) so as to prevent the examination or working of the machinery where the examination is necessitated by any failure or derangement of the machinery or where the machinery is required to be worked for a purpose other than driving the vehicle; or

(c) in respect of a vehicle propelled by gas produced in plant carried on the vehicle, to such plant.

(3) If the person in charge of a stationary vehicle on the road does not stop the action of a vehicle in accordance with subsection (1) above, an authorised officer of the local authority in which the road is situated may serve a notice on him requiring him to pay a penalty charge to the local authority.
(4) The person in charge of a vehicle served with a notice under subsection (3) above shall have the right of appeal against the service of the notice to the local authority in the first instance and thereafter, to an adjudicator appointed by the local authority.
(5) The amount of the penalty charge payable under subsection (3) above shall be set at a level which would allow the local authority to recover the reasonable costs of the enforcement of the provisions of this section.")
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we are taking Amendments Nos. 264B and 264C. I gained the impression from the previous debate that there is already a good deal of support in all parts of the Committee for this group of amendments. Perhaps I may say at the outset how very much I welcome the comprehensive statement which my noble friend has just made about the Government's legislative intentions in this regard. The speed with which the Government have moved on the matter—after all, it was only on 19th January that the document was published—is very much to be commended.
With this group of amendments we move from the general to the particular. As everyone has said, it is a very important particular. The amendments aim to give local authorities new powers to deal effectively with certain vehicle and other emissions which contravene the relevant provisions of the construction and use

321
regulations. There is a history behind the amendments. It has long been apparent that a significant part of the atmospheric pollution in our country comes from a relatively small minority of badly maintained vehicles, which not only puff black smoke but produce completely burnt hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide and other pollutants. Those puff into the street, with all the consequences that have been described.
When a vehicle comes up for its annual MOT test these things are tested and if the vehicle is found to be wanting the certificate is withheld until matters are put right. But that means that a car or lorry may go on polluting the streets for many months before the law catches up with it. At present the powers to deal with this menace are non-existent, very defective or incompletely enforced.
So last year the two London local authority groups—the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities—gave evidence to the Transport Select Committee of another place in which they said that they were proposing legislation in a Private Bill which was intended to deal with the problem. It was put forward by the London Borough of Westminster but it has the support of all the other London boroughs. In its report the Select Committee said:
"We also recommend that the Government should give favourable consideration to a possible proposal from the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association for private legislation to give local authorities in the capital the power to carry out emissions checks on vehicles and to serve the driver, where necessary, with an enforcement notice requiring remedial action to be taken. Such a system could be financed through a fixed penalty charge".
Since then there has been a great deal of consultation between the local authorities, the Department of Transport, my noble friend's department and the Home Office—the police may well be involved—and last month when the Government's publication on air quality was printed it was seen that the Government committed themselves. The report said:
"the Government welcomes the LBA initiative in bringing forward proposals in the London Local Authorities Bill to extend kerbside emissions testing powers to London local authorities. The proposals may present an opportunity to increase the level of roadside emissions testing in London, supplementing testing already carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate, and may provide a blueprint for future initiatives elsewhere in the country".
It will be recognised that hitherto this had been seen as being confined to London. It was the Government who recognised that there might well be wider application for the powers.
The Private Bill was presented in this House at the end of last year and it has begun its somewhat slow and uncertain progress through Parliament. One remembers that the 1991 Bill, which was introduced in this House, has still made no progress. Private legislation has its perils. Part II of that Bill contains eight clauses and four schedules setting out the proposed powers. A Petition has been presented against that Private Bill on behalf of a number of motoring and other organisations. Two main points are made in the Petition. The first point is that, if there is going to be legislation, it should be made national. The second point is that a Bill should not
322
provide power for a local authority official to stop vehicles and that such power should be confined to the police. I will not elaborate on that.
These three amendments provide national powers of the kind that have already been commended by the Government in the White Paper on air quality. As your Lordships will see, they contain no powers for local authority officials to stop vehicles in the street. So the two main points of the Petition against the Private Bill seem to have been met. There are others—and I have no doubt that they will be argued—but I am hoping that the main opposition to the provision will not extend to the new clauses.
What do the new clauses do? Perhaps I may take them in reverse order as that makes more logical sense. Amendment No. 264C gives the power to test to see whether vehicles are complying with the relevant regulations. If a vehicle is in breach, there is a penalty charge and the driver is given eight weeks to get the defect put right. The clause contains a right of appeal. A very important point is that the penalties which were suggested by the committee in another place are set at a level to cover costs. It is not intended to be a revenue-raising measure, but merely to cover the costs of the new operation. As is appropriate, there is provision for a code of practice.
Amendment No. 264B extends to on-street nuisances powers which are already available off-street. If there is a concrete mixer or an air compressor which is chuntering away on a building site and emitting smoke and other pollutants, the local authority can stop it. The power is not available if the contractor keeps it in the street. That is absurd. This amendment is intended to deal with that.
Amendment No. 264A is an interesting one and I am sure that Members of the Committee will have a good deal of sympathy with it. It is designed to stop people sitting in their vehicles in the street, often for hours at a time, with the engines running. Sometimes large buses and huge lorries have their engines running for no better purpose other than that the driver wants to keep warm in the cab. There must be less polluting ways of keeping drivers warm. One may suggest a woolly hat and an overcoat. One of my honourable friends in another place got into dreadful trouble suggesting that. We have all seen engines running, and that is nonsense. It is quite wrong to have an engine left running for a long period with nothing being done about it.
These are in the nature of probing amendments. I am not so rash as to believe that we have got matters right. My noble friend has already said that the Government will be introducing legislation in another place to implement many of the provisions of the policy document on air quality. I hope that he will be able to give the Committee an assurance this afternoon that they will legislate to confer the necessary powers on local authorities in order to save what at the moment are the perils and vagaries of a piece of local legislation which would apply to London only. The London authorities are to be congratulated on their initiative. It would be very much better if these provisions can be incorporated in the Bill and applied nationally.
I hope that I am pushing at an open door on this issue and that the Government will carry through the words which I quoted a few moments ago from the policy document Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge into effective legislation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I was under the impression that it was already an offence to drive a vehicle which had smoke coming from its exhaust. I say that because I have a rather elderly horsebox which was stopped the other day by the police. It was pulled over to the side of the road and the police said that the vehicle was emitting too much smoke. The vehicle was driven straight to a testing station and it was found not to be emitting too much smoke. There is already the power to take that step.
I do not believe that anyone is denying this perfectly reasonable and sensible course. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that people should not use diesel fuel belonging to somebody else just to keep their feet warm, I believe that everybody has an immense amount of sympathy with that. I believe that it is also an offence to leave a motor vehicle with the engine running without the driver being present. If those two factors are correct, is it really necessary to add yet another offence to the legislation? I ask that in a spirit of friendly inquiry, and that is all.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: I support my noble friend and make two additional points. I should like to see the penalties made stronger. I should like to see the power introduced for confiscation for second or third offences. We know that there are fleets of vehicles which are badly maintained and it almost pays the owners to pay the fines and to get away with it. At some stage I should like to see confiscation powers included.
On the question of keeping one's feet warm, one of the two biggest offenders in London are the buses of London Transport. One can go to the bus terminus at the side of John Lewis in Oxford Street and see buses with engines running with the drivers sitting in the cabs. That is done alongside a notice put up by London Transport telling staff to turn off their engines, but no one bothers to do it. The second biggest offenders are the tourist coaches waiting for their hordes of very valuable tourists. The drivers like to keep warm. I believe that an occasional warning from police who happily pass by may be worth trying.
Baroness David: Will the noble Lord's new clause cover cars left with their engines running in your Lordships' car park?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I rise briefly to support the spirit of the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Public Policy Committee of the RAC which is one of the organisations to which my noble friend referred. It has petitioned against the London Local Authorities Bill, currently before your Lordships' House, for the reasons which my noble friend expressed.
324
I am glad to say that in his amendments my noble friend has managed to get round some of the problems which we see contained in that Bill.
There is no doubt that my noble friend has touched on a couple of important issues. The RAC has always been very much in favour of cutting down on vehicles which make dirty emissions. It is a fact that only 10 per cent. of badly tuned vehicles account for over half the bad emissions. The few vehicles which do that give all motorists a bad name.
The issues are quite complicated. We need national measures to ensure that vehicle emission standards are properly and fairly enforced, in particular in our cities. That is why these amendments are, as I say, preferable to the approach contained in the London Local Authorities Bill. We must be sure of course that new legislation is indeed needed, as my noble friend Lord Onslow has said. The problem is not simply the lack of money to enforce laws which are already in force.
The construction and use regulations already provide the necessary legal framework and sanctions for tackling polluting vehicles. The real problem of course is that resources cannot be made available on a sufficient scale to tackle the problem at street level. Given that that is the case, should we not be trying to find ways to fund enforcement of the existing regulations rather than starting all over again? Moreover, it must surely be right that the penalties in this field should be the same as those which apply under the construction and use regulations which is not the case with these amendments.
There is a fundamental issue to which my noble friend Lord Jenkin has referred; namely, the power to stop vehicles on the public highway in order to test them. At present the power can only be exercised for traffic matters by a police officer in uniform under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1968. That situation must be maintained for obvious reasons relating to personal safety and security. Clearly, there is widespread anxiety among the public about the possibility of any change in the law in that respect. I believe that the existing position needs to be made absolutely clear. I know that my noble friend's amendment does not refer to this matter, but the London Local Authorities Bill does. In replying to the amendment, I hope that my noble friend will say that the situation must be maintained—that is to say, that a police officer is the only person who can stop a vehicle.
The requirement should also be that the training of testers referred to in the amendment must also be as good as that required for the testers of the Department of Transport from the Vehicle Inspectorate. We must not have two standards in this matter.
My noble friend's Amendment No. 264A refers to emissions from stationary vehicles, and my noble friend Lord Finsberg has referred to that. The problem seems to be concerned with stationary coaches and buses. One sees them in this area. I wonder whether the amendment is drawn tightly enough for that. It says in subsection (2) (b),
"or where the machinery is required to be worked for a purpose other than driving the vehicle".

325
I hope that that will not allow drivers to leave vehicle engines running solely for the purpose of using the heater. If so, that would drive a coach and horses through the purpose of the amendment and that I would not want to see. However, it seems that the amendment as drafted would require people to drive straight off after having started the car. That is a very dangerous thing to do on a cold and frosty morning when the windscreen is covered with snow and ice. The car must be allowed to get warm enough in order to heat the heater to get the windscreen clear. I wish to see the amendment put in such a way that that can happen otherwise there would be important safety implications.
However, in conclusion, I reaffirm the view that the aims of the amendment are entirely right. What we now need, as my noble friend has said, is the Government to bring these provisions into effect.
Lord Tope: I support the amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, they come from the latest London Local Authorities Bill. I suppose that I should declare my interest as I currently chair the policy and finance committee of the London Boroughs Association which is among those promoting that Bill. The noble Lord explained his amendments well and fully, and I am grateful to him for doing so. I shall not repeat his comments. He referred to the London Local Authorities Bill. The Committee will know better than I what a long and tortuous process that is. I am aware that our No. 2 Bill, which Vas introduced in 1991, received its Third Reading in this place only this week.
The problem in London and other urban and rural areas, as I believe we are all agreed, requires more urgent action than to wait for the long and tortuous process of getting a Private Bill through Parliament. In London, 90 per cent. of the pollution from vehicle emissions comes from only 10 per cent. of vehicles. That would suggest that this is a problem which could be tackled effectively if effective enforcement powers existed. The amendments aim to give local authorities the power to carry out testing. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, suggested that such powers exist already; they do, but only the police and the Department of Transport Vehicle Inspectorate can do the testing. That can obviously happen on a limited scale only and, because the offences are criminal, the fines then go to the Treasury. We need a more urgent and effective way of tackling this problem on a wider scale.
The purpose of the amendments is to give local authorities powers to initiate a self-financing scheme by introducing penalty charges—I hesitate to say this—similar to those introduced recently for parking. It would enable such pollution control to be brought forward on a self-financing basis. That is the important difference.
Reference has been made to the proposals in the London Local Authorities Bill to give local authorities the power to stop vehicles. I am aware of the opposition from the RAC, the Freight Transport Association, and so forth. As I believe the phrase goes, these proposals are eminently negotiable. They are deliberately not part of the amendments. We are much more interested in
326
seeing an effective scheme in operation in London, and indeed nationwide, than we are in acquiring powers to make ourselves even more unpopular with motorists.
As I say, I support the amendments and thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for moving them so well today. I look forward, when the Minister replies, to hearing his assurance that we are pushing at an open door, and that, although the amendments may not yet be drafted perfectly and every point may not yet have been covered, they will be by the end of the Bill's passage through this place.
Buses have been mentioned and reference has been made to drivers needing to keep warm. I declare another personal interest: my local bus garage happens to be in the ward that I represent on my local council. This has been a considerable problem for me and, more importantly, for my constituents for many years. If we achieve nothing else today, I shall be grateful to put an end to those complaints.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I rise only to ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm what I believe he said on an earlier amendment: that it is the Government's firm intention to introduce into the Bill provisions to have effective control in these matters. However, I understand that they will not in fact be introduced until the Bill goes to another place. If, as I am sure is the feeling of the Committee at the moment, we are not to press these amendments, we want to know that the Government are firmly committed to legislating on this subject in the Bill, even though it be in another place.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I have listened with great interest to all that has been said. Like other Members of the Committee, I have sympathy with the purpose of the amendments. Vehicle emissions are a nuisance. The cry that seems to be coming out is the usual one, "and something must be done".
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding tabled the amendments, with which I see a number of problems. I should be most reluctant to provide any legislation which would mean the setting up of yet another army of officials—uniformed, I expect—on our streets. It is already confusing with parking wardens, private security services and so forth. As my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara so eloquently said, the responsibility for stopping vehicles has been, and should remain, with the police authorities. Whether a vehicle which is taken off the road by those authorities and taken to a testing station should have the test carried out by a sub-contractor is another matter.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg talked about confiscation. In so far as concerns commercial vehicles, the traffic commissioners have all the authority and power that they need to remove such vehicles from the road, and, as he knows, to close down a business merely by removing the licence. It is a great disappointment to me that greater evidence is not available to us to demonstrate that the traffic commissioners are doing their job in that area. With regard to taxi cabs, there is the hackney carriage licence inspection, when any defects can result in the licence being withheld. That provision already exists.

327
Other Members of the Committee have spoken about the MoT on the vehicle's third anniversary. There is the power to keep the vehicle off the road if the emission test which is incorporated in the MoT is not satisfactory. We might bring that test a little earlier, and bring it into the second year and not after the third anniversary. There is ample evidence to show (again, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Brabazon mentioned this) that a significant proportion of the 23 million motor cars on the road are the gross polluters. He said 10 per cent.; I would have said 20 per cent. or 25 per cent., but whether it is 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., it is a significant number.
Rather than have the blanket cover which my noble friend Lord Jenkin proposes in this series of amendments, we should use more effectively the construction and use regulations which are already available; the enforcement should be better targeted; and resources for the enforcement should be made available, because without adequate enforcement the existing law is disregarded. That is not something we should condone.
I hope that when my noble friend answers—I am sure that he will acknowledge the problem—he will undertake to have a much wider review of some of the technical and practical difficulties that arise in overcoming this problem.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: In speaking to the amendment, I must first declare a non-interest in that I do not own or drive a car. If the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is correct in saying that only a small percentage of cars causes a large percentage of the pollution, we should address that problem. It is clear that the existing regulations do not tackle it. It is not right to say that we should have better enforcement. We must increase the incentives to discourage people from owning cars which emit a great deal of pollution. Unless the incentives are changed, pollution will continue. I do not know how one should increase the cost of owning polluting cars; but perhaps as cars become older, the owners should pay more road tax. That will be much more effective and targeted than a blanket provision which will catch the drivers of all kinds of cars.
Viscount Ullswater: The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Jenkin aim to tackle certain aspects of traffic pollution. We are all well aware that traffic is now the major source of pollution in our town centres. I therefore sympathise with those aims. Indeed, the fact that the Government's strategic proposals were developed jointly by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with the Secretary of State for Transport, reflects the importance that the Government as a whole attach to tackling this sector. The proposals include a separate action plan for transport.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked about the amendments which we intend to bring forward. As I indicated in speaking to the previous amendment, we
328
shall bring them forward in another place. Due to the rapidity with which we have moved since the publication of Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge on 19th January, it is difficult to have amendments ready to introduce in this House. I hope that I shall be able to persuade my noble friend that these amendments are not the most suitable to bring forward either in this House or in another place—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I was not suggesting that they were suitable. I was asking whether the Government were giving a firm undertaking to introduce legislation on this subject in this Bill in another place.
Viscount Ullswater: As I indicated, the proposals include a separate action plan for transport. As the Government's air quality strategy develops, we shall consider how to develop them further both strategically and at the detailed level of implementation.
Amendment No. 264A sounds very attractive. It purports to deal with motorists who leave their engines running unnecessarily. I very much sympathise with the sentiment expressed by many Members but I am not sure that this amendment is the answer. A similar offence already exists. Regulation 98 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 already requires that drivers should take appropriate action to prevent unnecessary noise by switching off their engines when stationary. In practice, the offence is very difficult to prosecute and very difficult to prove.
I have to say that proving unnecessary emissions would be likely to be even more difficult than proving unnecessary noise. Creating a new offence along the lines proposed would seem therefore to serve no effective purpose. It may be far better to concentrate further on making motorists alert to the consequences of leaving engines running unnecessarily.
Amendment No. 264B aims to extend the statutory nuisance controls in Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to include such things as emissions from mobile tarmac plant. The Government believe that there are already sufficient powers available to the police, vehicle inspectors and others to control these emissions. I believe that deals with the problem of my noble friend Lord Onslow's horse box. These include the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and a variety of provisions under health and safety legislation.
In turning to my noble friend's Amendment No. 264C, we come to an additional opportunity to remove polluting vehicles from the road—a matter to which we attach the greatest importance. A similar proposal has been made in connection with the Sixth London Local Authorities Bill, as amplified by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport have made clear that the Government are keen to consider the approach of giving powers to local authorities. As the Secretary of State has indicated, the Government recognise that this is the sort of power that might be appropriate for local authorities in exercising their proposed functions under the air quality strategy. However, there are technical problems associated with the proposal. In particular, I must say to my noble

329
friends Lord Brabazon and Lord Lucas that the idea that enforcement in this area should be given to bodies other than the police and the vehicle inspectorate is one which, while it merits consideration, also needs close examination.
The Government believe that the proposal should be considered at more length. The Government are ready to do that, in conjunction with the wider proposals on air quality which we shall be bringing forward in another place. But Members of the Committee will understand that in view of the particular difficulties that we see in this case, I can al this stage give no assurances as to the outcome of that consideration. I hope that on the basis of what I have said, my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am grateful for the considerable volume of support that the amendments have attracted in Committee. As we are trying to work to the new Rippon rules, I shall not attempt to comment on all the points that were made. The Committee will wish to move on to the next amendments.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked a strictly pertinent question to which I was hoping to hear a more committed reply. I believe that in so far as these matters can be made effective in legislation, the Committee wishes them to be legislated for in this Bill. We do not wish to be fobbed off with the reply, "It will need a great deal more talking and thinking about". Everyone knows that it will be years before another Bill is introduced.
The existing powers are not sufficient. One has only to walk down the road to see that. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth that it is not merely a matter of resources. I hope that the police will do more to combat real crime rather than stopping vehicles puffing out smoke. Policemen are expensive, rare and valuable commodities. The local authorities should have the power to act because they must respond to public pressures. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, illustrated that by referring to the bus depot in his constituency.
The amendment introduces a new self-financing scheme which will be enforced by local authorities. They have every incentive to do that without being distracted from other more immediate topics, such as fighting crime. The present system does not work. Perhaps I may remind my noble friend Lord Ullswater that his department has given a warm welcome to the London Bill. If it is right in London and the Government are going to support the Bill, why not support these new clauses?
I shall not press the matter to a Division. However, I wish to leave my noble friend in no doubt that the Committee wishes to see this matter legislated for in this Bill. We hope that the Government will bring forward their proposals in another place, together with the rest of the package. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 264B and 264C not moved.]
Clause 75 [National waste strategy]:
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 265:
Page 78, line 5, at end insert:
("National resource management strategy: England and Wales.

(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare a statement ("the resource management strategy") containing policies for the conservation of minerals, energy, water, land and soil resources.

(2) The resource management strategy shall include a statement of the Secretary of State's policies for—

(a) reducing the demand for the resources addressed by the strategy;

(b) encouraging the more efficient use of these resources;

(c) substituting renewable resources for non-renewable resources where there is a net environmental benefit by so doing,

(d) enhancing the environmental value of those resources; and

(e) minimising the environmental impact of extracting, exploiting or developing those resources.

(3) In preparing the resource management strategy or any modification of it the Secretary of State shall consult bodies or persons representative of local government, environmental, business and community interests.

(4) The Secretary of State shall establish appropriate bodies within Government, where such bodies do not already exist, including a Soil Conservation Unit and a Minerals Efficiency Office, to assist in the implementation of this strategy.").

The noble Lord said: Previous amendments related to the detail of the Bill; but my amendment is, in a sense, much more strategic. It suggests that this admirable Bill contains an important gap. That is the requirement or need to produce a strategy for national resource management.
Over recent years there have been a number of extremely valuable environmental White Papers and in 1994 we had the Government's sustainable development strategy. We have also a whole range of guidance produced on what should happen in relation to different issues. I believe that there is a gap between those macro White Papers and environmental sustainable development strategies and the need for something much more specific which relates to the conservation and management of key resources of minerals, energy, water, land and so on.
At present I fear that to some extent, at least, the Government's policies and, indeed, policy planning guidance notes and mineral planning guidance notes are based far too much on a philosophy of predicting demand and providing for that demand. Very often it is simply not possible to provide that demand without considerable environmental damage.
This is very much a probing amendment. I do not suggest that the wording of the amendment is right. I merely ask the Government to seek to strengthen and deepen their own Bill by giving the Secretary of State a requirement to produce a strategy. I do not specify how often that should be done. That strategy should include key measures such as, for example, reducing the demand for such land resources by re-using vacant urban land rather than developing greenfield sites. The amount of rural land still being lost is considerable. Members of

331
the Committee may not realise that since 1945 an area of land greater than the size of Greater London—Berkshire, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire—has been "urbanised", which is a suitably horrible word. Currently we are losing rural land to development at the rate of 27,000 acres per year. Therefore, it is a very real problem.
We need a strategy to deal with that, which the Government should provide in the Bill. That would then be the benchmark for the administration of the planning rules, for the consideration of development and for guidelines which the Government issue on detailed matters which arise.
Perhaps I may refer to a few examples. Let us consider minerals and the need for aggregates. It cannot be right to say that, because the need for aggregates is so great, it should be permissible to produce those by quarrying as and where the developers wish to do so. For example, in general I do not believe that it is right to allow quarrying for aggregates in national parks. However, it may be right if the developers are seeking to use a particular stone that is found only in a national park to clothe buildings to be erected in that national park and give a vernacular attraction to those buildings. In that case it may be reasonable to say that the stone must come from the national park. But in general, even though the cost of providing aggregates may be higher in order to meet our environmental objectives, that cost must be met. That often means that the most obvious site for quarrying will not always be appropriate. Unless there is such a strategy, we shall not have the right developments in the right places.
With regard to water, we need effective measures to control leakage and manage demand for water resources. The National Rivers Authority has estimated that the demand for water may increase by some 25 per cent. by the year 2021. That may produce intolerable burdens on existing underground water reserves and already much damage has been done by over-abstraction rather than conservation of water. That is an area in which a specific strategy is needed. Energy is another area in which such a strategy is needed.
I wish to make the general point that there is a gap in the Bill and my amendment seeks to close it by providing, for the first time, a management strategy for those crucial resources which, if they are not properly managed, may result in really serious damage being done to the environment of this country; and that is totally contrary to the purposes of this admirable Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I support the amendment moved so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Last week the Government published a discussion draft on waste strategy for England and Wales which quite clearly should be a very small part of a much wider statement on national resource management. To deal merely with waste is not sufficient. We should not be using so much of them in the first place. Therefore, there is a clear need for a much broader approach to the management of our limited natural resources.
332
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has covered the major points in relation to the irreparable loss to our national parks and other beautiful places caused by quarrying. We dealt with mineral abstraction a few days ago, without much success in view of the response from the Government. But there is widespread anxiety about the blight which quarries create on landscapes and in relation to the totally irreparable, irreplaceable loss caused by using precious stone for placing underneath motorways. Therefore, I support the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I hope that the Committee will approach the amendment with a certain degree of caution. At first sight it has the look of a motherhood and apple pie amendment in the sense that it aims to do good. Quite clearly, the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is to do good. There is no doubt that the resource management for which he asks is aimed at doing good. But the amendment does not appear to me to meet that aim.
It is obviously good to encourage the more efficient use of those resources. That is clear. It is also clearly good to minimise the environmental impact of extracting such resources. That is clearly good. However, the amendment asks the Secretary of State to reduce the demand for those resources. That is quite a different matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to minerals and aggregates. The Committee will know of my affection for concrete. The noble Lord asks that the extraction of aggregate for concrete, whether used for roads or buildings, should be controlled. That is sensible. But controlling extraction is very different from reducing the demand, because the demand for aggregates can be reduced only by reducing the demands on the construction industry. The construction industry has been extremely hard-hit in recent years without having further damage inflicted upon it.
Lord Marlesford: I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. One way in which to reduce the demand for new aggregates is to reuse those which exist and there is great scope for that to be done. If such a measure were included in the strategy, that would give encouragement for that to be done.
Lord Howie of Troon: That is true up to a point, but only up to a point. Existing aggregates can be obtained only by knocking things down. In this country we need more building rather than the knocking down of buildings.
Another part of the amendment that seems to have gone slightly awry is that which refers to the idea that renewable resources should be substituted for non-renewable resources when there is a net environmental benefit for so doing. That is good up to a point; but, again, only up to a point. There are two benefits to be derived from the use of resources of whatever kind. I recall that that point was made during Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, in a splendid speech. The environmental and the cost benefit have to be considered. There is no point

333
in saying that it must be a policy of the Secretary of State that the environmental benefit should overrule the additional cost of using one material against another. That is far too detailed. a point to put in such an amendment which is meant to achieve general good.
While I support the noble Lord's underlying intentions, for the reasons that I have expressed, I believe that his amendment is faulty. For example, I do not understand what the noble Lord means when he refers to,
"enhancing the environmental value of those resources".
I cannot support the amendment in its present form.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Marlesford as regards one particular point. I refer to the reuse of aggregate and hard core. I have a hole in the ground which was dug by my forebear a long time ago as a chalk pit. People became most excited about it because it was a disused quarry which they rather liked. In fact, I obtained planning permission to fill it in with grade 1 hard core. Most of the latter comprised lumps of concrete and road scrapings. All of that can be used if it is subjected to a certain industrial process.
However, the industrial process of smashing up concrete is incredibly noisy and rather expensive. Across the road from my hole in the ground is someone else's hole in the ground. Someone applied for planning permission to put a concrete breaking plant into that hole. Everyone in the local community was up in arms objecting to that environmentally sensible process because it would be noisy and smoky. Therefore, as a consequence, the stuff is clumped quietly in another hole in the ground and not used, while another hole, a fifth hole—and I am running out of holes—has to be dug to make up the concrete. I did not intend to intervene until my noble friend made his last comment. I believe that what I have said is apposite and germane to the matter under discussion.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I should like to express my support for the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. Although I understand the reason for my noble friend bringing forward such an amendment, I believe that the matter needs to be treated with considerable caution. Experience has shown us that central planning of the use of resources is about the most inefficient way of dealing with them that can possibly be decided upon. The resources that we have in this country and how we use them will change. My noble friend referred to the fact that land is being destroyed. Land is being used in a different way and in a way that, at present, is of greater benefit to the majority of the people. Surely that is something that ever ebbs and flows.
Therefore, although I understand the point that my noble friend is trying to make, I believe that we have to consider what is right for the nation and not necessarily what might suit our own particular needs. I hope that the Government will treat the amendment with considerable care.
Lord Desai: I rise to support the amendment. However, I believe that something additional is
334
required. I like the amendment because it is comprehensive in its coverage of the soil of things that we need to conserve. It is especially important that water conservation should be mentioned. Water will be one of the big problems of the coming century; indeed, that is quite clear from global trends. In fact, water may prove to be much more important than climate quality in the years to come.
Unlike my noble friend Lord Howie—and we seem to be disagreeing more than we normally do—I like the fact that the amendment starts by referring to "reducing the demand". As my noble friend pointed out, there is a clear conflict. Some of those conflicts have so far been implicit. It is rather good that they have now been brought to light.
When we talk about reducing the demand for renewable resources or for other such resources, obviously some people will be affected. Some industries will be affected if the demand is reduced. However, there are two ways of reducing demand: one may reduce it by changing the product mix that one uses or one may change the process by which something is produced. If one changes the process but not the product mix, one might be able to reduce the environmental cost of an activity without actually reducing the economic activity.
While I find the amendment to be very good—unlike the clause which it aims to amend and which runs into two pages—I should have much preferred the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, to spell out in greater detail the economic background. I have in mind the fact that all this ought to be done in the context of a sustainable development strategy so that we do not lose sight of the economic development angle. Obviously, there are very tough problems that have to be faced. At the same time, I should have liked the noble Lord to have spelt out more fully the kinds of things that he would like the Secretary of State to do. As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, it need not involve central planning; indeed, it could involve all sorts of incentives, compatible prices and subsidies. That needs to be spelt out more clearly. Something like the noble Lord's amendment will have to be put into environmental policy either implicitly or explicitly. If it is not there, the policy will not make any sense.
Viscount Ullswater: I have so often listened to noble Lords sitting on the same Benches as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, criticising the Government for not building more and more houses. They want more and more houses and they say that all that the house builders want is more and more land upon which to build them. My noble friend would indicate that there is plenty of land; for example, there is plenty of land in city centres that can be built upon. But that is not actually sufficient for the number of houses which it is projected will be needed in the next 15 years.
My noble friend Lord Wade said that we need to approach the matter with considerable caution. It is a question of putting land to alternative uses. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Onslow has a hole at one moment and then, at another moment, he wants to fill it up with something else. That is an alternative use of the same piece of land. He may do so with energy-intensive

335
concrete breakers, for which he would have to obtain planning permission and which would be unfriendly to many people. I believe that the Government need to steer a clear path through the middle of both those respectable ideas. Sometimes I feel that I am straying into a debate of the Flat Earth Society; but then I pinch myself and realise that I am still here.
We are discussing important issues. However, I would like to stress the fact that the Government have them all in hand in the context of taking forward their sustainable development strategy. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce something called a "resource management strategy", which would be a statement of policies for the conservation of minerals, energy, water, land and soil resources. The Secretary of State would include in it his policies for reducing the demand for those resources and encouraging more efficient use of them, for substituting renewable resources where that would bring a net environmental benefit and for enhancing their environmental value. The amendment would further require him to consult interested parties and to establish appropriate bodies within government where necessary.
The first point that I should like to make is that the different resources referred to are not all of the same kind. If any resource management strategy is needed, it may rest on different grounds for one of the natural resources than for the others. The list includes minerals, as I have mentioned, and also energy resources—such as gas, oil, coal and, conceivably, biomass. Those resources raise wholly different considerations from those on managing our surface waters, or from those on land, which are looked after in the land use planning system. If resource management strategies are needed, they need to be considered separately in their own terms or in the much wider context of the complete sustainable development strategy.
The Government's approach to those problems has already been set out as part of our sustainable development strategy. It looked at the different environmental media and resources, including minerals, fossil fuels, water, land and soil. That strategy pointed to the problems and opportunities that lie ahead and set the framework within which government policy should develop in the different sectors of the economy, including agriculture, minerals extraction, energy supply and development.
To supplement the strategy, the Government have already set out their policies in detail in many of the areas listed in the amendment. I take as an example minerals. Last April we issued Minerals Planning Guidance Note 6 which aims to ensure that the construction industry receives an adequate and steady supply of material at the best balance of environmental, social and economic cost. The Government have also recently published draft guidance on silica sand and peat extraction. Devising a full resource management strategy requires knowledge of the state of the environment. In 1995 the Government intend to set up a new unit within the Central Statistical Office to develop a set of national satellite environmental
336
accounts. These will include estimates of resource depletion, as well as the impacts of pollution and expenditure on environmental protection by sectors of the economy. They will allow impacts of resource depletion to be taken explicitly into account in developing sectoral economic policies.
Your Lordships will realise that all this is a long term goal. The methodology is still being discussed by international experts and no consensus has yet emerged. In the shorter term therefore we are developing indicators of sustainable development to highlight and summarise key trends and the links between economic development and the environment. These will cover resource depletion.
Finally, I must refer to the requirement to set up new bodies within government, though the precise number and functions of such bodies is not specified. I believe that it is wholly inappropriate to seek to specify such arrangements in legislation in this way. Any such bodies would either require their own specific legislation or would fall within Ministers' existing powers to establish new arrangements within government departments. I hope that in the light of what I have said my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: I thank my noble friend for assuring me that all of the objectives that I hoped would be encompassed in my amendment would arise anyway. All I can say is that I shall have to see whether or not that is the case. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 265A:
Page 78, line 6, leave out ("as soon as possible") and insert ("within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 265A which to some extent has been overtaken by events in view of the publication by the Government last week of a waste strategy for England and Wales. The amendment sets out a timetable for the production of a national waste strategy. However, the Government's draft document provides an acceptable timetable. We hope that that will appear in the final version of the document when it emerges this summer.
Amendment No. 265B in this group covers the avoidance of waste. To some extent, we have already spoken about this. It is important that both waste avoidance and waste minimisation are covered in the strategy, not just waste recovery and disposal. That point is related very much to the discussion we have just had about the need for resource management.
Amendment No. 266ZA remains an important one, despite the Government's draft document. It places a duty upon the Secretary of State to maintain the currency of the strategy. Clearly, in the light of unfolding environmental pressures or new discoveries it is important that a national waste strategy is not a static document. Public attitudes to waste management, technical knowledge and public acceptability all vary

337
with time and should be reflected in the strategy. The amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to update the strategy on a regular basis.
Amendment No. 266AA deals with what appears to be an ambiguity in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The new clause as drafted in the Bill can be construed in two different ways: either that the agency will advise the Secretary of State on the production of the strategy or that it will advise him only on policies which are not yet included in the strategy. Both of these are unacceptable as alternatives. Clearly, both should apply in all instances. The amendment attempts to redress that ambiguity.
Amendment No. 289A includes a reference to the need for a national strategy on sustainable development. It draws attention to the need for such a strategy in relation to waste management. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I should like to take advantage of the existence of this group of amendments, which I support, to ask the Minister how the waste strategy that is to be discussed will be helped by the fact that the Central Statistical Office no longer appears to collect statistics on waste arisings from industry. I understand that the statistics for 1992 included a very large figure—which I am afraid I have not bought with me and have forgotten—for industrial waste arisings. That was greatly reduced in 1993, but the figure did not appear for 1994. I have rather sprung this question on the Minister, but it occurred to me when I listened to the debate. It seems rather odd when one is approaching a strategy to remove the statistical basis of it.
Viscount Ullswater: If during the course of my remarks I am able to answer the question posed by the noble Baroness, I will do so. I have been taken a little unawares by it. In dealing with Amendment No. 265A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 265B, 266, 266ZA, 266AA, 289A and 290 to 294.
I deal first with Amendments Nos. 265B, 289A and 290 to 294. All of these will extend the scope of the waste strategy which the Secretary of State is required to draw up under the new Section 44A which Clause 75 inserts into the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I know from the Second Reading debate that there is widespread support for a national waste strategy, and this support is also reflected outside this House in industry, local government and environmental groups.
Amendment No. 265B would specifically require the strategy to cover waste production as well as waste recovery and disposal as presently provided, while Amendments Nos. 289A and 290 to 294 would each extend the objectives defined in the new Schedule 2A of the 1990 Act, which is inserted by Schedule 11 of this Bill. The additional objectives include ensuring that waste is managed in accordance with the national sustainable development strategy; achieving targets and providing incentives for reuse and recycling; identifying and encouraging markets for recycled products; and stabilising or reducing waste production, especially agrochemical wastes, containers and packaging materials which are hazardous. These are all very laudable objectives which I wholeheartedly support. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, has already mentioned,
338
last Tuesday we issued a draft waste strategy for England and Wales for public consultation. This sets out a framework of policies to achieve sustainable waste management. We have allowed an extended consultation period until 28th April and hope to stimulate a wide debate about our waste management policies, with the intention of finalising the strategy by the summer.
The draft waste strategy is firmly rooted in the principles of the national sustainable development strategy and builds on that by proposing practical steps for future action. It is concerned with the production as well as the recovery and disposal of waste and will achieve all the objectives proposed in these amendments. In particular, the draft strategy proposes a target of stabilising the production of household waste at its present (1995) level. The Government plan to set targets for industrial and commercial waste in due course when sufficient information on these waste streams is available. At the same time, we intend to keep the target for household waste under review with a view to moving as soon as practicable to a target of progressive reduction.
We have also proposed targets for reducing the proportion of controlled waste going to landfill by 10 per cent. over the next 10 years, with a further 10 per cent. reduction in the following 10 years. We already have a target of recycling 25 per cent. of household waste by the year 2000, and have recently set a new target to increase the use of recycled waste materials as aggregates in England from 30 million tonnes per year at present to 55 million tonnes by 2006.
The draft strategy places emphasis on the use of market instruments to promote waste recycling and recovery. Some of these, such as the recycling credits scheme are already in place. Others are proposed, such as the new landfill tax which my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget Statement and the producer responsibility initiative for which provision is made later in the Bill. The draft strategy also recognises the need to encourage the growth of new markets for recycled materials.
The priority which we give to waste reduction in the draft strategy applies just as much to the reduction of agrochemical waste and hazardous containers and packaging which is referred to in Amendment No. 294. MAFF and HSE have also issued extensive guidance on the disposal of waste pesticide concentrates, waste packaging and other contaminated materials through the Government's Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Pesticides on Farms and Holdings.
As your Lordships will appreciate, therefore, we have no difficulty in making provision in a waste strategy for the types of policy set out in these amendments. However, the scope of the strategy, and the objectives set out in the new Schedule 2A to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are those set by the amended EC Framework Directive on Waste for the waste management plans which that directive requires. The waste disposal plans drawn up by waste regulation authorities under Section 50 of the Environmental Protection Act currently satisfy in part the directive's requirements for plans. In future, that element of the implementation of the directive will

339
need to be met by the waste strategies drawn up by the Secretary of State and SEPA. It is unnecessary, and indeed it would be undesirable, to extend the scope of the strategies and their objectives beyond those required by the directive. Indeed, it can be argued that all the proposed amendments are already covered by the scope and objectives of the strategies in Clause 75 and Schedule 11.
I hope that I have convinced the Committee that the Government are firmly committed to the policy of sustainable waste management by reducing waste production and increasing the levels of reuse and recycling, and that it is unnecessary to extend the scope and objectives of the strategies beyond those which are required by EC law.
Amendment No. 265A would require the Secretary of State to issue a national waste strategy within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Such a requirement would be neither practical nor sensible. As the Bill makes clear, the preparation of a strategy would require considerable prior work by the environment agency, including the carrying out of a survey of waste. Such a survey alone would take the best part of a year. Time would then have to be allowed for other preparation, including consultation, an aspect in which the Committee has rightly shown considerable interest.
Amendment No. 266 is concerned with the area covered by a strategy in England and Wales. I have to point out that the amendment would have no material effect on the meaning of these provisions. The issues which need to be covered in a waste strategy are generally common to both Wales and England, and our approach to waste management policy in each country is the same. The Government therefore believe that a single waste strategy covering the whole of England and Wales is the most effective means of presenting their policies. However, circumstances may change, and the Bill accordingly makes provision in new Section 44A(2) (b) for the preparation of separate statements for different areas of England and Wales. If it appeared appropriate at the time, one of those could relate to the whole of Wales.
Amendment No. 266ZA would require the Secretary of State to review the strategy annually besides modifying it from time to time. The production of such a strategy is a major undertaking. Annual review would be inappropriate for many of the targets it will contain, which will need an implementation period of longer than one year—in some cases considerably longer. Moreover, annual review would sit uncomfortably with the timescale required for a national waste survey.
Finally, Amendment No. 266AA seeks to ensure that any direction from the Secretary of State to the agency regarding modifications of the strategy should require it to advise him on policies which have already been included in the strategy. There is no need for the amendment. Any direction requiring the agency to advise on the policies to be included in a modified version of the strategy could require it to report on the advisability of retaining the existing policies. Indeed, that would be the natural starting point for any review and development of the strategy.
340
We are sympathetic to the motives behind the amendments, but I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that in the circumstances they are unnecessary.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the draft waste strategy document accepts the need for more information being made available and collected. Therefore, an information-gathering unit is being set up within the department in order to advise the Secretary of State. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee who have put down amendments will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness David: I am sorry to come in after the Minister has spoken, but I have now found my briefing for Amendments Nos. 290 to 292 and I should like to make a point about saving our peatlands.
Opportunities to develop soil improvers and growing media from organic waste are not being fully exploited. The Wildlife Trusts, together with other leading conservation, archaeological and geological organisations, have been working for over five years to safeguard peatlands. The UK produces sufficient organic waste material to completely replace peat in horticulture, landscaping and gardening. If peat were to be replaced, peat bogs would be saved from further damaging exploitation and could be rehabilitated. Ninety seven per cent. of lowland bogs in England and Wales and 90 per cent. of those in Scotland have been destroyed or damaged.
The opportunity could be taken to export technology into Europe and reduce current peat imports. Forty per cent. of peat used is imported, mostly from Ireland, where 94 per cent. of raised bogs have already been destroyed or damaged.
In August 1994 The Wildlife Trusts published Growing Wiser: Case Studies on the Successful Use of Peat-free Products and held a major conference on that theme. The use of alternatives is becoming more common, but many professional growers are likely to remain reluctant to switch from peat until greater incentives are available. Incentives to discourage disposal of organic waste should stimulate more research into reuse of materials and improve the current cost differential (peat is very cheap to buy, unfortunately).
I conclude by saying that peat bogs have been identified as priority habitats under the EC habitats and species directive. The point of Amendments Nos. 290 to 292 is to encourage the use of waste to replace the use of peat, which we wish to save.
Viscount Ullswater: The noble Baroness raises an important point. It is a matter about which we are very concerned. Perhaps I did not indicate that in the waste strategy we are looking for further use of the composting of waste. That will be developed as the national strategy for waste is considered. This is an area

341
where suitable reuse of waste can be introduced, which would slow down the extraction of peat about which the noble Baroness is concerned.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I thank the Minister for an on the whole encouraging reply, which we shall consider carefully before Report stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 265B to 266ZA not moved.]
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 266A:
Page 78, line 34, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 266A and to speak to Amendment No. 266B.
As has already been mentioned, Clause 75 places a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare a national waste strategy. Such a strategy will clearly depend for its success upon the support of the industry. The waste industry is already an extremely important one in this country. We need to be able to develop a strategy which encourages it to move to the areas which the strategy decides. There is no reference in the Bill to the fact that the industry has to be consulted. Amendment No. 266A puts a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the industry as well as local authorities.
Amendment No. 266B puts a duty on the agency, should it be directed by the Secretary of State to make a survey, to consult industry. These are important matters. I am sure the Government agree that such provisions will be essential to make a strategy work effectively. I hope that the Government will feel able to support the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I speak to Amendment No. 266AB which is grouped with Amendment No. 266A. It encourages consultation with interested people other than the planning authorities. A wide range of people need to be consulted regarding the development of waste strategies. As drafted, the Bill relates only to planning authorities whereas the amendment includes industry, the public sector, individual households and consumers. That is important if we are to develop an effective national strategy.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I support the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton. My mind goes back to some years ago when in another place we debated the infamous selective employment tax. It became perfectly clear that the view of Whitehall was that people concerned with the handling of waste and the production of recycled materials were to be put into the category relating to the less desirable parts of the economy which had to pay SET. They were not regarded as part of manufacturing industry.
It is to be hoped that that culture in Whitehall has begun to change. People realise that the reclamation industry is not only enormously important in environmental terms but also in economic terms. I have had the privilege on more than one occasion of chairing conferences run by industry, in particular the waste industry. I have never failed to be impressed not only
342
by the existing high degree of commitment but also the expertise in what is now a highly technical and sophisticated industry.
I hope that officials in Whitehall will recognise that consultation with those industries is every bit as important as it has been with some of the more traditional manufacturing service industries in the past. I support the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I speak to Amendments Nos. 267 and 268, in my name, which are grouped with the amendment, and I wish to comment on Amendment No. 266B.
I believe that my noble friends and I are absolutely at one. The difficulty is that Amendment No. 266B adds the words "and industry". However, my noble friends referred to "the industry". "The industry" is the waste management industry. However, the words "and industry" are not specific. That is why I have put down the two amendments which draw the matter more narrowly and focus on the issue.
The industry is pleased about the draft strategy. When we have a strategy in place investment planning can go forward with obvious benefit. Since the industry has an important part to play in the making and maintenance of strategy it believes that it should have rights at the consultation table.
I pray in aid, so to speak, some words of the Minister on 31st January, when we discussed the waste management industry and closed landfill sites. At col. 1432 of the Official Report, he stated:
"In singling out closed landfills for a more tailored approach, we are reflecting the special emphasis given to such sites in much of Europe. We are also reflecting the concern expressed by Parliament during the passage of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which led to provision of a special remediation regime for closed landfill sites, under Section 61. The section has not, in the event, been implemented, and the provisions of Clause 54 will replace it".
The imperative here is that since the Government recognise that closed landfill, therefore the waste management industry, has to be subject to a special regime in Clause 54 it seems only reasonable that it should be represented in its own right in the consultations on the forming and maintenance of the strategy. That is the only purpose of the two amendments to which I speak.
Lord Mottistone: I support Amendments Nos. 266A and 266B which stand also in my name.
The amendments are meant to apply to all of industry. The new Section 44A(5) contained in Clause 75 provides that the Secretary of State must choose whether he consults local government or industry. That seems to narrow the position for the Secretary of State. In most situations to which the provisions refer he will wish to consult both. The provision seems unnecessarily restrictive.
On Amendment No. 266B the problem is whether the provision relates to industry or local planning authorities. Again, industry will have a view about the conduct of a survey or an investigation by the environment agency. The industries concerned must

343
have a strong view. Local planning authorities, left on their own to advise on that point, might well be over-theoretical.
It is important that the knowledge and experience of industry should be available in both areas covered by the amendments. The Government have moved towards listening to industry. We shall tackle the subject further in the next group of amendments to which I have put my name. The Government need to make quite certain that industry is always consulted. Industry has the real knowledge of what is involved with waste disposal.
Baroness Nicol: I wish to support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Hilton and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton.
Unless the Government consult both local authorities and industry their strategy is unlikely to succeed because they need not only the expertise to which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred, but also the co-operation of industry and local authorities.
I cannot quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I believe that to mention one industry specifically is not a satisfactory solution. Other industries may be concerned in the strategy. I prefer to leave a general description. However, I support the amendments.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 266A seeks to amend subsection (5) (b) of the new Section 44A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which is inserted by Clause 75. The provision requires the Secretary of State to consult representatives of local government and of industry in preparing a waste strategy. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult persons or bodies, each of whom was representative of both industry and local government. I suspect that there are few such bodies. It is our policy that when a strategy is being prepared, there should be consultation with representatives of local government and of industry. I am advised that that is what the provision requires. However, we shall look again at the wording of the provision to see whether it might be expressed more clearly. I hope with that assurance my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment because I believe that we are at one on the matter.
The remaining amendments in the group all deal with the requirement for the agency and SEPA to consult local planning authorities before carrying out a waste survey and to make the survey findings available. Amendment No. 266AB would require the agency also to consult other relevant authorities. I understand what the noble Baroness is worried about, but I believe that her anxiety is unnecessary. A local planning authority is defined by subsection (9) of the new Section 44A as having the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That includes all principal councils in England and Wales, as well as certain other authorities such as the national park authorities and urban development corporations.
Amendment No. 266B would require the agency to consult industry before carrying out a waste survey. Amendments Nos. 267 and 288 would require both the
344
agency and SEPA to consult representatives of the interests of the waste industry in the same circumstances. Amendments Nos. 268 and 289 would require the agencies to make the survey findings available to the waste industry.
We are not referring here to consultation on the strategy itself. The Bill provides for consultation by the Secretary of State or SEPA with industry in preparing their strategies. I am sure that that gives industry—including the waste industry—a sufficient opportunity to make its views known. I believe that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth was worried about that point. The legislation gives the opportunity to the industry to make its views known on the preparation of the waste strategy.
The reason for providing a statutory duty to consult planning authorities in relation to a survey is their requirement for data on waste to enable them to draw up their development plan policies for waste. It is essential that the survey is carried out in a way which will enable disaggregation of results to a local level. For the same reason, it is essential that planning authorities receive the results of a survey. My noble friend Lord Mottistone indicated that he felt that the industry required the information as well; but I do not believe that industry is in that position. There is therefore no need for a statutory requirement to consult it on the way in which the survey is carried out. I hope with that explanation the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I am grateful to my noble friend for those comments. I am not quite in agreement with his remarks on what my noble friend Lord Mottistone said. There are plenty of opportunities for the industry to make its contribution. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will ensure that the first part of the provision which is referred to in Amendment No. 266A is better explained. I feel that it is necessary to make it clear that the Government intend to consult industry on the matter. Perhaps my noble friend will also reconsider Amendment No. 266B. I take this opportunity to thank my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for supporting the amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 266AA to 268 not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 269:
Page 80, line 1, leave out ("SEPA") and insert ("The Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 269 and the consequential Amendments Nos. 270, 272, 274 to 278, 280 to 285 and Amendment No. 287. They are all probing amendments. I wish to find out why the arrangements for the preparation of a national waste strategy in Scotland are to be different from those which prevail in England and Wales.
I regret that we are to have two separate agencies, although I appreciate that their remits are slightly different. However, since we are to have two agencies, it is important that they operate within the same policy

345
framework and to the same standards so that there is a consistency of approach throughout the United Kingdom. The amendments therefore seek to bring the Scottish provisions into line with those which relate to England and Wales so that the ultimate responsibility for the preparation of the Scottish strategy rests with the Secretary of State rather than SEPA.
The strategy will, after all, set out environmental policies and targets which are necessary to meet the Government's international as well as their domestic obligations. The ultimate responsibility for its content must therefore rest with the Government and Ministers and not with the agency.
At Second Reading the Minister stated (at col. 1462 on 15th December 1994) that central policy decisions are a matter for government, while the agency is essentially a pollution protection and water management body. Perhaps my noble friend who is to respond will explain why the division of responsibility is not to be reflected in the Scottish provisions of Clause 75.
There is some anxiety in the industry that, were the regimes to be greatly different, offering incentives to do business in one part of the United Kingdom rather than another, it could distort the management of waste. It is therefore necessary to have a universal strategy and that is the purpose of the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I wish to speak to some of the other amendments in the group: Amendments Nos. 269A, 271, 273, 279 and 286. I start with Amendment No. 269A which proposes on page 80 at line 1 to insert after the word "prepare" the phrase:
"following consultation with local authorities".
The argument behind that is to ensure that the local authorities, which will largely have the responsibility for collecting the bulk of the waste, should be given the opportunity to make some input of advice on the structure. It is important that those responsible for the waste disposal functions should have an input into the policies in relation to the recovery and disposal of waste in Scotland.
Amendment No. 271 is important because members of the public should know about the national waste strategy and that they are able to inspect, free of charge, the contents of that strategy. Consumers will play a central role in the process of a national waste strategy and, in addition, as local taxpayers they have a stake in the decisions taken which influence the contents of the strategy.
Much of the debate so far has stressed the fact that the public are becoming very aware of waste management. Therefore those members of the public who are sufficiently interested should be able to inspect the strategy that is suggested for the disposal of waste.
Amendment No. 273 would alert members of the public—it will of course be those who are interested—to any major modification that is made to the strategy. As I have said, they should be able to inspect any such modifications free of charge. As was accepted with an
346
earlier amendment, they should have the right to see the general strategy at the very beginning. I believe that the noble Lord wishes to intervene.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: In discussing Amendment No. 273, I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me in understanding who is to pay for this information. The amendment states that it should be made available free of charge. But of course somebody has to pay for it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I did not envisage that glossy booklets should be issued. I envisaged a department in each local authority where the information was available and where the public could go to see it. That is a perfectly reasonable amendment.
Amendment No. 286 seeks to lay down that the strategy, in order to be successful, should encourage appropriate consumer behaviour. This involvement of the consumer may even help to get rid of some of the debris that we see in the streets if people become conscious of the fact that it is part of their city or their town.
However, changing consumer behaviour is a lengthy and complex process. Care should be taken to ensure that proper attention is given to involving the public before the strategy is finalised. I shall move these amendments as we come to them.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: Within this basket of amendments being moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and my noble friend Lord Lucas to the proposed new Section 44B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which applies to Scotland only in Clause 75, is my Amendment No. 287A, which aims to leave out "planning" and insect "local".
The reason behind the amendment is to include the whole basket of functions carried out by a local authority and not just a single "department of planning". The noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and I feel that the very important environmental health department should at least be included. Perhaps I may give the Committee one example. In previous legislation, two years ago, it was stated that caravan sites should be a "district planning function". I said at that time that there was also the question of site licences dealing with the provision of clean water, and toilet and sewerage facilities, which were in no way connected with planning. That was an environmental health function. I therefore: wished to replace the word "planning" with the word "council"; i.e., making it a district council function. However, that amendment was defective, just as, I am afraid, this amendment is also defective. I had at that time to move a complete long sentence to cover that matter at the next stage of that Bill.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to bear in mind that the public analyst comes within the environmental health department. That department visits such places as abattoirs, food preparation factories, etc. It also takes samples of water, sewage, etc.
I cannot agree with the amendments that are proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas. SEPA must be given a chance on its own to get on with its job and not be too

347
much under the thumb of the Secretary of State. SEPA will not work well if it is forever looking over its shoulder to see whether or not the Secretary of State approves.
I also point out to my noble friend that the functions of the river purification boards that were established in 1951 are very different in many ways from those of the National Rivers Authority in England. The environmental protection provisions of Scotland were based to a very great extent on the old Burgh Police Act 1897. That has now been repealed but in this respect our civil law is rather different in the two countries.
On the amendment that will be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I have some sympathy. But I hope that what the noble Lord proposes is not too onerous or expensive.
The Earl of Lindsay: The first series of amendments in this group, which are proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would require my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to prepare a strategy containing his policies in relation to the recovery and disposal of waste in Scotland. As drafted, the Bill will place his duty on SEPA.
Unlike the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office will not have the appropriate staff available to it to prepare a waste strategy for Scotland. SEPA, on the other hand, will be well placed to undertake that task, as it would be staffed in part by those expert staff who previously prepared plans for their local authorities. Placing the duty on SEPA therefore means that the strategy could be prepared both effectively and efficiently.
However, I can assure the Committee that, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have powers to influence the development of a strategy by SEPA, I do not expect its content to be materially different from on which might otherwise have been prepared by him. I can go on to assure my noble friend that the Secretary of State will ultimately remain responsible for waste management policy in Scotland, which is properly a matter for him. I envisage that SEPA will wish to ensure that due regard is paid to the strategy for England and Wales, so that where possible there will be a common framework across Great Britain.
The purpose behind government Amendment No. 286A is to confer on the Secretary of State a slightly wider power of direction over SEPA in recognition of the Scottish agency's different role.
Amendment No. 269A, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, seeks to ensure that local authorities are consulted as part of SEPA's preparation of the waste strategy. I recognise the important role which local authorities will have in relation to the strategy. But the consultation is already provided for in the new Section 44B(4) (b) of the Environmental Protection Act inserted by Clause 75. I do not believe therefore that this amendment is required.
The noble Lord also spoke to Amendments Nos. 271 and 273, which would require SEPA's waste strategy, and any modifications to it, to be publicised and made available, free of charge, for public inspection. Again, I
348
have much sympathy with these amendments. SEPA cannot implement its waste strategy on its own. Other bodies, both public and private have crucial parts to play. And as a pre-requisite to their involvement, they will require to have access to the strategy.
The strategy will of course be subject to the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, and access to it is assured. But as I have said, given that such access is required in order to implement the strategy, I envisage that SEPA will want to make sure that it is available to those with an interest in it. As the noble Lord said, public interest in waste matters is increasing fast. Therefore, given that access will be available in any event, I suggest that Amendments Nos. 271 and 273 are unnecessary.
The noble Lord also spoke to Amendment No. 279, which would add a specific reference to representatives of the interests of consumers to the list of persons to be consulted as part of the preparation or modification to the waste strategy. It has not been our intention to include an exhaustive list of persons with an interest in the strategy. That is why, at the end of the list of consultees, there is a reference to "other bodies" that SEPA considers appropriate.
As drafted, the list refers specifically to industry and local authorities. That is not to say that others do not have an interest. I certainly acknowledge that consumer behaviour is an important factor in the successful implementation of a waste strategy. I do not believe that the role of consumers is diminished by accepting that their interest is not as great as industry's and local authorities'. The interests of consumers will, where appropriate, be picked up by reference to "other bodies".
Amendment No. 286 was also spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. It would restrict the extent of matters in respect of which the Secretary of State may direct SEPA to carry out surveys and investigations for the purpose of preparing its waste strategy. It would mean that he may only direct on the steps which will be required in terms of information, publicity and education to encourage responsible consumer behaviour compatible with any aims set out in the strategy.
I appreciate that publicity, education and promoting awareness of the waste issues covered by the strategy would be desirable; but the range of matters on which the noble Lord's amendment would allow the Secretary of State to direct SEPA is too restrictive. I believe that it would be more appropriate to give the Secretary of State general powers to direct SEPA to carry out surveys or investigations. Those powers could be used to direct SEPA in the manner sought by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, though I must say that I am not convinced that SEPA would be the most appropriate body to undertake such work, given its primary role as a regulator.
My noble friend Lord Balfour spoke to Amendment No. 287A. This amendment would mean that, where SEPA had been given a direction by the Secretary of State to carry out a survey or investigation, it would first have to consult bodies or persons representative of "local" (rather than "planning") authorities before undertaking that work.

349
As the Committee will be aware, after local government reorganisation in Scotland, all local authorities in Scotland will become planning authorities. The use of either term will therefore be construed in practice to mean the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (CoSLA). I can confirm to the noble Lord that, although CoSLA would be consulted in its capacity as a representative of planning authorities, there is nothing to stop it responding for its wider interests, covering, for example, its responsibilities for environmental health, which my noble friend mentioned specifically, or its responsibilities for waste disposal. However, I feel that there is value in relying on the term "planning" authority as an indicator of the primary purpose of CoSLA's involvement.
I hope that what I have said will reassure noble Lords. I invite them to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Lindsay for his full response to that series of amendments in my name. I am sorry that the Scottish Office do not have the necessary expertise and would have to rely on SEPA. Since my noble friend assures me, first, that the strategy will not be materially different from that which will obtain in the rest of the UK, and, secondly, that the ultimate responsibility will lie with the Secretary of State whose responsibility is to Parliament, I am happy to withdraw my amendments in this case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 269A to 286 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 286A:
Page 80, line 37, leave out ("upon which the Secretary of State wishes to be informed") and insert ("which the Secretary of State considers appropriate").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 287 to 289 not moved.]
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Schedule 2A to the Environmental Protection Act 1990]:
[Amendments Nos. 289A to 294 not moved.]
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Producer responsibility: general]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 295:
Page 81, line 30, after ("of") insert ("achieving waste minimisation at source, and of").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments, includes Amendments Nos. 295, 296, 296A, 299, 299A, 302 and 304, some of which are in my name and others in the name of other noble Lords. The amendments all deal in one way or another with the goal that we all wish to reach; namely, the achievement of waste minimisation at source. That is a great modern problem which involves the packaging industry. I do not wish to seem to be against the packaging industry. It does a good job and sometimes the packaging may entice people to buy what they de not want. But sometimes it is overdone and there is too much packaging. We all have experience of that.
The recovery and recycling of waste are important functions in a sustainable approach to waste management. The first step is to reduce the amount of waste that can enter the waste stream in the first place. As I said, that means the reduction of excess packaging.
More than any other component it is an aspect of the producer's responsibility and is within the producer's control. Consumers can choose to reuse or recycle material, but they have very little choice in rejecting excess packaging. They just have to get rid of it somehow. Frequently there is no way to recycle it. Producers can promote recycling but consumers may continue to dispose of mixed waste to landfill. Therefore, waste minimisation should b a included in this part of the Bill.
We hope that, as we become more sophisticated about the whole question of waste, the packaging industry will co-operate much more than it perhaps does now with the manufacturers of the goods to be packaged. These amendments, in whatever form the Minister would ultimately wish to put them, would be of great help in that way. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I briefly support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. The choice of words in my amendment is slightly different; it speaks in terms of:
"securing a decrease in the use of products or materials".
That may be slightly different from "achieving waste minimisation at source", but it all goes to the same end.
Perhaps I may add the frustration of consumers, who sometimes cannot access products for consumption without fighting their way through layers and layers of what I regard as quite unnecessary packaging. I once took up that matter with a manufacturer of soft fruit sweets. They were in a package which was quite difficult to get into in the first place; but then every sweet inside the packet was wrapped in its own individual package. Apart from anything else, that made it almost impossible to drive along the motorway while trying to keep one's throat clear. The response that I received, perhaps understandably, was that that was what the consumer required.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I should like to take issue with the noble Baroness. I totally support the concept of waste minimisation. Indeed, in the hierarchy of waste management, it quite rightly comes first.
Her amendment requires not only waste minimisation but seeks to secure a decrease in the use of waste. I am not sure that the noble Baroness could have thought the matter through.
Furthermore, she is being somewhat unfair to industry about this matter. There has been in existence for a number of years a very valuable body which goes under the name of INCPEN (The Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment). It contains many of the leading industrial companies in the country, whose objectives are to lead a rational debate on packaging and environmental issues and to encourage environmentally responsible industrial practices. We have all suffered from the fate described by the noble Baroness of having to fight one's way through packaging, but I believe that

351
that is becoming less common. Indeed, industries are discovering that they can package their goods more economically with fewer layers, perhaps using different materials, and so reduce the amount. To put into this clause the obligation to secure a decrease could lead to some very undesirable results. The overall use of materials is inevitably determined by the overall level of economic activity—and that determines the use of the materials, including the packaging, which has to go into the goods.
The advice that the industry council gives is that if Amendment No. 296 were included in the Bill:
"The effect would be anti-growth, anti-competitive and anti-employment and would take no account of the level of demand".
I hope I am not taking a point that is out of order, but the president of this valuable body, INCPEN, is my good friend Sir Peter Parker—a notable member of the party of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I do not say that he necessarily supports every single word of the briefings it gives to Members of the Committee, but we might be wise not to accept that amendment. I hope that my noble friend will resist the noble Baroness's blandishments and not support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: At the risk of extending the debate for 30 seconds, may I say that I am not against growth; that is not what the amendment is aimed at. It is aimed at securing a decrease in the packaging per unit, not in the number of units produced.
6 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: Clauses 76 to 78 concern the policy area of producer responsibility for waste. It might assist your Lordships if, before we begin to consider the more detailed amendments, I say a few words about this relatively new initiative.
Producer responsibility is an instrument which seeks to encourage those who are responsible for placing goods on the market to assume an increased share of the responsibility for dealing with the waste which arises from these products. In other words, it seeks to increase the environmental awareness of producers by placing some of the costs of waste disposal onto those who produce products. It gives as much scope as possible for a market-based response.
The initiative has generally operated by means of a challenge from government to key industries. Our general approach has been to seek to offer the maximum scope to industry to organise itself to respond to the challenge. In this way, our objectives will be achieved in the most cost-effective manner.
There are seven separate waste streams involved in the first tranche of the initiative and the most prominent of these is the packaging chain—namely, those companies involved in manufacturing and using packaging. The general response from industry has been very encouraging. In the background to our discussions on packaging waste has been the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste, which was adopted, with UK support, in December.
352
In November, the former Producer Responsibility Group finalised its report on increasing the level of recovery and recycling of packaging waste. Key among its recommendations was that government should introduce legislation to eliminate the potential problem of "free-riders", namely those companies which might seek to gain a competitive advantage by refusing to accept their share of the responsibility to act.
In bringing forward these clauses, we are responding to that request, and propose to put in place a mechanism which will allow us to legislate in respect of any waste stream, where this proves necessary and appropriate. In-this way, we can assure that the policy area is capable of further development and that we can incorporate additional waste streams, if appropriate. With this in mind, our aim is to introduce the minimum legislative structure which is consistent with effective enforcement, in support of the objective of more sustainable waste management practices.
The general purpose of these amendments is to extend the proposed powers to promote or secure an increase in reuse, recovery or recycling, which already feature in Clauses 76 and 77, by adding a power to regulate to achieve waste minimisation at source. I have a good deal of sympathy with the intentions of the noble Lords in putting forward these amendments. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has indicated, waste minimisation comes at the top of the so-called "waste hierarchy" which we have articulated in our draft waste strategy for England and Wales published on 31st January. We are consulting in this draft on ways in which waste minimisation can be promoted and encouraged, and will wish to consider further in government what we should do to aid that process.
The clauses before us today, however, are concerned with the activities of reuse, recovery and recycling, where there is more experience to draw on and for which hard targets can more easily be set. It is intended that the regulations which will stem from these clauses will set and enforce these specific targets. We can envisage how industry might respond in a cost-effective way to meet these targets.
It is more difficult to set such targets for waste minimisation and therefore more difficult to see what form the regulations might take. Essentially, in setting targets here, we risk involving ourselves in a misplaced comparison between what would have happened in the absence of legislation aimed at producing waste minimisation, and what did in fact occur. It would not be cost-effective to impose, by statutory means, a blanket target for waste reduction on all companies in a particular sector. These clauses were drafted to impose the lightest regulatory burden possible on industry and my concern is not to increase this necessary burden. For all the sympathy that I have with the principle of waste minimisation, I need to reflect hard on the extent to which this mechanism is appropriate. Having said that, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I have great sympathy for the problems that the Minister has outlined. Perhaps the real solution will be customer resistance; customers will gradually begin to feel that it

353
is important that goods should be packaged attractively but not excessively. That is the attitude that we are beginning to reach.
I thank the Minister for the effort he has taken and the explanation he has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 296 and 296A not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 296B:
Page 81, line 31, leave out ("recovery or recycling of") and insert ("recycling or recovery of energy from").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 296B, standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Hilton, to insert the words as on the Marshalled List. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 299B and 309.
These amendments are probing in nature. As drafted, the Bill makes no specific reference to energy recovery from waste as one of the reclamation options. We are not clear about the Government's stance on whether energy from waste is to be treated in the same way as other recycling options, and we would welcome the Government's view on this.
The report produced by the Producer Responsibility Group on Packaging Waste indicated that energy from waste could play a significant part in meeting the overall recovery targets. But the report also implied that achieving the necessary infrastructure—namely the building of incinerators—would be not only costly but fraught with planning problems and likely to attract local hostility.
As I say, these amendments are probing. Even in the draft waste strategy as we have it, the question of energy recovery from waste seems to us to be somewhat fudged where it is grouped together with the recovery of materials and compost. I hope the Minister will tell us whether the Government wish to make any sort of separation. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: One of the problems is that the Government are moving very fast on these subjects. We have already referred to the air quality paper published in January, and we now have the waste strategy paper published only a few days ago. Those of us sitting on the Committee on Sustainable Development find that we receive a great deal of evidence and before we have reported or begun to consider the details of our report events have moved forward.
We have had some interesting evidence pointing both ways on where energy recovery from waste should come in the hierarchy. There are those who put the argument to us that it is extremely inefficient and should come near the bottom of the hierarchy. Others have pointed to examples such as the Edmonton power plant and have said that energy recovery from waste has been well established for a long time and should be encouraged. This is an interesting subject and it may be that the Government may wish to wait for the Special Select Committee before deciding how to respond lo the probing amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The energy recovery from waste industry is extremely efficient and the opportunities for enlarging it are enormous. It seems to me that the Government have been influenced by some groups who are, probably for the wrong reasons, against it. That has an influence on certain planning applications and can cause considerable difficulties. There is an enormous opportunity to develop the whole technology. However, one cannot develop it unless one has something to develop. In other words, someone has to start building these facilities and using them.
Dioxins have been referred to by some groups. Evidence has shown that the amount of dioxins in the air after the use of the waste to energy establishments is not as as great as in the air that we breath. Some of us have visited plants where the air coming out is a good deal cleaner than the air in the street. The development of this technology is moving at an enormous pace. It is right for the Government to review it and to place it in a more important position in the hierarchy.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendments Nos. 296B and 299B seek to define the term "recovery" as representing energy recovery. I should, however, make clear that by "recovery" we do not solely mean energy recovery but may intend processes such as composting, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams referred. We shall come later to Amendment No. 300, in the name of my noble friend Lord Wade. I should not like to consider that amendment in advance. Having said that I shall take that approach, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The purpose of Amendment No. 309, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, is that the public should have the right to inspect registers of exemption schemes free of charge. It is indeed our intention that that should be so. The agencies will be required to maintain a number of public registers under existing legislation and in each case the statute in question requires the register to be available for inspection free of charge. I would not wish to detain the Committee by listing all of these but I give as an example the IPC register, kept under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the pollution registers kept under the Water Resources Act 1991.
Clause 77(1) sets out examples of the matters with respect to which provision may be made by regulations. Paragraph (s) refers to the imposition of a duty to maintain a register in respect of exemption schemes and make that register available for inspection by the public. I can confirm that it is our intention that, in accordance with the precedents to which I have referred, the regulations under this clause will require inspection to be available free of charge. With that reassurance I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Viscount. We have had a certain amount of trouble with the groupings. I was expecting my amendment to be grouped with Amendment No. 300, in the name of the

355
noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton. Given that the noble Viscount will respond truly to my amendment when he comes to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I am happy to ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 296B.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 297 to 298ZA not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment 298A:
Page 81, line 46, at end insert:
("(3A) The powers conferred by subsection (1) above shall also be exercisable, in a case falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3) above, for the purpose of sustaining at least a minimum level of (rather than promoting or securing an increase in) re-use, recovery or recycling of products or materials.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this Amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 298B, 306ZA, 307A to 307D, 309ZA, 309ZB and 309ZC.
I shall deal with each of the amendments in turn. Amendments Nos. 298A and 298B will allow regulations to set more flexible targets for reuse, recovery or recycling, which in turn will allow us to meet in full potential European and international commitments. Amendment No. 306ZA will allow more than one target to be set for reuse, recovery and recycling for a given waste stream. Amendment No. 307A will provide for the withdrawal of approval for an exemption scheme. Amendments Nos. 307B and 307D will allow exemption schemes to be registered subject to conditions and make provision for appeals against such conditions.
Amendment No. 307C will allow us to disapply or modify the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. Schemes may well contain provisions which would make them registrable under the Act. It would not be desirable for schemes which are considered necessary to achieve the environmental or economic benefits we want to see to be taken before the restrictive practices court. Instead, the effects of schemes on competition will be assessed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry before they are approved and on a continuing basis to prevent approved schemes from behaving in an unnecessarily anti-competitive manner.
Amendment No. 309ZA will allow a designated person to require information in respect of schemes in order that the effect of schemes on competition can be properly assessed. Amendment No. 309ZB will broaden the definition of "operator" in relation to exemption schemes. Amendment No. 309ZC clarifies the enforcement powers in relation to the Secretary of State's right to give directions. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have one question arising out of what my noble friend has just said. With regard to Amendment No. 307C, which concerns the Restrictive Trade Practices Act exemptions, he said that it will be the Secretary of State who will carry out the continuing monitoring to see that the agreement is not being run in an anti-competitive way. Why is it suggested that that
356
should be a function of the Secretary of State and not of the Office of Fair Trading, which is the body one would normally expect to carry out such a function?
Viscount Ullswater: Indeed, I did say that it would be the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I shall have to make inquiries about that. Perhaps I may write to my noble friend and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 298B:
Page 82, line 3, at end insert ("; and in its application in relation to the power conferred by virtue of subsection (3A) above, subsection (5) below shall have effect as if—

(a) any reference to an increase in the re-use, recovery or recycling of products or materials were a reference to the sustaining of at least a minimum level of re-use, recovery or recycling of the products or materials in question, and

(b) any reference to the production of environmental or economic benefits included a reference to the sustaining of at least a minimum level of any such existing benefits,

and any reference in this section or section 77 below to securing or achieving any such benefits shall accordingly include a reference to sustaining at least a minimum level of any such existing benefits.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 299 to 299B not moved.]
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 300:
Page 82, line 6, after ("recovery") insert ("(including energy recovery)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 301 and 306. After that I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 303A, 303C and 303D, which are grouped with this amendment but actually concern a different matter.
The purpose of these amendments is to draw attention again to the importance of waste in relation to energy. When we were debating the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, it was said that this is now becoming a very important aspect of waste disposal. It has the added advantage of utilising the energy which is produced from getting rid of waste. It does not make sense to suggest that recycling is one thing and energy recovery another. The operating plants very often do both; they both recycle and produce energy from the recovered waste.
The amendments seek to put on the face of the Bill the importance of energy recovery as a specific use of waste disposal. They would also ensure that that particular activity is taken into account in all energy matters. I am aware that the Government have taken very great steps to encourage the industry. In the past they put it at the top of the list, or at least alongside everything else. However, just recently they seem to have lost the initiative on the subject. It is right and proper that they should give the industry full significance because it is undoubtedly a technology which will grow and improve. It can play an extremely important part in the handling of waste in this country. I hope that my noble friend will be able to support these amendments.
Amendments Nos. 303A, 303C and 303D relate to a different matter. They deal with the question of how the Government will handle packaging waste and give responsibility to the various sectors of the industry. When this matter was first raised the Government asked the industries producing packaging waste to consider ways in which the waste might be dealt with. If the Government agreed with the suggestions, they would then introduce legislation to enforce them.
As a result, the industries considered the matter with some very senior members of various companies. They produced a plan which established an organisation which, in the interim stage, is called V-RAG. This interim body accepts central responsibility. In the event that legislation is agreed, it would establish a body called Valpac which would then bring together all the sectors of the industry. It would be a multi-point system which would deal fairly with the costs of handling packaging waste.
The Government suggest in this Bill that they would prefer to place full responsibility for packaging waste on one part of the packaging chain—that is to say, the packer-filler part. The industry's view was that that would be most impractical. It could be extremely unfair to small and new companies and it could cause difficulties in obtaining a coherent view on how to deal with it. That goes completely against the advice which the industry gave the Government and on which it spent a great deal of time.
The purpose of this amendment is to take out that part of the Bill which states that the Government will review and make their decision in the light of the opportunity to place full responsibility solely on one part of the industry. By taking that part out of the Bill it would leave the matter open for the industry to come forward with its own solution.
Amendments Nos. 303C and 303D seek to define "re-use", "recovery" and "recycling". At the moment those words are referred to but they are not defined, whereas other parts of the packaging chain are. These amendments seek to define them in accordance with the definitions recently adopted by the European Union packaging and packaging waste directives. I hope that the Government can give me some encouraging words on these amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I intervene very briefly in this debate. Where I live there was recently an application to build a plant which would generate electricity from burning tyres. That is something that should be encouraged. As is often the case where the incineration of waste is concerned, there was very considerable local objection. Planning consent was not given. I am not sure whether NIMBY is the correct word, but we have to get over the objection of some people who would theoretically like to see energy recovered from waste but who would object to the process. That is a problem which has to be addressed. I raise this matter because it seems germane to the discussion which my noble friend Lord Wade has introduced.
Baroness Nicol: I wish to speak particularly to Amendment No. 303A. must first repeat the declaration of interest which I made at Second Reading.
358
I was involved with the packaging industry last year in a small investigation, but it is not briefing me on this subject. My main interest tonight is as vice-chairman of the all-party retail group. Small retailers are very concerned about the inclusion of the three lines which we seek to delete.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive Written Answer to the question I raised at Second Reading; namely, as to where in the packaging chain responsibility shall be placed. I understand his argument that a single-point scheme would be easier to administer and monitor, but he must also have regard to the importance of a scheme which is seen to be even-handed. It is important that each link in the chain should take some responsibility for the end result. If any progress is to be made with new technology or techniques to minimise packaging and to improve recycling percentages—which is the Government's aim—we need the involvement of all concerned from the producer to the end disposer. I hope that administrative convenience, which seems to be the Government's main argument, will not be allowed to override other considerations. I am very pleased to support this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I speak very briefly to both parts of this matter. As regards producing energy from the recovery of waste, we have a plant on the Isle of Wight which experienced similar difficulties to those to which my noble friend Lord Onslow referred. The plant is now in operation and producing electricity. It also produces heating for schools and other county council-owned property. But the plant does not work as efficiently as it should because we went into the system too quickly and copied what I believe they have in East Sussex. It would have been better if we had waited until the plant had been better proved. It does not cause trouble. It is alongside a factory which produces your Lordships' Christmas cards. From time to time the people working there grumble about the smell from the waste disposal plant.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Merry Christmas!
Lord Mottistone: It is very important for our island to have the facility because relatively we have less space in which to dispose of our waste than the mainland. That is why we must have this plant, but we went too fast in introducing it. I support my noble friend's Amendment No. 300 and the principle behind .his earlier amendments.
I now turn to Amendment No. 303A. I cannot add to what has been said by previous speakers. My noble friend the Minister, when introducing Clause 76, told us in general terms what he was doing and he answered a question on 2nd February which was going in a certain direction. However, it is fair to say that the industry is not happy that the Government intend to accept the recommendations of their own producer group which advised on this subject.
It would be reassuring if my noble friend the Minister would give us an undertaking that he will not produce a system or regulations which penalise a particular part of the industry concerned with packaging and do not

359
spread the load, as has been said by other speakers. I hope that he will be able to reassure us on those points, because his lengthy Written Answer did not; it frightened us more. Therefore, we rather like Amendment No. 303A.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have added my name to some of the amendments. Perhaps I may say with regard to the amendment relating to energy that the problem with some of the plant that generates energy from waste is that it tends to have the effect of creating more waste in order to have enough fuel for the plant. That is the argument put by some of the environmental interests which say that it is a way of disposing of the waste but that it also has the effect of promoting the generation of more waste to ensure that the process can continue.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. Our plant does not do what he says these people say that it does.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I did not say that my noble friend's plant did. I was merely reporting what is said by some of the people who question this process. I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton, because the subject requires a great deal of study.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, because she-passed me a copy of my noble friend's long letter about why the Government are looking for single-point enforcement, rather than what I believe is called multi-point enforcement, of the packaging process. I have every sympathy—if I may put it crudely—with civil servants wanting to have one bottom to bite. It is much easier to enforce. If one is a watchdog it is much easier if one has only one person to go for. I understand that. But the fallacy that underlies the Government's approach is that in the commercial chain, which can sometimes be many parties long, the packer/filler, or whoever it is, can impose sufficient conditions down the line to ensure that the objectives of the scheme as a whole are attained. Life is a great deal more complicated than that.
There are few more competitive worlds than, for instance, the food processing, packaging and distribution industry. It is an immensely competitive industry. The Government are expecting too much of one party to that chain to make it effective. A multi-point system may appear on paper to be more difficult to enforce, but, as the noble Baroness said, it at least ensures that pressure is brought upon each stage in the chain. If it is not, there will be no incentive to introduce the new techniques and technologies, to find the new materials that reduce the amount of packaging produced, or the recycling that can be done. I hope that at this early stage of the Bill—we seem to have been going on for a long time and yet it is still only the Committee stage in the first Chamber—my noble friend will have another careful look at this issue.
I know of no industry affected by the PPG proposal that is in favour of a single-point scheme. The Government have the unique distinction of being on
360
their own on that. If that is the only argument and if I were the Minister I should want to look carefully at it. It is dangerous to say that everyone else is out of step.
Lord Moran: I should like to say a brief word in support of Amendment No. 303A. I have discussed this subject with the Food and Drink Federation, and I know that it feels strongly that responsibility for recovery and recycling should be shared, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has argued, among all those in the packaging chain.
I have received a brief from the British Retail Consortium, which I found impressive. It says that the system of applying the control at a single point has been tried in Germany where it led to a 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. increase in retail prices, and that one leading British chainstore operator has estimated that the same system imposed in the UK would increase its operating costs by £40 million. It also describes the French scheme (the eco-emballages scheme) and points out that if one exports a jar of fruit to France four calculations are required: the amount of glass in the jar; paper in the label; metal in the lid; and plastic in the tamper-proof seal. It says that that system is breaking down.
The organisation has also addressed the Government's argument, which is the nub of the matter, that it would be difficult to enforce an arrangement where everyone in the chain was involved. It believes a multi-point obligation can be made enforceable by incorporating any organisation set up by the individual companies to meet the targets. The prosecution can then be brought against that company. That is useful. It is the view of the consortium representing 90 per cent. of retailers in this country. I hope that the Government will take it seriously.
The Earl of Balfour: Within this basket of amendments is the amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Kintore. Amendment No. 309A is designed to alter the last two words of Clause 78 in that there are references to either Clause 76 or 77. We wish to substitute "those sections" for "that section". I have sympathy with Amendment No. 300 which wishes to have "including energy recovery" inserted, because many years ago the town gas in Hawick was supplemented by the methane gas produced by that town's sewage works.
Lord Bridges: I shall speak to Amendment No. 303A. I too have received some briefing from the Food and Drink Federation. My reason for speaking after so many Members of the Committee have spoken on the same matter is that this is a subject of considerable national importance. We are talking about the most efficient way of recycling packaging waste, obtaining as much as we can from it, and turning it into fresh raw material at a reasonable cost.
There has been one horrible example in Europe, which has gone wrong, to which my noble friend Lord Moran has already referred; namely, the German example, over which, as those Members of the Committee who have read the Select Committee's report on the subject, will see, a serious mistake was made. I

361
add my voice to those who have urged the Government to think again about their scheme, because I do not feel that we have quite got to the bottom of the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, spoke with considerable moderation about what the Government have done. It does not seem to have been a sensible procedure to have invited an important businessman to work out a scheme in September 1993, and then, when it had been worked on for a year, for the Government to say was that it was not what they preferred. The whole progress of the discussion on the European directive should have given the Government sufficient time to come to an a priori judgment if they wished to do so. That has resulted in an unfortunate state of affairs which was not necessary.
I should like to make one or two other points. First, there is the argument that it would be administratively easier to have a single-point scheme rather than a multi-point scheme. I do not believe that that is the real test. The goal is to collect as much packaging waste as possible and to recycle it properly and efficiently. Industry has suggested how that should be done. The argument of administrative convenience for the department is a secondary consideration.
I have also heard it suggested that some people in Whitehall worry that a multi-point scheme is likely to be non-competitive. I find that argument difficult to understand because I believe that the single-point scheme is more likely to run into difficulty. The argument appears to have been turned on its head.
Every part of the complicated chain between manufacture, wholesaling. distribution and the point of sale needs to be brought into the Act. If the industry has devoted a great deal of time to the matter, has come up with a carefully worked out scheme and has an agency ready to move, I hope that that can be considered seriously.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 300 would clarify that the term ''recovery" includes energy recovery. The term "recovery" is used to encompass any process of value recovery from waste; for example, by incinerating waste to produce electricity. But I have sympathy for the noble Lord's intention to clarify that this does indeed encompass energy recovery.
The Government have indicated that, broadly in line with the views of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, they would like to see a bigger role for waste to energy in future waste management practice. In our consultation paper, A Waste Strategy for England and Wales which was published recently, we made clear that waste to energy remains a key element of our overall strategy. Planning Policy Guidance Note 23 sets out the Government's general policy towards waste management in the field of planning. It highlights the obligations placed on waste management authorities in drawing up waste management plans to have regard to objectives which include encouraging energy recovery.
In the waste strategy, we have identified a number of impediments to the growth in waste to energy and we look forward to receiving views as part of the consultation process on how these might be overcome.
362
Specifically on the noble Lord's amendment, we are at one on the objective and I shall consider carefully whether an amendment is needed.
I am concerned about the effect of Amendments Nos. 301 and 306. It is important that for each waste stream, industry is able to arrange the recovery of value from its waste products or materials in the most efficient way. For some this will mean increased recycling, for others energy recovery. To replace "or" with "and" would remove this option and put re-use, recover and recycling on an equal footing for all waste streams. In the light of the need to be flexible and to achieve the most environmentally beneficial solution for each waste stream, I hope that the noble Lord will not move these amendments.
Amendment No. 303A would delete the short paragraph which clarifies that the obligation to achieve a level of re-use, recycling or recovery can he placed at a single point in the production chain.
I understand the concern of Members of the Committee that the obligation imposed should be a fair one, but I am anxious that we do not close off any of our options at this stage. In considering these clauses, we must be clear that they are not solely to implement the European Community Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste, to which most Members paid a great deal of attention. There are a number of other waste streams which these enabling powers may eventually need to cover and we are in discussion not just with the packaging industry but with these other industries. Therefore, I am keen that while ensuring that we are fair we do not limit our options at this very early stage.
As regards packaging waste, on Thursday 2nd February I replied to a Written Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Gainford. I set out a list of the considerations that we propose to bear in mind in assessing the various options for putting in place a legislative framework. It is our clear responsibility to satisfy ourselves that the proposed course of action meets the objectives and does so in a way that is consistent with broader policy aims and legal constraints. We are continuing our discussions with businesses and other organisations representing all parts of the packaging chain. These discussions are proving to be productive, and certainly all parties acknowledge the complexity and significance of the issues at stake.
At this stage, we have not yet taken a view on how we wish to proceed. However, we shall bring forward a consultation paper as soon as we are able. In the meantime, we ought to preserve our options both in terms of the position for waste streams other than packaging and also for packaging waste. 'This is novel and uncharted territory and it would be wrong to constrain ourselves to a single solution. The choice is not simply between a single point obligation or a multi-point obligation but there are variant; of each and shades in between.
I say to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, it is not that we want to be out of step but that we want to make certain that all the steps remain available. I hope that on that basis my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.

363
Amendments Nos. 303C and 303D would add to the Bill the definitions of "recovery", "recycling" and "re-use" contained in the packaging directive. Although these definitions are appropriate for the packaging waste stream they may not be appropriate for other waste streams. Again, I am concerned that at this stage we do not allow these general enabling powers to be coloured solely by our experience on packaging. In view of that, I hope the noble Lord will not move these amendments.
Amendment No. 309A would replace "that section" with "those sections". I have had to look at this a number of times but I have eventually concluded that because of the specific way in which the phrase is drafted the correct term is the original, "that section". Although I have great sympathy with my noble friend in wrestling with these grammatical intricacies, I hope that he will not move his amendment.
Baroness Nicol: Being flexible is all very well but surely, even at this stage, it is possible to identify one step that should not be taken in any circumstances because it is so unfair and unlikely to succeed. I do not find the keeping-the-options-open argument very persuasive.
Viscount Ullswater: I understand what the noble Baroness is saying but she is identifying perhaps only one single waste stream about which she has some knowledge. "I have indicated that there are seven such streams and it is important to make certain that a single point may not be suitable for one of those streams. Perhaps at present we do not have the scheme that would need a single-point entry. However, in the formulation of primary legislation it would be wrong to cut out that option already.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I am grateful to the Minister for suggesting that the Government agree with the principle behind Amendment No. 300. I look forward to seeing his proposal on how we can confirm that. I am disappointed that he was not more positive about the waste packaging proposals. Clearly, the support around the Committee was positive as regards a multi-point system as laid down by the packaging industry. However, I accept the point that the option is still open and might be accepted by the Government.
I hope that in view of the support that the proposals have received, the Government will consider it seriously. Perhaps my noble friend will give me the opportunity of discussing the matter with him before the Report stage. I see that he is nodding in agreement, and I shall be pleased to take up the offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 301 to 303AA not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee moved Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 303B:
Page 82, line 31, at end insert:
364
("( ) The Secretary of State shall have a duty to exercise the power to make regulations in the manner which he considers best calculated to prevent the making of false or unsupported environmental claims in relation to any prescribed products, materials or activities.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment and Amendment No. 306A, which is grouped with it, deal with environmental claims in relation to the labelling of goods. I raised that matter on Second Reading. The amendments are quite modest and merely provide for regulations to be laid. They do not seek to set out on the face of the Bill the detail of the regulations which may be made but which I believe would deal with. important matters.
On Second Reading I mentioned the description of a pair of socks as being "ozone friendly". That was one of a number of examples of slightly odd claims made on packaging and labelling. I should enjoy reading to the Committee the whole of a report published by the London Borough of Sutton which is led by my noble friend Lord Tope. I shall not do so but I shall give the Committee a few examples to add a little colour to my anxiety about how misleading some of the packaging and labelling can be.
The report gives as an example of a misleading claim the following:
"This box is 100 per cent. recyclable and biodegradable, having been made from renewable, sustainable pulp resources. Pizza Hut is working to help the environment. You can too by disposing of this box carefully".
No doubt that is so, although one wonders about recycling a box with traces of tomato and cheese attached to the lid. But the claim which is made is misleading and confusing. Four key environmental words are used in the claim—recyclable, biodegradable, renewable and sustainable. They give the impression that the box has no adverse effects whatever on the environment. It suggests that the box is recyclable or biodegradable because the pulp used is sustainable. Of course, that is misleading because a sustainable wood source does not help recyclability or the rate of biodegradation of a product.
The report quotes the labelling for Lenor, a fabric conditioner, as an example of an ambiguous claim:
"Lenor has been formulated and made with care for the environment. This care is shown in the careful selection of ingredients and packaging and through the control of manufacturing processes. This bottle is made of polyethylene and the cap is made of polypropylene. These can be disposed of safely in normal waste treatment. Alternatively, the Lenor bottle may be re-used by refilling it with the Lenor refill".
That is quite confusing. It means in fact that the bottle can be thrown into the dustbin and eventually it will be buried or incinerated. That is not quite the same as the materials being recyclable.
The report gives an example of a "trivial claim". Although that is the heading in the report, I believe that it is quite serious. The example given is:
"This swing tag contains 80 per cent. recycled material".
That was a swing tag which merely gave the details of the umbrella to which it was attached but the unsuspecting purchaser could well have confused the reference on the tag to the umbrella itself. I believe that the environmental benefits of the umbrella were somewhat distorted by that labelling.
The examples which I have given may be amusing. My greatest anxiety in relation to raising the issue is that I recall the debates which we had on the Trade Marks Bill when we were all tempted to give examples of coffee jars, and so on, which had confused us. Those examples probably served only to confirm in the minds of the public how remote from everyday life most of your Lordships, including myself, seem to be.
The dangerous point is that purchasers, seeing such claims and many more claims, believe that, by buying a product which describes itself extravagantly or quite meaninglessly, they are doing their bit to save the planet when they may be doing very little at all towards that. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This has been a major problem in the United States. I am sure that the noble Viscount is aware that the claims that are made for products which argue that they are environmentally friendly and yet are not have given rise to any number of civil cases in the United States where people have in fact been damaged by products with green labels. They call them green labels in the United States.
I hope very much that the problem will not arise in this country. But I hope also that the Government recognise a problem which may arise. That is why I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness raises an extremely important point to which I hope the Government will feel able to respond if not in this way, at least in some way which will give us confidence.
Lord Tope: My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to the excellent report produced by Sutton Trading Standards, so I shall resist the temptation to quote a few examples from it to the Committee. If your Lordships' appetites are whetted for more information, the full report is available from the trading standards department of the London Borough of Sutton for a very small charge.
More seriously, I wish to support the amendment. It seems to me that one of the most effective influences which ordinary people—if one can call them that—have on their environment is in their purchasing and consumption power. Producers and manufacturers have long since recognised that, and as the environmental consciousness of the public has grown so have the environmental claims made by manufacturers and producers to sell their products.
One danger is that the public are starting to become cynical about such claims and rather than using their purchasing power to effect a change in the environment, they are going cold on it. Therefore, it is time to act and restore the public's faith, so that they know that when environmental claims are made in relation to products they mean what they say and are not, at best, meaningless or, at worst, misleading.
I hope the Minister will be able to indicate that he supports the amendments or that the Government will consider sympathetically the points that we are trying to make.
Viscount Ullswater: I hope that I shall be able to reassure the Committee and that the noble Baroness will
366
not press the amendment. The amendment seeks to include in the Bill a requirement to make regulations to prevent false or unsupported environmental claims being made, together with provisions to propose by regulation requirements as to the making of such claims.
Making false environmental claims is already illegal. Those matters fall within the scope of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The question of whether further protection is needed in that area is being reviewed by the National Consumer Council. Therefore, those matters are already covered under other legislation.
In addition, there is the European Community eco-labelling system which seeks to identify products which are less harmful to the environment than equivalent brands across the whole of their life cycle.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Viscount moves on to eco-labelling, will he enlighten us as to what the NCC is studying? He says that the re is no need for legislation but if the National Consumer Council recommends that there is need for legislation, will the Government accept that?
Viscount Ullswater: I indicated that false environmental claims are already illegal but the question of the need for further protection is being reviewed by the National Consumer Council. I am sure that we shall bring forward further provisions as necessary to make certain that that point is taken on board.
Eco-labelling will provide the consumer with a valid means of identifying products which have been validated against a set of environmental criteria. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not entirely sure about eco-labelling. It does not guarantee that a consumer will be purchasing the most environmentally friendly product because not every product available in the range will be submitted to the scheme. Nor, indeed—and this may be the trading standards point—does it prevent producers from continuing to make their own "green" claims even if their products have been submitted for testing and have failed.
I am interested in the fact that the National Consumer Council is considering the matter. I do not expect the Minister to respond this evening, but if there is a need to pursue in legislation matters which the NCC identifies perhaps he would consider a rather different amendment, a permissive amendment, which would at least give the legislative framework for steps to be taken at ministerial level. I accept that I do not often argue in that way; indeed, I tend to argue for primary legislation. However, having established the framework, that would allow Ministers to pursue by regulation any matters that the NCC identifies as requiring such regulation. I do not expect the Minister to reply now if he does not wish to do so.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the Trades Descriptions Act 1968 is the legislation which covers that sort of possibility. Therefore, if false claims are being made

367
which need further specification, it is under the Trades Descriptions Act rather than the legislation now before us that any action considered necessary should be taken.
Baroness Hamwee: I understand that fact. However, in a tight parliamentary timetable, I was merely seeking to make a helpful suggestion. I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 303C, 303D and 304 not moved.]
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77 [Producer responsibility: supplementary provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 305 and 306 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 306ZA:
Page 83, line 24, at end insert (", whether generally or in any prescribed way").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to the above amendment when moving Amendment No. 298A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 306A and 307 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 307A, 307B, 307C and 307D:
Page 83, line 26, leave out ("of exemption schemes") and insert (", or withdrawal of approval, of exemption schemes by the Secretary of State;").
Page 83, line 32, after ("schemes,") insert ("the imposition of conditions in connection with such registration, the variation of such conditions,").
Page 83, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) the exclusion or modification of any provision of the Restrictive Trade Practices Acts 1976 and 1977 in relation to exemption schemes or in relation to agreements where at least one of the parties is an operator of an exemption scheme;").
Page 84, line 7, after ("registration,") insert ("the imposition of conditions in connection with registration,").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to the above amendments when dealing with Amendment No. 298A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 308 and 309 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater moved Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 309ZA, 309ZB and 309ZC:
Page 84, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) the conferring on prescribed persons of power to require, for the purposes of or otherwise in connection with competition scrutiny, the provision by any person of any information which he has, or which he may at any future time acquire, relating to any exemption scheme or to any acts or omissions of an operator of such a scheme or of any person dealing with such an operator;").
Page 85, line 33, leave out ("a registered") and insert ("an").
Page 86, line 6, leave out ("mandamus or, in Scotland,") and insert ("injunction or, in Scotland, by interdict or").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 [Producer responsibility: offences]:
[Amendment No. 309A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 309B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 78 agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again at, or as soon as possible after, five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Social Security (Incapacity for Work)(General) Regulations 1995
7.5 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995 laid before the House on Monday 30th January and amend Regulation 6(1) (b) so as to replace the words "in the form of a questionnaire relating to a person's ability to perform the activities referred to in the Schedule" with the words "relevant to the person's capacity to perform work of which he would otherwise have been capable".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion calls upon the Government to redraft the regulations in order to define the all work test by reference to work for which someone would otherwise be capable.
The Motion is important for three reasons. First, until today, the House has been unable to have an informed debate on the nature of the new test of incapacity. Despite the new test being described by the Minister in another place last week (at col. 1234 of Hansard on 2nd February) as,
"the key to our reforms",
there was no opportunity to debate the matter fully during the passage of the parent Act as the matter was left to regulations.
Secondly, the functional test is an inappropriate measure of incapacity for work, and has been criticised as fundamentally flawed by medical experts and disability organisations. In fact, it is a measure of disability, not incapacity for work. Thirdly, the regulations themselves are inadequate because even now they do not provide any definitions which will enable disabled people to understand the system or the Benefits Agency to administer it.
During the passage of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) legislation, debates were limited because the precise nature of the new test was the subject of some deliberation by a "panel of experts" and the

369
development work of the Department of Social Security. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, stated:
"The Bill has been prepared on the basis that the all work test, and hence the definition of incapacity, will be defined in regulations".
The Minister went on to advise against further amendments to the Bill and added:
"To attempt to introduce at this stage a specific definition of incapacity on the face of the Bill could change the nature of the test adversely".—[Official Report, 19/5/94; col. 390.]
The Minister has also said:
"While the consultation and development period is still going on, it is not possible to put down details of the test in the Bill".—[Official Report, 21/4/94; col. 325.]
Even amendments which would have inserted a definition of "work" or "incapacity" along the lines that the panel of experts was considering were not accepted.
The regulations go to the heart of the new incapacity benefit in laying out the test of incapacity for work. Yet the basis of the test is fatally flawed. Incapacity for work is about more than the ability to pick up a bag of potatoes. There has to be reference to other factors personal to the claimant which have a bearing on work which he can reasonably be expected to do. Ever since the present invalidity benefit was introduced by a Conservative Government in 1971, matters such as age, previous work experience, education and training, have been considered as directly relevant to work capacity.
Even the private insurance industry adopts a definition which assesses work,
"for which someone is suited by education, training and experience".
Page 23 of the report of the insurance ombudsman for 1993 stated:
"There is no point in expecting a man who has been a labourer all his life to be able to do clerical work … it must be taken as implicit that there is a reasonable chance of the policyholder being acceptable to an employer in that field".
Clearly, age is related to incapacity for work. That has been recognised by the department's own research into invalidity benefit claimants which suggests that the age of 50 is a turning point for those with ill-health and disability. Age has also been recognised by the Government in giving transitional protection to people who are currently on invalidity benefit and who will be over 58 at the time of change. But the new test neglects the impact of age. What about people who just miss the threshold score by one or two points? For instance, what happens to someone who has arthritis of the spine, knees and wrists, has been a carpenter all his life and is now 62 and unable to work? If he scores 14, he will not be entitled to benefit. His age and particular lifetime work experience will be regarded as irrelevant to his capacity for work.
The final version of the test was supposed to take into account the results of the consultation process. My noble friend Viscount Astor stated at Third Reading that regulations would be drafted, account having been taken of comments received during final consultation. He stated:
"It is important that the new test is seen to be comprehensive and to have acceptance by many of the interested bodies involved."—[Official Report, 19/5/94; col. 394.]
Yet where is the evidence of such acceptance? It certainly does not lie in the responses to the consultation. The document on the new assessment issued at the end of September tells us on page 39 that a majority of respondents to an exercise in the previous February expressed concern about the policy of basing the test on medical factors alone to the exclusion of factors such as age and skills. One is tempted to ask: what is the point of consultation when a majority of responses are hostile to the proposal and the Government press ahead regardless? It is like going through a red light.
Even members of the expert panel do not agree with the concept of the test. Some could not or did not even complete the exercises that were set. Writing to the Minister on the 6th May, 10 of them stared that even those who had completed the exercises
"found that [they] have reinforced the potential difficulties we perceive as inevitable in a measurement of incapacity such as this. In particular we are concerned about the arbitrariness of scoring according to mechanical functions without reference to other factors such as age or employment history. The concentration on functions to the exclusion of all else is contrary to the whole person approach which so many of us advocate."
Another panel member representing the BMA walked out of the panel exercise, according to Pulse magazine on 9th July last. According to that magazine, Dr. Ian Bogle said:
"I have a lot of trouble with a checklist that leads me to give a score to a patient…"
I understand that the representative of the Royal College of General Practitioners, Dr. Douglas Garvie, expressed reservations about the lack of GP input into the new process.
That even members of the expert panel did not believe in the policy means that these regulations can have no acceptance beyond the narrow confines of the Department of Social Security. Not only the panel but other experts, including all five professors of rehabilitation—none of whom was represented on the panel—stated that the test was fundamentally mistaken in principle, it having no scientific or logical credibility.
The regulations include a seed of doubt about the basis of the functional test. The exceptional circumstances listed in Regulation 27 allow for some people who fall within the scope of that regulation to be treated as incapable of work, even if they do not satisfy the functional test. The very existence of these exceptional cases drives a coach and horses through the ludicrous idea that capacity for work can be assessed by functional impairment alone.
I believe that the regulations are inadequate. The new test will be far from the simpler, fairer and more objective assessment of incapacity described by the Minister in the other place on 2nd February last (at col. 1233 of Commons Hansard). It was pointed out by Mr. Alan Howarth, MP:
"the proposition that there can be an objective medical test of capacity for work—for all work—is fundamentally misconceived."—[Official Report, Commons; 2/2/95; col. 1248]
The test is not simpler. It will be a messy combination of diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, severity of condition and a limited number of functions. After the first 28 weeks, somehow it will have to be established whether

371
someone falls within the exempt category in Regulation 10. This will depend on receipt of the highest rate of DLA care component and whether the person suffers from one of a list of conditions. This is part diagnosis and part receipt of benefit. In order for people to have severe conditions, the crossover point from a moderate to a severe condition has to be decided.
It is to be welcomed that the belated amendments to the regulations now include severe mental ill-health in the list of exempt groups. Many organisations feared that people with severe mental illness would not be covered by transitional protection. It is to be regretted that that omission has caused so much concern and was rectified only on 31st January. However, there is likely to be considerable confusion as to who and at what point someone can fall within an exempt category. The failure in Regulation 10 fully to define the groups of people who will be treated as incapable of work is destined to cause considerable confusion. For example, at what point does a neurological disease become severe and progressive, or a mental health problem severe?
Next, having failed to fall within Regulation 10, a claimant has to undergo a functional test and score at least 15 to qualify for benefit. A score of 14 or below will give no entitlement. Are the Government really saying that incapacity for all work equates with the inability to walk more than 50 metres? Conversely, does an ability to walk more than 400 metres mean that someone is capable of all work? The descriptors in the schedule do not address the work capacity of someone who may be able to perform the functions but cannot automatically be regarded as capable of work. What of someone who is convalescing for a considerable period of time following an operation or illness, such as glandular fever?
If the claimant fails at this point—I understand that the Government expect some 220,000 current claimants and another 55,000 new claimants to do so—there are four exceptional circumstances to be addressed. The person will be assessed by the Benefits Agency doctor, but the adjudication officer will make the decision. How will the doctors decide at what point someone's condition is severe? How will claimants know whether they are exempt? How can they appeal if they believe the Benefits Agency doctors to be wrong?
Finally, the regulations miss out some key factors. At Committee stage in this House on 21st April 1994 my noble friend Lady Cumberlege stated (at col. 300):
"the 'all work' assessment will include all the medical factors raised by these amendments, such as pain, stress and general health".
She also stated (at col. 301):
"the new test will assess physical and mental disabilities which affect a person's capacity for work in a range of physical functions. Mental health will also be assessed and the effects of pain, stress and fatigue."
Yet, if we look at the regulations, where is pain, stress or fatigue?"
I have read the Minister's assertion in the House of Commons last week that those factors will be taken into account and will appear on the questionnaire, those concerns do not appear in the regulations. The abilities listed in the schedule do not mention pain, stress, fatigue
372
and variability, so it is unclear how they can be taken into account. Results of the first evaluation exercise detailed in the document entitled The Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit found that medical factors not reflected in the functional assessment being tested were taken as contributing to work incapacity. Those included situations where:
"full account had not been taken in clinical opinion of the effects of pain or variability and fluctuation in functional limitations".
That appeared on page 60. Other matters listed in that section appear in revised form in Regulation 27. Why. have factors such as pain, stress and fatigue been left out when the Government have stated that clinical examination has revealed that those factors are relevant?
The Minister stated in the other place last week that there were more amendments to the regulations in the pipeline, which would be made before the implementation of the test and subject to the affirmative procedures. Can my noble friend explain in detail what those amendments will be and when they will be laid before the House?
I must apologise for taking so long, but this is an important matter. It is possible for the House to vote on the Motion. I understand that the House has voted on similar Motions some 26 times since 1979.
This Motion to resolve is far more constructive in seeking for the regulations to be re-drafted and does not prevent them being brought back before the House later in this Session. The regulations, properly amended, would make the all work test more realistic rather than a mechanistic test. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995 laid before the House on Monday 30th January and amend Regulation 6(1) (b) so as to replace the words "in the form of a questionnaire relating to a person's ability to perform the activities referred to in the Schedule" with the words "relevant to the person's capacity to perform work of which he would otherwise have been capable".—(Lord Swinfen.)
7.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995 and the draft Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) (Transitional) Regulations 1995 laid before the House on 30th January 1995 be approved.
The regulations before the House today provide for the introduction of the new incapacity benefit.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. We are discussing the Motion that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. We anticipated that the Motion would be dealt with and the Minister would then move the regulations.

373
I see nods in a certain direction. Perhaps we should stick to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was advised that I should start in that way. After we have dealt with my noble friend's Motion I shall then move the two Motions which stand in my name.
I do not intend to make a lengthy speech because I recognise that a number of your Lordships are eager to contribute to the debate. In any event, the detail of the provisions of the regulations has already been explained in the guide Notes on Regulations published last November.
I should like to recall the important context in which the changes are being introduced. Invalidity benefit is the fastest growing contributory benefit. Expenditure has more than doubled in real terms over the past 10 years from £3.1 billion to £7 billion in 1993–94. That dramatic growth has come at a time when the nation as a whole has been getting healthier. No responsible government could let that continue. If we did, spending could increase to up to £10 billion by the end of the century. I notice that my noble friend did not choose to address that particular aspect, but perhaps he does not consider that raising the money and the taxpayers' interest in all of this is of any relevance.
Anyone committed to controlling that growth would need to consider the system of medical control. As my noble friend pointed out, the present system includes non-medical factors such as education, skills and experience. Those may indeed affect the ability to get a job, dare I say at any age, but they are not a cause of medical incapacity. The inclusion of those in the current assessment of incapacity is the reason invalidity benefit is going to some people for whom it was not intended, such as people who have taken early retirement or who are unemployed. That is why the new all work test specifically excludes the factors that my noble friend Lord Swinfen has asked us to include. Indeed, he said that it was wrong to ignore factors such as age, education and skills. I point out to him that incapacity benefits are intended for people who cannot work because of their medical condition. I believe that it is right to distinguish between long-term incapacity and long-term unemployment, for which other benefits are available.
Therefore, we have to be certain that the new all work test accurately measures medical incapacity for work. That is why development work has taken a period of nearly two years. During that time we conducted in-house studies, consulted widely and involved outside experts. We also carried out two major evaluation studies, using real cases to confirm that the new test would be an effective assessment of incapacity. I take this opportunity to offer my thanks for the invaluable help we received.
In devising our final proposals we addressed three particular concerns. First, we have protected the position of the most seriously ill and disabled by making them exempt from the test. Secondly, we have recognised the particular problems caused by mental illness by designing special procedures for claimants with a mental
374
health problem. Indeed, my noble friend recognised that we have added mental health to the list. Thirdly, we have made provision for the small number of conditions where incapacity cannot be measured functionally. In addition, we are carrying out a major training exercise to ensure that Benefits Agency Medical Services doctors are able to apply the test effectively.
I should like to turn to the role of the GP. Although my noble friend did not mention the fact, somebody has to make these difficult decisions. He implied that they were so difficult to make that I was not sure who would ever be able to make them if he had his way and was able to devise the system that he would like. Until now the GP has been, so to speak, the gatekeeper. Of course general practitioners are well placed to give advice on a person's medical condition. However, that is not a good reason to make them gatekeepers to the benefit system. They are not trained to assess capability for work or to administer social security law. Placing such a burden on them can compromise their relationship with their patients. Accordingly, our reforms re-emphasise their role in providing information on the condition of the claimant but remove the requirement to play such an active part in the social security system. I imagine that many doctors will be happy to have the role of gatekeeper removed from them.
The new test will be applied to existing cases over the next two or three years. It will identify in a fair way the minority of people who should not he receiving incapacity benefit. Some people have been receiving invalidity benefit for many years and may be anxious. I remind them and the House—because some amazing figures have been bandied about—that the majority of people who take the new test will satisfy it. In addition, the regulations before the House provide for nearly 50 per cent. of existing claimants to be exempt from the new test.
My noble friend made much of the age cut-off of 58. When we decided on that age we wanted to be able to provide as many existing claimants as possible with a guarantee about their future entitlement. We also had to take into account the fact that a number of people aged 50 and over have been receiving benefit as a form of early retirement benefit. Between 1978 and 1993 the number of men under pension age receiving IVB rose from 430,000 to 845,000. Of those something like 230,000 were between 55 and 64, and 65,000 were between 50 and 54. While research indicates that attachment to the job market declines after the age of 50, that does not mean that the people involved suffer from some form of incapacity. Detachment from the job market may be for quite different reasons. We believe that to exclude all those people, say from 50 and over, from the all work test would effectively be to exclude the majority of existing cases and those who, as I said before, are using the system as a means of receiving benefit on early retirement.
I believe that our reforms will ensure that we have a sensible system and, importantly, an affordable system which will be sustainable for the rest of the decade and into the next century. I commend the regulations to the House.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he make the position absolutely clear? He

375
referred to the regulations which are before the House. The regulations are not before the House. The Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen is before the House. Could the position be absolutely clear? I have checked the matter. There has been some misunderstanding. We should understand that the House has to deal with the noble Lord's Motion first, and the Minister will then decide what to do with the regulations.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not propose to split hairs when there is a time problem with regard to a debate. In fact we are discussing the regulations. One cannot discuss my noble friend's Motion without discussing the regulations. I should have thought that that was self-evident.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister is becoming irritable. I have taken advice. A brief made today's procedure clear. We are discussing the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. The regulations are not before the House.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask this question. Has it not been the practice of this House for centuries that only one Question can be before the House at one time?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, yes, indeed, only one Question can be before the House. I am sorry if I may have mixed up the procedure. However, my speech would have been the same because, frankly, one cannot address oneself to my noble friend's Motion unless one considers the instruments as a whole. I believe that I dealt with both the instruments and the reasons why I hope that the House will reject my noble friend's Motion.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, it is a bit rich for the Minister to complain about splitting hairs when he has brought before the House a few tiny, trivial, mere details of changes instead of substantially addressing himself to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
I thank the noble Lord for bringing the issue before the House. As there is so little time left, I propose to make a brief speech. I have to say to the Minister that the speech he made was absolutely and totally inadequate to justify regulations which will severely hit sick and disabled people.
The principle of a purely medical approach to the incapacity benefit has been disputed and derided in this place and in another place. Yet the Minister now stands up and resists all attempts to inject reasonableness into the system. It is a system which is questionable in principle and will be harsh in practice.
Someone too frightened to go out alone scores one point. I wonder which genius in the Government worked that one out? A person who sits alone for hours doing nothing scores two points—another oddball idea. The most bizarre, and even brutal, concept is that no less than 15 points—I emphasise, 15 points—are required for acceptance as "incapable of work". That is what the
376
regulations state; there is no point in the Minister shaking his head. Those requirements are bereft of all humanity, devoid of understanding and incapable of dealing with the shifts and shades of mankind's condition.
Thousands of individuals and their families will suffer anxiety, wondering whether they will gain sufficient marks. A family's income can depend on the result of just one test. Most of those on invalidity benefit are known to be low wage earners; we all know that. Many have had little education. These are the people now facing the prospect of losing an income only slightly above the breadline level—but at least it was at a level which gave them minimum security. Denied that, they may even have to rely on obtaining another new, unwelcome benefit—the jobseeker's allowance.
This is a classical exercise in political cynicism. The Government are devastating thousands of ill and disabled people, cloaking their attack in the guise of improved targeting, and taking cash from disabled people for electoral bribes. That is the truth of what the Government are now doing. I believe that it is a cruel and calculated manoeuvre which reflects badly on the Government. If they push it through, I hope that their tactic backfires and blows up in their face.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I shall speak as briefly as possible on the Motion. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, dealt with the matter in considerable detail and proved to my mind at least that there is a real problem.
The Motion before us replaces the words in the schedule with the following words:
"relevant to the person's capacity to perform work of which he would otherwise have been capable".
Such a system would involve a degree of flexibility because one will have a different set of criteria for each person. Every time this House has discussed one individual's needs, in particular with regard to disabilities, we have had explained to us time and again that one must take account of that individual as a single unit. People do not fit well into schemes. The system of acquiring points will be ridiculous in effect if one takes one person's level of disability at a given time.
The noble Lord gave an example of a person in manual work who suffers an injury or some damage which means that he may then be capable of sitting behind a desk. If a skilled carpenter has bad literacy skills he cannot be expected to acquire a reasonable desk job because he would be unable to undertake such work. If he suffers an injury, he cannot work with his hands for long periods of time, no matter how good his score is in any test.
Having listened to the arguments on the Motion, I recommend that there is only one way to vote: in favour of the noble Lord's Motion.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord for putting down the Motion. I congratulate him on his clear explanation of the issue and his tenacity in pursuing it. It is not just the disability

377
organisations which are concerned. As the noble Lord said, the medical profession, including all the professors of rehabilitation, is extremely concerned. The noble Lord said that there were five professors of rehabilitation. I go further. There are six and they are all against it. I spoke to one of them last night. He said that, if it is to be effective, the test must address the relationship between a disabled person and the employer.
I wish to concentrate on one area which is causing much concern: that is, the people who may find themselves in the no-man's land between incapacity benefit and benefits for the unemployed. When the regulations were debated in another place on 2nd February, the Minister for Disabled People gave some reassurances at col. 1239 of the Official Report. The Minister stated:
"If a person is judged capable by the new test and then chooses to register as unemployed, the adjudication officer in the Employment Service cannot then decide that that person is not capable of work. A claimant must, of course, be available for and actively seeking work to qualify for unemployment benefits".
The Minister went on to explain that claimants do not have to be able to do every possible type of job.
While I appreciate that assurance, I am not totally convinced, because the problem exists under the present system even though, in theory, it should not. Disability Alliance and RADAR indicate that in a joint survey. NACAB can give examples of people who are regarded as too fit for invalidity benefit being turned away from the unemployment benefit office even if they wished to sign on to preserve their right to national insurance credits.
I should like to ask the Minister some questions. I have given him notice of them as I feel that this is an area which needs more explanation. If he does not have time to answer them all during the dinner hour debate, perhaps he will write to me. I hope that he is able to answer some.
First, does the Minister agree that this no-man's land exists at present with invalidity benefit? Does he accept that under the new functional test for incapacity benefit many more people could end up in this grey area?
Perhaps I may ask some questions of detail about people who decide to appeal against a decision to withdraw their incapacity benefit. Pending their appeal, will they have to sign on or send in a medical certificate, or both? How will they be able to ensure that their national insurance record is maintained through credits? Which benefit will they be entitled to during that time? Finally—a very important point—if someone is regarded by the employment service as not being fit enough to sign on, will that person be referred back to the Benefits Agency Medical Services with a view to obtaining a second opinion to enable him or her to claim or reclaim incapacity benefit?
I look forward to the Minister's reply and I hope that he can give some encouraging answers. The big question of the appropriateness of the functional test remains and I should be even more encouraged if he would accept the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. In view of what the Minister has said so far,
378
even the optimist in me is not hopeful, so that, if the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, feels that he has to go to a Division, I shall support him wholeheartedly.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I shall concentrate briefly on the problem of the mentally ill. I am advised by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Both the fellowship and I welcome the fact that at the last minute the Government have exempted those with severe mental illness from the new test of incapacity.
However, the problem is: how does one define severe mental illness? I understand that draft Benefits Agency advice suggests that the definitions should include: a need for continued psychiatric care, including sheltered residential facilities where the person receives regular medical or nursing supervision; and day care at least one day a week in a centre where qualified nursing care is available.
The problem is that many suffering severe mental illness are not in sheltered residential facilities and cannot get day care one day a week because the services do not exist in their area. Others who could have the services are not prepared to use them because of the nature of their illness. The difficulty with the mentally ill is that even severely mentally ill people are perfectly all right some of the time and some of the time they are not. However, we cannot have a stop-go process with the kind of assistance we are talking about.
In addition to all that, it is unrealistic, not to mention inhumane, to force mentally ill people, particularly severely mentally ill people, to be subjected to tests if by some process the definitions do not fit their case. They are people who cannot stand pressure, especially the kind of pressure that the tests might create; that approach would probably make them more mentally ill. So it is a difficult problem.
The National Schizophrenia Fellowship has been trying for some time to visit the Minister's department to discuss such matters but it has not been allowed to, and that distresses me. The fellowship has submitted written proposals which, happily, have resulted in the Government's amendment, including the exemption for severely mentally ill people. Perhaps the period is so short that the department has not had time to react to the proposals, but I implore my noble friend to give me an undertaking—and I hope that he will be able to do this in his reply—that as soon as practicable his department will get in touch with the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and invite it to give the practical advice from which, if possible, the definition can be devised.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I well understand the Government's anxiety about the increase in the numbers claiming invalidity benefit over the past decade. However, their response to the problem of having a more tightly drawn or stricter test of incapacity for work is not the solution. The Government have not accepted or have turned a blind eye to the underlying cause of the increase. As a consequence of the regulations, a

379
number of those at present on invalidity benefit will suffer both financially and psychologically, as my noble friend pointed out. I predict that the legislation will boomerang and do the Government no good electorally.
By moving the Motion amending the Government's legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is doing his party a good turn. There are votes in this. During the 1980s and early 1990s many people who were long-term unemployed were encouraged by DSS officers to obtain medical certificates from their GP if they had any form of disability, even if it was relatively mild. If work had been available, most of those people would gladly have continued to work. That is my experience and that of colleagues over a number of years, especially in the inner cities. Transferring those unemployed people to invalidity benefit made political sense to the Government at the time. The numbers of long-term unemployed went down or at least did not rise so fast. Now, however, the large bill for those on invalidity benefit has become an embarrassment.
Those facts are corroborated by some of the findings which are emerging from a research project in primary care which I am now carrying out in association with the Department of Public Health Medicine at UCL. We are looking at a random sample of the population registered with an inner city group practice. We have found that there is a steady increase in the proportion of men of working age who receive invalidity benefit as one goes down the social scale. Long-term invalidity benefit is claimed only by 2 per cent. of men in the professional classes, as classified by their present or last occupation. But there is a steady gradient in the intermediate socio-economic levels, with the rate going up until one reaches the unskilled workers at the bottom of the pile, 50 per cent. of whom receive invalidity benefit at the moment. As their work is more strenuous, it might be expected that more manual workers would claim invalidity benefit, but in fact 70 per cent. of the men in our study who were receiving invalidity benefit had non-physical complaints as their true reason for being off sick—abuse and mental ill-health being the most common.
Those men, and also some women, under 58 will become subject to the new tests. Many will probably be found theoretically to be capable of work, unless they are psychotic, or mentally retarded. But most, even of those who do not pass the test, are not capable of any work that is not manual, and there is still a great shortage of manual work. In the inner cities that is largely due to the contraction of the construction industry. So unless those people can obtain retraining—which is difficult if you are over 40 and it is difficult to change your ways if you are past 50—and unless they can be found new jobs, 'they will go back into the long-term unemployed pool from which many originally came. But they will receive a lower level of benefit.
The regulations amount to a pointless exercise in the present economic climate and will result in increased poverty and unhappiness. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, which seeks to change the wording is a
380
small step in the right direction, but even if it were accepted it would make little impact on a bad piece of legislation.
7.48 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I have had to score out much of what I wished to say due to the time factor. I am uncertain whether or not I should mention that I have a financial interest in the following case which concerns my daughter, as money has been known to pass from me to her.
Some 13 months ago, my daughter received a head injury at her place of work; she had an arterial bleed to her brain-stem which caused problems to the nerves controlling one side of her face. Apart from some psychological aspects, the main problems which she experiences are memory loss, concentration lapses, intermittent facial spasms and the inability at times to make her speech understood. I suggested to her that she should complete the regulations and schedules, marking herself harshly. The result has illustrated some practical anomalies. She is incapable of work according to Part II of the schedule. Fine, let us ignore that. If she were to be assessed purely on Part I, it seems that some areas are open to misinterpretation and others seem to be badly worded. Whether that is intentional or not, I do not know. When severe, her facial spasms make it impossible to understand what she is trying to say. But the wording of Part I, paragraph 10, does not accommodate an intermittent speech problem. It should. After all, the ability to communicate verbally at all times must be a basic requirement of any employment.
I like to think that those of us who are here tonight would experience no emotional difficulty in speaking with somebody who is severely disfigured. We would all admit that the vast majority of people regard disfigurement with shock, horror and disdain. Why is that? It is simply because somebody's physical characteristics differ from the norm. That is what happens. Let us consider such a person seeking employment. The difficulties of overcoming prejudice must be immense, if not impossible. The test does not even mention disfigurement. Yet here is somebody whose physical disability may well make it impossible to find work.
The new regulations are based solely on a person's medically diagnosed condition. Other functional factors which are highly relevant, such as age, education, training and ability, are excluded. Our personalities comprise many factors which distinguish one person from another. To exclude one or more of those would lead to our personality being masked or changed. That is perhaps what is happening here. Not allowing part of a disabled person's ability to be assessed means that the whole picture is being blurred. That is what will happen with these regulations as they are currently presented. There appears to me to be a hint of unfairness here; therefore, the regulations should be withdrawn.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I enter this debate on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Swinfen in order to join

381
in the concern that is expressed by him and others as well as by certain organisations and groups. I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, give us—as I hope he will—the assurance that we need. I put this question to him: will there not be the supposed unnecessary casualties when incapacity benefit takes over from sickness benefit and invalidity benefit? These measures are strong and harsh, with the jobseeker's allowance due to come into effect in April 1996. To quote a certain organisation,
"The proposed introduction of the jobseeker's allowance … with a tougher regime governing eligibility for benefit is also likely to have an adverse impact on sick and disabled people, many of whom may have been out of the labour market for some years".
I agree that there is perhaps a need for the Government to have taken some action. But is the test too confined? It is purely functional, relating to impairments alone and excluding other personal factors such as the person being able to do reasonable work.
Again, I quote:
"The new system will be a stark functional assessment with no account of the types of work someone could undertake given their disability and other personal factors".
There is one group that could be heavily hit amongst the many groups with disability; namely, those who suffer from active and progressive forms of inflammatory polyarthritis. Again I quote:
"People with 'active and progressive forms of inflammatory polyarthritis' are included. Polyarthritis means 'inflamation of several joints at the same time', as in rheumatoid arthritis. But how is 'active' to, be defined in this context? Will people with a confirmed diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, who at the time of renewing or applying for Incapacity Benefit for the first time, are in 'remission'? Will they be exempt from the functional test?".
What does the term "in remission" usually mean? Remission is usually associated with the successful drug regime for the individuals concerned. It does not mean that the person is not in pain, or that the effects of pain, stress, fatigue and fluctuations are not present on a daily basis. There is concern for people whose diagnosis is of a more generalised nature, As we know, arthritis is the biggest single cause of disability in the United Kingdom.
I do not suggest, as some may, that Her Majesty's Government introduce these regulations in any devious way to get votes. I honour and respect the fact that they are trying to do what is right for the help of all. I do not know how I will vote. I do not feel that I would wish to vote against the Government. If this matter comes to a vote, I shall most probably abstain, as I feel that, in spite of any weaknesses, the Government are doing their best. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will be able to give that assurance. But I am aware, as I believe the Government are, of the need somehow to get all these matters as right as we possibly can.
7.56 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is not a test of incapacity to work. It is at best a test of incapacity to work in certain pre-defined ways which the Department of Social Security happens to have foreseen. If somebody passes this test, I shall not therefore believe that they are capable of work. If they fail this test, I shall not therefore believe that they are incapable of
382
work. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, I have learnt that I am in expert company in so believing.
It was a little ungenerous of the Minister to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has no concern with the interest of the taxpayer. I am a taxpayer. I have the same concern as anybody else does. But the interest of the taxpayer, like other concerns, is best pursued in a realistic way in the light of accurate information. That is what this test fails to do. To borrow the traditional miners' phrase, I do not want blood on the tax cut.
The Minister said: "We are looking to give benefit to people who are unfit to work because of their medical condition". We are with him in that. He will not achieve that with this test. The Minister also said that people over 50, whose attachment to the labour market is, as we have heard, weaker than that of others, are not unfit for medical reasons. I ask the Minister: when did he last stand at a bus-stop and watch people getting on and off a bus? If he does that, he will see that there is an interaction between age and disability. If two people have an equal disability and one is the older, the one who is older will be the more handicapped by it. Age does have an effect.
Also, as we have heard, it is much harder to learn a new skill—or even, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out, to be taught a new skill. We know the difficulty of teaching an old dog new tricks. And we all know that an old dog who suffers an injury may suffer more severely than a young dog who suffers the same injury.
This test tries to test incapacity for work by asking people to fill in a form. Our illnesses are individual. Our incapacities are individual. No test can possibly foresee them all. A test of inability to work must begin bottom upwards, from the individual. One must study the facts of the case, and only then begin to decide whether the person is fit to work.
To take an individual example—it is an actual example—a First World War veteran, shot in the brain, survived, suffering no damage except the total loss of his sense of smell. Under these regulations and the jobseeker's proposals, if that person were to refuse to take work as a wine taster, he would be found not to be actively seeking work—if the Minister shakes his head, I should be very relieved to hear why he does so. This is supposed to be a test of all work.
Let us take another case, again of someone with a brain injury—I heard with great sympathy what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, had to say—who has lost control of the end joints of his fingers. I am relieved to see that there is a test of manual dexterity. It tests the ability to use a pen or pencil. There is nothing in it about how well one can use a pen or pencil. That is not the way that employers consider the matter and their point of view deserves to be considered.
There can be no acceptable test of incapacity to work until the Government abandon their so-called objective test, which in fact is no such thing, and go back to the beginning with the medical condition of the individual concerned. An objective test is not a test on the right subject. Nor is it true that there is such a thing as a

383
single activity known as work. There are a great many different kinds of work and they make different demands on one's medical condition.
Under this scoring system, you have to score 15 unless you are to be found fit for all work. A person who cannot lift a 5 lb bag of potatoes scores eight. Is that person fit for work in a supermarket? Someone who cannot hear well enough to cope with a normal voice in a quiet room scores 10. Is that person fit to be a telephone operator? I could go on but I shall not do so. It is all like that.
I hope that this set of regulations will be withdrawn. It is the worst mistake that the Government have made since the Child Support Act and it will do just as much damage.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, before my noble friend speaks, I should like to say a few words. I do not talk about animals all the time. I have listened carefully to the debate from the beginning. The question of fitness for work is a very old subject within different contexts in the national insurance scheme. It is bound to be a very difficult problem. But it seems that the expenditure on this benefit has risen so quickly and to such a level that the Government have become a little worried about the system.
A definition by which all future cases should be judged and existing cases reviewed was found too difficult to include in the Act. It was found too difficult to legislate on it in the Act. Now it appears that it has been left by the Act to regulations. Those regulations have been published and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has tabled a Motion on them.
On an issue of this kind, where it seems as though the Government are looking to save money, where people may be deprived of benefit probably for the first time for years and where a new concept of disablement and fitness for work is brought into the picture, I must ask whether we are following a satisfactory procedure for deciding the issue tonight. I cannot believe that we are doing so. If we are to alter definitions by regulation and not by Act, we must be perfectly certain that the regulations will stand the full test of justice, common sense, technical sensitivity and sound judgment in human affairs.
What machinery do we have for doing that? Should this matter go to a Select Committee? How do we settle the issue, except by vote tonight? I cannot believe that to decide this matter by vote tonight will be a satisfactory solution for anybody. What then should we do? It seems to me that the Government should withdraw the regulations until we are satisfied that the draft regulations have been fully examined by representative bodies qualified to look at them from the point of view of the public interest, of the disabled persons concerned and of what is sound medical judgment and social justice for the basis of awarding benefit under this scheme. I believe that we should then have to accept the judgment that would come to us from such consideration.
384
This is a difficult matter. We know that somebody has to decide the question. The Minister reminded us of that a moment or two ago. But, quite frankly, I do not believe that we are qualified to settle this matter tonight in the name of the House of Lords. The other place must do what it thinks it should do with regulations that come before it. But the question of procedure and fairness in reaching a judgment tonight bears heavily upon us.
In a sense, we have not had a full opportunity to regard this matter as a major policy and political issue. For my own part I plead that it should not be decided this evening. It should come again before the House if necessary. In the meantime, the Government should consider how best to have this problem determined in an acceptable way. Otherwise, I am afraid that many people will be discontented and many people will be deprived of benefits which it will be difficult for them to replace.
Talking about fitness for work in pleasant circumstances is bound to have difficulties. There is not work for everybody, not for those who are fit for work and make no claim upon social benefit. But what about those who are handicapped in looking for work and those who are asked to find work that they have never done before? I know of a case in point which is very close to my own observation. It seems to me that, although you have never done any manual work in your life, you are fit for work as a clerk. That was referred to in the course of the Minister's observations. Obviously, that requires a social as well as a medical and personal judgment.
I cannot say any more. I had no intention today of staying in the Chamber until this hour of night. However, I cannot go away feeling that the House has done a good job of work if the matter is left formally to be decided in a few minutes' time without something sounder and more acceptable to take its place.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will have listened with great interest to that vastly experienced intervention from my noble friend. I am sure that when the Minister comes to speak he will wish to withdraw the regulations.
Perhaps I may begin by pointing out, as the more alert of your Lordships may have noticed, that I am not the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. My name, not hers, should have been on the list of speakers. I apologise for the error.
This has been a most interesting if rather brief debate. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for tabling this Motion and giving us a chance to debate this very important matter, affecting as it does the 1.6 million people on invalidity benefit. Much of the argument has already been most eloquently expressed. I can be very brief therefore. The problems of age, transition, work experience and so on have all been well covered.
Those of us who laboured for many hours on the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act will have a strong sense of déjàa vu and a clear understanding that our worst fears have been realised. When we debated

385
that Bill, the regulations were not available, as the process of consultation and testing had still to be carried out. Now that we have the regulations, it is clear that the guidance notes for the Benefits Agency will be vitally important. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House whether the guidance notes that he mentioned, which he said were available last November, are the final edition or whether they are to be further amended.
Previous speakers have dealt with the various problems of definition, procedure and outcome. The best evidence for the ultimate fallacy of relying on a purely medical and functional test lies in the regulations. As to Regulation 27(b) and (c), what sort of test is it that allows somebody to pass the all work test who:
"(b) suffers from some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement… or (c) … suffers from a severe uncontrolled or uncontrollable disease"?
Is it the case that Regulation 27 had to be included because the pilot studies found that some people passed the test but were clearly incapable of work? As I say, what sort of functional test is that?
Some of the definitions seem to be positively misleading. For example, Regulation 10 uses the word "severe" no less than five times. Sometimes "severe" is qualified, sometimes it is not—so what is "severe"? At what stage does someone with a progressive disease move from "not severe" to "severe"? Will this be explained in the guidance notes?
The Oxford Dictionary defines severe as "austere", "strict", "harsh", "rigorous", and "unsparing". I have the feeling that those who drafted the regulations for the test had the Oxford Dictionary open and permanently beside them as they worked.
Severe mental illness under Regulation 10(2) (e) (viii), as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was added as a manuscript amendment when the regulations were debated in another place. It is an entirely welcome amendment, but its late inclusion—added to the points that I have already made in relation to Regulation 27—illustrate the fundamental weakness of relying entirely on a medical and functional test.
The question of appeals is central. The Government are expecting 140,000 appeals in 1995–96. We are told that the Government are putting more money and resources into the Medical Advisory Service. How much money? How many extra people, and what are their qualifications?
I should ask the Minister an important question in regard to the basis for reviewing new claims after April 1995. Will age be a factor, having now set a control date? What will be the basis for reviewing the cases of the estimated 220,000 people who will come off incapacity benefit "within two years"? Will this be done on their normal review date? If so, it appears that many will come off incapacity benefit within six to nine months and not two years. What will be the basis for reviewing other current claims which come under the transitional regulations—for example, from people aged over 58 or people in the groups exempt from the new functional test?
386
I said I would be brief, so I will not repeat questions that have already been asked or give multiple examples. When these regulations were debated in another place on 2nd February there were many excellent speeches on these matters, not least that of Mr. Donald Dewar, the Opposition spokesman on social security. But perhaps the most effective speech was made by Mr. Alan Howarth, the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. Its effectiveness arose from the fact that Mr Howarth is a Conservative with great experience of disability matters. I appreciate that under the rules of your Lordships' House I must not quote Mr Howarth verbatim, but I certainly agree with his belief that the all work test is a contrivance and that the whole idea and objective of a medical test of capacity for work is fundamentally misconceived.
We all know that this is a Treasury-driven exercise. I would remind your Lordships that, as pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we have recently had an example of a Treasury-driven foray into social security; I refer, of course, to the nightmare of the Child Support Agency. I was one of the Members of your Lordships' House who were concerned about the Bill that set up the Child Support Agency. We tried endlessly to warn the Government about the likely outcome; the Government would not listen, and our worst fears have been confirmed. We have had also the shambles surrounding the introduction of the Disability Living Allowance. I am sure that these regulations are set fair to become the third member of this sorry troika and, if the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, decides to ask for the opinion of the House on his Motion, I shall certainly be voting with him.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in the limited time available I shall try to answer as many questions as I can. If I do not refer to the noble Lords who have asked questions, I hope they will understand that other noble Lords have asked the same or similar questions and that mentioning everybody by name would take some time.
One of the themes common to many of the interventions in this debate was the question of defining some of the descriptors in the schedule—for example, time, pain, stress and fatigue—and how those factors would interact with the descriptors. Perhaps I may try to explain. In assessing someone for the all work test, the BAMS doctor will take full account of the history and evolution of the medical condition. Your Lordships will remember that I mentioned that, in addition to the filling in of the form, the GP will be asked to report on his or her patient to the BAMS doctor on the actual effect that the medical condition has on the patient's daily life and normal tasks over a period of time, and the limitations which are imposed.
In choosing one of the descriptors in each of the areas of activity in the test, the doctor must also describe and justify his choice in terms of the pattern of any variability or fluctuation, and the effects of pain and fatigue. This point has been particularly emphasised in the training which the BAMS doctors are receiving. In other words, it is not a snapshot; it is actually looking at the condition and looking at the effects over time. I hope that that answers at least some of the points made

387
about specific problems which may not be very severe if looked at for one second but over time can in fact be severe, or can be intermittent.
Mental health problems do fluctuate. One point that was put to me was whether these fluctuations will be taken into account. As I have said, the test is not a snapshot, and of course the medical evidence from the claimant's GP will be carefully considered by the BAMS doctor. The assessment of the mental health problems will consider the mental history and the day-to-day functional effects of the condition.
Play was made with the definition of the word "severe"; when does a problem become severe? Severity of a condition will be considered on the basis of the clinical information available from the claimant's own doctor. A BAMS doctor will assess the information against the criteria covering the diagnosis and affecting the condition, and the effect that the condition has on everyday activities and care needs. And, of course, treatment is another point that has to be borne in mind.
I have been asked on a number of occasions about the threshold of the benefits, the threshold that one must reach in order to obtain the benefit, and there have been some rather over-exaggerated definitions of what happens when someone gets to that threshold. The threshold is set at a level where it would be unreasonable for a person to be expected to work rather than where work becomes impossible. A person who does not satisfy the test is not necessarily capable of all work but is certainly medically capable of some work—very probably a considerable range of work.
The role of the test is not to place people in jobs; the role of the test is to decide whether people can undertake jobs and are medically capable of doing so. The employment service will then come into play to help the person search for work, taking into account his or her skills, experience, availability for work, education and other physical constraints.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked the question about the person with no sense of smell: if he refused a job as a wine taster would he be refused benefit under the jobseeker's allowance? I am not sure whether the noble Lord was trying to be facetious, but the fact of the matter is that people—and this includes people who would never consider that they were in any way eligible for this particular benefit—who have some form of disability or some form of restriction of what they can do, will be asked to say what that is and that will be agreed. The medical conditions are one, so that anybody with no sense of smell, for example, who was offered a job as a wine taster—which I doubt would happen—and refused it would not promptly be struck off the JSA register and left without benefit. I want to be quite clear about that. Just because people pass this test, and indeed just because people are unemployed, does not necessarily mean to say that they can take any job that is available—from a professorship of modern history down, or up, depending on where one starts looking at it. I hope that that will be of some comfort to noble Lords who were particularly concerned about that point.
388
I was asked about rheumatoid arthritis and whether sufferers will be exempt. Exemption is not based on the diagnosis. It is based more on the severity of the medical condition. Full account will be taken of all the medical factors. Those with severe manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis are likely to be exempt. Anyone who looks at the various descriptors and knows someone who has rheumatism of a severe nature can easily see how he or she would quite quickly get to 15 points. If one looks at the scores and the descriptors, it will not be all that difficult to get to 15 points.
My noble friend asked me about the amending regulations which are to come. I do not want to list all the various matters that are to come but perhaps I may give an example. We want to uprate the therapeutic earnings limit to £44 and we wish to clarify the wording of the immune deficiency exempt category following some comments we have had from the Terrence Higgins Trust. We want to enable people acting as unpaid advisers to organisations representing disabled people to sit as medical assessors on appeal tribunals, following comments we have had from the independent tribunals service. There are a number of other issues of that nature. None of them will affect the principles behind the proposal but they will be detailed matters which we think ought to be put right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, asked me a number of questions. I probably nearly answered one of her questions in my comment to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. If someone is judged to be capable of work and he then goes to either unemployment benefit or, in the future, JSA, there will not be a different decision made. In fact, he will be taken on to the JSA register if he has been found to be capable of work under the test we are considering. He will get advice and help to search for the kind of job that will suit his capabilities and his physical and mental abilities, as every person seeking work does. People who appeal against a decision that they are capable of work may register as available for work and qualify for unemployment benefit or income support pending the outcome. Doing so will not prejudice their appeal. If some people feel that they are unable to declare themselves available for work because they think it might prejudice their appeal, we are looking at ways to allow income support payments pending the outcome of any appeal. National Insurance credits are automatically awarded to people receiving benefits for incapacity and those registering as available for work. If someone is found capable of work, credits will normally cease until he registers as unemployed with the service. That he can do even if he is appealing against the decision that he is capable of work.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and a number of noble Lords asked how age fits into this. The test is a measure of the effect of the medical condition. The noble Earl pointed out to me that the effect of the same medical condition can be worse when one is older. That is exactly the point. The test measures the effect. So, while a young person with a disability may certainly be able to walk, say, 400 metres without stopping and an older

389
person can walk only 200 metres, that is allowed for and different points will be scored. The effect of ageing on conditions is taken into account.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the test allows for how many times in the day one could repeat that performance?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I mentioned earlier on that the medical people will take into account not just the snapshot but the effect of the disability over time.
I was interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, because in many ways I thought that he came to my defence and gave evidence on my behalf in this regard. He clearly showed that many GPs were issuing medical certificates to people who were not sick, or at least were certainly not too sick for work, and that they were in fact people who were moving off the unemployment register. There is no evidence that anyone encouraged that to happen. That was one of the effects of the way the benefits system was, with the GPs being left with the difficult decision of acting as gatekeeper. I can understand that, if they were confronted by someone who had been their patient for a long time, we were asking them to do an extremely difficult job in acting as the gatekeeper.
Anyone who studies the descriptors, the physical disabilities and the list and sees how the system is being devised will quite readily see that someone who has a severe disability—a disability that would prevent him working—will quite readily attain the 15 points needed. As I said at the beginning of my speech, not only do we think that this will be a fair and proper test to conduct but it will also be one that will concentrate the benefit on the people for whom it is intended: those whose incapacity for work is due to a medical condition and not due to some of the other conditions which my noble friend has stipulated in his Motion. Having listened to me, I hope that my noble friend will appreciate the good sense of what is being proposed in the regulations and will withdraw his Motion.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in the debate on my Motion and I thank them for their attention. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that he thought that if the House were to agree this Motion it would be of terrific benefit to the Conservative Party. That would be a mere by-product. It was not my intention at all. It is a matter of principle and that is not something that I had thought of. It possibly shows that I am a bear of little brain.
The Minister suggested that people taking early retirement were using invalidity benefit to boost their pensions. That matter could be quite easily dealt with either by primary or secondary legislation. I understand that there is no evidence that people in the older age groups are using the benefit as a form of additional pension. The Department of Social Security's own statistics show that the proportion of male claimants aged between 50 and 65 has decreased from 67 per cent. of all male claimants in 1977–78 to 56 per cent. in 1992–93. Contrary also to what my noble friend said,
390
the Department of Social Security's research and the research of the Policy Studies Institute show that the growth in claims has more to do with people staying longer on benefit than with an increase in the number of new claims.
I do not want to delay the House because Members will wish to get back to the Environment Bill. However, my noble friend also said that amazing figures were being bandied about. He himself, I thought, was doing that this evening, claiming that my amendment would cost some £10 billion by the year 2000. My noble friend shakes his head. That was the impression I got. If he is relying on the Treasury for his figures, I am not at all surprised that they are wildly inaccurate.
This is a matter of principle and therefore I feel that I have no alternative but to move my Motion.
8.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 71.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Meston, L.

Addington, L.

Nathan, L.

Airedale, L.

Nicol, B.

Annaly, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Rea, L.

Bancroft, L.

Redesdale, L.

Bath, M.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Bridges, L.

Russell, E.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Simon, V.

David, B.

Somerset, D.

Falkland, V.

St. Albans, Bp.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Thurso, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tope, L.

Harrowby, E.

Walpole, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

White, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lawrence, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Lytton, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

McNair, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Elton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ferrers, E.

Astor, V.

Gage, V.

Balfour, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Belstead, L.

Hardwicke, E

Blaker, L.

Harlech, L.

Blatch, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Burnham, L.

Howe, E.

Butterworth, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Cadman, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnock, L.

Keyes, L.

Chesham, L.

Leigh, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lindsay, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Cumberlege, B.

Long, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Lucas, L.

Downshire, M.

Lyell, L.

391

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Renton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Marlesford, L.

Rodney, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Seccombe, B.

Mills, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Milverton, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Morris, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Moyne, L.

Stewartby, L.

Norrie, L.

Stockton, E

Northbrook, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Northesk, E.

Sudeley, L.

Tollemache, L.

Onslow, E

Torrington, V.

Peel, E

Ullswater, V.

Rawlings, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Rennell, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Social Security (Incapacity for Work)(General) Regulations 1995
8.38 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Incapacity Benefit)(Transitional) Regulations 1995
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
8.39 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 79 [Hedgerows]:
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 309C:
Page 86, line 33, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (1A) and (1B) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 311B. We now reach that stage of the Bill where we begin to speak about hedgerows. This Bill lays down that,
"The appropriate Ministers may by regulations make provision for, or in connection with, the protection of important hedgerows in England or Wales".
I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree with me that most of the hedgerows which we see are part of someone's farming business and, as such, they
392
can be an important management tool in the effective running of the farm. I accept that there are now many people who are concerned over the loss of certain hedgerows. In certain parts of Britain there has been a great loss of hedgerows. In the north-west, which is my part of the country, there has been very little change in the hedgerows for hundreds of years in certain livestock farming areas. I have to declare an interest in farming although I have never made any pecuniary gain from it.
I am worried that the legislation will impose unnecessary regulations upon people who are trying to run a legitimate business and give regulatory bodies the right to look over farms and take action against farmers who are trying to run a legitimate business.
What is a hedgerow? What is "important"? And important to whom? There will clearly be enormous differences of opinion about what is important or who sees it as important. Our amendments propose that before Ministers make regulations in accordance with the clause they should,
"consult with such organisations as appear to them to be representative of interests substantially affected by their proposals; and consult such other persons as they consider appropriate",
and:
"If it appears to the Ministers, as a result of the consultation required by subsection (1A) above, that it is appropriate to vary the whole or any part of their proposals, they shall undertake such further consultation with respect to the variations as appears to them to be approriate".
By the amendments we are trying to insert on the face of the Bill a requirement that the Minister consult all those involved—representatives of the industry and the farmers involved—and appreciate that their views need to be taken into consideration. Whatever business we may be in, we are all aware of the problems caused by over-zealous regulatory bodies.
What worries me about the proposals in the Bill is that they may do exactly that: create another over-zealous organisation made up of local people whose idea of what might be important may be entirely different and impact seriously upon a farmer's business. Fanning is still the greatest and most important industry in this country. We need to consider the impact the Bill will have on that industry.
I hope that the Government will respond positively to the amendments. I want the Government to appreciate how important these issues are to those who live and work in the countryside. I hope they will take into account what I and others say on this matter and will include a sensible consultation procedure which will avoid unnecessarily over-zealous regulation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 309D, 311C, and 323A. Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about the importance of consultation, I disagree about the people who should be consulted about hedgerows. This is clearly an enabling clause and therefore extremely weak. We have had enabling clauses in previous Bills, which have never come into effect. The amendments try to put rather more solid flesh upon the bones of this clause.
Amendment No. 309D sets a deadline for the Minister to make regulations for the protection of hedgerows. Although I agree with the noble Lord that there should be consultation, Amendment No. 311C suggests that the definition of "important hedgerows" should be set out in regulations by the Minister after he has consulted the local authorities which represent local people who may have ideas about which hedgerows in their locality are the important ones. Amendment No. 323A is consequential upon that consultation with local authorities.
In the next group of amendments we shall discuss in greater detail why hedgerows should be considered important, but in this group of amendments the intention is to shore up the clause by setting a deadline for the Minister and setting down that there should be consultation with local authorities before the important hedgerows are defined.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I added my name to Amendment No. 309C, because the whole clause seemed to me to be reminiscent of that lovely clerihew that was reported by the learned Sir Robert Megarry in his wonderful book Miscellany-at-Law. He wrote:
"If anything shall seem, then the Minister may deem:
A certificate of demption provides completion exemption".
The clause can mean anything or nothing. Before it means anything, and before anyone will do anything, it is incumbent upon the authorities to consult the people who will be affected. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, had- really wanted to alarm the agricultural industry, she could hardly have done it more effectively. She thinks that the most important people to be concerned about this are the local authorities. Anyone who has suffered at the hands of local authority planning departments, and the somewhat junior and often completely unskilled clerks who determine what the size of a window shall be, how high a roof shall be, or what sort of material the building should be constructed of, realise that people will have no confidence in them whatsoever.
If the clause is not implemented carefully it will drive an awful web of discord among the agricultural industry, nature lovers, local authorities and all the parties who have an interest in the well being and conservation of the countryside. When my noble friend said that the most important thing needed is a process of consultation, I cheerfully added my name to his amendments. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give us some comfort.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: I support Amendment No. 309C. I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding at the prospect of the local authority being the most important body to be involved. I think it is probably the least important. After all, the regulations will be detailed. They impose onerous requirements upon the agricultural industry. Before they are expressed, there should be close consultation with those who will be most affected—the farmers and the landowners. I hope that that idea will be taken on board. I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
Lord Renton: The consultation must be conducted thoroughly and adequately. However, I believe that a
394
better way of doing it would be to amplify Clause 81. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, suggested that one step towards doing that would be to add Clause 79 to Clause 81(3) (b). That would be essential, but other parts of Clause 81 need to be amplified. I do not see why we should not include a reference there to representatives of farmers, landowners, conservationists, and whoever else we care to name. In my opinion, it is not enough just to say that the quangos mentioned in Clause 81(2:1 should be consulted.
Perhaps I may refer to some other matters that arise on this issue. I hope not to detain the Committee much longer. In Huntingdonshire we have lost about 2,000 miles of hedgerows since the war. That is due largely to the fact that since we entered the CAP there has been a radical change in fanning practice. Instead of having good mixed farms with plenty of stock we now have huge areas growing wheat and root crops.
I understand the farmers' point of view. Some of my neighbours felt strongly that they had to get rid of the hedgerows that were expensive to maintain and no longer needed for stock. They pulled them down, and I hope that they will be encouraged to use the existing powers to replace them.
The provision is to be confined to "important hedgerows" and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, that that will be difficult to define. What is an important hedgerow? Hedgerows which have not been properly maintained and which have gaps that can be filled—and there are many such hedgerows—are worthy of consideration and should be referred to in any regulations that are to be made. If the word "important" is to be stressed, such diminished hedgerows may not be included, which would be a great opportunity missed.
The phrase "countryside features", which the noble Baroness wishes to have inserted in the Bill, is much too vague—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. I understand that we are speaking to the group of amendments headed by Amendment No. 309C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton. The phrases "important" and "countryside features" appear in the next group of amendments.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord is right, but I was hoping to save time by dealing with the matter in a general way. I shall not continue with that theme and I have said all that needs to be said about consultation.
The Earl of Onslow: My idea of heaven is green fields, cut and laid hedges and falling off the other side. The English hedgerows are a great tradition. One does not see them in the rest of Europe—only in a small part of the world. Many hedgerows were planted as a result of the Enclosure Acts. If one looked at the Enclosure Act which entitled the land to be enclosed, one would find that it was illegal to take out some of the hedges that were removed. Furthermore, until recently a grant was given for the removal of hedges; but now a grant is given to put them back again. Certainly, grant is paid to cut and lay them. I hope that I shall be lucky and receive

395
a grant for a hedge I planted 15 years ago and which is due to be cut and laid on Friday. I am looking forward to that.
It is odd that the Minister should be the person to decide what is an important hedge somewhere in the back end of Cumberland or Devon. There is also force in what was said by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. Sometimes local authorities will act as a result of the pressure put on them, which is not fair to the person concerned because those applying the pressure have no financial interests and wish merely to see the result as they drive by in their car. All those interests must be balanced.
There is force in what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, that the decision should be taken at local level. It is not sensible for it to be taken by the Minister. However, there is equal and valid force in what was said by my noble friend Lord Wade, that the people on the ground who have a debt should, by statute, he consulted. That is self-evident.
The Committee may be interested to know that in June I was in Normandy. It is the one place in France where there are hedges and it is called the bocage country. The French pay grants to bulldoze out the bocage and now, just like us, they are paying grants to have them put back again. Obviously, hedges can be in or out of fashion. They can be re-created relatively easily and quickly and easily made stock-proof. They should be looked after and encouraged. However, I am not sure that the clause is the right way to do that.
Lord Monk Bretton: I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Wade. I am heavily involved in the subject and must declare an interest. During the past 20 years I have removed three out of 12 miles of hedge. I probably have not taken out enough and I am interested in the need to take out more. Consultation with those who manage agricultural land is vital. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, that certain people will need to be consulted. Consultation must be widened and it must be right, which is why I support the amendment.
I wish to refer to the Written Question tabled last July by my noble friend Lord Lye11. It was answered by my noble friend the Minister. The Written Answer indicated that in recent times more hedges had been planted out than had been removed. However, a more serious problem is the growth in the number of what are referred to as relict hedges. They are those which are no longer in reasonable order, are gappy and so forth. It is now more important to consider the way in which hedgerows are to be maintained and how many hedgerows can be maintained with the limited number of farm staff that now exist. We must do that before concentrating on a possibly costly and elaborate bureaucratic control exercise on hedge removals.
I am not sure whether we are going down the right road and I believe that consultation with the industry will help. The industry will be able to make a considerable contribution to the deliberations.
396
On the financial front, the present agricultural scene is buoyed up by CAP subsidies, probably accounting for some 60 per cent. of profitability. The policy appears to be to reduce those subsidies and to get nearer to world prices. World prices may rise but possibly only a little.
The ability to continue to maintain hedges is likely to be reduced. That is a strong argument for the need for a carrot rather than a stick. I do not believe that it would be ill regarded if a reward were provided for those who try to keep hedges. But in the end, one wonders how it is to be paid for by the industry without help.
9 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendments Nos. 309C and 311B moved by my noble friend Lord Wade seek to impose a requirement on Ministers, before making regulations for the protection of important hedgerows, to consult organisations whose interests are likely to be "substantially affected". Amendment No. 311B includes a further requirement on Ministers, if as a result of consultation they consider it appropriate to vary their proposals, to undertake further consultation on those variations.
Amendment No. 311C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, also seeks to impose a requirement on Ministers to consult before making hedgerow regulations: in this case, to consult the same bodies that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must consult under Clause 81. Those are the Countryside Commission, English Nature and English Heritage.
It is an established practice of government to consult organisations whose interests are affected by subordinate legislation, and the comments submitted by those organisations are given careful consideration.
There will be no exception to that practice in respect of regulations made under this clause. Indeed, I envisage a wide-ranging consultation; but not as wide-ranging as that provided for in Amendment No. 311 B which, I am advised, places on us a virtually impossible task. I am nevertheless happy to give my assurance to my noble friends, Lord Wade and Lord Jenkin, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, that we will of course consult the statutory agencies, the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners' Association as well as other representative organisations. I hope that will reassure my noble friend that the interests of farming and the agriculture industry will he consulted properly.
I listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton. He is quite right; I said on Second Reading that more hedges were being planted than those being taken out. But that was in numerical terms and I made the point that they were not being replaced in terms of quality. That is why we have introduced this clause.
I have listened carefully to the views expressed today on such consultation being enshrined in legislation. I note and shall reflect on the apparent strength of feeling on this issue. We must, however, reserve our position in respect of further rounds of consultation should Ministers decide to vary their proposals.

397
Amendment No. 323A places a similar requirement to consult the statutory agencies in Clause 81 itself. There are, however, significant differences between the purposes of Clauses 79 and 81 and between the hedgerows regulations under Clause 79 and the subordinate legislation mentioned in Clause 81.
Members of the Committee will note that the requirement under Clause 81 relates to subordinate legislation made solely by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Clause 79, on the other hand, in so far as it relates to England, provides for the hedgerow regulations to be made jointly by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Clause 79(3) makes that clear. In addition, Clause 81 is intended specifically to extend the type of consultation arrangements which already operate successfully in setting up environmentally sensitive areas to other voluntary incentive schemes designed to promote countryside conservation. However, regulations under Clause 79 are concerned with the protection of important hedgerows and not the payment of grants or other incentives. I do not therefore consider it right to apply formal consultation arrangements under Clause 81 to the hedgerow provisions.
Amendment No. 309D imposes a duty on Ministers to bring forward hedgerows regulations by 1st January 1996. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, that the Government are committed to introducing hedgerow regulations, and shall waste no time in doing so following the enactment of this Bill.
I do not believe that the making of these regulations will be a long drawn out process; but the process must follow a logical course if we are to get them right. Interested parties and organisations must then be given a reasonable time to consider them and submit their comments. After that, Ministers also will need sufficient time to prepare the final regulations in the light of responses to consultation; and the regulations themselves must be laid before Parliament in the usual way before they come into effect. This process could be jeopardised if Ministers were bound to work within the constraints of a predetermined timescale. On that basis, I do not consider it desirable to set a statutory deadline for bringing the regulations into effect.
On Second Reading I indicated the scope of the scheme which I expected to bring forward in due course. It would be right to say that we need time to develop that; but in the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The Minister has accepted that there is a need to consult. Why does he not then accept the amendment? We really cannot go on dithering like that from one thing to another and putting the matter off until the next stage. Why cannot my noble friend accept the amendment? That can be amended again later on, but it is crazy not to accept the amendment. Although I understand fully that what my noble friend says on the Floor of the House and indeed what government say in guidelines carries some weight,
398
it does not carry the weight of law. I beg my noble friend to accept the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wade.
The Earl of Lytton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Wade, replies, perhaps I may ask the Minister one question. I understand from my investigations that there are proposals, which I believe are well advanced, to investigate what should properly be regarded as "important" hedgerows by establishing a method of assessing their quality. It seems to me—arid in part this is in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton—that it would probably be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of those critically important research activities by setting too narrow a timetable.
I am strongly of the view that in relation to the protection and conservation of features of all kinds, whether they happen to be listed buildings, conservation areas or ancient monuments, there needs to be some common ownership and sense of identity by those who have the first line of duty to protect and nurture those features. It cannot be otherwise.
It is vitally important that local interests play a part in that. Where I farm on Exmoor the hedges are quite different—and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, made that point very convincingly—from those in Sussex in relation to species, structure and the socio-economic background which gave birth to them in the first place. All those matters should be taken into account.
Earl Peel: Before my noble friend responds, perhaps I may make a general point to the Minister. I am very much in favour of the principle of conserving important hedgerows although, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, the definition of "important" needs to be qualified.
However, as a general point, does my noble friend on the Front Bench agree that protecting hedgerows per se will really not achieve the purpose of what we want? An unprotected, unmanaged hedgerow is a sterile object. Unless that is accompanied by positive management incentives I do not believe that we will achieve anything worth while in conservation terms. Does my noble friend further agree that, if we are to have hedgerow protection, it should be accompanied by positive management assistance to those who actually have to look after hedgerows?
Lord Elton: Will my noble friend make clear for what reason hedgerows are to be conserved? That is something that has not yet been mentioned. Is it a question of preserving the countryside in aspic? If that is the case, I should remind Members of the Committee that this country was forested for the first 1,000 years and it has changed constantly as a result o f agriculture. Indeed, agriculture has been the determining factor in the appearance of our landscape and the only one until very recently. It is a new concept that the countryside should be preserved for purposes other than agriculture.
The countryside has changed as a result of the enclosure Act. Before that hedgerows were a rarity. There were boundaries between parishes and more often between counties. A hedgerow was a novelty at that time. I hope that my noble friend has his hedgerows staked and bound rather than cut and laid because it is

399
much neater and more stock proof. Drainage also changed the face of the country, as did the Corn Laws, but the agricultural recession put it back under grass. However, the ploughing up grants in 1939 turned it back into arable land. Indeed, I could go on. It is a process that cannot be stopped. If it a question of preserving hedgerows for the sake of the flora and fauna, they too have been changing. If we are to put into the legislation a power to preserve hedgerows, we ought to state somewhere why we are doing so. That would give us some idea as to who ought to be consulted.
The Earl of Onslow: I know that I am just about in order to intervene twice in a debate. However, taking up the remarks made by my noble friend, Lord Elton, until between the wars the only power in the countryside was the horse. Hedges were cut, laid or staked and bound by people with sickles, walking around during the winter. The ditches were dug by hand. It goes without saying that what has changed everything miles more quickly is the fact that you can stick a six-furrow reversible plough with one man on it behind a big caterpillar tractor which can plough up anything. It needs a large acreage of space.
I believe that we have now changed. The countryside is not just man made; indeed, it is machine made. New interests have arisen other than farming. Of course, farming is vital. It is the only way that you can look after the countryside. However, I suggest that we need to add something slightly more. There are now other interests to be considered. We farmers who have our grants paid for by taxpayers' money should take into account the other things that taxpayers may wish us to do.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I should begin by declaring an interest as someone who has four-and-a-half miles of hedge. Therefore, I have a commercial interest in the subject. I believe that we need to treat the whole area with considerable caution. The reason why hedges were removed at a rapid rate—and I accept the capacity of machinery—was because men directed the machines. However, men did so because, for a long period of time, it was deliberate government policy, for vital national needs, to encourage the removal of hedges. That is why very specific grants at high rates as regards proportion of costs were paid.
The tide has turned and now we see the reverse of the situation. Grants are being paid for the restoration of hedges. I have a feeling about the proposed legislation. In a sense, I believe that it is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted or, shall we say, after the essential necessary action has been taken which will reverse a situation that was clearly becoming politically untenable.
On the question as to whether or not a hedge is important, I should like to refer to two of my own hedges. The species within those hedges are virtually identical. One hedge borders a ditch which leads away from the farmhouse and farmstead where I live. The farmhouse dates from the 14th century. Because the site is moated, almost certainly it goes back to Saxon times, or perhaps even beyond that. That farm must have been
400
drained for it to have been lived in. The ditch besides which the hedge runs is probably of Saxon origin, if not more ancient. It is an originally Roman-settled area.
The other hedge, which is identical from the point of view of species, borders what used to be—and is on the maps as—a Roman road, but it is a very good reproduction. Of course, from the point of view of those who drive along the road it is significant, but historically and archaeologically it is a forgery. Who is to say which of those two hedges should be preserved? Unless the landowner has a valid economic reason—or he is a fool like me who happens to like hedges—there will be no future for either hedge. But for as long as it is in the interests of the landowner, or because he loves them, those hedges will remain. The legislation will have nothing to do with it. My experience of the law is that if there is a need to find a way round it, somebody will.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley asked why we could not simply accept the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Wade. I indicated when I made my first reply that I believed the amendment was defective. I also said that I would consider the strength of feeling expressed by the House this evening and see whether or not such consultation should be placed on the face of the Bill. I do not believe that I can go any further than that.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked whether there was a need for some research into what was an important hedge. Research is in hand to test workable criteria. We proposed a scheme based on a system of notification. I believe that the detailed arrangements must be settled in the light of the results of that research. My noble friend Lord Elton asks what is an important hedge. In part, that is what the research will discover. Obviously, we are looking at the biodiversity of various hedges. At Second Reading I mentioned parish boundary hedges as an example of those that might be considered to be important.
I believe that we are in the area of protection rather than preservation, and that the scheme I identified at Second Reading, which the regulations in Clause 79 will bring forward, is one that should be supported by all noble Lords.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I thank my noble friend for his reply. Like my noble friend Lord Stanley, I am disappointed that this has not been accepted. I think the Minister will agree, judging from the feelings expressed around the House, that this is a matter of extreme importance, that clearly the Government have not got it right in this Bill and some change needs to be made. I was gratified to hear that the Minister would consider it. Clearly, we would very much like to be involved in discussions. It is a matter that I wish to bring forward again unless we can arrange a convenient—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I should like to address a question to the Minister rather than the noble Lord, Lord Wade.

401
Is the undertaking that consultation should be considered by the Minister to be extended to local authorities as well?
Viscount Ullswater: I indicated that the consultation that we planned would be wide-ranging and would take in other representative organisations. I do not see that representative organisations can exclude a local authority.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: The wording used in the amendment is that used in the deregulation Act of 1994. Quite clearly, the Government must feel that such a system is workable; otherwise it would not have been used there. That drew attention to the fact that, particularly where people's businesses could be placed in a very serious situation, proper consultative procedures should be laid down. What we tried to achieve in the deregulation Act, as my noble friend will be aware, was a fairer balance between the regulated and the regulator. That is the purpose of my amendment.
I am sure that my noble friend has listened carefully to what all noble Lords have said. Clearly, this matter is of great importance to many people. I hope that he will be able to come forward with a satisfactory solution at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 309D not moved.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 309E:
Page 86, line 34, leave out (Important").
The noble Baroness said: We seem to have strayed into discussion of this group of amendments during the discussion of the previous group. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked why hedgerows were important. That is the issue we address in this group of amendments. I shall address Amendments Nos. 309E, 310, 311, 312 and 313, and also I support Amendments Nos. 311A and 313A which will be spoken to by my noble friend Lady Nicol.
Amendment No. 309E seeks to delete the word "important". We have already heard that it is difficult to define which hedgerows are important. There is a sense in which all hedgerows are important. They are important not only for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, mentioned; namely, that he loves them and some of them are historic. They also contribute to the visual landscape. They are extremely important from the point of view of biodiversity.
The loss of hedgerows has been a serious depletion of our wildlife habitats in this country over the past 30 years. They provide vital corridors along which many species, some of which are rare, are able to extend their range. The destruction of hedgerows has led to the restriction and isolation of many such species. Sometimes that produces interesting effects. I gather that there is an isolated group of melanistic squirrels. They are black squirrels. They continue to be black because they cannot mix with red squirrels. That is one of the curious consequences of species developing in isolation.
Therefore, hedgerows are important not only because within them breed many varieties of birds, butterflies and insects, but because they also provide important corridors between woodlands and means of escaping predators and getting round fields between other areas which are important to wildlife.
There has been an astonishing depletion of butterfly species over the past 20 years. For example, there has been a catastrophic decline among some fritillaries. The high brown fritillary has declined by 94 per cent. and other fritillaries have declined by more than 40 per cent. in the past 30 to 40 years.
Similarly, many birds have vanished. That is partly due to intensive farming methods. For example, grey partridges, which I remember as a common bird of the countryside in my childhood, have declined by 75 per cent. since 1970. That is in part due to the extensive use of pesticides on our agricultural land, but hedgerows and other areas such as set-aside and isolated promontories within farming areas would provide places where they could continue to breed and develop. In that way they would still be around for noble Lords' children, grandchildren and generations to come.
In those respects hedges are extremely important. They are also important for a variety of economic reasons. East Anglia is in danger of becoming a dust bowl like some parts of central America through the loss of topsoil, which is blown away because there are no hedges to act as wind traps. If one has seen soil erosion in some parts of the world, particularly the Far East, often due to water rather than wind erosion, one knows how astonishingly rapidly agricultural land can vanish. Therefore there is a certain element of enlightened self-interest for farmers in preserving hedgerows. There are therefore important reasons for retaining hedges. It is not only a matter of aesthetics.
I turn now to Amendment No. 310, which may appear on the face of it not to be specific in that it allows the Minister to make regulations relating to landscape features in general. Here we enter the area of such items as stone barns and other aspects of our landscape such as archaeological sites, barrows and so on, which may also be in need of preservation.
Particularly close to my heart are the amendments which relate to ponds, where again grants for drainage have meant that large numbers of ponds have vanished from the countryside over the past 20 or 30 years. Species such as great crested newts, glutinous snails and starfruit are now increasingly scarce.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Has the noble Baroness considered the figures on ponds? I believe that she will find that ponds have been made in vast numbers. Perhaps I could ask her to make one small alteration to her speech. She referred to hedgerows. Can she possibly say, "Some hedgerows are of no value and some are"?
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: That point would obviously be defined as a result of the consultation to which we referred in the previous group of amendments regarding which hedgerows were valuable. However, in my view almost all hedgerows are valuable. I disagree with those who say that hedgerows can be easily

403
reinstated. The tendency is to reinstate with hawthorn alone rather than with the variety of species which produces the biodiversity about which I speak.
The Earl of Onslow: It is simply not true to say that it is difficult to reinstate hedges. There was a famous case recently of someone who went to a farm and said, "This is the most marvellous hedgerow. It dates back to Anglo-Saxon times becomes of all the different plants in it". The reply was, "No, it does not. I planted it 15 years ago". If you know what you are doing, it is perfectly possible to plant a hedge. One can put all kinds of plants in it. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, it is extremely easy to produce a Roman hedge with the right plants. After about 15 years it will look like a Roman hedge.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am sure that it is possible; I did not say that it was not. However, it is clearly more expensive to plant such a hedge than a straightforward hawthorn hedge. Often the reinstated hedges are far too narrow to be nesting sites for birds and to provide habitat for the biodiversity that we wish to see in our countryside. Hedgerows are important, as are ponds and other aspects of our countryside.
Lord Crickhowell: The more I listen to the debate, the more unhappy I am that we should be passing legislation of this kind. I have every possible sympathy with the objective. I should like to see hedges preserved. But we have a series of amendments which ask us what a hedge is. Is it a Pembrokeshire hedgebank built of earth and stone with thorn and suchlike on top? Is it the kind of hedgebank about which we have heard in the West Country? Is it the kind of hedge that some of my neighbours have in Wales? Such hedges are a curious mixture today of binder twine, old sticks, corrugated iron and uncut original hedge.
What do we mean by "protect"? My noble friend gave a distinction between "protect" and "preserve". I entirely understand the point. Indeed, from the point of view of the NRA, I am anxious to see wind erosion eliminated. I should like to see many hedges protected. But what happens if it is said, "We have a regulation: we shall make it difficult for you to plough up the hedge", but one does not cut the hedge, lay it, and do all the other things that have to be done?
The regulations may tell us all those things. Perhaps they will give a clear definition of how to preserve a hedge, what one has to do with it, how often one has to cut it and what one does when one's Pembrokeshire hedgebank is walked over by tourists travelling the coast path. Perhaps we shall have all the answers. But we are being asked to pass a blank cheque regarding some future regulations which we shall never have an opportunity properly to debate in this Chamber. That is the truth of the matter. I believe that it is a great mistake.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: We seem to be abandoning common sense in this debate. If anyone, wherever he or she comes from, sets out to discuss whether or not a hedge is important and worth protection, there is no mystery
404
about it; he or she can quickly tell whether it is worth protection. The hotchpotch hedges to which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred, obviously do not come into that category unless, as has happened with many so-called hedges that I have seen, they happen to have Victorian brass bedsteads in them—in which case, of course, they have a considerable value!
There is no doubt that many hedgerows are important. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that, in addition to the need to protect biodiversity—to which the Government are committed, and I see no sign that they are withdrawing from that commitment—there is also the question of our responsibilities under the habitats and species directive. Hedgerows are an important element in the responsibilities of the Government and we must try to treat the matter seriously. I sympathise with those farmers who feel that we are treading on their toes, but I hope that when the regulations and the consultation process are in place many of the difficulties will be easy to overcome.
The Countryside Commission provides us with figures. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, seemed to question whether ponds were disappearing. The commission tells us that between 1984 and 1990 England lost 10,000 ponds. That is a serious loss in terms of wildlife protection and, I should have thought, in other terms as well.
I wish to speak to my amendments which propose the inclusion of dry stone walls in the countryside features which need to be protected. The Countryside Commission estimates that during that same period, 1984 to 1990, England lost 4,000 kilometres of dry stone walls. Many of the remaining walls are in poor condition. We have an estimated 112,500 kilometres left, only 4,500 kilometres of which are in anything like reasonable condition. The remainder are in various stages of deterioration and no doubt some are beyond hope.
Surely no Members of the Committee would dispute that dry stone walling is very important in some parts of the country. I do not suggest that we introduce dry stone walls in Kent, Norfolk or even Cambridgeshire, much as I would like to see them there. But they are extremely important in some areas of the country where they are traditional. The landscape would be greatly destroyed if dry stone walls disappeared. The Dry Stone Walling Association of Great Britain has written to me in moving terms. It is struggling to remedy the situation. It says that it is not anxious to encumber the farming communities with excessive legislation but it supports the amendments. I am authorised to say that, had he been able to remain this evening, the chairman of the National Trust would have supported them. Hedgerow protection is also supported by the British Horse Society. If we reach the stage of having a list of consultees, I hope that that society will be considered as being worthy of consultation because, in its sphere of operations, the hedgerows are important. The British Horse Society would like to see the word "important" in regard to hedgerows removed from the Bill. I am sorry that we have had to blur the discussion between the two groups of amendments, but that is how it has happened. The society is concerned—as were earlier

405
speakers—that when consultations take place they should be as wide as possible. I do not wish to prolong the debate; I hope that we shall not be carried away with too much detail but retain our common sense.
Earl Peel: We are moving into the world of preserving the countryside in aspic. I fully understand the reasons behind the noble Baroness's amendments. However, speaking personally, I have just sold a large estate in the north of England where stone walls were and still are a major feature of the landscape. I can assure her that the maintenance of those stone walls is an extremely expensive operation. Frankly, if the noble Baroness honestly believes that the best way to preserve the stone walls is to impose a protection order, she has the wrong end of the stick.
Baroness Nicol: If the noble Earl will give way, I assume, and I hope we shall make clear, that all the operations will attract financial support. I would not have it otherwise.
Earl Peel: I am interested to hear the noble Baroness say that, because it does not appear in any of the amendments that are under her name, as I understand it. But certainly, she is absolutely right. I entirely endorse what she says. If we are to go forward with the conservation and management of the countryside, it perhaps has to be encompassed with incentives for people to do the work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, mentioned partridges. As the recently elected chairman of the Game Conservancy, I endorse much of what she said. She mentioned Norfolk specifically. It is perhaps worth noting that there are still areas in Norfolk where there are great numbers of partridges. The partridges have acted as an incentive to the maintenance of the hedgerows that are still there. It is not simply that the hedgerows encourage the partridges; it is a result of the management of those hedgerows, plus of course the conservation headlands which the Game Conservancy initiated and in which it plays such an important part. Another essential element in the success of the partridge has been proper predator control. I want to move away from that subject, but it is an important point to make.
What concerns me about these amendments is that we are asking farmers to try to preserve and conserve things which perhaps no longer have any value so far as agriculture is concerned. If that is the case, I am sorry to have to say that the public purse must play a major part. You really cannot expect farmers to be involved in maintaining aspects and features of the countryside which are no longer part and parcel of their well-being.
It always amuses me that a great feature in the North of England is the Settle to Carlisle railway and all the marvellous viaducts and bridges that were constructed. But can one imagine what would happen nowadays if somebody sought planning permission for a project like that? They would be laughed out of court. Yet here we are, trying to protect something which we know was accepted in those days but for which nowadays we would never get planning permission. We really must try to take a much more realistic approach to all this. By all means let us protect, and let us conserve. But we
406
must accept that if these features are no longer a viable aspect of farming they must be supported from the public purse.
Lord Moran: We must bear in mind that the whole of this discussion is going on against a background of a great deal of public interest and concern in relation to the enormous loss of hedgerows that has occurred in recent years. The Government's own countryside survey in 1990 pointed out that between 1984 and 1990 the loss every year—the complete removal—of hedges was 5,900 miles. Although that rate has gone down more recently, the hedgerows survey that was commissioned by the Department of the Environment from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology showed that the complete removal of hedgerows between 1990 and 1993 still amounted to 2,200 miles a year. That is the basis of public concern.
I fully agree with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, about the need for money to be made available from the public purse if protection for hedgerows is to be written into this Bill. We are to talk about grants a little later. We must bear in mind that only 1 per cent. of the UK budget for the common agricultural policy is allocated to environmental schemes for farmers and land managers. That is where the money needs to be increased.
I should like to say a brief word about Wales in relation to these particular amendments. The Countryside Council for Wales welcomes them because they seek to broaden the scope of the clauses to a wider range of countryside features. We must bear in mind that all that Clause 79 does is to allow the two Secretaries of State—for the environment and for Wales—to make provision for the protection of important hedgerows. I believe that the Countryside Council for Wales is right in talking not about hedgerows but about traditional field boundaries. It points out that in Wales there are hedges; dry-stone walls; earth banks, which are sometimes stone faced; slate fences; ditches; and that many of these traditional boundaries have a wider historical significance as parish boundaries or represent ancient systems of agriculture. The pattern of traditional field boundaries can tell us much about historic land use changes. They mention such features as Offa's Dike. I must declare a non-financial interest as the president of the Offa's Dike Association. They also mention prehistoric field patterns and mediaeval strip fields in other parts of Wales and the mediaeval open field system. It is very important that they should be preserved, and clearly they will be important under the definition of this Bill.
The protection of traditional field boundaries has been one of the objectives of the environmentally sensitive areas programme in Wales and of the Countryside Council for Wales Tir Cymen experimental agri-environmental scheme. In 1992 the CCW introduced the hedgerow renovation scheme for the purpose of protecting, enhancing and securing the effective management of dilapidated hedgerows. It has concluded 227 agreements with farmers and landowners. I am sure that that is the way forward. I have confidence in the department's capacity to work out arrangements under this Bill.

407
Obviously it is very difficult to prescribe all the details in a Bill of this kind. But the lines on which I think it is working seem to me to be sensible and I personally welcome it.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may refer to an amendment which seems to me to create great confusion: namely, Amendment No. 310, which is supported by noble Lords from all parties, including a noble friend on this side of the Committee. To leave out "hedgerows" and insert "countryside features" would cause great confusion. This clause naturally focuses attention on hedgerows, which constitute the main problem that we have to consider. Quite frankly, "countryside features" is incapable of any useful definition.
Let me say a few brief words about the next amendment, which relates to ponds. Many ponds, especially in East Anglia, have disappeared from farms for good reason. One reason that there has been a great improvement is field drainage, especially tile drainage. If tile drainage is carried out properly, a number of old ponds are bound to disappear and have indeed done so. They are not so much needed now that there is very little stock on the farms. I do not feel that we can expect to have those ponds protected or preserved any longer.
The big, worthwhile ponds—those that carry fish and do not dry up in a dry season—are still there. We should not confuse the issue by giving serious attention to the suggestion that "ponds" should be added to "hedgerows".
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Moran, might like to look at the Answer regarding hedgerows given by my noble friend Lord Ullswater on 22nd July. The noble Lord told the Committee how many hedgerows were taken out, but he did not say how many were put back. He should read that Answer. I think he will find that more were put back than were taken out.
There is another point over which I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, made a mistake. He said that the public were prepared to pay. The public will not be prepared to pay when they are asked to pay for this. In the sheltered life of this Chamber, one may think otherwise. But when you ask the public to pay, they will not do so. It is just like asking them to pay the difference in price between free-range eggs and battery laid eggs. They will go for the battery eggs because they are cheaper.
Finally, I understand what the noble Baroness says. But I hope that the Committee will bear in mind all the time that it is absolutely pointless to try to preserve something that is not of some use. I can tell her, with great feeling—I have seen this over 40 years—that if you try to do that, you will find that the farmer or owner does not have enough time to look after it. He is asked to do so much all the time on the farm. He will just forget to put up the gutter or forget to do the stone walling. We must not preserve something which does not have some use, because it will just fall into decay.
The Duke of Somerset: To emphasise one or two of those points, while I am in general agreement with those
408
noble Lords who wish to see hedgerows, ponds and walls preserved—and indeed other countryside features--these amendments are not the best way of going about that.
It is no good just preserving them in the proverbial aspic. If they have lost their economic agricultural function, the regulatory route will not be effective in their preservation. They need to be managed by encouraging their original worthwhile use. This sort of less modern management costs money. A number of management schemes and incentives already exist, such. as the countryside stewardship scheme, the ESAs, and others, which contribute towards this sort of costly management, and those are the sort of schemes that should be extended. That, surely, is the way forward, not the fossilisation of these items. The countryside is primarily a workplace; a place where livings are earned. As we have just heard, the repair of stone walls has a very high labour cost; it is very expensive. Although they are very desirable, that factor has to be recognised, and, most importantly, paid towards by those who wish to enjoy other people's property.
The Earl of Onslow: We must also bear in mind that the whole of the countryside is, at the moment, supported by public money in one way or another. It is the common agricultural policy which has formed the shape of the countryside recently; and it is the common agricultural policy which has destroyed the mixed farm. It is the common agricultural policy which is responsible for the fact that we now have the ridiculous situation where there is too little milk in this country for what we want and yet we are not allowed to produce any more because of the quota system. It is the common agricultural policy which is responsible for the ridiculous system whereby I am paid £129 an acre by you generous taxpayers to do nothing with land.
It is much more sensible that this money should not go on the ridiculous distortions of the common agricultural policy but should be used to encourage people, for want of a better word, to garden and gamekeep. Gardening and gamekeeping in the countryside means what the public want to look at. It does not mean a barbed wire fence, but that somebody should be given encouragement to build a proper, nice, stockproof stake-and-bound hedge. It does mean that dry stone walling should be encouraged and looked after.
In Wales there is a place called the Crimea Pass. It is called the Crimea Pass because all the stone walls were built by Russian prisoners-of-war captured at Inkerman and Balaclava. That source of labour for repair is no longer available. We must have a policy which looks at the countryside as a whole, looks at it properly, and looks at it as other than just a farming industry based on subsidy.
We have already taken the view that we will give grants for the native species of English woodlands rather than conifers—consider the terrible damage the conifer grants have done to vast areas of Scotland and Wales. I beg the Committee to look at it in that way.

409
As to the clause, I am in agreement with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. I am not happy about it. I think we know, more or less what we want to do, but I do not think that this is the right way of going about it.
Lord Monk Bretton: I wonder how necessary these amendments really are. Supporters of these amendments would gain some hope if they were to realise that help is already available. Farmers can be assisted over management of stone walls and ponds under existing land management schemes. The most important ponds are also covered by the SSSI system. I hope it will be found that perhaps these amendments are not as vitally necessary as might appear.
Baroness David: I was under the impression that these are probing amendments which would show that the clause is totally unsatisfactory. That has been quite clear from the long time we have been talking about it. We do not have the regulations so we do not know what the Government are going to put into them. But there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with what is there and it seems to me that the amendments are trying to find out and show where the worries are.
Why do we have all these conservation bodies? We give a lot of money to English Nature. We give money to the Countryside Commission, to the Countryside Commission for Wales, to Scottish Heritage, and so on. More than just agriculture is involved, although I totally sympathise with much of what has been said. I was very much in agreement with what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said a minute or two ago.
My name is attached to one of the amendments and I meant to put it to another. I am particularly interested in dry stone walls. I spend a good deal of time in the Yorkshire Dales where they are a very important feature. They are very expensive to keep up and a lot of them are being broken down. But a certain amount of public money is going into them from the Yorkshire Dales National Park. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is still on the council of that national park, but he must know all about that. I understand that, although a good deal of public money in the shape of grants has gone into trying to restore some of these walls, only 30.5 kilometres of wall were rebuilt last year. The scale of the problem is illustrated by the fact that this amounts to just 0.4 per cent. of the total length of walling. There is a great deal to be done.
I wanted to say a good deal more about the Yorkshire Dales and dry stone walling but I do not think it would be very popular at this time of night. I hope that enough has been said for the Government to think again about this clause. Perhaps we can come back with amendments that are more acceptable or the Government will come back, having listened to all that has been said tonight, with the clause redrawn.
Earl Peel: The noble Baroness raised the question of finance, which is what it is all about. English Nature has a budget of just under £40 million. The Countryside Commission has a budget of just over £40 million. The Yorkshire Dales National Park has a budget of around
410
£3.2 million. However, they are simply not able to deal with this problem because they are committed to a whole range and multitude of other things.
The noble Baroness has perhaps inadvertently illustrated exactly the point we are talking about. If we want to preserve these features in the way Members of the Committee seem to want, the amount of money involved will be huge. I go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who was absolutely right. If we are to deal with this problem in a meaningful and significant way, we have to change the emphasis of how the CAP is orchestrated at the moment and we have to move away from agricultural output and start moving towards the environment. That is the only way that this problem will be sorted out.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I hesitated to intervene in this debate until now because I have a pecuniary interest, as it seems many noble Lords opposite have. I own a hedge which has a bedstead in. I own 33 acres of grassland in mid-Wales and I own some stone walls. Like the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I receive grant for what in mid-Wales we call pleaching hedges.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, put his finger on the fact that in the end it comes down to money. However, one must sympathise with farmers who are trying to make a living in very difficult conditions—that is particularly so in my part of the world in Wales—and who are being asked, or being told, to do something that is wholly uneconomic and wholly contrary to what they are used to doing. Again, I join with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in saying that if we can reform the CAP legislation, let us do it for goodness sake. But as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said, we must look at the concept of an environmentally sensitive area. We are in one in Radnor and I have signed a contract under an ESA agreement to get money to maintain the countryside features which are identified by the Welsh Office.
That is the way in which we have to move. When one considers the amendments which my noble friend has moved and spoken to and also by my noble friend Lady Nicol, and Clause 80 which gives grants, when taken as an ensemble one gets very close to the ESA type of scheme. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has quite rightly said, unfortunately the money is simply not there to make the whole of England and Wales an ESA. That is something which the Government will have to address before we get much further in the Bill. There is an illogicality here which many Members of the Committee have pointed out.
Viscount Ullswater: The words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, are very good ones on which to start my reply. If the illogicality exists, then it is effectively demonstrated by these amendments. With this clause we are trying to identify important hedgerows. The amendments spread the matter very widely without really a thought as to how the provision is going to be funded. I shall come to funding later.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, said that there was something wrong with the clause. My own view is that it is all right; it is just the amendments which are being added that is making a very difficult position. As drafted, Clause 79 confers power to make regulations

411
for the protection of important hedgerows. Amendment No. 309E moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, seeks to leave out the word "important" and the effect would be to substitute the more general power.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, quoted from the research that the DoE published in July last year, but he quoted to suit his own argument. As my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley pointed out to the Committee, he quoted only the fact that 2,200 miles of hedgerows—I am not sure that that is the correct figure, but I take it from the noble Lord—had been lost. The research indicated that more hedgerows were planted in England and Wales than were removed during the period 1990 to 1993. Therefore to quote only one side of the argument is to mislead the Committee in some way.
The trend is welcome, reflecting further links between conservation and land management. However, we recognise that new planting cannot substitute for the loss of some hedgerows—I made that point when speaking to a previous amendment—such as the ancient parish or community boundary hedge. It is the protection of important hedgerows that this clause sets out to achieve, and I consider it reasonable to focus the clause in that way.
The purpose of the rest of the amendments in this group is to extend the scope of Clause 79 which makes specific provision for the protection of important hedgerows to encompass countryside features, drystone walls and ponds.
Amendments Nos. 310 and 312 would enable Ministers to bring forward regulations to protect important countryside features. That is a term which is not defined by the amendments but it is presumably intended to include hedgerows and other field boundaries such as walls, banks, dykes and, quite possibly, other features as well.
Amendments Nos. 311, 311A, 313 and 313A would similarly enable Ministers to make regulations to protect important ponds and drystone walls respectively. Clause 79 is intended to focus on the specific problem of hedgerow removal. It honours a longstanding government commitment to bring forward statutory controls. Hedgerows can make a unique contribution to the landscape. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell described one which is perhaps not unique because I believe it was recognised by many Members of the Committee as being quite a feature of the landscape.
They can also support an extremely rich range of flora and fauna and make a significant contribution to biodiversity. They may in addition mark the boundaries of early settlements and have other particular historical significance. Our commitment to protect important hedgerows has been made in the light of their unique qualities and vulnerability as indicated by the results of detailed research documenting the rates of hedgerow losses between 1984 and 1993.
As regards other countryside features, including dry-stone walls, the 1990 Countryside Survey provided some evidence that their numbers had declined during the period 1984 to 1990. But that research is now somewhat out of date. Developments during the 1990s generally suggest downward trends in removal of
412
countryside features. In particular, changes in agricultural policies have placed greater emphasis on conservation. Conservation advice to land managers is increasingly accessible. I must tell my noble friend Lord Peel that more management grants are now available to help land managers restore neglected countryside features: Countryside Stewardship in England and the equivalent scheme in Wales, for example, launched in the 1990s, offer assistance for the restoration of boundary features such as stone walls, earth banks and stone-faced hedge banks as well as hedgerows. These are just two of a range of initiatives—environmentally sensitive areas and the farm and conservation grant scheme are others—which encourage the creation of new countryside features and the management of existing ones.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: Is it right that the farm conservation scheme has recently been reduced from 40 per cent. to 25 per cent.?
Viscount Ullswater: I am advised that pollution grants have been reduced but not countryside feature grants. My noble friend Lord Peel said that nothing would happen unless it was supported by some financial incentive. We promote the planting and management of hedgerows through a range of incentives, including Countryside Stewardship, which incorporates the hedgerow incentive scheme, and MAFF's farm and conservation grant scheme in environmentally sensitive areas. Those schemes are unaffected by the hedgerow protection scheme and there is no direct linkage between them.
Turning to the question of ponds, we have in fact looked again at the figures from the 1990 Countryside Survey, which indicated a maximum reduction of 11.5 per cent. in the number of ponds between 1984 and 1990 in Great Britain. We wanted to analyse this data further because 1990 was a year of drought conditions in the south and to the east of Great Britain. It was unclear how many of the ponds "lost" in that year had in fact only dried out temporarily. The results of our modest re-survey, which were published by my honourable friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside in December 1994, confirmed that a number of the small ponds which were dry in 1990 had been reinstated by 1993. The best estimate of the rate of pond loss between 1984 and 1990 was revised to within the range of 4 per cent. to 9 per cent. The re-survey also provided some limited evidence that new ponds created for farming and wildlife reasons are beginning to offset earlier losses. Detailed research is needed to verify more recent trends, and the Government intend to carry out a further national survey of ponds in 1996.
Leaving aside the question of research, the Committee will not need reminding that the most important countryside features and ponds will continue to enjoy protection through our system of designated sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), which ensures that the nature conservation interest is taken fully into account before development and changes in management practice that would cause damage are permitted. Promoting nature conservation is not an objective which applies only in SSSIs, and the

413
Government look to local authorities to include in their development plans policies for the protection of habitats, including non-statutory sites of local importance.
In view of the protection that already exists, the range of incentives already available to maintain our range of countryside features, and the lack of current research that presents a compelling case for new controls in 1995, I do not believe that the special measures as proposed here are currently necessary to protect features other than hedgerows, and we must not impose the burden of new regulations unless we are satisfied that there are sound reasons for doing so.
My noble friend Lord Renton said that we should allow the clause to concentrate on important hedgerows and I believe that to be correct. Having said that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moran: I fully accept the Minister's rebuke about my failure to mention the hedges replanted between 1990 and 1993. I agree that there were slightly more than the total number taken out and I have no wish to mislead the Committee. Does the Minister agree that the ITE report to which we referred quoted an overall loss of 45,000 kilometres because of lines of bushes that had fallen out of the classification of hedgerow as a result of the lack of management?
Viscount Ullswater: We shall be consulting on what we consider to be important hedges. Our research will indicate the suitable criteria for the notification scheme. I do not believe that I need comment further.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am somewhat comforted by the enthusiasm with which the Minister speaks of hedges. It encourages me to believe that the regulations, when they appear, may go some way towards protecting them. I am less reassured as regards ponds but, clearly, the department has at least considered them and perhaps we are seeing a reversal of the trend towards their disappearance.
The amendment was intended as a probing amendment partly because we had no indication of when the regulations would appear and partly because we considered that the clause was too narrowly drawn and that landscape features other than hedgerows might be considered. We will consider the matter further, together with the Minister's reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 310 to 313A not moved.]
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 313AZA:
Page 87, line 2 leave out from ("shall") to end of line 4 and insert ("not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: Having regard to the hour, I shall be as brief as possible. I hope that my amendment represents a partial answer to some of the anxieties expressed by Members of the Committee. It suggests that the regulations under Clause 79 shall be made by affirmative instrument and therefore come before both
414
Houses of Parliament for further consideration. That will tie in the result of the Government's investigations, research and consultation.
Clause 79 provides that such regulations shall be made subject to negative procedure only and I believe that to be inadequate. I believe that we have heard enough in Committee tonight to justify that conclusion. There are issues that must be discussed by Parliament before any regulations come into force.
I believe that, if we are not careful, land managers will consider the system proposed in certain quarters of the Committee to be unfairly loaded against them. They may come to the conclusion that the local authorities are under no duty to take into account their interests as farmers and land managers. Therefore, any system of protection must be based on a certain degree of mutual trust and goodwill. I alluded to that earlier when referring to the common ownership and identity with policies. I cannot stress that point too strongly.
A negative regulatory approach under which those interests are ignored would be disastrous. If land managers must constantly appeal against decisions to protect hedgerows, in particular if the appeals system is long-winded, that will be highly damaging to the long-term prospects for hedges. I submit that the sustainable development principle requires an element of equal weighting to be given to environmental protection on the one hand and legitimate socio-economic development considerations on the other. Any regulations need to flag that issue with local authorities.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will confirm that in due course, when the notification scheme comes into being, it will require local authorities, in deciding what action to take with regard to protecting hedgerows, to have due regard to the socio-economic business and operational reasons of land managers and that it must balance those fairly with other considerations.
Reference has been made to the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has just commented on loss through lack of management. That underscores more compellingly than anything that the real problems arise in relation to non-management. That is the biggest loss and is far and away in excess of damage caused. There is also a great loss as regards biodiversity. I can say with some feeling from my experiences in Exmoor that, while I have some hedges which are well managed, others have long since become mere vestiges of a bank with a few trees left to mark where the hedge once was. Therefore, it is vital that we have active management and I should like to flag that in particular.
On Second Reading the Minister commented on the hedgerows of particular historic interest or those which make an especially valuable contribution to the wildlife or landscape of an area. It must be remembered that every time, in the course of normal management, a hedge is cut and laid by whatever particular technique one wishes to use, its visual appearance is altered immediately and for some time. Nevertheless, it is an essential part of management; it cannot be otherwise. Therefore, there must be a proper balance between landscape, management and ecology.
I believe that the solution is to provide some sort of management agreement. There must be an incentive to encourage land managers to maintain those important structures in the countryside. There must be a direct link between the protection of hedgerows and the offer of some sort of management agreement to help with that process; in other words, no designation without contribution.
My experience from Exmoor is that there is no money for extra conservation work. Whether it relates to SSSIs or Section 3 of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act, it seems that all the agencies are saying to me, "I am sorry. We have no money. Our budget is fully spoken for. There is nothing for this purpose". That must change because, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said earlier, it boils down to money. It cannot be done without paying real people to wield real tools in order to lay hedges and maintain them.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is the intention of the Government that local authorities will be required to offer agreements to land managers as part and parcel of that protection process. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
The Duke of Somerset: I should like to express my support for the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lytton. As a landowner, I am very keen to see important hedgerows preserved. However, that must be done through full consultation and scrutiny both inside and outside Parliament—and, thus, by affirmative resolution. The general provisions are too vague. We have not yet even considered the economic effect on rural businesses. If people in the upland hills were to get into financial difficulties, we would quickly see the degradation of the countryside along with the hedgerows. Therefore, the regulations must be debated in both Houses; this matter must not be left to unscrutinised regulation. As I said, I support the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: It is absolutely vital that such regulations should be debated before they become law. I know that we have a great problem in that respect. Regulations, whether they be subject to the negative or affirmative procedure, are always unamendable. I suggest that it would be much better if the Government tabled the regulations for discussion. The regulations could be imposed following a debate. Once they have been debated and the Government have listened to what people say, I do not believe it matters whether the regulations are subject to the negative or the affirmative resolution procedure. It is vitally important that they should be debated and that we do not have to accept them lock, stock and barrel. That is the difficulty. Judging by the vagueness of Clause 79, it seems to me that the regulations will run into very many pages. That must be an unsatisfactory method of proceeding.
Earl Peel: If my noble friend is saying that there needs to be full debate in both Houses of Parliament as well as consultation, I entirely agree with him.
Viscount Ullswater: The amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seeks to provide that the hedgerow regulations made under the clause are laid before both Houses of Parliament, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I can assure Members of the Committee that we intend to bring forward regulations under the clause which will reflect the views of Parliament and the outcome of separate consultation. As drafted, Clause 79(4) provides that the regulations will be subject to the negative procedure.
However, notwithstanding the absence of any adverse comment in the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, I have listened carefully to what has been said not only on this amendment but also on the previous amendment (Amendment No. 309C) moved by my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton. At that time I indicated that I would consider carefully whether some form of statutory consultation process should take place. We now have before us another suggested method which I should like to consider alongside the one previously discussed. Having said that, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: I wanted to hear my noble friend's response before speaking to the amendment. I should like to reinforce the point that I made earlier. I may have given the impression—I hope I did not—that I am not anxious to protect hedgerows. I am. I live near Offa's Dyke. I am surrounded by quite important old hedgerows, some of which are in bad condition. Moreover, I should like to preserve many dry stone walls that are falling down. I believe that the clause is most unsatisfactory. The very length of our debate and what has been said indicates that Parliament must have an opportunity thoroughly to examine the matter.
There are two alternatives before us. There is the approach that is about to be discussed in connection with the following group of amendments in which we have an immensely long schedule that Parliament can approve as part of the Bill; or we have a system whereby we have regulations which Parliament would have the opportunity to influence and alter. It would be intolerable if such regulations which could have an enormous impact on people who live in the countryside were passed without proper debate in Parliament.
The Earl of Lytton: I was greatly heartened by the Minister's response. Like the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I am a great believer in hedges; indeed, on top of Exmoor one has to be a believer in hedges because otherwise one's livestock would get blown away. As someone who planted about 500 yards of hedges last winter, I am very much committed to them. However, I believe that I have to give the Government the benefit of the doubt.
I am grateful for the careful way in which the Minister addressed the problem. I look forward to seeing what the noble Viscount brings forward at a later stage. While reserving my position, and subject to what the Minster may bring forward, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 313AA:
Leave out Clause 79 and insert the following new clause:
("Hedgerows
.Schedule (Hedgerows) to this Act, which makes provision for the protection of hedgerows, shall have effect.").
The noble Lord said: I, too, have a variety of interests to declare. I also am a farmer. Unlike my noble friend Lord Wade, I make a profit on my farm. I am sorry that he has gone, as this is probably the only time that I shall be able to claim to be a better businessman than he is. Even so, I am rather doubtful about making such a claim. I have also removed hedges when I should not have done, have perhaps reasonably removed others and have planted some too. I am a member of the CLA and also chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
A procedural problem has arisen this evening. This was almost hinted at by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. It might have been helpful if this particular amendment had been dealt with at an earlier stage in the debate. I say that, not because there is anything special about what I have to say, but because your Lordships' House has turned its attention to the subject. The Government, which I am proud to support, has had a commitment to hedgerow legislation since the 1990 White Paper on the environment five years ago. Two years ago, in May 1993, my honourable friend Mr. Peter Ainsworth in another place introduced legislation that went through Committee stage but, being a Private Member's Bill, fell at Report because of lack of time. In order to help both the Committee and the Government, I tabled as an amendment the Ainsworth Bill as far as it got, as amended in line with helpful suggestions made by the Government at various stages since that time. For example, my noble friend will recognise that the amendment now excludes young hedges, unless they have been paid for by public money. I hope that noble Lords will feel it worth looking at it. One knows how tiresome it is to look at long schedules. However, this schedule is in a sense a Bill that seeks to replace Clause 79. I do not for a moment say that this is the end of the discussion. However, having listened to the debate, it appears that your Lordships are united on two matters. I believe that all noble Lords are fairly pro hedges to a greater or lesser extent. Equally, almost everyone feels that the clause as now drafted is, to put it politely, somewhat imperfect. That does not mean that the Government's heart is not absolutely in the right place. The question is where the balance should lie between what is in the Bill and what is done by regulation. No one pretends that the whole thing should be done in either way.
Perhaps I may quickly run through the main features of the amendment. Paragraph 1 creates the offence of uprooting a hedge. Paragraph 2 sets out the notification procedure to be followed before someone may carry out work that causes the destruction or impairment of a protected hedge. Paragraph 3 is supplementary and provides for notice of any proposals from tenant or owner. Paragraph 4 describes the appeal procedure. It states that the Secretary of State may in certain cases—
418
this meets the most important point raised by several of your Lordships—where the economic operation of a farm is seriously impaired, allow the hedge to be removed.
Paragraph 5 lists certain categories of work which are permitted under the Bill and not subject to the notification requirements. Paragraph 6 deals with the duty to reinstate in certain circumstances. Paragraph 7 deals with the enforcement of the duty to reinstate. Paragraph 8 provides an appeal mechanism against hedgerow enforcement and sets out grounds for appeals to the Secretary of State against an enforcement notice served by a local planning authority. Paragraph 9 provides for the offence of failing to comply with an enforcement notice. Paragraph 10 deals with the execution of work by a local planning authority and gives the authority power to do the necessary reinstatement where the work specified in an enforcement notice has not been done. Paragraph 11 deals with certain records.
With that description, I have galloped through a Bill which was the subject of many hours of discussion in another place.
At this stage I hope that the Government will recognise that the clause as drafted is not adequate. I do not ask my noble friend to say that the Government will accept the Ainsworth Bill, but I hope that at least in bringing forward as a result of this evening's debate amendments which may already have been suggested as possible, the Government will take it into account.
We should accept that hedges have been quite well looked after in certain cases and that in other cases they have not. In general, private landowners and farmers have looked after hedges well. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton comes into that category. Certainly my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith does. My noble friend Lord Tollemache, who was here a few moments ago, has hedges which are well worth a visit. They are worth at least two stars in the Michelin guide, or perhaps three stars—vaut le voyage.
The greatest damage to hedges probably occurred in the 1980s, when it became fashionable for fund managers to seek to include agricultural land in their portfolios. It was a small amount of land in terms of investment, but a large amount of land in terms of area. Much of it was in East Anglia. They paid much too much for the land. I am glad to say that in real terms they still show a substantial loss on their investments. They put in managers with instructions to get a return. That resulted in the massacring of many features of the landscape, particularly hedges. That was a period of serious loss. The noble Lord, Lord Moran. referred to the ITE survey, which showed that in the period 1990–93 each year 14,000 miles of hedges had to be classified as no longer being worthy of being called hedges. By any standards that is a significant loss of hedges.
One must recognise that some of the assumptions about hedges are myths. My noble friend Lord Elton said that many hedges are not particularly old. The authority before whom I would bow is Mr. Oliver Rackham, who, in his seminal history of the English countryside, says that about half of Britain's hedges

419
today originate from prehistoric, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, mediaeval and 16th and 17th century times. The other half were planted between 1750 and 1850 as a result of the great enclosures. Until about 1945 there was very little loss of hedges. Mr. Rackham writes:
"The loss of hedges began after World War H and is now the most familiar aspect of the destruction of the English countryside. It has affected mainly the eastern counties, where some areas richly hedged … are now as featureless as any desert; but the west and even Cornwall, has not entirely escaped".
I believe that the Committee generally believes that legislation along these lines is necessary. There are, of course, reservations on four or five points, which I shall deal with briefly. First, there is the need not to have more regulation. No one wants regulations if they can be avoided. The second relates to the question of definition. One cannot have a universal definition of hedges. It clearly has to be done by region; and that has to be by regulation and not by provisions in the Bill.
The cost of maintenance has been referred to a number of times. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley said that the public will not pay—almost as though the public would be asked to "ante-up" 50p. The public will not pay for the Armed Forces if they are asked to ante-up 50p. But the simple fact is that the public want and need the defence of the realm and they want a beautiful, enjoyable and accessible countryside. They will therefore pay; and I believe that they would far prefer that money which is currently used to produce surplus food which is then stored or dumped should be used for the conservation of such things as hedges. That point has been made by a number of noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber.
No one should neglect the importance of farming. I am a medium-sized farmer by Suffolk standards. It is possible to farm profitably and yet with the conservation and maintenance of hedges in mind. Finally, I do not believe that any of us wishes to fossilise the countryside. It would not be possible even if we wished to do so.
I apologise because I have rather galloped through what I wished to say because of the lateness of the hour. At least what I have said is rather shorter than my amendment. I shall be interested to hear my noble friend's reply to the debate. I hope that we shall be able to move forward from Clause 79 as it now stands. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Perhaps I may—
10.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I have put my name to the amendment, if the noble Lord will allow me to speak.
For better or worse, we are moving towards the end of the topic for tonight, and possibly for another fortnight or three weeks. I have refrained from intervening in the earlier debate on the subject, largely because I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that it was a pity that the amendment could not be taken earlier. We need an overall approach to the issue. It is not that I did not have views about which I might have intervened. In the debate between stake and bound, and
420
cut and laid, I must confess that I am on the side of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I believe that cut and laid is considerably more elegant. If one grows hedgerows and does not look after them in those areas of England where growth is considerable, one ends up with a bullfinch. That is an even greater challenge to someone like the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who likes jumping over or through them.
We do not know how the agricultural scene and the countryside will develop over the next few years. If we had made a forecast five, 10, 15 or 20 years ago, we would probably have got it wrong. In the new world of sustainable development, living in an over-populated country, we do not know what the pattern of agriculture will be. I suspect that most of the forecasts made this evening will be proved wrong.
My party has produced a paper on agriculture which has come to a conclusion rather along the lines referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moran: that probably in the future there will be individual contracts with individual farmers. In that way one can avoid the suspicion of the general public that some farmers are making an enormous amount of money while others are almost starving. One is able to tailor the provisions to the individual farm. It will be immensely complicated, but it may be the way in which what is happening at the moment will develop. If that is so, surely with hedges we do not want suddenly to pursue one course or the other. We have had enough of that and it has been too drastic over the past 25 or 30 years. We want to see a way of stabilising and making certain that change—which must of course happen; we do not want the countryside kept in aspic, as speakers have said—is managed over time. In order to do that, we need an overall approach. The new Bill with this amendment incorporated has been discussed over a long time and it stands a better chance of being successful than the present clause. That is why I hope that the Government will seriously consider taking that road.
Lord Bridges: I support the amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I am attracted by it for three reasons. First, it seems to me to be an excellent idea to build upon the work already done in another place. It offers a practical and sensible way forward, illustrating co-operation between the two Houses which we are not often able to achieve.
A second advantage which seems to me significant is that the noble Lord's solution avoids the necessity to attempt to define an important hedgerow. Listening to the discussion earlier this evening, I had nightmares of meetings of Whitehall committees between distracted officials and Ministers trying to find a proper definition. I believe that that is not the line we should pursue.
Thirdly, I happen to come from the same draughty corner of East Anglia as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. We need hedges there, the loss of them over the past 20 years has been severe. It is true that recently some have been put back in considerable numbers, but we have lost much soil. This is the time of year when a dry spring and a newly sown crop can be blown away

421
and I am sure that the loss. of our hedges has caused the loss of a great deal of soil. I therefore hope that the amendment will find favour with the Committee.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: At some stage I must break cover and make my views clear about the amendment and the clause. I dislike the amendment intensely and I dislike Clause 75 intensely. Both tell or order farmers to preserve something—in this case hedgerows. If there is one way not to preserve something, it is to tell or order farmers to do something when, in practice, no money or influence will make them do it. We will not be able to stop them destroying the hedgerows if they so wish. From these comfortable Benches, Members of the Committee may think they can, but they cannot. If we really want hedgerows to be preserved—and I happen to believe that some should be—the correct way is with the carrot, as many speakers have said. Sadly, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, clearly pointed out, there is not enough money to pay for the carrot. That is the great trouble.
Lastly, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Marlesford does not address the vital point of management. We shall have to address that if we want to keep the hedgerows, but to make laws about preserving them is a total and utter waste of time.
Earl Peel: My noble friend Lord Marlesford said that we needed to seek a balance. I had the feeling that we had already sought it through what the Government propose in the clause and the vague acceptance of my noble friend on the Front Bench of the two amendments of my noble friend Lord Wade and the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lytton. I am convinced that if the Government were persuaded to accept the principle of those two, this balance has been achieved.
The noble Lord has overstretched the "aspic" argument on this matter. We are looking at a grand preservation scheme. It is a "Fortnum & Mason" amendment. There is no consultation procedure. We have not addressed the problem of what is an important hedge. Will local authorities—if indeed they are to be the authorities involved—operate consistently throughout the country? These issues have to be addressed, and they can only be addressed through the process of the regulations, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Wade.
Finally, my noble friend said that his clause was very similar (more or less identical) to that which was introduced in another place by Mr. Ainsworth. But he also went on to say that that particular Bill did not succeed through lack of time. With the best will in the world, I think that is a euphemism for the fact that the other place did not accept it. I see no reason why, if it was not accepted then, it should be accepted by another place now. That alone is, quite honestly, as good a reason as any to reject my-noble friend's amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 313AA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Marlesford and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and Amendment No. 335ZBC, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, place detailed provisions for the protection of hedgerows on the face of the Bill.
422
Amendment No. 313AA replaces the present Clause 79 with a brief clause giving effect to a new schedule. The new schedule, which is set out in Amendment No. 335ZBC, broadly corresponds with the provisions of the Private Member's Bill brought before another place by my honourable friend Peter Ainsworth in 1992–93. I have noted that my noble friend has made a number of revisions to reflect comments that I made during the Second Reading debate, which he acknowledged.
Two years ago, the Government supported the Private Member's Bill to which I have referred and which these amendments seek to carry forward. I made clear during the Second Reading of this Bill that we envisage bringing forward in regulations a notification scheme similar to the one proposed in these amendments, but that such a proposal should first be the subject of prior consultation both in and outside Parliament.
Members of the Committee will also note, if they glance through Amendment No. 335ZBC, that these provisions attempt to settle not only the general principles of a notification scheme but more or less all of its detailed arrangements. We believe that all these matters, the general principles and the detailed arrangements, should be the subject of wider consultation.
I should like to outline two reasons for this approach. First, the Private Member's Bill was promoted in the light of the 1990 countryside survey; and we know, following our further hedgerow survey published in July last year, that the average annual removal between 1990 and 1993 fell significantly to some 3,600 kilometres.
Although we remain committed to introducing measures for the protection of important hedgerows, and consider that this is best achieved by a notification scheme, we must ensure that the final scheme reflects the scale of the problem as we perceive it in 1995. It does not necessarily follow that all the provisions of a Private Member's Bill introduced two years ago and based on research carried out five years ago are suitable for inclusion in legislation today.
Secondly, I should point out to the Committee that the Private Member's Bill was itself subject to wide-ranging debate before its fall in another place. Almost every aspect of the Bill attracted amendments, as I think my noble friend Lord Peel indicated. The debates reflected the real difficulties that must be addressed if a proper balance is to be struck between the concerns of the public at large who wish to see important hedgerows protected effectively, and the interests of the individual who wishes to ensure that any controls which are placed on his or her daily life or business are limited to those that are necessary and fair.
For these reasons, we believe that all details of the hedgerow protection scheme should be brought forward only after we have listened to views expressed not only in this Chamber and in another place as the Bill makes its way towards the statute book, but also following wider consultation.
The effect of these amendments would be to pre-empt such consultation, although that seemed to be quite all right in the view of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. But

423
my noble friend Lord Peel quite rightly stressed that this would be without any consultation. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Norrie: Before the noble Viscount sits down, does he agree that secondary legislation introduces too great an element of uncertainty? Amendment No. 313A would avoid any uncertainty by incorporating the hedgerow notification directly into the Bill.
Viscount Ullswater: I indicated at a much earlier stage that this would be subject to a great deal of consultation. I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that we would be considering whether we should put that consultation in a statutory way on the face of the Bill. I also said that we may even consider whether it should be subject to affirmative resolution. I believe that that dispenses with the fact that it is a known scheme. There is no uncertainty.
Lord Marlesford: I believe that the sense of the Committee overall this evening has been that significant modifications to Clause 79 in the Bill as it stands are needed. There have been certain indications of where those modifications may be made. Obviously, this evening I shall not press the amendment, which puts forward some rather detailed modifications. We shall be able to return to this subject on Report with whatever further amendments seem appropriate. In the meantime, I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Grants for purposes conducive to conservation]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 313B:
Page 87, line 5, leave out from ("Treasury") to ("conducive") in line 8 and insert ("shall by regulation ensure that all agriculture and forestry payments are").
The noble Baroness said: At this late hour I do not propose to employ any arguments or illustrations in support of these amendments. I shall simply call them so that the Minister can give us the answer, which we are all very anxious to hear.
I simply wish to say that all these amendments provide in Clauses 80 and 81 an opportunity to improve the level of care for environmental considerations in farming and forestry practices. Too many of the present policies are not designed to include those issues.
Amendment No. 313B would put a duty on MAFF to consider such issues when designing or modifying farming and forestry schemes. Amendments Nos. 314A and 314C highlight the importance of cultural and historical landscape features and buildings in all such schemes. For the benefit of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, I consider grants to farmers to conserve such important buildings are essential. The changes proposed in those three amendments are echoed in Amendments Nos. 324B, 324C and 324D.
Amendment No. 314B would ensure that all schemes designed for the public enjoyment of the countryside are consistent with conservation needs.
Amendment No. 314D puts responsibility on the Minister to give due regard to locally important landscapes. I underline the word "locally" in that context. I am sure that the Minister will respond to it.
Amendment No. 315B would require all payments made under this clause to be the subject of environmental assessment.
Finally, Amendment No. 315A addresses the specific problem in national parks and seeks to make the park authorities responsible for the administration of grants for purposes conducive to conservation. I beg to move Amendment No. 313B.
Lord Walpole: Perhaps I may say very briefly, in view of the time, that I obviously support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has just said. It widens out the measure to the more cultural, archaeological aspects and so on. I am afraid that that is what the Committee would expect me to say at this hour of the night. I strongly support the amendments.
Earl Peel: Unless I am very much mistaken, Amendment No. 313B, taken in isolation, would remove the ability of the Minister to make any provision for grants under this clause at all. So from that point of view alone, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I feel that the amendment is rather strangely worded.
Equally, as I see it, Amendment No. 315A, as worded, would give the national parks a monopoly of providing grants throughout the countryside. I am sure that even my noble friend Lord Norrie would not want to see that happen.
As to Amendment No 315A, it would be a mistake if we were to pass over to the national park authorities the grant-making ability from the Government organisations and departments that have the expertise and the specialist knowledge to award them. I hope that the Committee will reject at least those two amendments
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I want to speak briefly to Amendment No. 314, which has been grouped with these amendments but has not yet been mentioned. I shall not go any further with it tonight because to a certain extent it is about organic farming. The noble Lord who is the expert on organic farming on the opposite Benches is not with us this evening, so I shall wait until the next stage to discuss it.
There is a need for a wide ability to give grants, which help move agriculture in the right direction at the same time as preserving the countryside, and which produce the necessary amounts of carrots and sticks. That is the purpose of that amendment, and no doubt we shall come back to it on Report.
Lord Wise: My noble friend Viscount Addison was going to move Amendment No. 315A and he asked me if I would support it, so I shall speak, very briefly, to that Amendment.
I cannot entirely agree with my noble friend Earl Peel regarding this. Grant making to farmers and landowners for conservational and recreational purposes underlies

425
the management strategies across the national parks. It also provides positive incentives for land management to achieve the national park purposes of conservation and promotion of enjoyment. There is no distinction to be drawn between the objectives of the schemes described in this clause and much of the work already carried out by the national park authorities.
In some cases this work is carried out through agency agreements relating to national schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, has already referred to the Countryside Council for Wales, Tir Cymen, and its agency agreement with the Snowdonian National Park Authority is highly successful. Agreements are negotiated by the park staff, who provide a valuable local liaison service for the farming community. This amendment will enable that relationship to continue if Tir Cymen is handed over to the Welsh Office in the same way that Countryside Stewardship is to be transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England.
The amendment would also enable Ministers in England and Wales to adopt national park schemes where appropriate. All the national parks have farm and countryside services, and some operate innovative farm schemes as part of those services. The successful North Yorkshire moors farm scheme, for instance, provides support for environmentally friendly farming practices in an area which does not benefit from having Environmentally Sensitive Area status.
Enabling national funds to be channelled into such schemes, with the park authority acting as agents for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, would only be beneficial.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): These amendments all relate to the powers in Clause 80 under which my right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland would be empowered to make grants for purposes conducive to conservation. I should declare an interest as the current recipient of a grant under the hedgerow incentive scheme.
Amendment No. 313B, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, would require these Ministers to regulate to ensure that all payments which they make are conducive to conservation of the countryside. The Government fully recognise the need for conservation implications to be taken into account in all payment schemes, not only those whose principal purpose is environmental. However, we do not consider that this amendment is necessary given the duty which already applies to the relevant Ministers under Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 to achieve a reasonable balance between conservation, public enjoyment of the countryside and other interests in exercising any functions connected with agriculture. We believe that this duty is sufficient to ensure that Ministers must take conservation interests into account in all policy areas, and indeed the wording of Clause 80(1) of the Bill was drawn directly from Section 17 of the 1986 Act.
426
My noble friend Lord Peel pointed out something very important about the amendment, which is that it is undesirable. It would leave out the wording in Clause 80 which enables the relevant Ministers to introduce new conservation grant schemes. I am sure that that was not the noble Baroness's intention. Specifically, the clause empowers the Minister of Agriculture, in particular, to operate countryside stewardship. The amendment would thereby undermine the original intention of the clause.
Amendment No. 314, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, will ensure that the conservation grant-making powers provided for in Clause 80 may be used to promote environmentally friendly farming methods. The Government fully support that intention. The countryside has been shaped by agriculture and its future conservation is dependent on farming methods taking full account of the needs of the environment. To this end, we have introduced a range of conservation schemes for farmers and indeed the central purpose of the clause is to enable the Minister of Agriculture to offer incentives to encourage environmentally sensitive farming on key landscape types in England as part of the countryside stewardship scheme.
However, while we endorse the intention of the amendment, we consider that the existing wording of Clause 80 is fully adequate. This enables the relevant Ministers to make grants for anything conducive to,
"the conservation or enhancement of the natural beauty… of the countryside (including its flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features) or of any features of archaeological interest".
We are satisfied that this will enable Ministers to make a wide range of payments, as they consider appropriate, to promote environmentally sensitive farming.
Amendments Nos. 314A, 314C, 314D, 324B and 324D, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, seek to extend the scope of Clauses 80 and 81 to include grants concerned with conservation of cultural or historic features and, specifically, the protection of buildings of cultural or historic interest.
First, with regard to buildings, we do not consider that it is appropriate or necessary to extend the grant-making powers of the relevant Ministers. To do so would extend unnecessarily the overlap with the extensive grant-making powers which English Heritage, Historic Scotland and Cadw/Welsh Historic Monuments already have in relation to historic buildings and monuments.
Lord Walpole: That refers to listed buildings only. We were trying to take it slightly further than that and to take a lot of buildings around the countryside which are unlisted but which are desperately important in the countryside scene.
Earl Howe: Some elements of schemes which are or will in future be operated by agriculture departments involve the conservation of historic landscapes such as parkland—for example, the historic landscape option of Countryside Stewardship—or the preservation of archaeological and historic features such as earthworks and stone walls under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. The Bill was drafted with that in mind and Clause 80 allows the relevant Ministers to make

427
grants for anything which is conducive to the conservation or enhancement of the natural beauty or amenity of the countryside. We believe that this is fully sufficient to allow payments to be made for the conservation of historic landscapes and the preservation of historic and archaeological features. We do not believe that it is appropriate to go further than that in the context of this Bill.
My noble friend Lord Wise referred to farm conservation schemes run by national parks. I note the suggestion that the Government might want to adopt the conservation schemes run by national park authorities. I should be grateful if my noble friend will send me details of the schemes to which he referred.
Amendment No. 315A, spoken to by my noble friend, seeks to provide powers for the making of regulations to allow national park authorities to administer conservation grant schemes, such as Countryside Stewardship, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Wales. The Government do not consider that this is necessary since, in practice, such powers already exist.
If a scheme introduced under Clause 80 were specific to a national park and it was agreed that the national park authority should act as the Minister or Secretary of State's agent in administering the scheme, there would be no difficulty in providing for this under current legislation. Similarly, there would be no difficulty in the Minister or Secretary of State designating another body as his agent if he deemed it appropriate.
I have gone slightly out of order for which I apologise.
Amendments Nos. 314B and 324C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, are intended to ensure that payments to promote public enjoyment of the countryside may only be made by the relevant Ministers where such enjoyment is consistent with the interests of conservation. The Government believe that properly managed public access can in many instances be fully compatible with conservation of the rural environment and that access should only be promoted where this is the case. However, we consider that it is unnecessary to include this principle as a requirement in the Bill because of the duty of balance under the Agriculture Act 1986 to which I have already referred. We believe that this duty is sufficient to ensure that Ministers will in practice take conservation into account in promoting public access.
This group of amendments also includes that tabled by my noble friend Lord Peel, but I do not believe that he spoke to it. If he agrees, I shall not reply to it at this stage in view of the lateness of the hour.
Earl Peel: I am very grateful to my noble friend.
Earl Howe: Amendment No. 315B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, seeks to make all conservation payments under the schemes covered by Clause 80 subject to a strategic assessment of their likely environmental effects. The Government do not consider that this is necessary since the primary purpose
428
of all of these schemes is to address specific environmental needs and priorities, or to promote public enjoyment of the countryside in a way which is compatible with environmental protection. We already monitor carefully the environmental effects of each of them and monitoring reports are published as appropriate. A requirement to carry out strategic assessments on all conservation grants would, we believe, lead to unnecessary bureaucracy and delays in getting desirable conservation work under way.
I recognise that all of these amendments in their several ways are intended to be helpful. The fact that-many seek to widen the scope of the clause is, I believe, a sign of the very high regard in which incentive schemes such as Countryside Stewardship are held. The clause has deliberately been drafted to allow Ministers to make a wide range of payments related to different aspects of environmental land management. I am confident that it provides a sound basis for the future promotion of environmentally friendly farming in Great Britain.
With those rather lengthy words of explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his careful answer. The amendments have been brought forward because of the concern expressed by CPRE about some areas which have continued to deteriorate despite the 1986 Act. There is very much to consider in what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 314 to 314D not moved.]
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 315:
Page 87, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) make provision for grants to be paid, where appropriate, to both the owner of any land and the occupier of that land where the owner is not also the occupier.").
The noble Earl said: I deliberately did not speak to this amendment in the previous grouping because it covers a different subject. The objective behind the amendment is to try to clarify that both landlords and tenants can be joint participants in environmental land management schemes introduced under this clause, where it is appropriate. As currently drafted, it is not clear that payments could be made to both the owner and the tenant under such schemes.
Clearly there are cases where the needs of environmental land management will require both the landowner and the tenant to be participants in the scheme for it to be really effective. For example, landowners could be responsible, as in the Yorkshire Dales ESA, for the upkeep of barns, which is not a tenant's responsibility, and yet the tenant is responsible for the conservation and management of the surrounding hay meadows.
We are talking about integrated management, which incorporates both landlord and tenant. I can think of woodlands being another example. I could go on, but because of the lateness of the hour I shall not. I am merely trying to establish from my noble friend the Minister whether this scheme will be payable to both landlords and tenants.
There is one specific point that I should like to make here, because it has occurred quite often in the past. Will a landlord who does not have a holding number qualify for grant under this scheme? I can think of a number of occasions in the past with different grants where it has been difficult for the landlord to obtain the grant even though he is the person who will put up the money. It is a complex business, as I am sure the Committee will appreciate, but I should be grateful if my noble friend could give me an answer to that question and ensure that both landlords and tenants will qualify for payments under this clause. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My noble friend has explained that the amendment is designed to enable the appropriate Ministers to make conservation grants to both the landlord and the tenant in cases where they might participate jointly in environmental schemes. That might arise where, for example, the tenant has day-to-day control over normal farm management, but the landlord is responsible for features such as field boundaries. The Government entirely agree that in such circumstances the Minister should be able to make payments to both the landlord and the tenant, and indeed the central purpose of Clause 80 is to enable the Minister of Agriculture to operate countryside stewardship which already includes such joint agreements. For that reason Clause 80 was drafted carefully to allow the Minister to
430
make grants to any persons who do, or who undertake to do, anything conducive to conservation or public enjoyment of the countryside.
We believe that this wording is fully sufficient to allow the relevant Ministers to make payments to both a landowner and a tenant as part of the same agreement where appropriate.
My noble friend asked me whether the recipient of the grant needed to have an agricultural holding number. Perhaps I may write to him about that as I would not wish to mislead the Committee on that point of detail. I hope that with that general explanation my noble friend will be somewhat reassured and feel that the amendment is unnecessary.
Earl Peel: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 315A and 315B not moved.]
Clause 80 agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Meat and Livestock Commission: Consumer Representation
  Meat and Livestock Commission: Consumer Representation
  AIDS and HIV: Clinical Definition
  AIDS and HIV: Clinical Definition
  Mental Health Act 1983, s.12(2): Training Package
  Mental Health Act 1983, s.12(2): Training Package
  Murders: Use of Firearms
  Murders: Use of Firearms
  Pay Review Bodies: Reports
  Pay Review Bodies: Reports
  Permanent Secretaries: Pay
  Permanent Secretaries: Pay