Sitting of 26 January 1995

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords](By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered upon Thursday 2 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Rural White Paper
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to learn about the view of organisations with rural interests as part of the rural White Paper exercise.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): My Department and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment wrote to a wide range of organisations in November inviting them to submit their views. Officials are also conducting meetings with a wide range of organisations, which will include a series of regional seminars involving Ministers from both Departments. The first of these will take place next month.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Has my right hon. Friend heard views expressed similar to those expressed to me by farmers in my constituency, to the effect that they are very much against the veal crate system but feel that the blame lies fairly and squarely with nations on the continent? What has he done to persuade those nations to abolish the veal crate system, which is damaging the image of British farmers?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I attended the Agriculture Council meeting on Monday, where I put on the agenda the proposal that the review of the veal crate system—proposed for review in 1997—should be brought forward immediately. I am happy to say that I had widespread support for that in the Council, and the Commission will now bring forward the review.
    If there had been a vote there and then in the Council, I believe that the veal crate system would have been abolished on the spot—not a single Council member spoke up for it. I am not so naive as to think that there will not now be a rearguard action from those who use the system, but we have started well. We must maintain the momentum to achieve this prize—the real prize of banning a practice that is unacceptable to farmers here and in many other parts of the European Union. It must be banned right across Europe.

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the welfare of animals prior to slaughter.
    Mr. Waldegrave: We are consulting on improved standards and are introducing on 1 April 1995 the national meat hygiene service, which will result in uniform standards and lower costs.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Despite what the Minister said a few moments ago about the veal crate system, was not an answer given in the European Parliament, after his meeting in Europe, to the effect that the review will not start until at least two years hence? By that time, at least 1 million more British calves—including calves from the right hon. Gentleman's farm—will have suffered under this appalling system.
    Will the Minister tell me and the British people what justification there is for any exports of live animals for slaughter—quite apart from veal calves—given modern refrigeration techniques? Is it not the will of the British people completely to ban live exports for slaughter?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. I know that a Labour Member of the European Parliament told him what he has just reported about the French Minister's remarks, but I have been in touch with the French Minister's cabinet—
    Mr. Skinner: What does that mean?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It means Cabinet in French.
    I was assured that the French Minister, Mr. Puech, had been misquoted. That can only be right, as I was present at the Council meeting where he, as president, welcomed the fact that the Commission had said that it was bringing forward the review to this year and had already spoken to the relevant committee and asked for the review to begin.
    Mr. Gale: Will my right hon. Friend continue his robust efforts to achieve a Europe-wide solution to the problems of veal crates and of the transportation of live animals for slaughter to prevent English exports from being replaced by a flood of imports from former Iron Curtain countries, with animals travelling longer distances under worse conditions? What steps does he intend to take to encourage the slaughter of animals in British abattoirs and the export of meat on the hook, not on the hoof?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. There is a bigger prize than securing the improvement that we secured by banning the use of veal creates in our own very small veal trade—securing a ban right across Europe. My hon. Friend is perfectly right to say that if we do not do so the animals will turn up from somewhere and these practices will continue. That surely is not what we want.
    I will have more to say next week on my hon. Friend's second point, but he is perfectly right to say that we can take further steps to encourage trade on the hook and to develop a humane veal trade, including the British rose veal trade. We should not seek to demonise the idea of veal eating, because humane British-raised veal is good and it avoids the need or the demand for exports.
    Mr. Tyler: May I press the Minister on the latter part of his answer? In the light of recent figures given to me by the Ministry showing that the number of abattoirs in

    457
    this country has halved in the past 15 years because so many small and local abattoirs have been forced out of business, what steps does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind to try to reduce livestock journeys within the United Kingdom? What steps does he propose to take to assist the industry to encourage home slaughter and home market development?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We can take a range of steps, and I shall announce some more next week. Nowhere in the United Kingdom is there not a slaughterhouse within a satisfactory distance of farms in the neighbourhood. I know that there are problems in some areas of the south-west, but if one draws circles on the graph one finds that there is no need for excessive journey times to those slaughterhouses. There are further measures that we can take—support for marketing and so on—to develop a humane trade here and alternative uses for those calves.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: As the matter has recently been raised in the House, will my right hon. Friend put on record and clarify the position concerning the restarting of the live animal export trade in 1975?
    Mr. Waldegrave: With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I should like to correct one point. On 19 January, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) accused me of misleading the House. He said:
    "The House was thus misled by the allegation made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, West".—[Official Report, 19 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 865.]—
    that is me.
    The hon. Gentleman said that I misled the House by accusing the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), a former Minister, of voting to restart live animal exports, which had been stopped in 1973. [Interruption.] That is what he said—read Hansard.
    Three things are wrong with that. First, the hon. Gentleman did not—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister should be given every opportunity to answer the question that he was asked, and he is now doing so.
    Mr. Waldegrave: First, the hon. Gentleman did not do me the normal courtesy of warning me that he intended to raise the point and accuse me of misleading the House, but I shall let that pass. Secondly, I said no such thing. Hansard does not report me as saying anything about the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, so he is wrong on that point. Thirdly, if I had said that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East had voted to restart the trade, I would have been right.

    Fruit And Vegetables
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new initiatives he has to increase the proportion of home-grown fruit and vegetables consumed in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): My right
    458
    hon. Friend and my ministerial colleagues and I take every opportunity to promote the virtues of home-grown fruit and vegetables.
    Mr. Bayley: What possible justification can there be for Britain importing 17 out of every 20 items of fresh fruit and almost a quarter of the fresh vegetables that are on sale in shops? Does the Minister share my concern when he shops in any big supermarket and sees rack after rack of foreign produce? What is he doing in his discussions with the big food retailers to ensure that they boost sales of British fruit and vegetables?
    Mr. Jack: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asks that question. I held a meeting at the Ministry with all the major supermarket buyers to extol to them the virtues of buying British fruit, and I can confirm that, during the current Cox season, cheap imports from Holland were offered to supermarkets but they declined them. They are putting their money where their mouth is. The Ministry is spending at least £3 million on research into ways of extending seasons in the United Kingdom and to improve availability of home-grown produce. Our marketing development scheme and my horticultural project place a high priority on promoting our own excellent fruit and vegetables.
    Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the most important home-grown vegetables is sugar beet, and the House will be aware that my hon. Friend is involved in negotiations in Europe on sugar beet quotas. I urge my hon. Friend to stand firm on behalf of all British sugar beet farmers to ensure that their quotas are not reduced.
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend attended European Standing Committee A yesterday, where I hope he heard me make a robust defence of British sugar beet growers. The Government do not believe that their quotas should be reduced. Any quota reductions should be visited upon those who produce more than their domestic consumption. My right hon. Friend will robustly follow that line in the Agriculture Council.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that those who produce fruit and vegetables under glass in Britain gain nothing like the same assistance with and benefits from energy prices as their counterparts on the continent? Will he ensure that our producers get a fair crack of the whip and have a fair market for their products in Britain?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman, who represents Burnley, had better get down to the west Lancashire plain and ask growers about the innovative methods that they are employing not only to save energy but to secure it at lower prices. The old days when the Dutch had a gas subsidy are well and truly ended, and British growers are becoming adept at buying energy economically.

    Environmentally Sensitive Farming
    Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his Department is doing to encourage environmentally sensitive farming.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): We are expanding the range of schemes to

    459
    encourage environmentally sensitive farming, and next year we plan to spend more than £100 million on such schemes in the United Kingdom.
    Sir Irvine Patrick: As my hon. Friend is aware, Sheffield, Hallam and Peak park are interlinked. Will she confirm that rambling is to be encouraged but that the Labour party's policy of the right to roam will damage the countryside?
    Mrs. Browning: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will be interested to know that, under the new countryside access scheme, which we introduced, 100 applications have been made and are being considered by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service. That will encourage the quiet use of the countryside through pursuits such as rambling and cycling on set-aside land. In the Peak parks and other such areas, we encourage responsibility among those who use and those who have stewardship of the countryside.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pays proper attention, as I believe the Department of the Environment may be doing, to the recent publication on biodiversity produced by the conservation bodies? For example, does she accept that nearly two thirds of the British skylark population has disappeared in the past 15 years or so and that such problems can be resolved only by the exercise of initiative by the Minister's Department and others?
    Mrs. Browning: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will support the habitat scheme, which is now in its first year and is particularly targeted at water fringe and marshlands. I hope that that will be the start of many other such schemes with a long-term option whereby they can be extended for up to 20 years. Certain species require such continuity to ensure that they and their habitats survive.

    British Food Promotion
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has further to promote British food.
    Mrs. Browning: We are working closely with food exporting firms and Food from Britain on a plan for vigorous promotion of British food and drink over the next three years.
    Mrs. Knight: As part of the promotion of British food abroad, will my hon. Friend undertake to point out how much tastier Stilton from Hartington in Derbyshire is than, for example, a plastic covered Dutch Edam cheese, how much more nutritious a British sausage is than a watery frankfurter and how infinitely preferable it is to eat a British Cox apple than a continental Golden Delicious, which has the texture of cotton wool?
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend speaks with much justified pride about the speciality foods produced in her constituency. I am sure that we all recognise the contribution that speciality foods make not only to the
    460
    taste and quality of United Kingdom food products, but to the export drive: Food from Britain is to spend £3 million on promoting such foods abroad.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Minister consider setting aside a day on which to promote Yorkshire rhubarb?
    Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman has set me a challenge, but I can tell him that, as a former cookery teacher, I could certainly help to support those who may wish to demonstrate the preparation of crumble, fruit compot made with rhubarb and a range of other wonderful recipes that would restore a traditional British food to its rightful place.
    Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the future availability of British fish? Does she not believe that the recently published report by Sir Crispin Tickell argues strongly for the abolition of the common fisheries policy?
    Mrs. Browning: In last week's debate, both my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister of State clearly explained that, although my right hon. Friend is establishing a committee to examine the future of the common fisheries policy, my hon. Friend's suggestion that its abolition would somehow help to promote fish stocks is quite wrong. It would, in fact, lead to a free-for-all: we should be faced with not 40 Spanish boats but 250.
    I certainly believe in the promotion of fish. It contains healthy proteins, and I recommend it to hon. Members. I am told that it is good for the brain, and I particularly recommend it to my hon. Friend.

    Animal Exports
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to end live animal exports from Britain.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for further regulating the export of calves for veal.
    Mr. Waldegrave: At the meeting of the Agriculture Council on Monday, I succeeded in getting the Commission to bring forward a review of the directive that legalises veal crates from 1997 to this year. I was also delighted to hear the presidency say that the Council would return to the subject of improvements in the rules of live animal transportations in general at the next meeting. I hope the Council makes as good progress on the latter point as on the former.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister recognise that that simply is not good enough? The subject is being debated now because millions of people in this country and throughout Europe are appalled by the treatment of live animals during export, and want the practice to be stopped. Is it Government policy to stop the process by which live animals are exported in conditions of great cruelty and stress, and treated inhumanely?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I will take the same position—a brave and sensible position—as was taken by the previous Labour Government. It would be mad to say that no animals could be exported from this country; what is necessary is to ensure that the animals that are exported are exported under tight welfare controls. If

    461
    animals could not be moved at all, some of those who are campaigning on the issue—although not the great mass of concerned people—would simply move to the next target, while farming in this country, Scotland and Wales would become impossible. A few miles of water do not mean that an animal cannot be moved safely if the proper standards are applied.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister agree with the Liberal spokesman on these matters, who viciously condemned the actions of protesters at British ports when all that they were doing was advocating what the majority of British people believe in?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that the Liberal spokesman described the welfare protesters as "naive, hysterical and counter-productive". There is a fringe attached to this movement, as to many other sensible movements, which ruins the cause by using violence and going much too far. It would be unwise of the House and of the Liberal spokesman not to recognise that there is widespread, genuine concern about this matter, but that should not mean, as has sometimes happened in the House in the past, that we over-react and completely ruin the conditions for farming in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. We must ensure proper welfare and proper enforcement. That is what we need.
    Mr. Brooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in their latter stages, the previous Labour Government sought to impede debate on a private Member's Bill on live animal exports—a fact that I mention incidentally because of the indignation generated in the last Session about progress on private Member's Bills?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Some such rows are fairly synthetic because I suspect that they depend on which side of the House one is on at the time. I do not think that this is a party issue, and it would be unwise for one party to claim that it has the monopoly of wisdom on it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House care about the issue. We must not be pushed by that genuine concern into such extreme measures that we make farming in Britain completely impossible.
    Mr. Stephen: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the same time as the Liberal Democrat rural affairs spokesman was telling farmers that his party was not in favour of the ban on animal exports, Liberal Democrat councillors in my constituency were telling the townspeople that they were in favour of it?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. Mr. David Bellotti, who was briefly a Member of the House, took a very different line from the Liberal Democrat spokesman. That is the joy of being a Liberal: one can say anything one likes in any part of the country and it does not matter at all if all the others say something different.
    Dr. Strang: May I return to the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the Official Report of 19 January and explain that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was referring to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire,. West (Mr. Marland), who intervened during Prime Minister's
    462
    Questions? May I set the record straight by explaining that in 1973, on a Labour motion, which was opposed by the then Conservative Government, live animal exports were banned. I voted for that motion.
    When the Labour Government took office, the O'Brien committee, which the Conservative party set up, recommended the resumption of the trade, which at that time was in live cattle and some pigs and was a very small trade. The committee recommended the resumption of the trade on the basis of increased safeguards. That was accepted not only by the Labour Government but by Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have never sought to attack the hon. Gentleman on this. He seems to have taken a perfectly sensible position throughout and it is generous of him to try to protect the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). However, it would have been decent of his hon. Friend to apologise. He said:
    "The House was thus misled by the allegation made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave)."—[Official Report, 19 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 865.]
    Mr. Morley: I did not say that.
    Mr. Waldegrave: That is what Hansard records. We should be making a little progress if the hon. Gentleman said that Hansard had made up and printed a whole speech for no reason that is obvious to me.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best scenario for calves is for them to be slaughtered in British abattoirs, thereby increasing employment prospects and adding value? The worst scenario would be an immediate and unilateral ban because that would reduce the price of small Holstein calves to nil and they would be knocked on the head straight after birth.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that my hon. Friend is right. To change a trade such as this, which has become established, will take some time. We must, first, secure a veal crate ban. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we want to encourage the export of meat on the hook. That would create jobs and would be better in welfare terms. If we were to kill small calves on the farm immediately they were born, it would not be satisfactory in welfare terms, and would not be acceptable to the British public or to the great majority of British farmers.

    Fruit And Vegetables
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to encourage the local marketing of fruit and vegetables.
    Mr. Jack: The development, of local marketing of fresh fruit and vegetables is an objective of my horticulture project and of the marketing development scheme.
    Mr. Hall: Is the Minister aware of the increased consumer interest in direct marketing, which brings the benefits of fresh produce, often organically produced, at competitive prices? There is also a better return for producers. Will the Government emulate the United States

    463
    Government by funding research into improving direct marketing and by promoting it among consumers and producers?
    Mr. Jack: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that interesting development, as it has a particular application to rundown city areas. When my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) was Minister responsible for food, he visited the American version of what the hon. Gentleman described—the so-called "green markets" in New York. As a result of that, a project is now being undertaken in Knowsley on Merseyside and approaches are being made through the city challenge mechanism—introduced by this Government—to promote the introduction of that interesting scheme.
    Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend is well aware that in my constituency, as in his neighbouring one, horticulture is an important industry. Will he confirm that his Department will continue to support those who are trying to improve the marketing of excellent British horticultural products?
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the work that we are doing. I commend to him and his growers the marketing development scheme. It has a £10 million budget over three years, it is the most flexible scheme that we have had and it is aimed at helping people in horticulture and in all branches of the food industry. It could be of benefit to the Blackpool area.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Is the Minister aware of the latest report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which exposes the absurdity of supermarkets in Scotland selling milk from Dorset or ones in Evesham selling asparagus from Spain when there is a glut of the same product locally? If not, will he read that report and then provide maximum help for initiatives such as those mentioned already, which would benefit local producers, local consumers and the environment?
    Mr. Jack: I am certainly aware of the line taken in that report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened to my remarks a few moments ago. We have had an extremely good response to the marketing development scheme, which is designed to do precisely what he has suggested—as is the £12 million that we have spent on horticulture research and development. In an earlier answer, I also referred specifically to extending the seasonal availability of British produce, on which we are spending a targeted amount of £3 million.

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals he has to improve animal welfare.
    Mr. Waldegrave: We have a very wide range of measures in place.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman congratulate the demonstrators at the three sites for their great courage and foresight? They are in advance of public opinion and have roused the Government's conscience. Had the Government listened to Compassion in World Farming 10 years ago, the changes could have been made in an orderly way, thus avoiding the problems of sudden change now faced by farmers.
    464
    Now that the right hon. Gentleman is claiming one prize, will he go for the triple crown and move on other fronts where sentient living creatures are treated as though they have no feelings and no nervous system? Will he respond to the campaigns on other animal abuse and stop hunting for sport and unnecessary experiments on animals?
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is a total abuse of Question Time.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Action was under way before I arrived at the Department. My right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State for Education was leading the way with a shift in the Government's position and a move to the vanguard of the campaign to improve transportation. That proves that action was genuinely under way.
    I do not believe that anyone in the country is not now behind the movement to ban veal crates and to achieve higher standards. I am sorry to say, however—the vets are telling us this—that animals in lorries surrounded by the uproar of a demonstration suffer and often have to be put down there and then. Animal welfare is suffering from the methods being used.
    I say to the demonstrators that they should go to Brussels. This may sound odd, but I was sorry to find that there were no demonstrators in Brussels on Monday. It would have been better to have support from the very powerful British non-governmental organisations to press for change where it is needed, which is in Brussels.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend point out to many of those people that there is a considerable movement of animals between Scotland and the west country and between Scotland and other parts of country, and that that movement has been undertaken sensibly for many years, with full protection for animals although those journeys are often much longer than those taken by animals exported across the channel?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not believe that the occasional abuse that takes place in this country is the source of all the concern. We have reasonable rules, which are policed. The concern is not that one cannot move an animal humanely a reasonable distance—one can. The concern is to achieve better welfare standards in Europe. That must be done by changing European law. Otherwise, as I said earlier, the whole of British farming will come to a halt. If that happened, the same people who are campaigning and complaining now would be asking what we are doing to support British farming.
    Mr. Morley: Does the Minister agree that one of the steps that could be taken to improve animal welfare would be to introduce a licensing scheme for animal hauliers and exporters? Does he think it acceptable that exporters such as Phoenix Aviation from Coventry should operate cargo planes without proper export permits, that Hall Farms of York should continue to export animals after being prosecuted for breaking journey time regulations, or that people like Richard Otley, who is exporting sheep through Brightlingsea, who has criminal convictions for animal cruelty, and who was arrested last week for deliberately provoking and abusing local people, deliberately flouted agreements with Brittany Ferries and is associated with people convicted for violence? Incidentally, he claims to

    465
    have been approached to be a Tory candidate and to have the ear of the Prime Minister. Does the Minister agree that such people bring the livestock industry into disrepute?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am slightly disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, who is a decent man, did not take the opportunity to apologise. Last week he said a range of things which turned out to be not quite right, so I should like to check all his allegations closely before I comment on them.

    Abattoirs
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the European rules relating to abattoirs in England and Wales; with whom he or his subordinates last discussed these at the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Browning: In the last few months of 1994, a number of discussions took place between the Commission and member states about the fresh meat directive. Organisations representing the industry were kept fully informed. Last month's Agriculture Council agreed, in principle, a number of amendments to the directive which will give small abattoirs more flexibility in their throughput.
    Mr. Llwyd: I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say that it is highly desirable that animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the point of production. With that in mind, may I urge the Minister to press for a further upward derogation of livestock units for smaller abattoirs at the next Agriculture Council?
    Mrs. Browning: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have made considerable progress on behalf of small abattoirs. We shall obviously continue to consider how the new changes proceed. There are new abattoirs being built, as well as abattoirs that are having to close.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend continue to encourage the building of the new abattoirs? Will she remind Opposition Members that if the codes of practice for the rearing and slaughter of animals were introduced across Europe there would be a great advance throughout?
    Mrs. Browning: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend on that: we all want high standards on an even playing field throughout the European Community.

    Dairy Industry
    Ms Church: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to prevent job losses in the dairy industry.
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to prevent job losses in the dairy industry.
    Mr. Jack: The Government are contributing to that objective through their programme to improve the competitiveness of British industry and the £3.5 million that the Ministry spends annually on research and development in dairying.
    Ms Church: I do not know whether the Minister has milk delivered to his doorstep, or whether he pays his own
    466
    milk bill. If he does, he will be aware of the rising price of milk delivered to the doorstep. Is he aware that Dairy Crest, which has a plant in my constituency, is having to close plants across the country as a direct result—this has been stated by the chief executive—of the Government's deregulation of the dairy industry? What do the Government have to say today about the number of jobs that have been lost in the dairy industry as a direct result of deregulation?
    Mr. Jack: On the latter point, I remind the hon. Lady that the number of people employed in the dairying industry has been falling. In 1984 it was 89,500, and by 1991 it was 72,300, which shows that there has been a decline in the consumption of milk and cream products. As for the rise in the price of milk, my local dairyman has benefited to the tune of 1.5p per pint from a reduction in the levy that he paid because there is no milk marketing board to pay, so he is pleased with the changes. Finally, the industry was carrying a great deal of spare capacity; as a result of the removal of the milk marketing board, there is now better utilisation of existing capacity, to the long-term benefit of the industry.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Minister must be aware that Milk Marque now has a monopoly of the milk industry, and that, since the abolition of the milk marketing board cheese prices have increased substantially and continue to rise well above the rate of inflation. Is he also aware that the spot market is controlled by Milk Marque, which is exporting cheap milk from mainland Britain to keep prices high? What is he doing to help dairy producers who have to meet high costs for their raw material and whose product is undercut by the abolition of the milk marketing board, thus causing job losses in the milk marketing industry?
    Mr. Jack: I am disappointed that, in his enumeration of various problems, the hon. Gentleman did not also point out some of the positive aspects of the changes that were introduced. For instance, many cheese producers used to have an on-off supply under the old arrangement, but now they can have certainty of supply. The hon. Gentleman should check his facts more carefully before accusing Milk Marque of having a monopoly in the milk industry, as companies such as Northern Food Partnership, Nestle and many other purchasers of milk would fundamentally disagree.
    Mr. Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that last year British dairy farmers were penalised in comparison with their European competitors because of the way in which the butter fat in their milk was measured, which resulted in their being well above their quota? What is he doing to level the playing field?
    Mr. Jack: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that matter, which has also been raised by a number of my local farmers. Work is under way to examine some of the variable results that have been recorded. I stress that the tests which used to be carried out by the milk marketing board and the Agricultural Development Advisory Service are both approved by the Commission.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend press the European Union to allow milk quotas to be traded across

    467
    national frontiers within the Community so that our efficient dairy farmers can obtain a higher quota and supply the milk that our processors need?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend, who speaks with the knowledge gained from a farming constituency, is absolutely right. We have one of the most developed markets for the movement of surplus quota, to the benefit of all our dairy farmers, and we are campaigning for a much more flexible approach to cross-Community transferability of quota. We shall continue to pursue that objective vigorously.
    Dr. Strang: Will the Minister acknowledge that, as a direct result of deregulation, creameries have closed at Stranraer, Longridge and Whitland, as well as a number of small niche English cheese makers? How much capacity and how many jobs will be lost before the Government recognise the seriousness of the situation?
    Mr. Jack: Sometimes the hon. Gentleman's synthetic rage overwhelms me. If he is truly concerned about the future of jobs in the dairy industry, perhaps he will join me in reviewing the claim for increased wages—above the rate of inflation—made by trade unions representing the dairy trade. They asked for two extra days holiday, a reduction in the working week, increases in weekend premiums and night rate allowances and—believe it or not—the setting up of a pan-European social partnership committee. Is that the way to safeguard jobs in the dairy industry?
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the President of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend the Minister regularly meets representatives of all sides of the agriculture industry, including the president of the National Farmers Union, to discuss issues of importance to them.
    Sir David Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that farmers in my constituency—[Interruption.]—are concerned about reports of black market trading in milk? Will he give an assurance that vigourous action will be taken against anyone indulging in such practices?
    Mr. Jack: The importance of my hon. Friend's question was clearly acknowledged by cheers from the Labour Benches. I can certainly assure him that the intervention board is taking seriously the information that has come to hand about black market trading in milk. The fraud line which has been established has already received more than 100 calls on the matter. The investigations are complex, but they are being carried out with vigour.
    Mr. Clapham: Is the Minister aware that, under the Milk Marque regime, a farmer who leases his quota must have his documents approved by the intervention board before they can be passed on to the quota broker and that that is currently taking two months whereas under the milk marketing boards it used to be done in a week? As it is causing a great deal of hardship for farmers, will the Minister look into the matter and see what can be done to speed up the process?
    Mr. Jack: I can do one better than that for the hon. Member: I have already been down to the .intervention board to investigate the situation. It is true that there were
    468
    delays towards the end of last year. The only remaining documents to be processed are those related to the extension for lease transfers that we gave to the end of the year. All other matters are now up to date, and a good level of service can be expected.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Spellar: Does the Prime Minister think that Cedric Brown of British Gas is worth his huge pay increase—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: I think that is a matter for the shareholders.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since his answer in this House on Tuesday, public bewilderment and, indeed, outrage over the fate of Private Clegg has increased? Will he give the House an assurance that he and his Ministers will do all in their power to bring this injustice to a speedy end?
    The Prime Minister: I set out the position in the House on Tuesday and how that should be developed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have to consider any new evidence put to him and decide first whether that is sufficient to warrant a further reference to the Court of Appeal. In the meantime, the proper procedures—which I outlined at length on Tuesday and, with my hon. Friend's permission, will not repeat—have now begun.
    Mr. Blair: What does it tell us about the Prime Minister's Government when his Secretary of State for Social Security says that Ministers should be paid more—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") Conservative Members may agree with that, but precious few people in the country do. [Interruption.] There they are—the Tory yobboes. What does it tell us when the Secretary of State for Social Security says that Ministers should be paid more—
    Mr. David Shaw: Your pay has doubled. What about barristers and wives' earnings?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) to order on many occasions before. I shall not be so lenient in future.
    Mr. Blair: What does it tell us, when the Prime Minister's Secretary of State for Social Security says that Ministers should be paid more and that Back-Bench Members of Parliament should have more directorships and consultancies, while at the self-same time the same Social Security Minister is introducing a law that will savage mortgage protection for the unemployed?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is taking a very puritanical view, in view of the number of special interests that so many of his right hon. and hon. Friends have, including a number of his hon. Friends on

    469
    the Front Bench. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there is a proper procedure for setting ministerial salaries and the salaries of Members of this House. It is based on a widely accepted formula, it has been approved by this House and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is entirely happy with that formula.
    Mr. Blair: Is it sensible to cut mortgage protection when home owners are already facing rising interest rates and cuts in mortgage tax relief? Do the Prime Minister and his party not understand that we shall never build a strong and prosperous Britain by deliberately passing laws designed to make our people weak and insecure?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously forgotten the policy commitments of his own party. For example, in view of what he has just said, he may have forgotten that on MIRAS—mortgage interest relief at source—one of the Labour party's own policy groups threatened to abolish the allowance entirely The right hon. Gentleman clearly belongs to that species of politician which believes that the facts are for bending whenever convenient.
    With regard to mortgages, the right hon. Gentleman should be aware that the drop in mortgages from their peak, as a result of our economic policies—[Interruption.] The drop in costs from their peak since interest rates have been falling is £140 a week. If the policies on borrowing and spending that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind were carried out, mortgages would go straight back up by —140 a week.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the fairer and more reasonable approach that we shall now receive from the Child Support Act 1991, the purpose of which was never in doubt, but the application of which caused very considerable concerns?
    The Prime Minister: There has never been any doubt about the principle that parents should support their own children, provided that they are able to do so. That principle is accepted widely in this House and beyond. The changes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has now put in place will enable the agency to work in the manner that we would all wish to see.
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacShane: The Prime Minister is well known as a fan of the Commonwealth and a supporter of India. He will therefore know Gandhi's dictum that there is enough in the world for everyone's need, but not enough for
    470
    everyone's greed. I have that written here; if I give it to the Prime Minister framed, will he put it on the wall in the boardroom of No. 10 Downing street?
    The Prime Minister: I think that everyone who heard that intervention, and the millions who may have watched it on television, will form their own judgment of its value.
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Luff: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Worcester Royal Infirmary trust on the significant improvement in the health care that it is delivering in my constituency? That is a tribute to the health care reforms, to the resources that the Government are making available and to the dedication and professionalism of all the trust's staff. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to continue those improvements is by the early construction of a new district general hospital, using the private finance initiative?
    The Prime Minister: I am very pleased to hear from my hon. Friend about the excellent health services provided in Worcester. That is mirrored in many places across the country. Private finance certainly offers a cost-effective way of funding new hospitals and new developments. It is entirely right to explore that.
    Mr. Radice: As there is not to be a statement to the House today, will the Prime Minister confirm that the White Paper on the civil service proposes a civil service code and an independent appeals system and that it keeps open the Government's mind about whether those should be backed by statute? Does he agree that the Government's adoption of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's constitutional agenda is a vindication of the Select Committee system?
    The Prime Minister: I think that there is very wide support for the Select Committee system across the House and beyond it. The White Paper will command the very broad respect and support of hon. Members across the House on the points that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and on several others.
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are about to place orders for support helicopters for the Royal Air Force? As the two contenders—the Boeing Chinook and the Westland EH101—meet the specifications required by the Ministry of Defence, does he agree that a mixed fleet solution would best provide for the needs of our armed forces and also be best for British industry as it would improve the already good prospects for the sale of the Westland EH101 helicopter in overseas markets both in its civil version and in the many military versions that will become available?
    The Prime Minister: Negotiations with the companies concerned in relation to support helicopters are still

    471
    continuing. I hope that we will be able to make a decision as soon as possible, but all the information upon which to base that decision is not yet available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear in the past the potential advantages of a mixed fleet to meet the Army's requirements for support helicopters. Of course, that will be borne carefully in mind when we are in a position to make a final decision.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as it is now over six months since The Sunday Times exposed the illegal activities of the so-called noble Lord Archer, Conservative peer—insider-dealing activities in Anglia shares—and in so far as it is quite clear that it is utterly impossible successfully to prosecute what we all know to be criminal activity, is there now going to be a review of the law in this area? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the last part of his question. He must not use that language and thus associate this House and all of us with what he has just said. I must ask him to withdraw it or rephrase it, please. [Interruption.] Order. Leave it to me. Will the hon. Gentleman please rephrase what he has just said?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: As against what?
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has associated all of us in this House. I heard it very clearly myself. I ask the hon. Gentleman to rephrase. I heard the words very clearly. [Interruption.] Order. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a moment to reflect. I am sure that he will do as I ask.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I always defer to you, Madam Speaker, as you would know. I refer to what many believe to be criminal activity, but in my view it is unacceptable activity.
    Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make those criticisms, I must now ask him to withdraw his remarks and to put them in an orderly substantive motion. I am asking him to rephrase what he has just said; otherwise I must ask him to leave this House for the remainder of this day's sitting.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I believe that it is criminal activity, and I will leave. I will leave the Chamber voluntarily.
    Madam Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to widen the remit of the Nolan committee to examine sleaze in the media? Does he not find it unacceptable that three television executives, Mr. Greg Dyke, Mr. Barry Cox and Mr. Melvyn Bragg, should pretend to be objective in setting the agenda while they bankrolled the leadership campaign for the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)? As First Lord of the Treasury—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Sit down. I have.just brought one hon. Gentleman to order and dealt with him. I intend
    472
    to do the same in future with any Member who behaves in that way. There are perfectly respectable ways of putting questions in this House. I will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to do that; otherwise he must now sit down.
    Mr. Butcher: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker, but there may be a distinction between what I am asserting and what the gentleman—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will determine whether there is a distinction. The hon. Gentleman can put a substantive motion on the Order Paper if he is going to assert that. Will the hon. Gentleman re-think his question, or shall I call someone else?
    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the standards now being asserted as required of Members of this House on the sleaze question should also be applied to those in the media who may seek to influence events by means which should not be in their repertoire?
    The Prime Minister: I think, Madam Speaker, that there would be a general wish for high standards in every aspect of public life, whether those concerned are elected or not.
    Mr. Olner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Olner: Is the Prime Minister aware of the strong public feelings in regard to the animal welfare movement, especially in connection with the live transportation of animals for slaughter? Will he talk to his colleagues about giving parliamentary time to my private Member's Bill, which seeks to make the practice unlawful? Does he agree that it is far better for our excellent British livestock to be exported on the hook than to endure the treacherous and hazardous journeys on the hoof to which they are currently subjected?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I made precisely the same point about the preference for export on the hook rather than on the hoof three or four Question Times ago. Beyond that, as he will know, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is making considerable progress, especially on veal crates in Europe. I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend clearly has the hon. Gentleman's support.
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important thing in local government is high standards of competence? Does he also agree that the gaff has been blown on the Labour party's activities in local government by the McKinstry memorandum?
    The Prime Minister: That was certainly an enlightening document to read, and I hope that it will have wide circulation. When the hon. Member for Durham,

    473
    North (Mr. Radice) asked a question some time ago he said that if we wanted to know how Labour would look in government we should look at how it runs local councils.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mullin: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the conversion of many of his Conservative
    474
    colleagues to an interest in miscarriages of justice? Will he also join me in hoping that that interest will extend to people who are not members of the Parachute Regiment, such as the three innocent people in the 18th year of their sentences for the Carl Bridgewater murder?
    The Prime Minister: I do not propose to comment on the particular case; I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that it has been examined from time to time. On a more general point, I assure him that my hon. Friends are as concerned as he is to ensure that justice is faithfully and truthfully carried out.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House please announce the business for next week?
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 30 JANUARY—Completion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 31 JANuARY—Opposition Day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "The threat to the existence of the NHS resulting from Government policies" on an Opposition motion.
Motion on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales).
WEDNESDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on the English revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Until 7 o'clock, motions on the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations and the Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) (Transitional) Regulations.
That will be followed by a debate on the allocation of the 1995–96 science budget on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 1 February at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows: Committee A, EC document No. 8958/94 relating to recording equipment in road transport; Committee B, EC document No. 4075/94, relating to agreement on social policy; EC document No. 6230/94, relating to the establishment of European committees for informing and consulting employees; and EC document No. 9069/94, relating to European social policy.
[Wednesday 1 February:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: 8958/94, relating to recording equipment in road transport. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 48-xxvii (1993–94).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: (a) 4075/94, relating to agreement on social policy; (b) 6230/94, relating to informing and consulting employees (European Works Council); (c) 9069/94, relating to European social policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: (a) HC 48-vii (1993–94) and HC48-xxvi (1993–94); (b) HC 48-xx (1993–94) and HC 48-xxvi (1993–94); (c) HC 48-xxvi (1993–94), HC 70-i (1994–95); and HC 70-iv (1994–95).
Floor of the House—English revenue support grant reports. The relevant reports are as follows:
Local Government Finance Report (England) 1995–96; Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1995–96; Special Grant Report (No. 12).]
In the following week, on Monday 6 February, I hope to set down for Second Reading the Agricultural Tenancies Bill [Lords], and I hope to take a number of orders on either Tuesday or Wednesday. On Thursday 9
476
February, I expect to provide for a debate on the White Paper on the future of the BBC on a motion for the Adjournment.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. Does he realise that there is concern that the House will be debating the English revenue support grant reports on Wednesday, but that the relevant documentation will not be available until Monday, leaving inadequate time for Members to be briefed as fully as they would wish?
Will the Leader of the House consider also an issue of greater concern? Will he look again at the business for Thursday and, in particular, the regulations on incapacity benefit? He will be aware that Ministers have acknowledged that those regulations are inadequate, and therefore defective, in that they do not cover how the new Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act will affect people who have mental health problems. Much concern has been expressed about a move towards enabling legislation generally, and it is difficult for the House to be put in the position of being asked to agree to regulations next Thursday when we know that the regulations will have to be amended and debated again at a later date.
When do the Government intend to find time for a debate on the civil service on the Floor of the House, not least because—as was pointed out during Prime Minister's questions—the Government have today published their response to the Select Committee report and the consultations on the White Paper by means of a written answer? The House would wish to know when there is likely to be a proper debate on that issue.
Finally, instead of the flawed regulations that are down for debate on Thursday, could we have a debate on the cuts in the budget of the Countryside Council for Wales? Those cuts are serious, and there is widespread concern that the Countryside Commission will not be able to meet its obligations under the biodiversity convention or the European habitat and species directive. The concern has now led to speculation that there are about to be elements of privatisation involved in the matter, which could include the privatisation of Snowdonia and the Brecon Beacons.
Mr. Newton: Taking those points in order, I shall certainly look into the point that the hon. Lady raised about the documentation in relation to the revenue support grant orders. I say that without making a commitment to make a change, but obviously if I can accelerate the arrival of the information in any way, I shall be glad to do so. I would not wish to encourage expectation that I could postpone the debate that is planned for Wednesday, but I shall be as helpful as I can in respect of the documentation.
The hon. Lady's second point related to the incapacity for work regulations. I understand that they have been discussed by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but there are problems of the kind to which the hon. Lady alluded. I would not want to make a snap judgment on the action that I shall take, but—I hope that the hon. Lady accepts this as being in good faith—I shall certainly undertake to look into the matter and undertake further consultation through the usual channels should that seem appropriate.

477
I shall bear in mind the hon. Lady's request for a civil service debate. She went on to make a tendentious suggestion for what might take the place of the debate on the incapacity for work regulations should any action be taken in that respect. Even with all the good will that I have tried to put into my first three answers, I do not think that I could promise a debate on a matter which, in my view, she has overstated and, to some extent, mis-stated.
Mr. Stephen Day: Will my right hon. Friend find time to allow the House to debate the rules and regulations governing the consultation procedures between airports and those who live around them? Is he aware that Manchester airport recently had a change in its standard instrument departure route, better known to my constituents as the flight path? That has meant that a number of people now have planes flying over their houses which have not done so in the past. It seems that, under the present consultation procedures, everybody was consulted apart from those who now have planes flying over their houses. Will my right hon. Friend find time to allow a debate on that matter?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can promise to find time to allow the matter to he debated, but I can promise to bring my hon. Friend's point, which was new to me, to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary.
Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West): May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 494, which has now been signed by more than 100 hon. Members?
[That this House notes that 29th January 1995 is the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp; joins in mourning the millions of victims of Nazism who died there and in other such death camps; sends its greetings to the survivors, their relatives and the world leaders who are gathering in Poland to commemorate the liberation; and joins with the Jewish people and all other sufferers from Nazism in its determination to ensure that the memory of the past will be a beacon to the future and that there will never be another Holocaust.]
As tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should allow some time for the House to join in mourning the victims of Nazism who died there—people of all faiths—and to join world leaders, the leaders of Jewish communities and other survivors and sufferers who are gathered in Poland to commemorate that event, to show that we shall not forget the past and ensure that there is no future holocaust?
Mr. Newton: While I am not able to do exactly as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, I hope that the very fact that he raised that matter and enabled me to endorse the feelings that we all have at the time of this anniversary about the events uncovered at that time, will be a mark of the respect that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish to pay to those who suffered in the camps. I think that the whole House will be pleased that Lord
478
Jakobovits, the former Chief Rabbi, is representing the Queen at the official Polish ceremony and the later Jewish ceremony in respect of those events.
Sir Irvine Patnick: May we have an urgent debate in view of the article in The Spectator on 21 January entitled, "This won't wash", which is also known as the McKinstry report, so that the electorate may be made aware of what a Labour Government could, or would, be like?
Mr. Newton: Having read the article with increasing astonishment at the author, but increasing recognition of what was described, I am once more much tempted by a debate and shall certainly keep that thought in mind.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Leader of the House accept that the changes to the Child Support Agency announced by the Secretary of State for Social Security on Monday were welcome, as far as they went? Does he also acknowledge that much uncertainty still exists about the consequences of those changes for families? When does he expect to introduce legislation to give effect to those amendments, and will he assure the House that, when he does so, we shall have an opportunity to consider the Child Support Act in its first principles?
Mr. Newton: There are two points. First, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when the Bill will be introduced, but we shall try to do so as rapidly as possible and work to that end is very much in train, as I well know. A number of illustrative examples of the workings of the proposed new arrangements, in comparison with existing arrangements, were published at the time of the White Paper. I hope that they will have been helpful to many families involved. On the latter part of the question, the scope of the debate will clearly be related to the scope of the Bill and, since I do not have that, I would be very unwise to give the hon. Gentleman any specific undertakings.
Sir Patrick Cormack: May I remind my right hon. Friend that this weekend marks not only the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, but the 1,000th day of the siege of Sarajevo, which shows that evil has not passed from this world? Will he take this opportunity to salute the courage and dignity of the citizens of Sarajevo? May I draw his attention to early-day motion 468, which marks that occasion?
[That this House salutes the citizens of Sarajevo, as they mark 1,000 days of seige, for the courage and dignity with which they have withstood devastations and privations no civilised community should be called upon to bear; expresses its profound regret that none of the institutions of the international community have been able effectively to deter the aggression of those Bosnian Serbs who accept the leadership of Radovan Karadic; believes it is essential that such aggression should not be rewarded and that what the Mayor of Sarajevo has recently referred to as 'the exceptional and unique charms of multiculturalism', of which the city has been such a shining example, are not allowed to perish; and urges Her Majesty's Government to give whatever support it can to ensure that Sarajevo survives as an open and united city and capital of an independent nation.]
May I also draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 450, which deals with the situation in Chechnya?

479
[That this House, whilst recognising that Chechnya has for many years been part of the Russian Federation and that it is entirely acceptable for any legitimate government of a nation state to assert its authority over those who unilaterally seek to declare their independence, nevertheless believes that such action should never include the indiscriminate slaughter of a civilian population and the wanton destruction of their homes; considers that those who take such action should not expect their conduct to go unchallenged; accordingly denounces the action taken by Russian troops in Chechnya as being a gross violation of the standards of behaviour acceptable in a civilised society; contends that those who ordered such action have also violated the principles of the Helsinki agreements and forfeited the moral authority to be accepted as the sole arbiters of the fate of the Chechen people; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to refer recent events in Chechnya to the Security Council of the United Nations and to urge that a code of internationally acceptable conduct for resolving internal disputes within nations, which gives neither encouragement to rebellion nor approval to genocide, be agreed.]
Do not those two events illustrate the need for an early debate on foreign affairs?
Mr. Newton: I join my hon. Friend in his comments about the people of Sarajevo and in his awareness of the situation in Chechnya. Once again, I am not in a position to promise a debate at this moment, but I shall, as ever, bear my hon. Friend's thoughts in mind.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Wednesday's business at 2 o'clock, on the Libyan sanctions and Lockerbie, may I ask the Leader of the House a question of which I have given both his office and the private secretary to the Foreign Secretary notice? Before that debate, can the Government confirm or deny their view of the reports that emanate from the air intelligence unit of the department of the United States air force, to the effect that Ali Akbar Mostahemi, former Iranian Minister of the Interior at the time of the shooting down of the Vincennes and later ambassador to Damascus between 1982 and 1985, paid $10 million in gold and cash with the purpose of boxing—to use the American expression—Pan Am 103?
Mr. Newton: Not for the first time, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question. As he will probably be aware, since I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is answering two questions on this subject this afternoon; and as the hon. Gentleman—I am glad to say—has secured an Adjournment debate next Wednesday to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes personally to reply, the hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not think it appropriate to go into his question this afternoon.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend consider early-day motion 329?
[That this House welcomes the theme marking the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, namely, We, the peoples, united for a better world; appreciates that this hope for a better world can be realised only if the successor generation is involved now; welcomes the Council for Education in World Citizenship's non-partisan work over more than 50 years supporting education for international understanding and
480
responsibility among young people and their teachers; recognises that current proposals to phase out the funding for the Council for Education in World Citizenship would put at risk the continuation of the work of the Council for Education in World Citizenship; and calls on the Government to strengthen its support for the Council for Education in World Citizenship to enable the Council to increase its valuable work through schools and colleges.]
The motion concerns the Council for Education in World Citizenship. Would it be possible to include that subject in a foreign affairs debate; or perhaps to obtain a statement from the Department for Education on whether it can find more funding so that our young people can be made aware of world issues such as Bosnia, the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the concentration camps and other such events, to show that, the world is not always a benign place?
Mr. Newton: I cannot offer further funds for that excellent work, but I certainly hope that it will continue to be well supported. Were there to be a debate on foreign affairs, I would of course bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: May we have a debate as soon as possible on employment conditions, so that we may discuss this week's figures, which reveal that workers in Britain work longer hours than their counterparts in any other country in the European Community? Uniquely in the Community, British working hours have been increasing over the past decade. The Government's policy is to have huge numbers of people unemployed at the same time as making those in jobs work ever longer hours. Does not that suggest a Government of unique economic incompetence?
Mr. Newton: That is one of the silliest questions I have heard for some time. I have not yet seen the report, but I understand that much of the increase in hours is due to increased overtime being worked. Those gaining from the overtime may not welcome the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. If the statistics that he cites prove anything, they show why we have one of the most successful economies in Europe.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on the spending policies of the Labour-Liberal-controlled Kent county council, which has brought the county to financial ruin and anarchy? Will he also take steps to point out to the Secretary of State for Education the fact that the Kent chief education officer is behaving more like a politician than a responsible public servant?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's remarks seem to tie in remarkably well with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) about the need for a debate on a recent article in The Spectator. Should it prove possible to stage such a debate, it is clear that my hon. Friend could make a fruitful contribution to it.
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Will the Leader of the House give us a debate, or at least arrange for a statement from the relevant Minister, on the severe weather conditions of the past 24 hours in the north of England, particularly in West Yorkshire? Tragically, there have been about six deaths, and 5,000 people have been stranded on the M62. What action do the Government

481
intend to take to support the local authorities and other organisations that will need to spend money following those tragic events? There is sometimes a feeling in the north that, just because it is the north, it does not get the attention that it deserves.
Mr. Newton: On the last point—whether or not that is believed—I would resist any such suggestion. On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, every hon. Member, whether he is from the south, the north or any other part of the country, and on both sides of the House, would wish to express sympathy at the situation faced by so many people in the area to which he referred. I shall, of course, bring his request that the matter be considered to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week on early-day motion 403?
[That this House, whilst appreciating the appeal of hormone replacement therapy to many women, strongly urges the Canadian Government not to enforce a humane code on the country's 485 pregnant mares' urine business farms which produce materials for use in HRT by cruel methods and then to eliminate these farms altogether in favour of the production of synthetically produced hormones, thus obviating unnecessary suffering by horses as well as meeting demands for this drug.]
The motion draws the attention of the House to the brutal way in which hormone replacement therapy materials are obtained from mares in Canada—
Mr. Nigel Evans: Where is Teresa?
Mr. Greenway: I know that HRT benefits some people—they think so, anyhow.
As HRT can be obtained more efficiently by synthesis, may we debate that early-day motion, with a view to seeking to influence the Canadian Government?
Mr. Newton: That, perhaps, is a subject that my hon. Friend might wish to bear in mind for the productive area of our new Wednesday morning debates. I do not think that I can provide time for a debate, but I welcome the fact that the Canadian Government have recently revised the code governing the treatment of those horses, and that all farms currently satisfy relevant guidelines. I very much hope that that is the case.
Ms Jean Corston: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate or—at the very least—a statement on the rules of procedure governing the placing of advertisements by or on behalf of Ministers? I refer particularly to an advertisement in yesterday's edition of The Guardian, headed
"Ending discrimination against disabled people",
which is described as being issued on behalf of the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. It was the day after the Disability Discrimination Bill received its Second Reading and before the House had formally submitted the Bill to scrutiny in Standing Committee for consideration or amendment. Surely the Government
482
spend a small fortune as it is on news manipulation, news management and public relations. How can such expenditure possibly be justified?
Mr. Newton: I have not seen the advertisement and will bring the hon. Lady's comments to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend any plans to allow time for a debate on possible changes to the quarantine regulations? Is he aware that the Select Committee on Agriculture produced a lengthy report with certain recommendations, and that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rejected those recommendations? In view of the fact that there is wide interest in the subject, is not it appropriate that the House should debate the recommendations rather than leave it at that?
Mr. Newton: I saw the Select Committee's response, and my right hon. Friend made it clear that he shared many of its concerns, especially its determination to maintain effective safeguards, for example, against rabies. I cannot immediately promise a debate, but will bear my hon. Friend's request in mind.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that, in the past few months, quite a number of contracts have been handed out by British Coal to various firms, under the privatisation of the coal industry? Will he arrange for a statement to be made by a Minister next week in view of the fact that there is a lot of consternation about the contract that has been handed out to Mr. R.J. Budge—a contract that was reduced by £100 million after the initial bid made? It is based on a very shaky financial base and many people are worried about whether that contract can be sustained in an industry that can be beset by geological difficulties, as well as anything else. Can a statement be made about the financial problem that might well arise in the coal industry because of that contract?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a statement, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will examine the hon. Gentleman's remarks with care.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that quite a number of Conservative Members would appreciate an early debate on the civil service, particularly as we now learn that a written answer is to be published in Hansard later today, outlining some of the Government's response to the recent Select Committee report? As I served on that Select Committee and heard all the evidence, I wonder whether he is aware that some of us believe that there are strong grounds already for a fully fledged new civil service code with statutory backing. Will he consider that carefully before such a debate?
Mr. Newton: Having now had requests for a debate from both sides of the House, I shall consider them with even greater care.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Will the Leader of the House find time in the near future for a debate on student financial support? Is he aware that Durham university in my constituency is regarded as one of the most affluent universities in Britain, yet many

483
students there face great difficulties, particularly mature students who had their grants stopped under the recent Budget announcement? Such a debate is important so that the House can express its feelings towards those students, many of whom are now troubled by the fact that they may not be able to continue their courses at the university. In addition, the prospect of financial difficulties may stop youngsters going into higher education.
Mr. Newton: I should preface my remarks by saying that, despite somewhat similar suggestions over quite a long period now, there has, nevertheless, continued to be a large increase in the numbers going into higher and further education, something that we all welcome. However, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend find time at an early date for one of the traditional annual single-service days in order to give right hon. and hon. Members an opportunity to debate the merits of locating the Army Chaplain school at Royal Air Force Amport house alongside the Naval Chaplain school, which is co-located with the Royal Air Force at Amport house, to their mutual advantage?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's representations on a particular point that might be covered in such a debate. More generally, of course I shall be looking at an appropriate time for the debate that my hon. Friend has in mind, but I cannot make any precise predictions about the date at the moment.
Mr. Max Madden: As we recall the horrors of the holocaust, will the Leader of the House provide Government time so that we can debate the menace of today's Nazis? Such a debate would enable us to draw the attention of the Attorney-General to the activities of organisations such as Combat 18 and the British National party, which are indivisible and are publishing stickers in West Yorkshire and elsewhere saying:
"National socialism lives on! Combat 18."
They are publishing a post office box number for the British National party on a sticker calling for "Rights for whites". That would enable the Attorney-General to instruct the police forces to take urgent action against those organisations and, at the very least, to close down box numbers that are being used to promote racial hatred throughout Britain.
Mr. Newton: I share the hon. Gentleman's distaste for the material that he has brought to our attention and the comments that he reports as having been made in it. But I take his question really to be a request that the Attorney-General should look at his suggestion and I shall ensure that that is done.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I read an article this morning in the Daily Mail concerning Alastair Campbell, the Labour party's media guru, in which it was said that he thought that the report from the independent schools unit, which inspected his children's school, was useful. I remember that the Opposition fought strenuously against the establishment of that organisation. Therefore, would it not be useful for us to have an early debate on education, so that we can discuss the sort of. information which we are now giving to parents and which we shall
484
give to parents in the future, and so that they can make proper judgments about the sort of education that their children are receiving?
Mr. Newton: It is increasingly clear that such a debate would be useful, if only to demonstrate that so many members of the Labour Front-Bench team and prominent persons connected with them find our education policies so useful.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), may we have an early statement by the Lord Advocate to the Scottish Grand Committee, bearing in mind the fact that hon. Members have had no opportunity to question any Lord Advocate during the entire 16 years of this Tory Government, and the pressing need for the present Lord Advocate to explain any Crown Office involvement in the scandalous cover-up of information relating to those responsible for the Lockerbie bombing?
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, he has secured an Adjournment debate on the matter, which will take place on Wednesday. Perhaps the appropriate course is to wait and see what is said in that debate.
Mr. John Sykes: In view of the extraordinary behaviour of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) this afternoon, I wonder whether—
Madam Speaker: Order. When an action has been taken in the House, it is totally forgotten and is water under the bridge. I do not want to hear it referred to again.
Mr. Sykes: I am grateful to you for explaining that, Madam Speaker. In that case, may we have a debate on parliamentary privilege so that we can discuss the fact that many Opposition Members who have legitimate business interests are frightened of registering them in the Register of Members' Interests because of the Labour party Gestapo? That suggests to me that there are many abuses of privilege, and that they are not all located on the Conservative Benches.
Mr. Newton: I hesitate to try to arrange such a debate now, not least because, as Chairman of the current Privileges Committee, I might find it somewhat difficult to take part in it. No doubt my hon. Friend's remarks will be noted by the Opposition Front Bench and other Opposition Members.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision relating to the regulations on incapacity for work, which are to be debated next week? The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments examined the regulations and found that the information in them was correct; the information in amending measures may also be correct, but the Committee thinks it unhelpful to those who must read such regulations if a series of amendments is made and all the information cannot be read together.
Would it not be much better for the House, and certainly for the general public, if the material were replaced by a version containing all the necessary

485
information, rather than our having two versions, which—although correct in themselves—could well mislead the general public?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman referred to my "decision", but I believe that what I said to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—I suspect that she would agree—was that I undertook to consider the points that she raised. I shall also consider the hon. Gentleman's elaboration of those points.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confer with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, with a view to the Government's withdrawing the regulations governing the transition from invalidity to incapacity benefit and substituting a new set of regulations that would treat at least some of those who will lose as a result of the current plans more favourably? I refer particularly to those over the age of 55.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has progressed from what might be called the technicalities and procedural difficulties on which the previous two questions focused, and asks me to undertake a revision of policy as well. That goes rather further than I am able to go.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: May we have a debate, or at least a statement, enabling the House to consider the parameters of discretion being exercised by the Secretary of State for the Environment in his dealings with audits of local authorities?
The Leader of the House will know that the Secretary of State has so far refused to order an extraordinary audit of Westminster city council, although such an audit was ordered for both Lambeth and Liverpool. The auditor in Westminster is now finding that the continuing allegations are banking up and need to be dealt with; but they cannot be dealt with without the necessary mechanism. That is destroying Westminster city council's ability to clean out the stables and get on with its business, and it is damaging the reputation of local government throughout the land.
Mr. Newton: I understand that the proceedings in the wake of last year's controversies involving Westminster are still continuing. I think that it would be appropriate for us to see how those proceedings turn out before taking the action suggested by the hon. Gentleman; but I shall of course ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment knows of his representations.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Could we have a debate next week on the central administration of local education authorities and the need for those administrations to reduce their spending in line with the money that grant-maintained schools take with them to local decision making? During that debate, we could raise the case of Kent, where parents have voted overwhelmingly for 88 schools to become grant-maintained. However, Kent county council, which is run by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, has failed proportionately to reduce its spending on central administration. Despite a 2 per cent. increase in Government grant to Kent county council, that has led for the first time to school budgets being cut by 1 per cent.
Mr. Newton: If my hon. Friend is asking for a debate, it occurs to me that the points that he made, which link
486
to those made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) appear, subject to your ruling, Madam Speaker, to be fairly directly relevant to Wednesday's debate.
Mr. John Heppell: I understand that the Government are at present compiling a short list of applications for the European Union urban fund, and that they plan to exclude from the list any city with objective 2 status. As that would have considerable implications for my constituency, which has the highest unemployment in the east midlands, and for the city of Nottingham, which has failed in its bid for single regeneration budget money, could we have a debate next week or at least at some time before the short list of applications is finalised?
Mr. Newton: I shall bring those points to the attention of my right hon. Friends who are responsible for those matters.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: May I again ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the takeover bid involving Northern Electric, in respect of the possible insider dealing that goes on at the moment, and on the Swiss banking company that is now buying shares in Yorkshire Electricity? There seems to be something really funny going on. Let us have a debate and have the matter out in the open.
Mr. Newton: We have another set of suggestions on which I plainly cannot comment, but which I am sure will be studied by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Could there be a statement next week about the escape of a prisoner, James Moore, from Everthorpe prison? I understand that his escape was noticed only when his wife rang up to ask for him. He was otherwise engaged: he was certainly not tied up.
Mr. Newton: I am left in some difficulty in finding a suitable answer to that. I do not think that I can match the hon. Gentleman's question and shall have to fall back on the fact that, as he well knows, there are a number of inquiries going on into recent events in various prisons.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Is it possible to have a debate or at least a statement on the revelations following the Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme last night about sewage discharges into our environment and especially into our seas? It was revealed that in certain samples viral content was 2,000 times higher than the present safety level. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the issue is urgent, particularly for coastal areas that depend not just on fishing for shellfish but on tourism? There is obviously a failure by the privatised water companies to tackle that serious problem.
Mr. Newton: I did not see the programme, but I suspect that, as on other occasions and not particularly with regard to the hon. Gentleman, the last part of his question is a gross over-simplification. Those problems have certainly not arisen since privatisation. Some of the problems that sometimes cause difficulty in the House

487
arise from high expenditure in seeking to tackle such problems. The hon. Gentleman certainly need not doubt the Government's determination to tackle them.
Mr. James Clappison: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on early-day motion 473, on the politics of gender?
[That this House agrees with the Archdeacon of York that 'Political correctness is verbal fascism and when it is applied to matters religious it is as much destructive of the values and ideas of the faith as it is of the sensitivities of the believer'; regrets that feminists have never understood that 'Man' comes directly from the Latin `manus', meaning hand, indicating that man is the only species that can manipulate or manufacture, and that Man means in effect an animal that can use its hands and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contemporary and contrived politics of gender.]
Such a debate would give the House an opportunity to examine Opposition proposals for a devolved Scottish Parliament that would contain 50 per cent. women. We could also examine how that could be arranged and whether it is intended that it should also apply to the proposed English regional assemblies. Could my right hon. Friend consider timing the debate to coincide with commemorating the 20th anniversary of the election of a woman as leader of a political party in this country, so as to recognise that only the Conservative party has had a woman leader? In view of last year's events in the Labour party, it seems that this is the only party in which it is possible for a woman to rise to the top.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend welded together a number of interesting, ingenious and attractive suggestions for debate. Perhaps they might be linked with an earlier request for a debate arising from the article in The Spectator. Of course I shall bear that very much in mind.
Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible for a statement to be made early next week on the way in which Ministers leave the Cabinet and, after a very short period, go into the private sector—often joining companies such as Rothschild, which was involved in a privatisation that was the responsibility of a Department of which the ex-Minister was head at the time?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that what has happened recently just reinforces the belief in the country about sleaze and how ex-Tory Ministers do very well when they leave Cabinet? A statement is absolutely necessary—indeed, many of us would like legislation to deal with that issue.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman makes the sort of point that I must simply accept has become familiar from him. He will not for a moment expect me to accept the thrust of what he said. The Government have set up a wide-ranging commission—Lord Nolan's committee—to which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) gave evidence yesterday. I am content to leave that committee to examine those matters.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Leader of the House may recall that, in the recent debate on selection, I drew attention to the fact that the Government hold 321 of the 651 seats in the House, yet they command 10 of the 18 votes that we possess in the Council of Europe. Does the right hon. Gentleman continue to regard that as
488
fair? What steps will he take to ensure that not only the British delegation but our colleagues from other countries recognise that Britain acts in a responsible manner in apportioning seats on that deputation and others?
Mr. Newton: When the hon. Gentleman raised the matter before, I told him that I would bring it to the attention of those responsible for making the relevant appointments. I shall check up on the position and get in touch with him.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) in urging my right hon. Friend to arrange a debate on education? The large amount of education legislation that we have taken through the House has always been vigorously opposed by the Opposition. I, for one, am glad to note that it is now part of Labour party policy. If we were to have a debate, perhaps Labour Members would go just that one step further and welcome grant-maintained schools.
Mr. Newton: I have already referred to that matter. I do not think I can add anything else, other than to say that with every point made, such a debate becomes an increasingly attractive prospect.
Mr. Harry Barnes: There are currently two Bills before the House dealing with discrimination against disabled people. It is generally known that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will apply to 6.5 million people—one in every 10. May we have a statement on how wide the application of the Government's Bill will be, as we were not told that during its Second Reading? Will it apply to one in 10, one in 100, one in 1,000 or one in a million—if that person happens to be lucky?
Is not the advertisement referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) misleading in its claim that the Government's Bill applies to education, when almost no local education authority could operate such a measure? We should be told of the numbers of people in education to whom the Bill will apply. My Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would apply to everyone in education.
Mr. Newton: The Government's Bill was debated extensively on Tuesday. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman spoke extensively in that debate. I see no reason to doubt that the proposals in the Bill, which cover a wide range of services and facilities for disabled people, will benefit large numbers of people. I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for the Bill, and who are sitting on the Front Bench at the moment, will have heard and heeded the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Foreign Secretary, to ask whether we could have an early statement on the serious situation that is arising in former Yugoslavia, as a result of the statement by the Croatian President Tudjman that he wishes the United Nations forces to leave Croatian territory by the end of March? Will not that cause a serious crisis, which, potentially, could lead to a conflagration between the Serbs and the Croats over Krajina? Is not that a serious problem? Will the

489
Government make it clear at the earliest opportunity that we are doing all we can to stop such a withdrawal of UN forces?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noted that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be here to answer questions on Wednesday next, and that may give him an opportunity to raise those points.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Given the point of order that I raised on Tuesday after Prime Minister's questions, the subsequent letter to the Prime Minister seeking clarification of his remarks, and his comment this afternoon that he wants the highest standards in public life, will a statement be made to correct the misrepresentations about my children that were made in the House by the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions last Tuesday?
Mr. Newton: That is not a matter on which I can add anything, but, of course, I take note that the hon. Gentleman has raised it again.

Points of Order
4.15 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have informed the hon. Member concerned—the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes)—about this point of order. During business questions, the hon. Gentleman made direct and serious allegations that Labour Members had financial interests that did not appear in the Register of Members' Interests. Will you invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw those remarks? If he is not willing to withdraw them and to apologise to Labour Members, will you instruct him to report any evidence that he has to the Registrar of Members' Interests?
Madam Speaker: I tend to treat such remarks with the disdain that they richly deserve, but if the hon. Lady will leave the matter with me, I shall take up her point.
Mr. Elliot Morley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Agriculture questions, you will have heard the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food complain that I had not notified him when I raised a point of order with you last: Thursday. I have listened on a number of occasions when you have made it clear to the House that, when hon. Members are referred to in debate or in points of order, they should be notified in advance. On that particular occasion, the hon. Member whom I referred to was the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). I rang up that hon. Member and informed him that I would refer to him. I have written to the Editor of Hansard to point out that mistake, but I hope that you will accept my explanation to you.
Madam Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. When hon. Members make speeches or comments in the House, it is incumbent upon them to go to the Hansard office afterwards just to check what they have said. Indeed, the Editor of Hansard normally invites hon. Members to do that. That should be an established practice so that any errors can be corrected. It is no good making complaints in exchanges across the Floor of the House unless hon. Members have been to the Hansard office to ensure that corrections have been made.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you reflect on the way in which you decide to call hon. Members during Agriculture questions? When we have Scottish questions, you often use your discretion and do not call one hon. Member on one side of the Chamber, then another on the other side. Sometimes in Agriculture questions, not enough Labour Members stand, and you then tend to move on. Bearing in mind the fact that sometimes Conservative Members are standing at those times, will you perhaps consider the way in which you call hon. Members in Agriculture questions, so that you might follow the precedent that you have already set in Scottish questions?
Madam Speaker: Of course, I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has asked me to do, but I have total discretion, as I know that he appreciates. I must also take into account whether a question has been explored sufficiently. That is also uppermost in my mind, to ensure that we do not go on with one question simply because

491
hon. Members are keen, frustration is showing on their faces, and they think that they should be called to put a supplementary question. I must keep it in mind whether a question has been explored and debated sufficiently across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were clearly twice placed in considerable difficulty during Prime Minister's questions. I think that that situation arose in part because of the difficulty that hon. Members have in asking specific questions of the Prime Minister due to his narrow responsibilities and the danger of his transferring questions. Nevertheless, I wonder whether you might invite the Procedure Committee, I presume, to consider ways in which hon. Members could successfully table questions of a closed nature to the Prime Minister and thus, we would hope, avoid some of the difficulties that arise from the numerous open questions. Would you reflect on that and perhaps ask the advice of the appropriate Committee, which could investigate ways to enable us to put more specific questions to him in the hope that we would receive more specific answers, which might also help the general order of the House?
Madam Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sympathy for the difficulties that I sometimes have, but it is my understanding that the Procedure Committee is already considering the matter. However, I shall pursue it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you are prepared to comment on the incident that occurred between you and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He referred to the view held by some people that Lord Archer was involved with criminal activities. In view of the fact that the Nolan committee
492
has been set up to examine, among other things, the idea held by some people out there that some Members of Parliament are involved in such activities and taking money for various causes when they should not be doing so, why, when my hon. Friend refers to someone in another place, is he pulled up? He is merely voicing the views expressed by people outside about some Members of this House and some in another place. I do not know why people are so sensitive—the Nolan committee has been set up to examine those very views.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The House entrusted me with its Standing Orders and the precedents that I have to follow. I refer him, and the House for that matter, to page 379 of "Erskine May", which states:
"Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms .… reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of … Members of either House of Parliament".
I was entrusted to carry out the procedures, which is why I had to take the action that I took. I try to give hon. Members a bit of a cooling-off period and time to reflect, but the bottom line is that I have then to carry out the procedures entrusted to me by the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  WELFARE OF CALVES (EXPORT)
  Mr. Chris Mullin, supported by Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Sir Andrew Bowden, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Nigel Jones, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Harry Greenway and Mr. Austin Mitchell, presented a Bill to prohibit the export of calves where, after such export, they are to be kept in conditions which would be unlawful in Great Britain: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 February, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

Opposition Day
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
[1ST PART]

Mortgage Interest Relief
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
4.22 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the proposed withdrawal of help with mortgage interest payments during the first nine months on income support for any applicant obtaining a mortgage after 1st October 1995 and the reduction in such assistance for existing borrowers who in future are forced to apply for state help; and, recognising that these changes will result in a very significant additional cost for home owners, lead to repossessions which are already running at an unacceptably high level and further depress the housing market, calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw these proposals, which will cause real difficulties for both lenders and borrowers.
As its title makes clear, the motion deals with the support given to people drawing income support and with help with mortgage interest payments. It might seem a rather technical and obscure matter to do with the fine print. Indeed, it is ultimately likely to result in regulations that will be passed in a quiet corner of the Committee Corridor at the fag end of a parliamentary day. That should not happen, and we are determined that it will not, because the proposals raise significant issues.
Mortgage interest support is no small issue in itself. Of course, it has increased greatly in recent years, and that was one of the foundations on which the Secretary of State for Social Security made his case for change.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman says that it has increased substantially. Would he care to inform the House that it has increased from £31 million to £1.1 billion?
Mr. Dewar: I regret having given way because I was about to deal with that very point. This time, the hon. Lady is correct. Mortgage interest support has risen from, as the hon. Lady says, £31 million in 1979 to just over £1 billion in current terms. It involves about 550,000 claimants. I will not give way to the hon. Lady again in case she stands up to say that it involves 548,000 people. I offer her that gratuitous fact, which she can dream about tonight.
The anger and the drive in the Department appears to be based on that rise in support. The increase has largely been in the latter part of the period and it is of course, as everyone in the House recognises, almost entirely the result of two factors. One reason is the recession—the Government are not in a very good position to complain about the management of the recession—and the second reason is the very large increase in owner-occupation.
The Secretary of State managed to sound as though he was complaining about the latter factor. In the Department of Social Security press release, which announced the change, he said:
"In recent years the pattern of owner occupation has changed out of all recognition",
494
as though that were something to deplore. In fact, the Government, quite rightly, have been encouraging people to buy their own homes when it makes sense for them and they are in a position to do so. I certainly make no complaint about the fact that there are more owner-occupiers. I take from it the logic that that increase will put greater pressure on the scheme that we are discussing.
My worry is that the changes being brought forward are likely to introduce an element of instability which will be quite serious to many people in the country. I do not want to insult the House by running over the proposals in any detail, but in the briefest possible way, I remind hon. Members that if a person takes out a new mortgage after 1 October 1995 and—unfortunately—has to apply for help, he will find that he is in a help-free zone for nine months.
Existing borrowers who have to apply in future for help with mortgage interest will get no help for two months and 50 per cent. for four months, compared with the present limitation of, simply, 16 weeks at 50 per cent. There is the comparatively minor matter, with which I have no objection, that the cap on mortgages is being reduced for this purpose from £125,000 to £100,000.
The impact of the changes will be considerable. Existing borrowers will find that if they were to move on to income support and apply for help, they would be losing through this disqualification the equivalent of two months' support, or for someone on an average mortgage, about £350. For new mortgages, the nine-month freeze would be worth about £1,250. Those amounts are not academic but substantial sums that will be sadly missed, especially by people who are in a marginal situation and who are struggling to maintain their position as home owners.
Problems will be created. To be fair—I make no bones about it—the Government have offered a solution. That solution is that the private insurance market will be able to cover the gap and offer the service. The thrust of that and the most significant difficulty with it is that if the scheme is as comprehensive as, I understand, the right hon. Gentleman wishes it to be, it will place a significant burden on almost every home owner in the country.
Insurance is a commercial business and, as the Government have conceded, it costs about £7 to cover every £100 of mortgage payments currently. Realistically, it looks like adding another £200 or £300 a year to the cost of maintaining one's house.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman indicated dissent.
Mr. Dewar: Those figures will be little consolation to the hon. Lady who is shaking her head so decisively.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar: No, I am sorry.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Mr. Dewar: May I—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is no good referring to me and not giving way.
Mr. Dewar: I am not giving way to the hon. Lady.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Oh come on.
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Lady is turning a delightful colour of brick red, but even that will not tempt me to give way.

495
The changes will be—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman must give way.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dewar: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?
Mr. Dewar indicated dissent.
Madam Speaker: Then I and the hon. Gentleman must remain firm.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman should give way. He has referred to me.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give way a little later.
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Lady complains that I am drawing attention to her, but she is doing a very good job at drawing attention to herself. I suspect that it is doing her no good at all.
Anyway, at £7 per £100, I do not think that there is—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not pursue the point. She knows our procedures very well. Perhaps if she leaves her point until a little later, the hon. Gentleman may give way then.
Mr. Dewar: I am very grateful to you, Madam Speaker.
Realistically, it looks like an extra £200 or £300 a year on the cost of home ownership. It will be little consolation to know that there is a small addition to that, which I mention only in passing, of the new 2.5 per cent. insurance tax which will apply to such premiums.
We must consider whether that burden will be shouldered cheerfully. The issue must be seen in context. Not only do home owners face the prospect of the additional insurance costs if they take the Secretary of State's advice, but, from April, their MIRAS—mortgage income relief at source—will be reduced to 15p. The Council of Mortgage Lenders, whose arithmetic is probably better than mine, reckons that someone with an average mortgage will see the cost of home ownership rise by just over 10 per cent.
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): If the hon. Gentleman is criticising the reduction in mortgage interest relief at source introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he also criticise the Opposition housing spokesman, who proposes the abolition of mortgage interest relief, as I will happily demonstrate in my speech?
Mr. Dewar: In that case, it might have been useful if the Secretary of State had waited to make his point in his speech. If we are talking about MIRAS—as apparently we are—when the Secretary of State replies, will he explain what he thought of the manifesto promise that MIRAS would be maintained at present levels when it has
496
now been reduced twice by the Government, and is now at 15 per cent? That does not seem to be a ground on which the Secretary of State should choose to do battle.
No doubt the defence will be that individuals can make their own choice and some will opt out from the additional burden. We must ask whether the proposal can be comprehensive. I will deal with that point reasonably briefly. Many groups of people are unlikely to be covered by the private insurance market. For the evidence for that, I rely on the briefing that was sent to hon. Members by the Association of British Insurers which, naturally, wants to sell insurance. That is the point of its activities. It will be extremely difficult to offer cover to many important groups.
For example, pensioners are not in the frame. Some categories, notably the retired, who are claiming income support because of a permanent shortfall—
Mr. Lilley: Lest the hon. Gentleman inadvertently misleads the House, may I state that the proposals do not apply to pensioners?
Mr. Dewar: I was about to come to that point. I read the documents that the Government issue and I want to obtain more information. The people to whom I have referred cannot be covered by insurance. Therefore, they must be covered by some form of exemption. The phrase used is that they will be "protected". However, it is clear from the Government amendment that pensioners on income support
"will continue to have their mortgage interest paid".
The Secretary of State has given this matter much thought—as was clear from the speed with which he approached the Dispatch Box—so perhaps he will explain on what basis that will be paid. Will it be paid at the standard rate? Will there be a restriction in the first 16 weeks, as previously, or will all the mortgage interest be paid? It would be extremely helpful if the Secretary of State could clarify those points.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Three and a half minutes ago, the hon. Gentleman assumed that insurance premiums would remain the same even though many more people would take them out. According to the normal principle of insurance, the wider the coverage, the more likely it is that premiums will fall.
Mr. Dewar: I agree with the hon. Lady and that no doubt is the hope. However, the hon. Lady will recall that things can go up as well as down. Between 1991 and 1993, premiums in the sector about which we are concerned increased by 43 per cent. and a large number of insurance companies made very substantial losses and withdrew from such business. If the proposal is to be the substantial foundation on which the Government are relying, it seems to be a very high risk strategy.
As I do not have time to deal with those groups in detail, I shall simply say that there will be great difficulties for the self-employed. I am told that most private insurance companies will cover the self-employed. However, they will pay only if they are satisfied that the self-employed have ceased to trade. The terms are usually that a business must be wound up or, in some cases, that the self-employed are in voluntary liquidation or are bankrupt. That does not seem to be a happy situation.
The disabled can be covered too, but not, of course, for any claim that arises out of their disability or an existing illness. Even for those who will be covered, there will be

497
bad news and good news. The good news, according to the Association of British Insurers, is that one's premium is likely to be calculated to reflect the increased risk. In other words, they will be paying above the average. The bad news is that that degree of sophistication is probably still a year or two away, so that in the interim there will probably be no cover for them at all.
There are also single parents, who comprise about 20 per cent. of the claimants' group. They, I am told, will be all right. The Association of British Insurers says to me that we do not need to worry; most of them will not qualify for a mortgage, so they will not need mortgage interest support. Even those who have mortgages and whose marriages break up will get the support that they require from their former partners—ha, ha—or from the work of the Child Support Agency, we are told. [Laughter.] Definitely, there is cause for some laughter at that point.
For new single parents, the results of an immediate and unexpected divorce, there is unlikely to be any cover at all. They do not fall within the remit of the industry. If they did obtain cover or if they had cover, they would almost certainly not receive payment for 12 months, according to the Association of British Insurers, because it would not pay out because of the danger of fraud until decree nisi had passed. By that time they would have had the equivalent, anyway, of the nine-month period without any help and would be in grave danger.
It will not be easy to obtain comprehensive cover of the kind that the Secretary of State has suggested. I certainly recognise, as he does—it is a point that I have made about single parents—that most private contracts allow for 60 or 90 days without any payment or support in any event, so we are left with private insurance cover not covering the gap that the Secretary of State is creating, although insurance cover was supposed to be the answer to that gap. That must be very unsatisfactory.
A large number of people will not take out cover and may find themselves unexpectedly at risk. Fewer than 5 per cent. of existing mortgage holders have such insurance cover. It has gone up substantially recently, but again, to quote the Association of British Insurers, even if the advantages of this kind of insurance are pointed out—we know what that means—by the lender, then the "penetration rate"—a somewhat sinister phrase—
"can be as high as 35 per cent."
That does not sound like comprehensive cover by any reasonable definition.
Repossessions are dropping. That gives me great pleasure, and I hope that they continue to drop, but the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Building Societies Association and the people who are in the business of lending will say that they are convinced that one result of the changes, if they are brought into force, is that there will be more repossessions than there should have been and that even if, as I hope, there is a continuing drop, it will be very much smaller than it otherwise could have been. The Secretary of State should take that point into account.
I ask the Secretary of State to deal with the 1991 agreement between the Department of Social Security and the Council of Mortgage Lenders. In it, direct payment was agreed and, in return for direct payment, it was said there would be no repossessions. It is very important that that holds good and continues.
498
I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the CML news update, issue No. 4, which has just come out and with which I am sure he will be familiar. Its second and most important conclusion is:
"it is difficult to see how the December 1991 agreement between lenders and the Government can now survive."
If that is true and if that fear turns out to be justified, that would be an extremely serious matter. One of the difficulties that worries the trade and me, although there have been some reassuring words, is how the new standard rate will affect people who have been prudent and have taken out a fixed-interest mortgage and who may find that there is a continuing gap on a permanent basis, when they are in receipt of support, between what has been paid on their behalf and their obligation and indebtedness to the lender.
I shall be very quick because I recognise the strictures of time in this short debate, but let me turn to the justifications, as I understand them, for the changes. One is that it is appropriate, proper and meet that those who own their own homes should stand on their own two feet. That is an attractive idea, and I understand that it may appeal to some members of the Conservative party, but I cannot understand the logic behind it.
If we assume—I believe that we are right to do so—that people on income support in rented property deserve to have their rent paid because of their financial difficulties and the situation in which they find themselves, why should people in exactly the same financial situation, who qualify for and receive income support, get no help whatever simply because they have bought their own homes?
There seems to be something of a turnabout in historic terms, because I am now defending home owners. I do not see why they should be discriminated against, and that is exactly what is happening. There will be help with rent for people on income support but no help with mortgage interest payments. Of course there should be no repayment of capital, because that would be preserving and enhancing a capital asset, but what is the logic behind the discrimination against home owners?
Mr. Julian Brazier: Surely there is a considerable difference in circumstances between the two cases. People who buy their own houses not only take on a considerable responsibility, and should understand that that is what they are doing, but in the vast majority of cases, despite the fact that there is some negative equity now, will enjoy a capital gain in the long term.
Mr. Dewar: In view of the history of recent years that sounds like an argument about fool's gold.
There was once a time when a home owner would live in the stockbroker belt in a Tudor villa, but now many of my home owners live in former council houses; many have had to struggle, and are marginal home owners in every sense. I have not time to embroider the argument, but I feel strongly that the proposal is discriminatory and cannot be justified.
Mr. Frank Field: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Dewar: I shall give way for the last time.
Mr. Field: Is not the proposal so surprising that one must ask oneself what the next move may be? As the

499
people on the Treasury Bench are supposed to be so fully committed to owner-occupation, this should be the last thing that they would suggest. They could justify it to their supporters only if they answered my hon. Friend's question by describing it as a first move towards further reform. The next move could be to expect people to cover their rent through some form of insurance in case they become unemployed.
Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend has been here too long and has been watching the Government for too long, as we all have. I understand his point, but I hope that it is neither valid nor justified.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar: I must press on.
Mr. Jenkin rose—
Mr. Dewar: I am giving way for literally the last time.
Mr. Jenkin: In view of the hon. Gentleman's unhappiness about the apparent inconsistency between the treatment of rents and that of mortgage interest, is he undertaking that it would be a Labour Government's policy to harmonise those arrangements? Does he undertake not only to reverse the present situation but to go further? How much would that cost?
Mr. Dewar: At the moment I am arguing that discriminatory treatment should not be introduced and that we should oppose it. I genuinely hope—I am not being sarcastic—that as the hon. Gentleman has some experience in the subject, he will join me.
As I understand it, the second reason for introducing the measure is the idea that the insurance market can offer more comprehensive cover. For example, if people have savings of more than £8,000 they do not get income support, and if someone loses his job and the family income is cut by two thirds but his wife still works, the family may not qualify for income support. The idea is that for the £200 or £300 a year spent on the premium people will have a security and stability that would not otherwise be available.
I have been trying to tell the Secretary of State that I do not believe that such comprehensive cover will be achieved. Many of the vulnerable people will not buy cover and will end up in the vale of tears; there may be a considerable on-cost to public funds in the end. It may be right to be prudent, but prudence is not compulsory; it is an addition and an alternative to the safety net of the mortgage interest protection organised by the DSS.
There is another argument of great importance, on which I make no apology for quoting the Council of Mortgage Lenders again. The council first says that there has been a drive to encourage home ownership for people on more modest incomes—I approve of that. It adds:
"First, the Government remains committed to assisting people to enter owner-occupation—the Housing Corporation is being instructed to give an increasing proportion of its budget to low-cost home-ownership initiatives which supposedly enable marginal groups to enter owner-occupation."
The council then argues trenchantly and forcefully that the Government's proposals run counter to that aim, because they will have two effects. First, they will put at risk many people in that economic situation—the low-bottom tranche of home ownership, which many
500
people have been artificially stimulated into entering. Secondly, according to the council, the proposals may frighten out many people in the commercial world who might otherwise have invested in such enterprises.
The council argues that the proposals are therefore incompatible with the general thrust of Government policy—a thrust with which, unusually, I sympathise. I do not believe that home ownership should be the privilege of the well-off. The policy causes an unpleasant clash of principles within the Government's scheme of priorities, and I ask the Minister to think again.
I shall finish—or almost finish—by giving the final reason for the proposals: the Government hope to save money. I shall ask the Minister to say a word or two about that. The DSS press release mentions £200 million in the long term—an interesting figure. We know that the minor adjustment in the cap on mortgages—the limitation to £1,000—will save only £1 million between October, when it is introduced, and the following April. From that April to the following October the savings will again be only £1 million. That may surprise hon. Members, because that measure sounds quite important. As the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said—I do not want to draw attention to her in case she rises in her wrath—we are spending £1 billion. Yet the saving is only £1 million.
Let us take a more important figure—the estimated saving from new mortgage holders after 1 October. Those are the people who will find that they lose nine months' support. What will that save? I received a parliamentary answer to that question, and I can hardly believe it. Assuming that one includes all the people involved, the annual saving will be £18 million. What is £18 million compared with the cost of the scheme?
The adjustment will mean bureaucracy, discrimination, differentials and many other problems. It will put some people at risk, because some will lose their homes and possibly their jobs; there will certainly be casualties. Yet the figure for savings resulting from the main change is something like £18 million for a whole year. That is dogma run mad, and it will cause an enormous number of difficulties. I hope that the Minister will say clearly what savings he expects will result from his proposal.
Now I really shall finish, by saying that the Secretary of State is in a double bind. If the system is as comprehensive as he says, if he gets everyone on board and persuades them all to find the extra £200 or £300 a year, he will create a considerable additional burden for home owners right across the range. Many may escape the burden and will not have to pay, but then the trouble will be that the system will not be comprehensive, thus losing the only virtue that the right hon. Gentleman parades.
Better-off people in steady employment, who may well pay the insurance, may ultimately begin to think that they are paying for something that they do not need, and that they have been done. The vulnerable, the people who really need the coverage, will no doubt recognise that they cannot afford to take it out, and they will join the casualties.
In the consultation, I hope that the Minister will consider what is being said by the Consumers Association, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Association of British Insurers, the Building Societies Association and the Council of Mortgage

501
Lenders, all of which have trenchant criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. Some of those organisations are openly, root-and-branch hostile to the idea.
Some Conservative Members have already raised a cry of pain. I am confident that Tory Back Benchers who go to their constituencies will not be met with a quiet word of congratulation in the corner and a mutter of welcome for the new proposals. They will find—rightly and understandably—that the proposals are very unpopular.
I do not mind about that—it is not my problem. I do mind about a number of people whom I know personally, and many more whom I know exist in my constituency, who are existing on a budget that is stretched to breaking point by a mortgage. Those people have no room for error or for manoeuvre, and they may well be put to the wall because of the increases in costs. They may decide to run the risk, and end up as really difficult casualties, and find that they have no support at all for a vital nine-month period. I do not think that those people should be put at hazard by the measure. I do not think that people such as them—who exist in every constituency—should be forgotten in the House, and that is I why commend the motion.
4.50 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"condemns the Opposition's wish to continue the inadequate existing system of Income Support Mortgage Interest, which does not protect those with modest savings, those with small pensions or redundancy payments, or those with a working spouse, which has undermined the spread of private mortgage insurance and has contributed to 50,000 homes a year being repossessed; believes that the Government's proposals will lead to the development of more comprehensive, less costly insurance cover; welcomes the fact that pensioners on income support will continue to have their mortgage interest paid; and reaffirms its commitment to home ownership".
Much as I like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—he knows that—we will take no lectures from him or from any of his colleagues, who voted at every opportunity to stop council tenants having the right to buy their own homes. They cannot pose as the friends of home ownership.
We will take no lectures from a party that has always used every lever available to it in Parliament, local councils and housing authorities to prevent people from owning their own homes. The Labour party has only one objective locally and nationally: to become the nation's landlord. We are the party of home ownership, and we will remain so.
The Labour party is trying to pretend to be on the side of home owners, but its position wholly ignores the problems of those who suffer the risk of repossession. Labour offers nothing, and in his speech the hon. Member for Garscadden offered nothing to help them.
Labour seems to oppose the spread of private insurance, which would protect such people because, on doctrinaire grounds, it is against private insurance. We believe that the present income support arrangements for mortgage interest, which are extremely costly to the taxpayer, are manifestly unsatisfactory and need reform. They fail to provide comprehensive cover.
502
The Labour party mentions the present system of ISMI as though it provides cover for everyone who finds themselves unemployed or without earnings: it does not. Two thirds of home owners would not qualify for help if they lost their jobs today, either because they have a working spouse or because they have a little saved. Many of the remaining one third would be disqualified simply because they were receiving redundancy pay or an early retirement package. Labour offers nothing to protect them from the risk of repossession.
As a result, some 150,000 people a year who lose their jobs receive no help from income support with their mortgage interest. Labour offers nothing to help them to avoid the risk of repossession. Some 50,000 people have their homes repossessed every year, many of whom are not in receipt of income support. Labour offers nothing to help them.
We are determined to improve the situation, and that means encouraging the growth of private insurance. Private insurance has been growing, but the very existence of income support for mortgage interest has undermined its growth over a period when it could have provided valuable cover.
People who believed that they were covered did not take out insurance, only to find that they could not receive help from the state. Our measures will help to reduce repossessions in a number of ways.
Ms Ann Coffey: Will the Secretary of State comment on a problem that one of my constituents experienced? He took out mortgage protection insurance cover but, because he attended a Government training course the Employment Agency did not deem him to be unemployed, for reasons of which I am sure the Secretary of State is well aware. As the agency would not confirm that he was not in employment, his insurance company refused to pay out.
Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be thousands of such cases? People will have to read the fine print of their insurance policies carefully. Is he further aware that there will be endless wrangles between constituents, Members of Parliament, insurance companies and the Employment Agency over exactly what unemployment means?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady makes an important point. One of the consequences of our reforms will be that lenders and borrowers will have an interest in ensuring that insurance policies are good, high-quality policies that cover what they purport to cover and offer protection against the circumstances in which people may find themselves. Those include the circumstances described by the hon. Lady. I shall return to that issue; it is an important aspect of what we are seeking to achieve.
Mr. Jenkin: Should not home owners be advised to read carefully the small print of the next Labour manifesto? Is not it unclear what policies are being promised to make home owners more secure under a Labour Government?
Mr. Lilley: That is certainly true. Home owners should look not only for the small print but for the price tag; very often they will find neither.
Our measures will help reduce repossessions in a number of ways. First—I do not recall the hon. Member for Garscadden mentioning this—for existing borrowers,

503
we shall start paying ISMI direct to the lender from the outset. At present, during the initial 16-week period, when it is payable at a rate of 50 per cent., it is paid to the borrower, but it is often not passed on to the lender. Arrears can then accumulate, and that can cause problems. That will not happen in future.
Secondly, we will ensure that all those taking out new mortgages are encouraged to take out insurance or other forms of cover for the first nine months of any loss of earnings. It will be in the interests of the lender and the borrower to see that proper cover is in place. ISMI will be available after nine months—much as at present—to cover those who face loss of earnings.
Mr. Richard Burden: Will the Secretary of State explain how the measure will help many borrowers who will lose income support for the first nine months? Those borrowers will be urged to take out private insurance, but most private insurance companies will not pay anything for the first 90 days, or at least the first 60 days. Where will the borrower obtain the money that the Government have removed?
Mr. Lilley: Responsibility for providing protection in the event of loss of earnings must be covered by the borrower, the lender and the Government. We all have a responsibility, but it is perfectly reasonable that during the first couple of months the lender and the borrower should meet the cost of any inability to pay interest.
We should remember that the vast majority of people who lose their jobs get back into work shortly—two thirds do so within six months and a large number within the first couple of months. That makes it unnecessary to make arrangements for paying interest to lenders, who are large institutions with extremely large resources. Lenders can deal with that in the first instance, as of course they do for the majority of people who are not covered by income support for mortgage interest.
Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State assures the House that all will be well when the measure is passed, but the Opposition naturally question whether that optimism is securely based. We are worried on a number of counts. Following his experience with the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State has been converted to pilot studies. Has he thought about introducing them for this measure, so that before we make the scheme universal we can find out which side of the House is right—the Conservative side, which is confident that all will be well, or our side, which is worried that many people will suffer as a result?
Mr. Lilley: I do not think that this measure will suffer from the organisational problems that beset large-scale organisational reform. In a sense, we already have experience of private insurance and we want to build on it and to make it better. We know from our experience of the state system that it is inadequate and that it leaves many people uncovered—an issue that the Opposition have failed to mention. We are making the change only for the first nine months and for those taking out new mortgages, so it will be introduced gradually, as new people enter the market.
504
Pensioners on income support will continue to receive payments for their interest—
Mr. Dewar: At the standard rate?
Mr. Lilley: Yes, at the standard rate. At present, they are not subject to the 50 per cent. rule for the first 16 weeks and will not be subject to it.
We have begun consultations with those involved, will consult carefully about how the change may affect other groups and are determined to get the details right. I will deal with extensive coverage in a moment, but first I must deal with some of the criticisms that have been made here and in other Labour party statements in recent weeks.
The alleged increase in the cost of buying houses, as a result of the combined effect of the recent small interest rate rise, changes in mortgage interest relief and the introduction of private insurance, is one of the main complaints, which were widely faxed to the newspapers by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), to which the hon. Member for Garscadden alluded. They claim that that increase will price first-time buyers out of the market, which is sheer nonsense.
The two main determinants of the cost of buying a house are the price of houses, which by historical standards is low relative to earnings, and the interest rate, which is almost at a 20-year low point because of our success in getting inflation down, which will be put at risk by Labour's policies. Their combined effect means that, even after allowing for the tax change and the potential cost of mortgage insurance, the cost of house purchase is little more than half the proportion of net income that it was at its peak about five years ago. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out at Question Time, the typical mortgage today costs £140 a month less than in October 1990.
Claims that the cost of mortgage protection is high and is likely to rise are nonsense. One can already insure one's mortgage for 4p in the pound on one's monthly advance, if one insures direct, which is only £12 per month on the average mortgage. How many hon. Members spend as little as that to insure the contents of their house, and how many think it strange that they, rather than the taxpayer, have to pay the buildings insurance on their home, which is usually a condition of a mortgage?
Mr. Dewar: The cost of alternative protection is obviously important. Perhaps I have placed too much reliance on the Building Societies Association and the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he believes that someone on an average mortgage could arrange adequate cover for under £150 a year?
Mr. Lilley: Yes, if they took advantage, for example, of the new General Accident Direct insurance, rather than going through a building society and paying it the additional commission. Commissions may well decrease as a result of our changes and I very much hope so.
Mr. John Denham rose
Mr. Lilley: May I make a little progress before I give way again? The hon. Gentleman may find that my comments will relieve him of the need to intervene.
We consider it normal to insure, and to be required to insure, the fabric of the building against fire and damage when we take out a mortgage. We do not think it unusual

505
to take out life insurance policies to pay off the mortgage if the breadwinner dies. Moreover, competition is reducing the cost of home building insurance. The Halifax has announced cuts of up to 60 per cent. in its insurance premiums, with average cuts of about 20 per cent. The Association of British Insurers is convinced that the cost of mortgage insurance will come down as it becomes more universal.
At present, the worst risks—people who suspect that they may be made redundant—are those who are most likely to take out insurance, which means that costs are higher than they would be otherwise. The spread of insurance over a wider spectrum of people will give a better spread of risks, and so reduce costs and premium.
Some hon. Members have claimed that the changes will adversely affect the housing market. I certainly recognise the importance of rebuilding confidence in the market, but I do not believe that our announced changes will undermine it. On the contrary, it is clear that it is not the cost of purchasing houses that is holding back the housing market, as it is historically quite low relative to incomes and will not be appreciably affected by the modest cost of mortgage insurance.
The main problem is personal confidence and fear of unemployment at a turbulent time in the labour market, not merely here but worldwide, which is causing new buyers to hold back. When insurance cover is the norm, as part of a new mortgage, potential new buyers are likely to feel more confident, not less. Moreover, fewer people who become unemployed will be unable to cope and thus face repossession, so the market will be less depressed by forced sales.
Almost by definition, a market in which new buyers are properly covered against risk will be healthier, more active and more resilient.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: In my constituency nine people are chasing every job. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that premiums will be higher in such an area, and what is his estimate of what they might be?
Mr. Lilley: Usually, insurers do not have regional premiums—
Mrs. Fyfe: What about car insurance?
Mr. Lilley: Of course they do for motor insurance.
The main threat to the housing market is people such as the hon. Member for Garscadden and others talking it down, scaremongering and spreading wholly unfounded fears, and they should be ashamed of themselves. The Council of Mortgage Lenders told me emphatically that people should not talk down the market, as the Opposition have.
Some Labour Members have asserted that cover will not be available for certain groups. The insurance industry has roundly rebutted that assertion. In its paper, the Association of British Insurers states:
"Very few people, having first been accepted by a mortgage lender as a satisfactory credit risk for granting a mortgage will not be eligible for insurance. Even in these few cases, the competitive nature of the mortgage protection insurance market is such that new products are likely to be developed quite quickly, or existing products refined to provide cover".
506
Likewise, the Abbey National said:
"If we have agreed a mortgage there is no reason why the borrower should not then qualify for mortgage repayment protection."
Of course, we shall take care when framing the regulations to ensure that we encourage comprehensive cover for all those who should be able to get a mortgage. I am pleased that the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Association of British Insurers have agreed to work closely with my officials to ensure that we do all that we can to achieve that objective.
Mr. Denham: The Minister referred to the Council of Mortgage Lenders and said that it did not want people to talk down the housing market. Is that the same Council of Mortgage Lenders that has written to hon. Members, saying that it is
"concerned about the potential impact on mortgage borrowers and on the housing market of the changes which have been announced"?
Mr. Lilley: Yes, it is, and a certain ability to argue its case when it has a vested interest in receiving more than £1 billion of public money with no questions asked is not surprising. Whoever suggested that the hon. Gentleman should be cautious about repeating everything that the Council of Mortgage Lenders says was right. It would be a first, in my experience, if an interest group in receipt of public money did not argue to continue receiving at least as much of it in future.
Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful for the fact that my right hon. Friend continues to set an excellent example by giving way to hon. Members on both sides. On the moral point about vested interests, does he agree that it is wrong that people who take out mortgages on large properties should be underwritten by the state—and the taxpayer—in some unlimited fashion? After all, the taxes are paid by people who are often on much lower incomes.
Mr. Lilley: That is certainly correct. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will have been shocked by a number of recent, highly publicised cases of significant sums being lent to certain people. For instance, a part-time speech therapist was able to secure a loan of hundreds of thousands of pounds on the prospect that she would cease to be part time and be able to work full time—only to discover that she could not do so. The lender who made that decision felt it right and proper that the taxpayer should underwrite the risk. That is surely not an optimum use of taxpayers' money.
Insurers and lenders make it clear that policies are available for many of the groups for whom it is alleged they are not. As the hon. Member for Garscadden admitted, they are available for self-employed people. Policies have long been available to cover sickness and disability. Contract workers and people working in non-traditional ways are a growing phenomenon, and lenders are recognising that they will have to adapt to it if they want to be able to supply home finance for such people; otherwise they will lose out in an important market. They are therefore developing schemes involving repayment holidays between contracts built into the mortgage provision for people who are contract workers. We welcome that. In our discussions we shall attempt to find out what can be done to facilitate the growth of such policies.

507
The hon. Member for Garscadden mentioned the consequences of marital breakdown. Of course, insurance policies do not cover that, but we should at least question whether those who split up can use that as an excuse immediately to pass on the cost of their mortgage to the taxpayer. Why should married taxpayers have to subsidise divorce? Is that Labour's policy? If a husband scarpers and leaves a wife to bring up the children with no income, in the first instance it is for the building society to pursue the errant husband, to make sure that he meets that liability. Moreover, in such circumstances, the building society has a duty to be helpful to the mother with children; should the situation persist beyond nine months, income support for mortgage interest will be available to help.
I accept that, as the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) said earlier, policies have not always been satisfactory. That is partly because income support for mortgage interest reduced pressure from lenders and, to some extent, reduced the number of borrowers pressing for improvements in policies.
We recently agreed to a revised code of practice from the Association of British Insurers. About 95 per cent. of mortgage protection insurance is handled by members of the ABI, and by the insurance ombudsman service or the personal insurance arbitration service. A condition of membership of the ABI is adherence to the code of practice, which was revised in the light of recommendations of the independent code-monitoring committee, which includes the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
The code is now tougher, and it will ensure that the advice given by those who sell insurance policies, or when lenders provide such policies alongside a mortgage, spells out the fine print and details the obligations to borrowers. I hope that that and any further changes that emerge in the course of our consultations will enhance the quality of mortgage protection policies as well as extending their coverage.
Mr. Dewar: I hope that I shall not have to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but before he finishes will he deal with the potential savings? A question in Hansard on 15 December 1994 asked the Secretary of State to
"estimate the annual savings in a full year to social security expenditure from withdrawing income support assistance with mortgage interest payments from new mortgages after October 1995 for nine months assuming that (a) all income support claimants with new mortgages are affected".—[Official Report, 15 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 794.]
The savings amounted to £18 million. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but if that is right it would seem an extraordinarily small figure.
Mr. Lilley: That is simply because we are applying it to new mortgages. As the new mortgage builds up, savings will grow. We expect, within a relatively short time, the savings from the measures that I have mentioned today to amount to £200 million a year—
Mr. Keith Bradley: By when?
Mr. Lilley: By the end of, I think, the third year of the expenditure round. Overall, however, savings.will grow by more than that, as total coverage of mortgages comes in—
Mr. Dewar: Allowing for those who fall out of the figures?
Mr. Lilley: Correct, but most people are back in work within nine months. New mortgages are covered: existing mortgages are not, but over a 25-year period every mortgage will be covered. It will take time to build up—
Mr. Dewar rose—
Mr. Lilley: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman many times. If he has difficulty with the idea, there is not much that I can do.
Mr. Dewar: Give way for the last time.
Mr. Lilley: No, I am sorry. I want to get on to the interesting aspect of the debate, which was the failure of the Labour party to mention its policies to help those at risk of repossession. I know that my hon. Friends, whatever their views, are all determined to help such people. There seemed to be no determination by the Labour party to improve cover for those who are at risk.
Opposition Members have offered nothing. To extend income support for mortgage interest to everyone, including the two thirds of home owners who are not eligible at present, would cost an enormous amount. The costs have already risen from £31 million in 1979 to £1.1 billion now. The Labour party has not recommended—rightly so—extending such cover at the taxpayers' expense; but it is not the cost that puts off Opposition Members. It is the fact that they have another policy that does not bear on the issue but which would in itself be hugely expensive.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), Labour's housing spokesman, advocates a mortgage benefit for those in work. By definition, it could not help the jobless. According to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, this idea would cost the taxpayer £600 million a year. The hon. Gentleman was at least unusually forthcoming about how he would pay for it. In an interesting interview in the magazine Roof, produced by Shelter, he said:
"I do think a mortgage benefit scheme has substantial advantages. If part of its costs were met by further phasing out of MIRAS, so be it. I will talk to my Treasury colleagues about this."
Mr. Nick Raynsford: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lilley: I cannot resist the opportunity.
Mr. Raynsford: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read the earlier part of that interview, in which I talked about how the Government were already phasing out MIRAS, with no benefit to home owners. In that part of the interview I deal with ideas for providing more effective help for home owners who are not helped by MIRAS.
Throughout his speech the right hon. Gentleman has criticised the present arrangements because of the lack of such help, but he has the gall to criticise the Labour party for having no positive proposals.
Mr. Lilley: So Labour's housing spokesman admits that these are the Labour party's proposals. They cost £600 million, and they would be paid for by a further phasing out of mortgage interest relief. It is a major step forward to have got that out of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jenkin: How many extra people would that put on means-tested benefits?
Mr. Lilley: I will have to look that up. I have no doubt that it would be a large number. It would be a means-tested benefit. It flies in the face of the criticisms that the rest of the shadow social security team has of means-tested benefits; that is an interesting but not unusual contradiction. I will look up the numbers and reply to my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Garscadden is not alone—he is not a maverick on this. The Commission for Social Justice made a similar proposal to extend income support to people in work on low incomes. Its proposals were helpfully costed by The Independent, with help from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a member of which sat on the commission. They show that the mortgage benefit to low-earning home buyers will cost between £600 million and £700 million. It is part of total identifiable proposals in the commission's report that add up to £7 billion a year.
It is financed by what are euphemistically called "savings". The specific one that seems to be related to mortgage benefit is the abolition of mortgage tax reliefagain—raising between £2.5 billion and £3 billion a year. In addition, the abolition of the married couple's allowance and tax on child benefit would in total raise more than £6 billion in extra income tax, paid by the income tax payer to finance the identifiable policies of the commission.
Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to inform the House about his policies, but he did not do so. He cannot object if I fill in for him. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) can tell us more later.
Mr. Dewar: I always knew that the Secretary of State was a "proper gent", as they say.
As the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the importance of MIRAS, and he will remember the 1992 Tory election manifesto, which I know he takes seriously, because it has stopped him doing all sorts of things, for example, to child benefit, I ask him whether he still stands by the promise in it—that Conservatives will maintain mortgage tax relief? Does that mean that he can guarantee that there will be no further adjustment downwards, and that it will be restored to its 1992 rate, at the first possible opportunity?
Mr. Lilley: It is clearly compatible with what the Government have done and is incompatible with what the hon. Gentleman proposes. It is a bit rich of the Labour party to criticise a reduction in the value of something that it proposed to abolish.
The position taken by the Labour party on the issue is irresponsible in the literal sense of the word. Labour is irresponsible in its criticisms, its scaremongering and talking down of the housing market. It is irresponsible in ignoring the real problem, which we seek to address: to provide greater and more comprehensive cover for those who are unprotected by income support for mortgage interest. It is irresponsible in that it will not even tell us whether it will reverse our plans should it ever get elected. It recklessly proposes extra costs and refuses to tell the
510
House in detail about them. It is irresponsible in that it does not recognise that individuals should play a part and accept some personal responsibility for housing finance, who in general do not object to doing so.
The cost of mortgage protection must be borne by someone. There is no logic that says that that someone should always be the taxpayer. Our proposals will mean that everyone—it is fewer than one third at present—who takes out a new mortgage should be properly covered against unemployment. They will mean fewer defaults and repossessions and a healthier market. Far from taking protection away, we are making it more likely that future borrowers are adequately protected. I recommend these measures to the House.
5.23 pm
Mr. John Denham: The Government amendment moved in the name of the Prime Minister says that the House
"believes that the Government's proposals will lead to the development of more comprehensive, less costly insurance cover".
That doctrinaire statement and the speech by the Secretary of State might be excusable from someone who had just landed in this country from another planet or who had just come out of business school full of free-market theories, but it could not be said by somebody with experience of the workings of the Financial Services Act 1986, or with responsibility for the workings of the Act, who had to oversee the disaster in the sales of personal pensions from which so many people are suffering, into which so much money will have to be poured and which has not yet begun to run its course.
The faith that the Government have placed in the way in which the insurance market will respond to their proposals is completely misplaced in a number of specific areas: first, the likely cost to be borne by home owners who must insure their mortgages; secondly, the consequences of the Government's determination not to regulate the market in the insurance policies that will be sold to cover the loss of income support for mortgage payments; and, thirdly, the area, scope and availability of cover for people wishing to buy their own homes.
On cost, it is interesting that, in 1993, home owners paid premiums totalling £220 million on mortgage protection policies, yet only £150 million was paid out on those policies. That suggests that some 30 per cent. of the premiums is absorbed in the cost of selling, marketing and administering the policies, and the profits of the insurance companies. One year's snapshot figures do not necessarily tell the whole tale, but I suggest that that sort of excess shows that it is an inefficient way in which to insure against anything.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one year's snapshot figures do not necessarily tell the whole tale. They cannot possibly, because the insurance industry is necessarily cyclical and there will be years when it pays out more than it collects in premiums, and those are offset by the years when the industry collects more in premiums than it pays out. A single year's figures are completely misleading.
Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman will agree that, throughout the insurance industry, the cost of administration and marketing of private insurance policies is vastly greater than the cost of administering those that are run through the state social security system, and the

511
cost of selling the policies means that home owners will be paying not only the cost of their own insurance but the great costs of administering and running the system. I believe that that makes it an inefficient deal for home owners at the best of times.
The second point on cost has been raised, but as far as I am aware it has not been answered: people will now be left with a period of three months in which no cover will be available to them from the state or from the typical mortgage protection policy. I have not yet heard an explicit statement from the Government as to whether that three months is to be paid by the individual, from separate savings which they must make, or whether the Government blithely assume that mortgage lenders will absorb that three-month shortfall without moaning about it. I suspect that it might be the latter, in which case it is not surprising that building societies are talking about ending their agreements on repossessions.
It is estimated—I believe that it is widely accepted—that the increased cost of these policies over the lifetime of a typical mortgage will be between £7,000 and £8,000 per home buyer. That all points to the design of an inadequate system of cover, which would be more expensive to home owners, who are now the majority in our society, than other ways of insuring cover collectively through the social security system.
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, among others, has called for a reform of the Financial Services Act, because it believes that the regulation of the sale of mortgage protection policies has proved inadequate. The Secretary of State asked us to rely yet again on codes of conduct and self-regulation that have so demonstrably failed in the sale of personal pensions and other products. Proper regulation of the sale of mortgage protection policies is essential under any circumstances, but to move into an enforced extension of the market to all home owners over time without regulating it properly is grossly irresponsible.
Such products suffer from arbitrary exclusion clauses. During the last recession, many of those who had mortgage protection policies found that the policies were withdrawn once the insurance company realised that somebody might face redundancy. In coal mining areas and other areas where redundancies were widely mooted, insurance companies tore up the policies just at the moment when people were likely to want to claim on them. The codes of practice that we have been offered so far will not ensure that those policies remain in force when they are needed.
Inappropriate policies may be sold. After all, on paper, people would require a policy that replaced the interest payments that the Government are taking away. Yet it is likely that, just to show that I do not take everything that the building societies say at face value, faced with a captive client, the building societies will be tempted to say that insurance is necessary and to sell a policy vastly more expensive than the client needs in order to cover the interest payments that the Government are taking away.
The Secretary of State asserted that there would be a fall in the costs of commissions and fees charged by the sellers of insurance policies. But it is interesting that, in parliamentary answers, Ministers have said that they have no intention of regulating to require the disclosure of commissions and fees at the point of sale of the policies.
512
For the past three weeks, anyone selling a personal pension policy has had to disclose fees and commissions. Yet when it comes to the sale of mortgage protection insurance, no such disclosure will be required, nor will there be any requirement to show that alternative and perhaps cheaper sources of insurance might be available.
It is easy to see how the new home buyer, possibly a first-time buyer who is quite unsophisticated in the financial services market, will be at the mercy of the building society agent who is not only providing the mortgage but under instructions to sell the insurance policy as well.
There will be no regulation to cover the widespread problem that most of these policies are invalidated by a short period of return to work. A person who is covered may claim on his policy. After nine months he may receive the job seeker's allowance. Within 14 weeks he may be forced back to work through threat of loss of benefit, but into a short-term or temporary job—the sort of job that the Secretary of State has made it clear people will be forced to take or they will lose their benefit.
Immediately, under most of the policies, people will make themselves uninsurable for future purposes. When the temporary or short-term job that they have been required to take comes to an end after a few weeks or months, they will be without cover. There has been no explanation from the Government about how they will cope with such a situation. It is impossible to cope with that without effective direct regulation of the industry.
The third area to which I wish to refer concerns the scope of the policies that are on sale. That seems to be the point at which the whole exercise becomes an article of faith rather than a rational analysis of what the market is likely to be. Currently, 19 per cent. of home owners are on short-term contracts, are self-employed or are part-time workers. But 36 per cent. of the work force are in those relatively insecure categories and most people believe that the number of people in self-employment, in part-time work and on contract work is likely to grow.
The reality is that some of those people, probably a substantial number, will no longer be able to enter into home ownership because of the difficulties or the risks of obtaining mortgage protection cover.
As a statement of faith, it is right to say that insurance cover will be available. Insurance cover is always available for anything at a price. But the one thing that the Government have ruled out is any regulation to ensure that insurance cover is available at a reasonable price for everybody. In replies to me, Ministers have ruled out the regulation of premiums.
We know, because it is there in all other forms of insurance, that the insurance industry is disaggregating its client group more and more every year. It simply is not realistic to believe that insurance companies will be happy to spread the risk of insuring against unemployment equally across those in secure employment and those who are in the most marginal part-time and short-term work.
Compared with today's costs, some cheaper policies will be available for those in the most secure employment. It is intrinsically unlikely that anything else would happen. But that would be balanced by a sharp and prohibitive rise for those who are clearly in insecure employment. That would be sufficient to bar altogether a substantial and growing number of people from entering

513
the housing market. That is an extraordinary policy aim for a Government who have always said that they back home ownership.
On grounds of cost and the efficiency with which insurance is provided in our society, this is a mistaken move. The Government's refusal on dogmatic grounds to regulate the very industry that they seek to promote is inexcusable and irresponsible. The damage to the aspiration of becoming a home owner of people who would rather have full-time permanent employment but cannot find it will be devastating.
5.35 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). He has raised a number of important issues, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow his line of debate.
Members on both sides of the House, either in their speeches or interventions, are seeking to concentrate on the inequities for certain specific groups inherent in the proposals that we are debating today. But as chainnan of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, I am personally deeply concerned about the impact of the proposals on the housing market.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for spending a considerable amount of time with me earlier this week when we had a full and frank discussion on the matter. We covered many if not all of the issues that have been covered so far in the debate.
My right hon. Friend is aware that I have met representatives of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Building Societies Association and the Association of British Insurers and the chief executive of the building society whose head office is located in my constituency, the Cheshire building society, an extremely efficient, progressive and fast-growing building society.
I remind my right hon. Friend that the Conservative Government were returned to power at the last general election in 1992 on a manifesto which pledged:
"The opportunity to own a home and pass it on is one of the most important rights an individual has in a free society. Conservatives have extended that right. It lies at the heart of our philosophy."
That commitment, the promotion of home ownership, advocated by the Conservative party ever since it took office in 1979 and even before that, has transformed, particularly since 1979, the political complexion and the very structures of our society, and has proved to be, as I said to my right hon. Friend earlier this week, a winning formula.
People from lower income groups who had in the past felt alienated, marginalised or ignored by the main political parties could, albeit often after struggling to make ends meet, finally buy a stake in the property-owning democracy, a stake which often brought them into the Conservative fold for the very first time in the history of our party and gave my party the electoral boost that it needed. Ownership of property brought people enhanced self-respect and a stake in society, creating both a sense of responsibility and greater social stability—something in which I fervently believe; I hope that my party believes in it too.
514
Today, sadly, as we examine the Government's record in recent years, that commitment to a property-owning democracy and to home ownership that pledge—seems a little ragged. Mortgage interest relief at sourceMIRAS—is being phased out in what I consider to be a Treasury-driven exercise: it was reduced from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. last April, and will fall to 15 per cent. in April this year. There has been no increase in the £30,000 ceiling since 1985, nearly a decade ago.
Notwithstanding the comprehensive speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Government's latest proposal to reduce mortgage interest support for home owners who lose their jobs carries a number of serious risks for those people, and also represents yet another nail in the coffin of the housing market and the property-owning democracy for which I stand.
Mr. Barry Porter: Come on!
Mr. Winterton: Let me tell my hon. Friend that the housing market is showing signs of weakness which reflect a lack of confidence, job insecurity and the prospect of further MIRAS reductions in April. That was confirmed only last night at a dinner that I had the pleasure of attending, when the Governor of the Bank of England told me openly and honestly, "The housing market is flat; the housing market is weak; there is indeed a problem."
The timing of my right hon. Friend's proposals is particularly unfortunate, and is likely to cause still more house purchases to be deferred. Indeed, figures relating to sales negotiated and new inquiries for the first weeks of this year already reveal that we are set for one of the worst years for house sales for some time. That is very bad news for the economy, because the housing market can influence a wide range of economic activity. Moreover, the implementation of such confidence-dampening measures causes a hiatus after their introduction. I need only cite the ending of double interest relief in August 1988 and the ending of the stamp duty moratorium on 19 August 1992.
In short, the housing market—which has not yet participated in the more general economic upturn—seems set to head further downhill into the doldrums. That is not due to high prices, lack of desire to own a home or a shortage of quality homes in all income ranges; it is due almost entirely to what I would describe as a series of Treasury-inspired blows which have left house builders punch drunk from the impact of what genuinely appears to be an attack on home ownership.
Mr. Porter: Author!
Mr. Winterton: Let me tell my hon. Friend—who is intervening very effectively from a sedentary position, as he generally does—that these are not just my own views.
Mr. Jenkin: Who wrote it, Nick?
Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend should note that the House would do well to consider the recent third report of the Treasury Select Committee on the 1994 unified Budget, which stated:
"We suspect that a long list of factors such as rising interest rates, poor job security and the announced changes to income support for mortgage payments, would incline individuals to stay out of the housing market, and explain a static market. None of our official witnesses gave us cause to change our mind."

515
Let me inform my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) that the Treasury Select Committee—chaired as it is by my long-standing and respected hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold), a former vice-chairman of the Conservative party—is not a maverick voice, but a credible commentator that has wisely sounded a serious warning to the Government at this time of consultation.
The fear of a reversal in the Government's attitude to home ownership is not only in the minds of observers. It was the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration himself who sounded the warning in a recent interview with the magazine Roof, which has already been mentioned. He said:
"I don't think there is some undiscovered new wave of owner-occupation which is about to burst upon us, quite frankly. Most people still do have that as a natural aspiration"—
this is the section that I consider importantߞ
"but I don't personally attribute any moral superiority to owning a house".
Wise words, perhaps, in some people's view; but they relay a grim message about the Minister's own approach to home ownership.
Mr. Jenkin: Does the Treasury Select Committee report, which my hon. Friend quoted, actually say that a steady and stable housing market is a bad thing?
Mr. Winterton: No, indeed it does not—although I do not have a copy of the entire report with me; I shall certainly look at it after the debate to see whether that is specifically spelled out. Of course we want a stable housing market and low interest rates, because they are desirable for a sound economy.
Let me refer my hon. Friend to statistics produced by the House-Builders Federation, which show that the number of weekly site visitors so far this year is dramatically down on the figures for last year and the year before—and both those years were bad. Moreover, weekly net reservations also show a dramatic reduction on the past two years. I am glad to say that the federation produces its figures very quickly. Those, I think, are serious warnings.
Let me also tell my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), who is sitting behind the MinisterߞI assume that he is the Minister's parliamentary private secretary—that January and February are usually good months for the housing industry. The figures are therefore quite serious, and I hope that they will be noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders now predicts that, as a consequence of the change in income support for mortgage interest,
"mortgage arrears will rise and repossessions are likely to increase in 1996".
Let me point out to my right hon. Friend that that may bring us dangerously close to a general election. Furthermore, the council predicts that, given the current economic climate and political approach, there is never likely to be an upturn in the housing market. The social implications of such a position are grave.
The new proposals will again place a smothering pillow over the slumbering face of confidence in the new housing market. They will discriminate against households and individuals wishing or needing to move house. As The Times put it on 1 December—it is important to note the views of these commentatorsߞ
516
"crucially for the Government's fortunes, it will further heighten middle-class insecurity. Home ownership, house prices, economic security and middle-class support for the Tories are inextricably linked".
I share that view. I invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not only to reaffirm his commitment, and that of the Government, positively to promote home ownership, but to tell us clearly how that is to be done.
I do not intend to go into the details of the proposals, because that has already been done by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and will no doubt be done again by other speakers. The essence of the social injustice, however, lies in the fact that—as the Prime Minister proudly boasted in a written answer to me just a few days agoߞ
"Owner-occupation in the United Kingdom has risen from just over 54 per cent. in 1979 to over 66 per cent."—[Official Report, 23 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 25.]
That is important.
In keeping with their political vision of society the Government have enticed and encouraged into the property market many council and housing association tenants and many people who are on low incomes. Now they appear to be withdrawing from those groups the safety net of support, however inadequate it is. The policy has gone seriously awry for the most vulnerable, although I appreciate and support the steps that are to be taken to limit interest relief, where it is available, to a maximum value of £100,000.
There is now a clear and deliberate policy emerging from those who advise my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to stifle the housing market. Such Treasury mandarins—and I include the Governor of the Bank of England—continue to display an irrational fear of the childhood bogeyman of inflation which was rooted in social and economic conditions that no longer apply because our economic recovery is export driven. They see the housing market as a smouldering fire of intolerable price rises.
I do not want to see a return to the ludicrous, spiralling house prices of the late 1980s, but more movement and more confidence are prerequisites for growth in the economy as a whole and of the electoral prospects of my party. If we are committed to stimulating such growth, let the next Budget give a real, but responsible boost to the market by increasing MIRAS again from 15 to 25 per cent. for first-time buyers. It should be up to a maximum of £50,000 for a period of, say, five to 10 years. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will convey that message to the Chancellor. He should abolish the tax on prudence and responsibility which he imposed in his Budget when he introduced what I would describe as new and completely unjustified taxes on insurance premiums.
The proposals are well intentioned, but at this time they amount in practice to a betrayal of those on low incomes, the self-employed, people on short-term contracts and others who are struggling to have their stake in the property-owning democracy. I believe, and I hope that I am right, that it was Sir Winston Churchill who spoke about the need for a safety net for those who fall off the ladder of life. I respected him and I believe that when he said that he meant it. Society has a responsibility for those who through no fault of their own fall off the ladder of life. In this period of consultation I say to my hon. Friendf

517
that the proposals are poor economics, they are weak housing policy and they are bad politics. I shall not be able to support them in the Lobby.
5.52 pm
Ms Liz Lynne: I am pleased to take part in the debate, although I realise that my speech and those of other hon. Members will probably have no effect whatever on the Government. Their policy is ill considered and will depress the property market, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has said. In the long term it will cost jobs. At the same time as the Government are introducing the measure they are penalising the rented sector by cutting housing benefit. The policy will be an absolute disaster and the Government must do a U-turn before it is too late.
In his letter to all hon. Members, the Secretary of State for Social Security stated that mortgage interest benefit had risen from £31 million in 1979 to £1.1 billion today and that reform was clearly essential. It is indeed essential, but he should have gone on to say that the reason for the need for reform is the mess that Tory policies have created over the past 15 years. The letter said that from October existing borrowers who were not on income support would get no benefit for two months, 50 per cent. for four months and 100 per cent. thereafter.
Many, although not all, of those people will get into debt. The letter states that for new loans after October people will get nothing for nine months, but I should like the Secretary of State to clarify that. I have been led to believe that those who take out mortgages after the Budget statement will not get benefit for nine months.
These are not reformsߞthey are cuts. If the Minister were serious about reform, he would look at the underlying reasons for the problems and listen to people who have pointed to Government policies over the past 15 years. I was not against some of those policies, such as the right to buy, which was introduced by Mrs. Thatcher. But the Government have been responsible for economic mismanagement, the boom and bust of the 1980s, record unemployment and a record recession. Their employment policies are designed to encourage people to accept low pay and part-time work and contract work, which many people are now accepting. That is leading to insecurity in employment and in the housing market.
Those factors are linked and lead to higher mortgage interest benefits, but instead of looking at them the Minister is considering cuts. In the past four years, 250,000 homes have been repossessed. The figure is coming down and that is welcome news. I hope that it will continue to come down, but I am afraid that this policy will lead to even more repossessions.
Some 1,250,000 mortgages are greater in value than the value of the homes that they represent. The available statistics show that the growth in the number of people buying homes between 1984 and 1991 was in the so-called blue collar sector—the people who have faced more unemployment. The Government tried to persuade them into home ownership through the right-to-buy scheme.
The Government must realise that unemployment is not usually the fault of the unemployed. Yet the proposals make it look as though that is what the Government think.
518
Unemployment is due to the economic climate. The policy will deal a further blow to the housing market and mortgage lenders are crying out about it. I gather that there was a fairly acrimonious meeting recently between the Secretary of State and the mortgage lenders, who stated that they thought that there would be thousands more repossessions and that that would cause a slump. I know that the lenders have a vested interest, but we must heed that warning.
The Secretary of State says that that cannot happen, that he will modify the Administration of Justice Act 1970 so that people will have longer to pay—perhaps even within the lifetime of the mortgage. That is fine so far as it goes, but mortgage lenders do not have to lend money and will pick and choose. The Government have always said that a thriving housing market is an indicator of economic recovery and they still keep saying so, but perhaps the Secretary of State does not agree. He will say that people should take out insurance, but that is not always available as illness or marriage break-up and unemployment is not always covered. We must face the fact that only 40 per cent. of those claiming benefit are unemployed.
Let us examine some existing insurance policies. Citizens advice bureaux have reported that people have been duped into buying policies with loopholes and that claims are not being met. One bureau reported the case of a man who had been made redundant. He did not want to sit around, so he got employment which lasted for some time but in different jobs. Eventually he became unemployed again, but he was not covered by his insurance because he was not in continuous employment for six months. That has not been addressed. Such happenings are not uncommon. How will such people survive? They will not if they do not have benefit and many will face repossession and homelessness. As I have said, that will be a further blow to the housing market.
One in three people buy insurance protection, but the policies are riddled with exclusions, as I have illustrated by my reference to the man who was made redundant. People are also ruled out by pre-existing medical conditions, illness in the previous 12 months or lack of continuous employment. It would bar people on fixed-term contracts, unless they run for a number of years. It would bar a number of building workers on contracts. It would bar a number of actors and people working in the media. Above all, the self-employed would suffer.
Those with mortgages will have to find an estimated £7,000 in insurance payments over 25 years. From October, the cost of a mortgage in real terms will be 10.5 per cent. higher than it is now, taking into account mortgage tax relief and other factors. That does not include the mortgage interest rate rise of 0.3 per cent. announced last Friday. At the same time, the Government are cutting housing benefit. Where will people go? Housing association grants are due to fall in 1996–97 to 1989–90 levels. Housing investment will fall because of the end of the capital receipts holiday. The Government's subsidy to council housing will continue to dwindle. Council and housing association rents continue to rise. If the rug is pulled from underneath home owners, they will find that there is no low-cost rented accommodation available for them. All of that will contribute to the lack of the feel-good factor about which the Government seem to be so worried.

519
If the Government are thinking about reforms, they should introduce real reforms and put people with mortgages on the same basis as tenants. They should introduce a benefit for mortgage holders—[Interruption.] I accept that it would have to be paid with the phasing out of MIRAS—[Interruption.] That is in our policy document and it has been for some time. We are suggesting that in the long term there should be a new benefit for householders and tenants alike, which would mean that everybody would be better off in work.
I agree with the view that currently people on income support who have help with their mortgages are not motivated to take low-paid work. With a merger of the two benefits in the long term, they would always be better off in work. There would be a taper in the same way as there is a taper on housing benefit. The cost of income support would be reduced because there would be an incentive for people to get back into employment.
All that the Government's policies will do is to impose a cost on people in the long term. There will be more repossessions and more homelessness. There will be a further destabilisation of the housing market. The Secretary of State's policy will cause misery and will not contribute to the feel-good factor about which the Government are always talking.
6.2 pm
Mr. Hartley Booth: I have listened to the debate with interest and care. I was interested to note the inconsistency with which Labour Members attacked the Government and what they are trying to do. I have been in the Chamber for debates on subjects such as housing and inner-city matters when, time and again, Labour Members have criticised the Government for increasing the dependency culture. The number of people dependent on mortgage interest relief in 1979 totalled 100,000; in 1988 the figure was almost 400,000; and last year it was just short of half a million. It is obvious that there is an increasing dependency sector and the Government, as part of their proposals, are suggesting how that could be reduced. I should have thought that the Opposition, who have so strongly criticised the extension of the dependency culture, would applaud that—but they have said not a word.
With the new spending rectitude of the Labour party, broadcast daily throughout the media, one would have thought that there would be considerable concern about how expenditure has risen from £31 million in 1979 to more than £1 billion last year on this item alone. One would hope that the Opposition would be consistent in their arguments and say, "Hold on, the Government are sensibly trying to be responsible with public expenditure, so let us welcome the tough decision that the Government have taken." But no, throughout the debate Labour Members have insisted that this is just one more attack on a particular group of vulnerable people.
The Conservative party stands for home ownership. It stands for the ability of people to buy, own and live in homes happily and comfortably. Indeed, the record referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) stands for itself. Home ownership has risen from almost 55 per cent. to almost 67 per cent. I have argued many times that the experts might be wrong, but they say—and they are all agreed on this—that there is a ceiling on any predictable level of home ownership of about 70 per cent. On that basis, we
520
are only some 3 per cent. short of what the experts say we could conceivably achieve in home ownership, so we have done well in that area.
We must ensure that home owners are assisted, encouraged and live in the real world; that is what the proposal is about. I looked, I listened and I was prepared to criticise the Government if they had not included a transitional period, but they have. It is only with insurance taken out after 1 October this year that the rule will apply. It is vital that a fair, good and thoughtful Government provide a transitional period. We could not do that with milk quotas because the European Union would not allow it. As a result, many farmers were tied to their equivalent of mortgage or business loans.
That will not happen with the Government's proposal; there is to be a proper, phased introduction. The results are sensible, as I understand them, and it is why I support the Government. If any of our conclusions do not hold, we will have to think again, but in the round the results are such that I would argue strongly that we should back the Government's proposal.
Of course there will be savings—small to begin with, but larger by stages. There was an extraordinary paradox in the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I do not know whether my hon. Friends noticed it, but he began by saying that this was an horrific and damaging proposal for many people—yet only a paragraph later he said, "Well, the Government are going to save only a small amount of money." If that is true, why the horror? The point is that the proposal exercises something that we were elected to do—to spend responsibly.
We are becoming more sophisticated on the subject of debt. It is a most important subject that we need to deal with in this country. Young people in Germany do not borrow money to buy houses at the age of 25 or 30. The average age for doing so—and they do not buy that often—is nearer 35 or 40. It is certainly right to encourage the purchase of homes, but it is also about time we thought about responsibility in the acquisition of debt. Over the years, the Government have been consistent in their dislike of debt. That was why, in the face of opposition from Labour Members, we reduced the national debt at several stages during the 1980s. We do not like debt and we do not like young people getting into debt irresponsibly. The proposals will assist the culture of thinking about debt and of getting into it only when one is ready for it.
I am descended from a group of people with a Puritan past, which many hon. Members have. Those people did not like to borrow at all. People will have to consider the acquisition of a mortgage with the extra hurdle. They will have to think about the acceptance of the nine-month period that is included in Government's proposal. That is a sensible addition to the growing culture.
With regard to the opposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and of Labour Members, there may be a temporary effect on the macro-housing market. The proposal may lead to a points depression in that market, but as we are close to the 70 per cent. maximum purchase level, that effect would probably have occurred anyway. In the end, however, more people will take up mortgages, with more thought to the debt that they take on, and with more planning. I conclude, therefore, that

521
fewer people will claim, even though they could claim. As I said earlier, the proposal will strike a blow against the dependency culture.
The Conservative party is the party of home ownership and of spending responsibility. It is a party of debt responsibility. For all those reasons, I support the Government's proposals and oppose what has been said by the Labour party.
6.11 pm
Mr. Bill Etherington: I must take exception to some of the remarks made by the Secretary of State for Social Security. It is almost beyond belief that he has the effrontery to stand up in the House and to say that he is seeking to improve the position for people unfortunate enough to become unemployed who have to pay a mortgage. It borders on the mendacious.
The Secretary of State talks about the two thirds of people who cannot benefit because they are not in receipt of income support. Obviously, those people do not need the relief. If they have redundancy payments and more than £3,000 in the bank, they may be able to manage for a few weeks. In case the Secretary of State is not aware, the income support level is below what is regarded by the European Union as a decent level. When those people go on income support, they will have difficulties, which shows how barren the thinking is behind the legislation.
Since 1979, a string of Bills have been introduced to worsen the plight of people who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed. First, it must be said that unemployment is brought about by the Government's policies and not by people who happen to be unfortunate enough to become unemployed. That is an important factor, which the Secretary of State seems to overlook.
Two unedifying strands in the Government's philosophy seem to have come together in the Bill. The first is their lack of respect, concern or compassion for the unemployed, which borders on disdain. The second is their love of providing work for their friends in the City. That was shown when the Government sought to abrogate their responsibility in relation to the payment of state earnings-related pensions. Because it was costing the taxpayer too much money, the Government decided that private insurance should take over. What a disaster that has been, and what a cost to the taxpayer it has proved to be. Not many strands in the Government's thinking are philosophically satisfactory, but those two strands are the worst.
The Government are forever stating that they believe in a property-owning democracy. Some Labour Members also believe in that. Since 1967, I have been in the privileged position of having my own house. When I started to buy, however, the circumstances were much more propitious than they would be for anyone buying now. I issue a challenge to those on the Treasury Bench: I am willing to give way if the Minister will stand up and guarantee that every person who seeks and obtains a
522
£45,000 mortgage will be able to obtain for £12 per month satisfactory insurance which covers them against sickness and unemployment?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans)rose—
Mr. Etherington: I am delighted.
Mr. Evans: There is a fatal fallacy in the hon. Gentleman's premise. If the hypothetical person in the example that he mentioned is granted a mortgage because his credit is sound and because he is in a reasonable position to expect reasonably to repay that mortgage, there is no reason to suppose, if a sensible lending judgment is made, that he cannot be insured as well.
Mr. Etherington: Those were weasel words. I asked for a guarantee, not a platitude, but that was what the Minister offered. No guarantee was given. The Government are in favour of people owning or paying for their own houses, and getting into debt. They support that so that those people can be controlled by their employers, so that the threat of the dole queue becomes ever worse, so that they can be forced into taking poor employment, and so that they are not in a position to fight back when an employer tries to worsen their conditions.
That is what this is all about. It is not about financial constraints. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has already pointed out that a small amount of money will be saved by the Treasury by the measure. It is not, however, a small amount of money to the victims who find, after a few weeks of unemployment, that they are likely to become homeless. That is how much the Government care about people's security. The Government do not give a damn for the citizens of this country unless they are making money for someone else—preferably the Government's friends in the City.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) mentioned that insurance companies can sometimes be a little fickle in the way in which they deal with policy holders. He understated the position. He said that if a miner became unemployed, the insurance company would try to find ways of abrogating its responsibilities. It is not quite so bad as that because the insurance company would not have condescended to give a policy to a miner in the first place. I do not speaking from anecdotal evidence, but from personal experience as in 1967 I sought to obtain just such a policy.
I have no doubt that some Conservative Members, who have made many interventions, who are hired hands of various insurance companies, and who are on their payrolls but do not bother to declare it on occasions in the House—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman has just made a very serious allegation. I hope that he will either withdraw it or substantiate it.
Mr. Etherington: I shall substantiate it. A Conservative Member stood up on, I think, five occasions this afternoon during a debate on an important matter in

523
which the insurance industry is involved, and from which it benefits, but he has not declared an interest. I invite him to comment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules of the House. Any hon. Member who makes a speech in the House is required to declare an interest. Hon. Members are not required to make such a declaration in an intervention. The hon. Gentleman should know the rules of the House and he should challenge only hon. Members who disobey those rules.
Mr. Etherington: I accept your reprimand, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I am required to withdraw my remark, I shall do so. I hope that if the hon. Member concerned makes a speech he will clarify the matter for the benefit of the House.
On the notional figure of £45,000 of borrowing for a mortgage, it has been stated that the payment required will be about £12 a month, but people in the financial services business say that it will be £21 a month.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) who alone of all Conservative Members spoke with compassion and some understanding for those who find themselves in the vulnerable position of having a large mortgage, on the payment of which the retention of their home depends. It is to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he recognises their plight, but I am sorry that his understanding was not reflected in the speeches of other Conservative Members, least of all that of the Secretary of State.
The Government's proposals should be taken in conjunction with various pieces of legislation that have been introduced since 1979 and which discriminate against the unemployed. Together, they create a society to which fear is the key. If people do not have very good jobs but are paying a mortgage and have the threat of things being made so much worse if they become employed, the more fearful they will be of challenging their employers. That is what the proposals are all about.
I trust that people outside will see the proposals for what they are: they have nothing to do with improving the lot of those who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed and have a large mortgage to service, but they have everything to do with further intimidation of those who are fortunate enough to be employed.
6.20 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am happy to declare an interest as an adviser to Legal and General Group plc, which is an insurer and an arranger of mortgages. I am a little distressed that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), with whom I have had many debates in European Standing Committee B where I have often declared my interest, should not expect me to make that declaration. This time, I shall put his attitude down to the heat of the debate and leave it at that. I shall respond later to several comments that he made, especially that about the unattractive motive that he feels lies behind the Government's policy.
I deal first with a recurrent theme that was mentioned by opponents of the measure and others, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), who represents the constituency which, perhaps more than any other, resonates with the principle of home ownership. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and my hon.
524
Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) also mentioned the effect that the measure is likely to have on the housing market.
I do not participate lightly in the debate. My constituency has probably suffered some of the biggest falls in property prices. Negative equity on a large scale is one of the major problems facing my constituents. My constituency was an area of considerable new build in the 1980s when houses were purchased at what we now regard as inflated prices, with the result that negative equity is a serious problem in huge parts of my constituency. Therefore, I would not dream of supporting a measure that would have a seriously deleterious effect on the housing market. It would not be in my interest to do so and as, I think, the hon. Member for Rochdale—but certainly the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—suggested, it would be extraordinary for a Conservative Government to propose such a measure.
The measure will have an extraordinarily slight effect in its first year. Indeed, the hon. Member for Garscadden derided the Government for the fact that the measure will remove a mere £18 million from the housing market in that time and will build only over a period of time—perhaps 10 years—to savings of perhaps £200 million. I should explain how that will happen.
In the first year, a small proportion of householders will be eligible under the scheme and only a small proportion of them might trigger the effects of the scheme. In the second year, perhaps twice as many households will fall on hard times and be eligible for the scheme. That is how the scheme will build and how savings will accumulate year by year. In that sense, the scheme will have a minimal impact in its first year of operation. It cannot be described as a knockout blow to the housing market when it is being introduced so gradually.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) complained that we have are not piloting the scheme, but, in effect, the first year of operation will be the pilot because such a tiny proportion of the housing market will be affected. It is important to keep this important, revenue-saving measure, which has other benefits that I shall discuss later, in perspective.
Before I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, I must say that his somewhat hysterical comments about the state of the housing market, made in this place in what may be a delicate period of transition from decline to recovery, probably do more damage to confidence in the housing market than the scheme ever would.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am not considering the measure on its own; I am considering it with the reduction in MIRAS, which is extremely unpopular and is having an impact, and with increases in mortgage interest rates, although they are as yet only nudging higher. Job security must also be taken into account. Although we do not often do so under a Conservative Government, dare I say that there has been an increase in taxation, which means that people have less to spend and are therefore less likely to buy a new house?
Mr. Jenkin: Interest rates have fallen substantially over the past three, four or five years. We may have to expect small increases in future to continue our successful anti-inflation policy, but we do not want to return to the 1980s when so much economic activity was diverted into speculative property investment. My hon. Friend praised

525
the Government for the export-led recovery, and we must ensure that investment in assets for export remains more attractive than investment in property for speculative gain. We should encourage people to invest in property in which they want to live rather than to invest in property for speculative purposes. We are succeeding in that, and this slight measure is probably not even relevant to the argument about incentives to invest in property.
Two main issues have arisen in our debate. The first involves equity of treatment for those in the rented sector and those with mortgages in owner-occupied properties. The hon. Member for Garscadden in particular implied that the benefit and tax system should treat similarly owner-occupiers and those in the rented sector. In fact, there is a certain balance. We give home owners generous support—some billions of pounds—through MIRAS, and it is entirely logical that those who benefit in one respect should accept a little more responsibility in another.
Secondly, what has been lacking in the debate is an appreciation of how the insurance and lending markets operate. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) chuckles, but, if we had accepted Opposition Front Benchers' advice over the past 15 years whenever we placed our faith in the way in which the markets operate and can take over functions previously carried out by the state, we should not have privatised anything, contracted out anything or achieved anything. Economically, we would be in a substantially worse position today. Well may the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras laugh—at his own folly for all the mistakes made and bad advice given by his party to the country over the past 15 years.
The important thing is that the system will make more demands on lenders and borrowers. Just as during the recession lenders were required to make finer judgments about who they lent to and about who was a safe risk, the insurance markets will be required to do the same. It is hardly surprising that there is not a flourishing insurance market for mortgage insurance at the moment, when so much of the market has been displaced by state activity. That is what one would expect. When the state has been undertaking an activity, one would not expect the private sector to come in and take part.
The theme—I return to the comments by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North—behind the proposals is to try to make borrowers and lenders make more responsible decisions on loans taken out and houses bought. We do not want a market—indeed, we cannot afford a market—which is insulated from all the consequences of its decisions by the state underwriting every risk taken by the consumer. That creates the problems which overheated the property market in the 1980s.
Finally, I shall deal briefly with the issue of mortgage benefit, which arose earlier. That is perhaps the maddest idea that the House has heard for some time. I have great sympathy for what the Labour party says about the number of people who find themselves on income-related, means-tested benefits. I agree that there are too many people on means-tested benefits. If we moved more towards a system of tax allowances and away from means-tested benefits, we would avoid the .indignity of means-testing for quite a number of people.
526
The proposal of mortgage benefit would increase the number of people—most of them probably already paying tax—on means-tested benefits and paying tax, thereby increasing the poverty trap and increasing all the problems which currently beset our benefits system. It would be a major step backwards. I urge the House to reject that idea and to support instead sensible measures such as the Government's proposals instead.
6.32 pm
Mr. Nick Raynsford: I begin by declaring an interest as a consultant to HACAS housing consultancy company, although, to the best of my knowledge, it does no work relevant to the debate. I have certainly undertaken no related work.
This has been an important and revealing, albeit short, debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) spelt out with his characteristic incisiveness the main problems associated with the Government's proposals for home owners and the impact on the housing market. His concerns have been echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) and by the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), all of whom raised valid and extremely powerful points about the adverse impact of the Government's proposals. By contrast, the Secretary of State secured support only from the hon. Members for Finchley (Mr. Booth) and for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin).
The Secretary of State's speech was extraordinary in three ways. First, he had to reveal that even now, two months after the proposed changes were first announced in the Budget, he is far from clear about the precise details of how the scheme will work in practice and what will be its various impacts. Secondly, even more extraordinary, coming as it does from an apologist—
Mr. Lilley: Is the hon. Gentleman complaining that we are consulting about the details? That is extraordinary given that Labour Members often make the allegationߞfalse, of course—that we come out with things, which were thought out in great detail, without consultation.
Mr. Raynsford: The Secretary of State made great play in his speech of the adverse effect on the market of scares. He has introduced proposals which have scared the market substantially. He only has to talk to the House-Builders Federation, the Council of Mortgage Lenders and all the experts, to reinforce that point. It would have been wise on his part to have thought a little more carefully about the precise details of what he proposed before coming forward with them. That is the point that I am making. He does not appear to have worked out precisely what he is proposing to do.
Secondly, and even more extraordinary, coming as it does from an apologist for the market, the Secretary of State showed little understanding of the consequences of his proposals on the housing market. Thirdly, and perhaps most extraordinary of all, he chose to present himself rather like a latter-day Mr. Bumble; as a benefactor of the poor. In that famous section in "Oliver Twist", one recalls Mr. Bumble expressing the great principle of outdoor relief, as it was then, and social security as we would call it now, which is
"to give the paupers exactly what they don't want; and then they get tired of coming."

527
The Secretary of State appears to believe, and certainly tried to make the House believe, that his cuts in income support discussed today were really an act of kindness to struggling home owners in difficulty. That is nothing to do with reality. The proposals are not necessary. They are ill thought out, they are confused, they are unlikely to achieve the savings that they are supposed to generate, they will be difficult to implement and they are likely to cause severe administrative problems, widespread anomalies and immeasurable anguish to thousands of families.
The proposals are not necessary because the rising trend in income support expenditure is already beginning to reverse. From a peak of £1.22 billion in 1993, expenditure has fallen to £1.08 billion in 1994—by far more than the savings that the Secretary of State expects to achieve this year. If measures were now being taken to help recovery in the housing market, as well as to tackle the continuing scourge of unemployment, we could expect further substantial reductions over the next few years, achieving savings far in excess of the £200 million that the Secretary of State is claiming that he will save. That figure has already turned out to be a rather elusive target.
The proposals are ill thought out and confused. Under the Secretary of State's proposal, most existing home owners will receive no benefit for the first two months and then only 50 per cent. for the next four months. Thereafter, even though they will qualify in full for income support, it will be calculated on a standard rate which could be significantly below their outgoings, especially if people have opted for fixed-rate mortgages.
Pensioner claimants, we now understand, will not lose entitlement in the first two months, but they will, apparently, have their benefit assessed on the standard rate. That makes a mockery of the claim in the Government's amendment that pensioners on income support will not be adversely affected because those who have mortgages at higher rates than the standard rate will be adversely affected.
New borrowers after October will have no entitlement at all for the first nine months. We have not yet heard whether that restriction will apply to new borrowers who subsequently reach retirement age. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to tell us whether future pensioners will be subject to that restriction. We do not know.
Hon. Members: Answer!
Mr. Lilley: Yes, they will.
Mr. Raynsford: I am delighted to hear it. We have achieved, at least, a certain further clarification.
Mr. Lilley: Not at all. I said it during my speech and the hon. Member was not listening.
Mr. Raynsford: We are delighted to tease out some of the more obscure features of the Secretary of State's proposals.
We must ask why the Secretary of State is introducing this complex series of arrangements, riddled with anomalies, ostensibly to save £200 million. Once again, confusion reigns. The Secretary of State cannot tell us precisely how that saving will be achieved. He expresses hope that, in the long term—over three years, he says—the figure will be reached. But he has some difficulty with the arithmetic, because in the written answer of 15
528
December in column 794, he indicated a saving of £18 million in the first year for new borrowers, which must be the main category of saving.
We accept that the figure may be larger in the second year, but if, as the hon. Member for Colchester, North suggested, the figure doubled, it would reach only £36 million. Even if it were to double again in the third year, we would still be a very long way short of £200 million. So the Secretary of State has a certain amount of explaining to do about where the mythical £200 million will come from.
Not only can the Secretary of State not provide good answers on those figures, he cannot provide convincing answers either to questions on the likely additional costs which will flow from what he is proposing. There will be costs, and the Department will have to bear some of them. It is clear that the measures will lead to an increase in repossessions.
Mr. Lilley indicated dissent.
Mr. Raynsford: The Secretary of State may shake his head, but the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which is in a far better position than he is to make an estimate, states that the increase could be between 12,000 and 24,000. I would rather believe the Council of Mortgage Lenders than the Secretary of State on that particular issue.
If the council's upper figure is correct, that would push repossessions back to the level reached in 1991 when they were at their peak. That in itself is bad enough, but when we think about the consequences, the full stupidity of the proposal becomes clear. Many of the home owners who will forfeit their homes as a result of the Secretary of State's plans could find themselves in a bed-and-breakfast hotel or other temporary accommodation. While the average weekly cost of income support for home owners towards mortgage interest is £37.98, the average weekly cost of keeping a family in a bed-and-breakfast hotel is £231. In other words, it is £193 more or, in annual terms, an extra £10,036.
If just 1,800 home owners end up in bed-and-breakfast accommodation as a result of the Secretary of State's action, he will have wiped out entirely the supposed £18 million from withdrawing help for the first nine months for new home owners. That is an indication of the stupidity of the proposals because we need only think of the personal cost to the families concerned if they are condemned to bed-and-breakfast hotels and cannot stay in the family home.
The Secretary of State would have us believe that that will not happen because a new and thriving insurance industry will come to the rescue. Once again, the problem is that the Secretary of State has not done his sums and has apparently only the flimsiest grasp of the realities in the market place. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), has made it clear that, for many individuals, mortgage protection policies are unavailable or inadequate. According to NACAB,
"Many citizens advice bureaux report clients who have taken out mortgage protection policies in good faith only to find that when they come to make a claim, the policy fails to pay out."
Many others do not even get that far. I received a letter last week, which I suspect is typical, from a home owner in Cumbria, who said:
"When I bought my home last year my mortgage company"—

529
which happens to be a very large and reputable building societyߞ
"required that I should take out redundancy insurance. I agreed. No policy however could be found which would provide me with cover. My job? I am a primary teacher with years of experience who had a short break to have children. On my return to work I was given a temporary fixed term contract. The Secretary of State does not seem to realise that a large number of teachers and other workers will not qualify for redundancy insurance simply because the natural termination of a fixed term contract is not considered to be redundancy. He offers no solution to those of us in a very unpleasant situation."
How many other employees in an increasingly deregulated market, where fixed-term contracts are ever more common, will find that they are uninsurable or can obtain insurance only at a prohibitive premium? As the Secretary of State has been reminded frequently in the past two months, unemployment is only one of the factors leading to claims for income support from home owners.
Of the 548,000 claimants receiving such help last year, less than half were unemployed. Eighteen per cent. were over retirement age, 22 per cent. were lone parents and 19 per cent. were claiming for other reasons, mainly disability. The Secretary of State has yet to give us hard evidence in relation to where people will obtain insurance cover against the risk of a relationship breakdown or disability. All that he can offer is his optimistic hope—no hard evidence, just his hope—that new insurance products will emerge to cover many of those risks. However, I doubt whether many potential buyers would put their shirts, let alone their houses, on his hopes.
I challenge the Secretary of State to put this challenge to some of his colleagues. If he suggests to his colleagues, and particularly those in seats with majorities of less than 15,000, that they seek insurance cover at the moment, he might he interested to learn the terms that would be offered—if any of them qualified for cover at all.
What about the impact: on the housing market? In its brief, the House-Builders Federation makes the point that it is evident to anyone with an understanding of what is happening at the present time in the market that it is, in the federation's words,
"Showing increasing weakness, reflecting lack of confidence, job insecurity and the possibility of a further reduction in MIRAS in April. The timing of these proposals"—
Mr. Jenkin: It would say that.
Mr. Raynsford: They are not my words, they are the words of the House-Builders Federation. The federation has a direct interest in a flourishing house building industry. It states:
"The timing of these proposals is particularly unfortunate and they are likely to cause more house purchases to be deferred."
The federation continues:
"the measures will go on to discriminate against those households wishing or needing to move and will slow down housing transactions even further."
Against that background, what is needed is a positive package of policies to restore confidence in the housing market. The Secretary of State is offering the opposite. In addition to the threatened increase in interest rates, and
530
the further cut in MIRAS in April, the income support changes constitute a lethal cocktail which will poison any prospect of recovery in the market this year.
Mr. Lilley: That is scaremongering.
Mr. Raynsford: According to the Secretary of State I am scaremongering by quoting the words of the House-Builders Federation. That is an indication of how extraordinarily badly informed the Secretary of State is about the market. The story in today's Daily Star about his reluctance to meet representatives of the House-Builders Federation is perhaps another indication of the problem. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State intervenes from a sedentary position, but I understand from the director of the House-Builders Federation that a meeting was arranged hastily this morning after the article appeared in the Daily Star.
Mr. Lilley: I had received no request from the federation to see me. On reading the article, I telephoned the federation to say that my door is always open to any organisation, such as the federation, which wanted to see me. I said that if the federation wished to come and see me, it was welcome to do so. I am pleased if the hon. Gentleman has discovered that the federation is willing to come, but those are the facts and I hope that he will now withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Raynsford: The Secretary of State said that he received no request for a meeting. Any sensible Secretary of State doing what he is doing would have asked for the federation's opinion before he acted.
The measures which the Secretary of State is proposing, and which we are debating tonight, are ill-conceived and incoherent and will, if carried through, have a devastating impact on thousands of families whose dream of home ownership will turn into the nightmare of repossession. That comes from a Government who have presided over the worst-ever crisis of mortgage debt and repossessions in the country's history. It comes from a Government whose Prime Minister claimed in January 1992 on "Desert Island Discs" of all extraordinary places:
"We've stopped, if you recall, the repossessions just before Christmas."
Since then, 176,000 former home owners, many now languishing in miserable and expensive temporary accommodation, can bear witness to the falsehood of that pre-election claim. It comes from a Government with no constructive thoughts on how to stimulate recovery in the housing market—recovery that is vital to liberate the millions of home owners who are trapped in negative equity.
The only good thing to be said for the package is that it will, if carried through, put paid to any prospect of a feel-good factor returning to the housing market and, by so doing, it will hasten the end of this discredited Tory Government.
6.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): It is pretty rich of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) to talk about positive packages for the housing market after that grossly exaggerated negative conclusion to his speech. How he believes that it will improve the housing market to talk of a lethal cocktail of poison, I leave to everyone's imaginings.

531
In his analysis, the hon. Member for Greenwich wholly failed to deal with the Government's two main arguments. The first relates to how to deal with the inexorable rise in the cost of income support mortgage payments. Does he believe that that rise should continue? Does he believe that the taxpayer should continue to support it at that level without any further restraint?
The second point with which the hon. Gentleman failed to deal relates to the 70 per cent. of those who are not on income support and who are not covered by the present arrangements. The Government are proposing to deal fairly with both those problems.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) powerfully expressed, when there is such state activity, it is hardly surprising that private enterprise tends to be displaced. The home protection insurance market has undoubtedly been affected by the existing scheme. What is sought to be insured must be borne in mind. What is proposed is short-term insurance to cover the nine months for new borrowers. That is a finite and insurable period. It is something which the market can reasonably be expected to make arrangements to cover.
Mr. Denham: The Minister has said that we can reasonably expect the market to insure the nine-month period. Will he confirm that one cannot buy a policy for the first three months of that nine-month period?
Mr. Evans: Policies vary enormously. Not all of them are couched in the terms to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
The Abbey National says that 40 per cent. of its new borrowers are now taking out mortgage protection policies. The Association of British Insurers makes it clear that about a third of its new borrowers are taking out such insurance. General Accident has insurance cover at £4 for every £100 of repayment.
It is reasonable to expect that, as the market develops and as competition comes into play, the price of policies will go down, and the terms of such policies will steadily improve. The fundamental fact with which the Opposition have not dealt is that it is in the interests of lenders—one would never have imagined it, judging from what was said earlier—that the type of policies that their borrowers take up, which, after all, are designed to pay those lenders, do not have the exclusions about which we have heard so much. In other words, the market will demand that improvement in insurance policies, and we can reasonably expect that to happen.
Mr. Dewar: The Minister will agree that the crux of the argument is what happens in the limited period at the start of the unemployment or ill health—the nine-month period. The Association of British Insurers says that almost all policies have between 60 and 90 days in which no payment will be made. Is it the Government's intention to negotiate an agreement with the industry so that that gap will not exist?
Mr. Evans: It is the Government's intention to stimulate the market. It is perfectly possible—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should listen for a moment, instead of assuming the ignorance of the market. The self-employed and contract workers can take out sickness insurance policies that come into play after three days, three months or six months, depending on the relevant terms. The market is well used to and quite capable of introducing products to deal with that matter.
532
The Opposition's attack on the insurance market is quite astonishing. No doubt it will be noted in the City. No doubt it will be noted, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) put it, as working for our friends in the City. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) deplored the costs of private insurance administration. He agrees with the proposition of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. He apparently thinks that nationalising insurance or doing it collectively would be cheaper. He also attacked the terms of policies, but I stress that mortgagees have an incentive to improve the terms of those policies. The fact remains that the self-employed and, indeed, contract workers, can take out policies for all sorts of contingencies.
The hon. Member for Greenwich said that one cannot insure against divorce, and no one should be able to do so. A prudent couple will take out insurance to deal with contingencies, including the consequences of such a situation. [Interruption.] One can obtain insurance because one is unemployed or because the mortgage is not being paid. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) appears to be wholly ignorant of the basic terms of policies.
Let us take the matter one stage further. The Government are committed to consulting on the details of the arrangements. Pensioners on income support mortgage interest payments are and will be fully protected. We shall consult in respect of other vulnerable groups.
I advise the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) that all new transactions after October 1995 will be classified as new from that date, not the date of the Budget statement, and we shall consult on protection for those on benefit who, for example, become disabled and require expenditure on improvements.
The Government welcome the opportunity to talk with the Council of Mortgage Lenders about the details of the scheme. We accept that, from October, the 1991 agreement will need to be negotiated, but there is a strong element of common interest among borrowers, lenders and the Government: repossessions are failures for mortgagors and mortgagees. A repossession inevitably leads to a vacant sale, which never recovers as much as a sale with the person in possession. An alarming number of repossessions—one building society put it as high as 30 per cent.—have come about as a result of borrowers simply walking away, leaving the place empty, and leaving mortgagees with no option but to repossess and to sell. That does not help the borrower, because he incurs alternative housing costs and his liability to the lender continues.
There is room for considerable improvement in the public's understanding of the rights and obligations of all parties to such arrangements. There is also scope for better practice in the management of mortgage arrears and repossessions. In November 1993, the Government tightened the county court rules. To answer the question of the hon. Member for Rochdale, we have no proposals to alter the Administration of Justice Act 1970, but mortgagees have realised that the courts possess wide powers to give some mercy to borrowers who are in difficulties. It is very unfortunate for the Council of Mortgage Lenders that the public appreciate the considerable forbearance that building societies and other lending institutions have already shown.

533
There are positive signs. Mr. Adrian Coles, the director of the CML, stressed that people may move from the standard 25-year mortgage. There is no reason why different, more flexible mortgage terms should not be arranged, for example giving the option of making higher payments when in work to meet a holiday period if a contingency such as unemployment strikes. It may be much better to focus discounts not so much on first-time borrowers but on the contingencies of life such as childbirth, when a wife ceases to work for a period. 'There is absolutely no reason why there should not be variations of the repayment period.
Instead of that constructive approach, we have heard from the Opposition nothing but doom and gloom about the housing market. The hon. Member for Rochdale described the proposals as a further blow to the housing market. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who no doubt stirred Tory souls by saying that the ownership of property brought enhanced self-respect, nevertheless hardly assisted house building or the mortgage industry by referring to yet another nail in the coffin of the housing market. The reality was met by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North, who pointed out that it is not desirable to have an overheated, excessive housing market that distorts the economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield may find an interesting conflict in his priorities between manufacturing industry and housing.
The Opposition's prevailing theme has been consistently to talk down the state of the housing market. No Conservative Member can see how that could benefit any prospective home owner, anybody engaged in house building, or the economy generally. The facts are nothing like as black as the picture that the Opposition painted. Housing starts in the first nine months of 1994 were up 13 per cent. in the private sector. Indeed, they are the highest since 1989. Negative equity and repossession figures are tending in the right direction. The Government's support on MIRAS, which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said was being reduced, is still at £3 billion per annum. Under the proposals, the Government's commitments under the income support mortgage payment arrangements will still run at not much less than £1 billion a year.
On top of that, mortgage rates are at their lowest for many years and, perhaps above all else, the ratio between average earnings and average house prices is now classically at the most favourable point, because undoubtedly the cycle will turn as confidence returns. What the housing market needs and what home owners and borrowers with mortgages need is confidence, not the doom and gloom that we have heard from Opposition Members.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 277.

Division No. 52]

[7.00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Ainger, Nick

Ashton, Joe

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Barnes, Harry

Allen, Graham

Barron, Kevin

534

Battle, John

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bayley, Hugh

Gordon, Mildred

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Graham, Thomas

Bell, Stuart

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Bennett, Andrew F

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Berry, Roger

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Blunkett, David

Grocott, Bruce

Boateng, Paul

Gunnell, John

Boyes, Roland

Hall, Mike

Bradley, Keith

Hanson, David

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hardy, Peter

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Harvey, Nick

Burden, Richard

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Byers, Stephen

Henderson, Doug

Caborn, Richard

Heppell, John

Callaghan, Jim

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hinchliffe, David

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hodge, Margaret

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Canavan, Dennis

Home Robertson, John

Cann, Jamie

Hood, Jimmy

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Chidgey, David

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hoyle, Doug

Church, Judith

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clapham, Michael

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hutton, John

Coffey, Ann

Illsley, Eric

Cohen, Harry

Ingram, Adam

Connarty, Michael

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Corbett, Robin

Jamieson, David

Corston, Jean

Janner, Greville

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Cox, Tom

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

Cummings, John

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Jowell, Tessa

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dalyell, Tam

Keen, Alan

Darling, Alistair

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Davidson, Ian

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Khabra, Piara S

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Kirkwood, Archy

Denham, John

Lewis, Terry

Dewar, Donald

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Dixon, Don

Litherland, Robert

Dobson, Frank

Livingstone, Ken

Donohoe, Brian H

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dowd, Jim

Loyden, Eddie

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Lynne, Ms Liz

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McAllion, John

Eastham, Ken

McAvoy, Thomas

Enright, Derek

McCartney, Ian

Etherington, Bill

Macdonald, Calum

Evans, John (St Helens N)

McFall, John

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

McKelvey, William

Fatchett, Derek

Mackinlay, Andrew

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

McMaster, Gordon

Fisher, Mark

McNamara, Kevin

Flynn, Paul

MacShane, Denis

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McWilliam, John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Madden, Max

Foulkes, George

Maddock, Diana

Fraser, John

Mahon, Alice

Fyfe, Maria

Mandelson, Peter

Galloway, George

Marek, Dr John

Gapes, Mike

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

George, Bruce

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Gerrard, Neil

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Martlew, Eric

Godman, Dr Norman A

Maxton, John

Godsiff, Roger

Meacher, Michael

535

Meale, Alan

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Short, Clare

Milburn, Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Miller, Andrew

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Morgan, Rhodri

Snape, Peter

Morley, Elliot

Soley,

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Spearing, Nigel

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Spellar, John

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Mullin, Chris

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Steinberg, Gerry

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Stevenson, George

O'Hara, Edward

Stott, Roger

Olner, Bill

Straw, Jack

O'Neill, Martin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pearson, Ian

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pickthall, Colin

Timms, Stephen

Pike, Peter L

Tipping, Paddy

Pope, Greg

Turner, Dennis

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Vaz, keith

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Walley, Joan

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Purchase, Ken

Wareing, Robert N

Radice, Giles

Watson, Mike

Randall, Stuart

Wigley, Dafydd

Raynsford, Nick

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Reid, Dr John

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Rendel, David

Wilson, Brian

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Winnick, David

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Wise, Audrey

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Worthington, Tony

Rogers, Allan

Wray, Jimmy

Rooker, Jeff

Wright, Dr Tony

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Rowlands, Ted

Salmond, Alex

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sedgemore, Brian

Mr. George Mudie and

Sheerman, Barry

Mr. Joe Benton.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Alexander, Richard

Burns, Simon

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Butcher, John

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Butler, Peter

Amess, David

Butterfill, John

Arbuthnot, James

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carrington, Matthew

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Carttiss, Michael

Ashby, David

Cash, William

Atkins, Robert

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Churchill, Mr

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Clappison, James

Baldry, Tony

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Coe, Sebastian

Bates, Michael

Colvin, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Congdon, David

Bendall, Vivian

Conway, Derek

Beresford, Sir Paul

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Booth, Hartley

Couchman, James

Boswell, Tim

Cran, James

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

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

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Bowis, John

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Day, Stephen

Brandreth, Gyles

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Brazier, Julian

Delvin, Tim

Bright, Sir Graham

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Dover, Den

536

Duncan, Alan

Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Durant, Sir Anthony

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

Dykes, Hugh

Knox, Sir David

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Elletson, Harold

Lait,Mrs Jacqui

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Legg, Barry

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Leigh, Edward

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Evennett, David

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Faber, David

Lidington, David

Fabricant, Michael

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lord, Michael

Fishburn, Dudley

Luff, Peter

Forman, Nigel

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Forth, Eric

MacKay, Andrew

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Maclean, David

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Madel, Sir David

French, Douglas

Maitland, Lady Olga

Fry, Sir Peter

Mans, Keith

Gale, Roger

Marlow, Tony

Gallie, Phil

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gardiner, Sir George

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Garnier, Edward

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gill, Christopher

Mates, Michael

Gillan, Cheryl

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Merchant, Piers

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Mills, Iain

Gorst, Sir John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Moate, Sir Roger

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Monro, Sir Hector

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Grylls, Sir Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Hague, William

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hampson, Dr Keith

Nicholls, Patrick

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hannam, Sir John

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Norris, Steve

Harris, David

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hawkins, Nick

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hawksley, Warren

Ottaway, Richard

Hayes, Jerry

Page, Richard

Heald, Oliver

Paice, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Hendry, Charles

Patten, Rt Hon John

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hicks, Robert

Pawsey, James

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Horam, John

Pickles, Eric

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Porter, David (Waveney)

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

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Rathbone, Tim

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hunter, Andrew

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Richards, Rod

Jack, Michael

Riddick, Graham

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Jenkin, Bernard

Robathan, Andrew

Jessel, Toby

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Key, Robert

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kilfedder, Sir James

Sackville, Tom

Kirkhope, Timothy

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Knapman, Roger

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

537

Shaw, David (Dover)

Thurnham, Peter

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Tracey, Richard

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Tredinnick, David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Trend, Michael

Shersby, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Sims, Roger

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Viggers, Peter

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Walden, George

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Soames, Nicholas

Waller, Gary

Spencer, Sir Derek

Ward, John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Waterson, Nigel

Spink, Dr Robert

Watts, John

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Wells, Bowen

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Stephen, Michael

Whitney, Ray

Stern, Michael

Whittingdale, John

Stewart, Allan

Widdecombe, Ann

Streeter, Gary

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Sumberg, David

Wilkinson, John

Sweeney, Walter

Willetts, David

Sykes, John

Wilshire, David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wolfson, Mark

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wood, Timothy

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Temple-Morris, Peter

Thomason, Roy

Tellers for the Noes:

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House condemns the Opposition's wish to continue the inadequate existing system of Income Support Mortgage Interest, which does not protect those with modest savings, those with small pensions or redundancy payments, or those with a working spouse, which has undermined the spread of private mortgage insurance and has contributed to 50,000 homes a year being repossessed; believes that the Government's proposals will lead to the development of more comprehensive, less costly insurance cover; welcomes the fact that pensioners on income support will continue to have their mortgage interest paid; and reaffirms its commitment to home ownership.

Rural England
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
7.12 pm
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins)rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?
Mr. Atkins: When we think of England, we think often of the countryside. Our countryside has seen great changes over the past 50 years and it will face new challenges as we enter the next century. We must face those challenges with optimism and a clear sense of direction.
That is why the Government have decided to produce a White Paper on the future of the English countryside. The English countryside is at a crossroads. Traditional industries are declining. There are demands for new jobs, new homes and more leisure opportunities. We must ensure that our countryside provides a good quality of life for people today and that it is ready to meet the challenges of the future, but we must take care that we do not destroy the qualities which make our countryside so valuable.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that the assurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8 December—that the Education Department will be closely involved with the steering group—will be extremely important to people like me, and my hon. Friend, who believe in rural schools? Does he condemn the efforts made by Lancashire county council to attack and destroy village schools?
Mr. Atkins: As a constituent of my hon. Friend, as well as a parliamentary neighbour, I am only too well aware of the pressure on village schools in Lancashire and elsewhere. My hon. Friend is a renowned and doughty fighter for the village schools in her constituency, and she makes an important point to which I shall return later. It is an entirely fair point, and we shall be considering it. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who will be winding up the debate, will be more than happy to support my hon. Friend's concerns.
The aim of the White Paper is to set out our vision for the medium to long-term future of our countryside. It will not be about quick fixes. Instead, it will look 15 to 20 years ahead to the sort of countryside that we want our children to enjoy. It will examine the pressures on the countryside and review the Government's responses to those pressures. It will set a framework for future policies.
Most importantly, the White Paper will help ensure that all policies which affect the countryside are part of an overall strategy. Our policies need to support each other and not pull in different directions. The White Paper is being co-ordinated jointly by my Department and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The presence of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary demonstrates that. It involves, and must continue to involve, many other Departments right across Government.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the greatest worry of people—particularly in the

539
south-west, but in most rural areas—which is the spread of the concrete jungle? As an illustration, I fought my constituency in 1967, when it had an electorate of 63,000. If I had the same parishes in my constituency today, the electorate would be 118,000. That is the kind of growth we are having in the south-west, and the concrete jungle is eating into the countryside. When planning applications come to the Department, they seem to be approved without enough thought being given to the protection of rural England, which is what we all wish to see.
Mr. Atkins rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, I must point out that there are many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak in this debate, and long interventions do not help.
Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is a distinguished and long-serving Member, and he speaks with considerable authority about rural matters, which he has represented in constituency terms in this place for many years. I was in my right hon. Friend's constituency during the summer, and I saw for myself the sort of pressures about which he talks. I shall be addressing some of my later remarks to planning, but he has put his finger on the concerns. The pressure from those who have moved from the town, or from those who are visiting the countryside from the town, is matter which my right hon. Friend and other hon. Friends have raised.
Mr. Michael Colvin: My hon. Friend keeps talking about our countryside, but why have we excluded Scotland and Wales? Why have we also excluded forestry from the debate?
Mr. Atkins: I have enough trouble looking after the problems in England without being concerned personally with Scotland and Wales. The Ministers responsible for rural matters in those two parts of the United Kingdom are only too well aware of the concerns which my hon. Friend wishes to raise. My task is to be responsible for the English countryside, and I shall certainly make sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware of my hon. Friend's concern.
It is important to realise that my hon. Friend, as an English Member, has been able to raise his particular concerns about Scotland and Wales. Perhaps—under the proposals from the Opposition—that might not be the case in future, and that is an important point. My hon. Friend will know that forestry throughout the UK is led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that adds more fuel to the point that I just made.
Where were we? [Laughter.] There is a penalty in giving way to so many hon. Friends.
People in the countryside tend not to shout as loud as well-organised and influential urban lobby groups. In a world dominated by towns and cities, it is all too easy to overlook the needs of rural areas. Country folk think that no one is listening and that their interests have been forgotten or neglected, but that has changed since I was appointed Minister for the Environment and Countryside. I have made it my top priority to get out into the countryside—from Northumberland to the Isles of Scilly, from Shropshire to Kent—to discover the real needs of rural England.
540
One thing that I have learnt is that there is no single voice for the English countryside. Some people want more development, others want less. To some people, the countryside is a place to enjoy, to others it is the place where they live and work, and it is the latter to whom I am paying particular attention.
Many people have a stake in the future of our countryside. That is why we have asked more than 300 organisations to tell us what they think should be in the White Paper. We have also publicised it through national, regional and specialist press and invited people to write to us directly with their views. At the last count, we had received about 200 responses from organisations and individuals alike and we know that many more are on the way.
In addition, we are arranging a series of regional seminars during the next few months, which will provide a further opportunity for Ministers from my Department and from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to listen to people who know and understand the countryside.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I are delighted to have this opportunity to hear the views of hon. Members. Many Members, on both sides of the political divide, represent rural constituencies and I look forward to an informed and constructive debate. It is particularly helpful to have this debate during the early stages of our work on the White Paper. I cannot promise that we shall be able to deliver everything that people ask for, but my hon. Friend and I will take away the promising ideas that I am sure will arise—especially from the Benches behind me—to explore with our ministerial colleagues in other Departments.
The Environment Bill is being discussed in another place and contains provisions to safeguard our national parks and protect hedgerows. We appreciate the heritage provided by our national parks. They are frequently termed, with justification, as the jewels in the crown of our landscape. When they were established 45 years ago, however, few people can have imagined the pressures that they face today. The Bill therefore provides for the establishment of independent national park authorities, which will provide the framework within which a more integrated approach can be taken to the management of those areas. For the first time, it will also oblige Government Departments and other public bodies to have regard to the purposes of the parks when operating within them.
The national parks can thrive only by maintaining a sensible balance between the purposes of conservation and recreation, for which they have been designated, and the needs of local communities. That is why we also propose a duty requiring the new national park authorities to have regard to the economic and social well-being of the local communities.
We are also honouring our commitment to protect hedgerows. They can be an important part of the fabric of the countryside as a wildlife habitat, a valuable landscape feature or simply a reflection of our history. The Environment Bill includes powers enabling us to introduce a statutory scheme to protect important hedgerows in England and Wales. We intend to introduce a scheme that is reasonable, practical and fair—a scheme that minimises the burden on those who will be subject to the controls and those who will administer them. The

541
detailed arrangements will be settled only after we have listened carefully to views expressed as the Bill progresses through Parliament and during separate public consultation.
The Government are committed to the protection of our hedgerows and to the future of our national parks. Traditionally, our policies to protect the countryside have worked through designating particular areas. The White Paper provides an opportunity to consider how far we want to move further in that direction and whether we want to consider new approaches that will help to safeguard the assets in the wider countryside.
Environmentally sensitive areas and countryside stewardship point the way towards a new approach, providing incentives for farmers and land managers, who are the stewards of the English countryside and who, over the centuries, have helped to create the countryside as we now know it—a fact often forgotten or ignored by urban dwellers. The White Paper will assess the roles of regulation, advice and incentives and map out a strategy to make the most effective use of our resources.
In addition to special programmes to protect the countryside, we must ensure that the major forms of land use are conducted, as far as possible, in a way that enhances the environment. That is particularly true of agriculture, as about 73 per cent. of the land surface of England is farmed. We may need to study the prospects for new crops and positive alternatives, such as forestry, which can offer a range of benefits.
The White Paper will consider the future priorities for land use in the countryside. In doing so, it will need to take into account the likely future course of the common agricultural policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has established a policy group of independent experts to advise him on future developments and the United Kingdom priorities for change. The results of that review will feed into the White Paper.
The planning system is one of the main ways in which we protect our countryside, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton said in his intervention. I hear many different views of its effectiveness, as do many of my hon. Friends. The Council for the Protection of Rural England, for example, tells me that the planning system needs to be strengthened, but the Country Landowners Association tells me that it should be more permissive. We shall be dealing with that problem in the rural White Paper.
More development is necessary in rural areas if it is to provide new homes and new jobs, but that development must be in the right place and be of good quality, if it is to fit in to the English country landscape. That means design that responds to local styles and materials and I have some plans for that.
People in the countryside—perhaps not so differently to those in other parts of the country—are sometimes accused of NIMBYism. Often, it is not the principle of new buildings to which they object, but the imposition of ugly developments that look totally inappropriate. We are lucky to have inherited a country with a myriad of local
542
styles and we should celebrate that diversity, enhance the natural environment and, above all, resist the advancement of drab uniformity.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend undertake to be especially vigilant about road schemes? Does he agree that some of the motorways that have been driven through our countryside have done more to despoil and desecrate it than any other development?
Mr. Atkins: My instinctive reaction is to agree with my hon. Friend—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in his place who, in a previous incarnation, was the Minister responsible for some of that. In many rural areas, a bypass enhances the environment and adds greatly to it, but in other instances, proposed developments do not.
I found that out when, at the behest of the Labour-controlled county council, it was proposed that a six-lane motorway be driven through my constituency. Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, then the Minister responsible for roads, was able to help me to defeat the proposal. It is a question of the local view prevailing. Sometimes it is a good thing and sometimes it is bad. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack) that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is only too aware of his concerns, which are shared on both sides of the House.
Mr. Michael Jopling: My hon. Friend mentioned the views of the local people. He will know that recently a development was approved in Ambleside in my constituency, which was opposed 100 per cent. by the local people. He said how important it is to listen to the local people, but in that case they were ignored, in spite of a series of planning inquiries. Will he undertake that the planning laws will be studied, with a view to giving more consideration to the views of local people?
Mr. Atkins: I cannot but agree with my right hon. Friend. I do not know the case to which he refers, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend, the Viscount Ullswater, who is responsible for planning matters, is aware of it. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) will tell me more about it later. His general argument is entirely fair and, as a Minister responsible for planning in a previous incarnation, as well as being involved in a council planning committee, I know only too well of its importance. One of the intentions, in the rural White Paper, is to ensure that we pay more attention, in all the multiplicity of areas that are important in the countryside, to what local people have to say. As usual, my right hon. Friend makes a particularly good point.
The creation of green belts around major conurbations, to check urban sprawl, is one of the major achievements of our planning system. They have assisted greatly in protecting the countryside. Earlier this week, we published revised planning policy guidance that reaffirmed our resolute commitment to green belts and made limited changes to strengthen policy for the 21st century and secure yet greater environmental and economic benefits.
There are sometimes tensions between those who live in the countryside and those who visit it. I have heard the pleas that the countryside should not become a giant theme park,

543
but we must recognise that, as people's leisure time increases, they will wish to visit the countryside more and more. About 590 million journeys to the countryside were made last year and I have no doubt that that number will increase in the future.
I was in the peak district park not long ago, and was astonished to learn that, as many of my hon. Friends who represent the area will know, it is the second largest park of its kind anywhere in the world—second only to a park in Japan. The pressures on it are great indeed. We cannot ignore this trend and hope that it will go away, but we can manage it to secure the maximum benefit for rural areas, while still conserving those qualities which attract the visitor in the first place. The livelihoods of those who live and work there must come first.
The White Paper will also look at the urban fringe, an area which has yet to realise its full potential.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that when it comes to access to the countryside, we have an excellent right of way and bridleway network? More and more farmers, especially in East Anglia, are very responsibly maintaining those rights of way. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour's proposal for the right to roam the countryside is sheer lunacy, and that it would destroy the good will that has been built up between the public and the farming community?
Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is a consistently staunch defender of the countryside interest. He knows it as well as, if not better than, anyone else in the House. His point was on the nail—I could not but agree with it.
The White Paper will also look at the urban fringe, an area yet to realise its full potential. There is great scope to provide leisure opportunities on the fringes as well as in the heart of our cities. That will reduce the demands on the countryside and breathe new life into a part of our urban areas which has been neglected for too long. Community forests are a good example of how to exploit the potential of the urban fringe, but I am sure there is plenty of scope to do more.
Our vision of the countryside, particularly if we live in towns and cities, usually focuses on beautiful landscapes, sometimes of the chocolate box variety, but people are just as important. They maintain the land and the traditions of rural life—not least country pursuits, crafts and country sports.
Sir Peter Emery: Hunting and shooting.
Mr. Atkins: As my right hon. Friend says. Today's countryside is filled with people as varied as blacksmiths and computer programmers, although I sometimes ask myself how easy it would be for a blacksmith to get planning permission these days: the smells, the noise, and so on. The strength of our countryside lies in its diversity—the variety of people and economic activity as much as the variety of its landscapes.
544
I have travelled quite extensively around the English countryside in recent months.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Not more trips!
Mr. Atkins: Well, they bear repeating, since I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has not moved out of Leicestershire.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Will my hon. Friend be extremely careful to distinguish Leicestershire from the city of Leicester?
Mr. Atkins: Yes. In the course of my perambulations, I have been able to hear at first hand some of the concerns of country dwellers. For instance, when I was in Northumberland in the company of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), we saw the pressures that Hadrian's wall is bringing to bear on local activities, and the consequences for tourism. We also went to a village shop in Otterburn and saw the importance of the Army to what goes on there. We listened to people's views.
I also went to Todmorden moor and saw for myself the problems on the edge of the Pennines. I saw how local people, with the aid of Rural Action, are dealing with the problems of fly-tipping by those who pass through the area. Then I went to the Malvern hills, to see the problems of tourism and to visit a small cider maker and taste her wares, which I publicly endorse whenever I get the opportunity. I saw how much can be achieved in such a small operation.
I went to the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) to see a small cheese maker; I went away with some excellent Somerset cheese of a prize-winning variety. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Name it."] I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be happy to help out my hon. Friends.
One of my most enjoyable visits was the one to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, to see the problems and to talk to the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). Arguably, one of my most fascinating visits was to west Dorset, in the company of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer). He is a well-known member of the Parachute Corps, and he asked me to meet his constituents, to enjoy the delights of the area and to see the problems of the coastline. We talked to local people. I am only sorry that in the course of so doing, my hon. Friend stumbled and injured himself—for which I apologise.
All these activities allowed me to see and hear at first hand what the problems were, and to realise the strengths of the countryside. There are some wonderful people out there. There is great heart there, and a great deal of which to be proud.
Many of these rural communities see an adequate supply of affordable housing as the key issue. Of course that is linked with jobs, transport and the location of schools, shops and health care facilities. Policies for rural housing need to be considered against the background of the changes that are taking place in the countryside. We need to take account of the needs of those who have traditionally lived and worked in the countryside and who wish to continue to do so.

545
There are costs as well as benefits to living in the countryside. People complain about the closure of village shops and village schools, the lack of public transport, the shortage of affordable housing and the difficulties of building new premises for businesses and new houses.
There are no easy answers to those problems—although I am sure that Opposition Members will try to offer some. We know that there are none. To some extent, those problems are a reflection of higher standards of living and increased choices. The car has given many people greater mobility and has enabled them to make journeys to shops and schools which would have been inaccessible to their parents, but this freedom has its price. If people drive to the supermarket on the edge of town rather than use their village shop, the village shop will inevitably close. The same is true of village schools and local buses. The slogan "Use it or lose it" is not new but it lies at the heart of the battle to maintain village services. We can all help.
The Government need to think carefully about their role in protecting services in the countryside. Would it be right to subsidise village shops but not corner shops in cities? Indeed, why should not people shop in supermarkets, where there is greater choice at cheaper prices? When is it right for extra resources to go into village schools to enable them to deliver good quality education rather than releasing resources to enhance the provision for children attending large schools? In answering those questions, it is necessary to be aware of the value of village services to the local community.
These are not easy judgments to make. We need to take account of people's changing expectations, the extent to which reduced choices lead to market failures and the extent to which urban dwellers should cross-subsidise people who live in the countryside.
In many cases, the way forward is to build on the strengths of the countryside, rather than to impose urban solutions where they do not fit. Adaptability and a sense of community are at the heart of rural life in many areas. I know that my hon. Friends would endorse that. Schemes such as the Home Secretary's parish constables initiative build on the fact that people in rural communities often know each other well and are prepared to invest time in their village.
The other guiding principle in delivering services in rural areas is making the best use of what is there and being flexible about using facilities for different purposes. The Post Office has an unrivalled network in rural areas and we shall consider how further diversification of Post Office Counters, which was never going to be privatised, can help to deliver more services to people in the countryside. Plans for the automation of the Post Office network offer exciting possibilities to improve the range of advice and information available to people no matter where they live.
Access to transport is one of the key requirements of people in rural areas. In many cases, it will be the car, which is an essential part of rural life today. Although car ownership in rural areas is high, some people do not have a car. It is a particular problem for women, young people and the elderly. We must look at people's need to travel, rather than focus on transport providers. In some areas, buses would have only one or two passengers. It would not be practical and it probably would not. be the best environmental option.
546
We must consider flexible approaches that build on what is already available. Many hon. Members will know about post buses. There are other opportunities, such as car sharing schemes and making better use of statutory transport, such as school and social services buses. The problems of providing services in rural areas are not intractable. We must start with an understanding of people's needs and then look at the best way in which to meet them—building, again, on what is already available in the countryside.
Overall, our countryside is a success story. Its beauty is an asset for the whole country. The countryside also contributes to the growing strength of the national economy. During the 1980s, employment in the countryside grew almost twice as fast as in large towns. Places with an attractive environment, broad-based employment and easy access to markets are well placed to help lead the recovery and contribute to our national competitiveness.
Some traditional rural job providers, such as mining, defence bases and agriculture, employ many fewer people than they used to—in our own countryside as in other parts of Europe. Many of the more accessible parts of the countryside have met that challenge. Old jobs are being replaced with new and employment is rising. The economy of today's countryside is very different from the traditional image. Small-scale manufacturing and the hotel and distribution sectors provide almost half the jobs in rural areas. Some 40 per cent. of farms in England now also run non-farming businesses. Those are huge and successful changes in the countryside. They are testament to the flexibility and the entrepreneurial skills of our people in the countryside.
The rural White Paper will look at how the Government can best play their part in helping the countryside fulfil its economic potential by building on its natural strengths—the skills and resourcefulness of the people and the quality of the environment. It will examine how the Government can help diversify rural economic activity, remove barriers to enterprise and build on local strengths. The new rural challenge competition, administered by the Rural Development Commission, is an example of our approach. The winning bids in the first round show an encouraging integration of economic and social development with environmental enhancement. I congratulate the Rural Development Commission, particularly its chairman, Lord Shuttleworth, on the immense amount of work that it does in the countryside.
I have received, as, I assume, have many of my hon. Friends, a note from the RDC. It is worth emphasising the second paragraph, which reads:
"The Commission's overriding concern is that the Government should put people at the heart of rural policy and it should restate its belief in the importance for the conservation of the countryside of a strong rural economy and balanced communities with a reasonable access to services."
I could not have put it better myself.
The White Paper is still at an early stage, but I have tried to give the House an idea of the issues that it will address and look forward to hearing the view and ideas of hon. Members.
There are problems in the English countryside today and there are challenges for the future, but I am confident that we can meet them by building on the strengths of the countryside: the values of stewardship and inheritance, which we see in the way in which farmers and landowners

547
value their land; the respect for quality and building things to last, which we see from magnificent country churches to dry-stone walls; the sense of community in which people support one another and work together, whether to raise money for the church roof or to keep the cricket club going—even expanding; and the sense of place and pride in what makes one village different from the next. I am sure that, if we build on those traditional values and adapt them to meet new challenges, the English countryside can look forward to a bright and prosperous future.
7.43 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I welcome the debate—the first major debate on rural issues for many years—because at last it appears that the Government understand the importance of rural issues. It is right that it should be a major focus for all the political parties.
It is a pity that the debate is taking place on a Thursday evening, on a day when there is no opposed business at 10 o'clock, but it is good to see so many colleagues in the House, ready and willing to participate in the debate. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) here today, because I am sure that he will be able to tell us of all the good things that are happening in Lancashire. It is good to see so many distinguished Conservative Members, so many knights of the shires—I do not know whether Croydon, Central quite counts as a shire—so many knights-to-be and so many knights-who-should-be. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack) is here.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is sexist to refer only to the knights of the shires.
Mr. Vaz: There is nothing like a dame, and I am sorry that I overlooked the presence of the honourable dame opposite.
The English countryside is a precious asset, which is neglected at the peril of the nation or any Government, especially this Government, as so many Ministers, including the Secretary of State, represent rural seats. It was interesting to hear of the trips that the Minister has made around the country, and a quick glance at his curriculum vitae shows why he is so keen on those visits. As a former sales executive with Rank Xerox, he has had plenty of opportunity to look at various parts of the country.
Living as I do in a shire city, every weekend I have the opportunity, when I return to Leicester—as I shall do this evening—to see the beautiful Leicestershire countryside. On the way, I pass some of the glories of England, among them the counties of Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Northamptonshire. I agree with the Minister to this extent. It is a great joy. But like the rest of the rural areas of England, there have been dramatic changes over the past few decades.
Tonight, I hope to set out what I believe should be done to change rural issues from being considered as a fringe political subject to one that is brought into the mainstream of political debate. It is a move that the public support. It is an issue that the House must tackle.
The title of the debate, "The future of rural England", gives hon. Members enormous scope to raise so many issues of concern to them. I promise to be much briefer than the Minister was in his contribution, as so many hon. Members wish to participate.
548
After 15 years of neglect, some might say that the answer to the question "Is there a future for rural England?" is no. The view from the Opposition is an emphatic yes. Environmental policy, for far too long, has been based on action being taken after the damage has been done: cleaning our rivers after pollution; protecting sites after neglect; and protecting wildlife after their species has been threatened. Opposition Members believe in taking action to prevent damage to the environment from occurring in the first place. That is why we are committed to creating an environment protection executive, which will set and enforce standards, in co-operation with local authorities.
A thorough overhaul of the land register is necessary to provide a comprehensive guide to ownership, quality and land use. There is far too much confusion in that area. We need an improvement in conservation legislation, to protect natural habitats and create more nature and marine reserves. We strongly welcomed the creation of the new national parks. We believe that there should be more, especially in southern England, to meet the regional imbalance.
We need a new Clean Water Act, to provide clean water. The water environment naturally has an effect on the nation's tap water. We want to ensure full compliance with European standards, as set out in the European Union drinking water directives. It is outrageous that water disconnections for residential properties are still allowed. We believe that they should be outlawed. Water costs more in rural areas. Now the water companies are under pressure from the regulators to change the cost of delivery of water to each location. That is accountancy gone mad. The price of water, which has already increased, will quadruple.
It is high time that we developed policies for native and broad-leaved woodlands which recognise their amenity value and ecological importance. I want to see a huge reduction, if not elimination, in opencast mining, which has been described by the Council for the Protection of Rural England as one of the most environmentally destructive processes carried out in the United Kingdom. New opencast sites should be permitted only where they are of benefit to the local community and the environment.
The countryside belongs not to government, either local or national, but to the people themselves. There should be a legal right of access to common land, mountain, moor and heath. There should be co-operation with local authorities to ensure that public rights of way are kept open and clearly signposted.
We heard a great deal from the Minister about "Cider with Rosie". We did not hear enough about the cider-makers and the rural economy. For far too long, the hopes and aspirations of those who work in our rural areas have been taken for granted. One rural household in every five is now living in or near a state of poverty.
A survey carried out two years ago found that 55 per cent. of workers in farming, forestry and fishing were earning less than £200 a week compared with an average of 26 per cent. in all industries. With employment in agriculture falling, it is vital that new industries and businesses are fostered in the countryside.
Regeneration is not something that can be applied only to our major towns and cities. Macro-economic policy should not ignore the job-creating and wealth-creating potential that is based outside our urban areas. Businesses

549
in rural areas must have access to the help and advice that can be provided locally. We firmly support the concept of one-stop services for small businesses which will concentrate on providing management support systems and which will have their roots in the local community.
New technology will be the key to development in that area. Regional development agencies, with powers to provide industrial estates and encourage long-term investment will ensure that decisions about local needs are made by local people who understand the needs of rural areas.
Developments in telecommunication services will be a key to helping districts far from large towns and cities to stay in touch—for example, through telework. There are now 129 telecottages in the United Kingdom, 75 of which are in England and they boost the rural economy by encouraging town-based work to move to the country. It is important that that new technology should be available to rural areas at the same price as to other areas.
Mr. Mark Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is enunciating some interesting ideas which will form part of the Opposition's manifesto when the time comes. Can he give us a clue how some of the proposals will be funded?
Mr. Vaz: Nothing in what I have said will result in an increase in Government expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I was saying, and if was aware of what our policies are in terms of encouraging support for employment prospects, he would know that we believe firmly in the concept of partnership between the public and private sectors. I shall come on to planning and partnership issues later.
We welcome the initiative of ACRE—Action with Communities in Rural England—and the Rural Development Commission with help from British Telecom and the Post Office which last week launched a £1 million grant scheme known as countrywork to help with job creation in the English countryside. As Michael Simmonds wrote in The Guardian this week, this will hardly create a revolution, but it is a start. He said:
"But it is so good to see the post office championing the cause of development when not so many weeks ago they were talking of rationalisation and closure."
We need to train our work force, especially the school leavers. There is a need to co-ordinate those agencies that offer training. Raising the low wages of those who work in our rural areas is also a priority. That is why the Opposition support so strongly the concept of the minimum wage. About 4 million people will benefit from the initiative, many of them in rural areas where a large number of people are on low pay. That will be of special relevance to women who make up a large proportion of the low-paid rural workers.
We did not hear much from the Minister about housing and I am not surprised. Britain is in the midst of an appalling housing crisis, with interest rates now on the rise again and a staggeringly high level of mortgage repossessions. At the same time, we are seeing the lowest rate of new houses built since the second world war and record levels of homelessness.
In the midst of that crisis is the crisis of rural housing. The scale of need in the village is greater.than in any single city, but because of their scattered nature, they are
550
often ignored. The concept is of an idyllic village—the little house on the prairie. The truth now is that the little house has become overcrowded. People on low incomes with young families are unable even to think of buying a home while fewer opportunities exist to rent.
We need an effective housing policy in order to sustain rural communities. Unless affordable housing is provided, the viability of some villages may be threatened. If people with younger families have to move out, school rolls will fall, causing the closure of schools and the redundancy of teachers.
The knock-on effect will be impossible to curtail. Other community facilities, such as shops and pubs, would then be threatened as businesses would slump accordingly. Thus, housing plays an integral part in the fortunes of the rural economy. There is an urgent need to act. Local councils in rural areas should be permitted to start small-scale building programme and offer a range of options for affordable housing, including part rent, part buy schemes, either in partnership with housing associations or by councils in their own right.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has already told my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) that none of his policies will involve additional expenditure. The Government this year are providing £2.5 billion to the Housing Corporation to provide some 45,000 housing starts this year in the low rental sector. How will the Labour party, as it says, solve the problem of homelessness, about which the hon. Gentleman complains, despite all that building, without the injection of further public funds?
Mr. Vaz: I have had the advantage of having a meeting recently with the chief executive of the Housing Corporation. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is unable to grasp the fact that there was no increase in the amount of money available to the Housing Corporation, there was a decrease, which will result in fewer houses being built. I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman can understand that.
In the 1980s, the Minister's predecessors in the Department of the Environment boasted of a bonfire of planning controls. The consequence of the extraordinary approach that we have seen during the past 15 years is now apparent in all areas of rural Britain. We have witnessed extraordinary developments destroying some of the best of rural Britain while other areas are starved of necessary investment in new industry and housing. Sensible planning controls, firmly rooted in the local community, are vital if we are to have the right type of development at the right place in the right time.
Development must be plan led, not market led. The market on its own cannot provide affordable housing. We want to see local authorities using the planning system to ensure that new housing developments include some affordable housing for rent. I want to see a partnership approach so that local authorities work with the private sector and local people to protect and enhance our countryside and to secure balanced and appropriate development.
We want to see local people consulted much more carefully over the drawing up of local plans. That is why, on Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning (Costs of Inquiries etc.) Bill on 12 January, I announced

551
the establishment of a review of planning law. The results of that review will have a direct effect on the quality of lives of those who live in rural areas.
Sir Jim Spicer rose—
Mr. Vaz: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this is the last time that I shall give way because other hon. Members wish to participate.
Sir Jim Spicer: All the emphasis so far on housing has been on what is done by the local authority. In my part of the world in west Dorset we would not even begin to understand the sort of situation that the hon. Gentleman outlines. The main thrust for new affordable housing in west Dorset comes from housing associations, which are getting cheap land, are using the money that is being provided by the Government to the full and are providing a massive input of new housing in every village in west Dorset.
Mr. Vaz: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been listening to what I have been saying, but I made it clear that we believe in a partnership between local authorities and the private sector. I wonder where the hon. Gentleman thinks the money that goes to the Housing Corporation comes from. It is public money, and what goes to the Housing Corporation goes to housing associations. We welcome the work that has been done in that regard. The hon. Gentleman should listen more carefully to what is being said before intervening.
We believe in planning for prosperity—the prosperity of our local areas and local people, which will preserve the rich diversity of life in England. The House should be very concerned about the new information provided by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which shows that between 1945 and 1989 we lost more than 700,000 hectares of rural land to urban development. That is an area greater than Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire and greater London combined. The disappearance of the land—England's lost land—needs urgent consideration.
It is important for education opportunities to be available to all our children. That means that we must take special note of the requirements of rural communities. Local schools are often the focus of their communities, and there should be no prejudice against small village schools in decision-making. Resources must be made available to ensure that rural schools are closed only for educational reasons.
We need to improve access to further and adult education in rural areas. We must examine all options offered by new technology for distance learning and promoting the spread of information. That is why we propose that local agricultural colleges should be expanded into countryside colleges, with a wider curriculum providing key skills in new technologies, business techniques and environmental matters, thus meeting the training needs of a much broader section of the rural community.
The national health service was founded on the principle that the best health services should be available to all, wherever they lived and whatever their circumstances. In many rural areas, people do not have easy access to health services: mobility is of key importance to them. Mobile services can help to improve access to services in such areas: they could include mobile
552
clinics equipped to provide primary care—immunisation clinics, child health clinics and family planning services in local premises. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) will need the support of such services.
Consultants and general practitioners must share responsibility for care so that people who need long-term treatment, such as diabetics, do not have to make so many long journeys to out-patient clinics. More tests and treatments should be available in GPs' surgeries and health centres so that patients do not have to go to hospital. We should also ensure that minimum activation and response times are as laid down in the Orcon standards, which require 95 per cent. of responses to be made within 19 minutes. Those standards should be maintained, and improved wherever possible.
I am sure that the House will agree that good transport is vital to the quality of life in rural areas. We look forward to hearing from the Minister what new measures she proposes to improve rural transport. Under the present Government, services have been cut dramatically: villages have become isolated and fares have soared. To end the isolation of those villages and to improve the prospects of small rural industries, we must have better road links between rural areas and centres of population. We must also have bypass schemes to make villages safer, taking traffic away from where people live and children play. That is why I support the eastern bypass in Leicestershire so strongly.
Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Vaz: As I taunted the hon. Gentleman earlier, I think that I ought to give way to him.
Mr. Garnier: The last thing that I would want to do is disappoint the hon. Gentleman. As he has cast a fly across the water—if he understands that analogy—I think that it would be rude of me not to rise to it.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the plan for the eastern bypass was drawn up by the Labour group on Leicester city council to wreck the countryside of south-east Leicestershire. Is it not true that the hon. Gentleman understands not a jot of the speech that he has been reading out, and that he has no experience of rural life and no understanding of rural Leicestershire, let alone rural England? Is not his speech a total abomination?
Mr. Vaz: That is rich, coming from the hon. Gentleman. He supports the A46/47 link road, which will destroy so much of the green space in my constituency and, eventually, his own. He ought to be ashamed of himself, and I am sure that the electors of Harborough have noted what he has said.
The car alone will not solve all the problems of transport in rural areas. There has been a massive increase in the Government's road building programme. The Department of Transport projects an increase in road traffic of between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent. by the year 2025, because of policies pushed through by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) when he was a Minister. That is enough to form a queue 124,000 miles long. Those extra vehicles could be accommodated on a new motorway from London to Edinburgh, if it were 257 lanes wide. Such a policy is environmentally damaging, both

553
because roads require land and because they encourage greater use of private vehicles, with all the attendant potential for an increase in air pollution.
Mr. Robert Key rose—
Mr. Vaz: Good, affordable public transport is vital—
Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman referred to me.
Mr. Vaz: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to apologise to the House—in his own time, not in mine—for what he did when he was a Transport Minister.
Good affordable public transport is vital, allowing the networking that enables rural communities to prosper. We need to encourage the use of innovative bus services such as post buses. We must provide greater route flexibility for the regular network services, ensuring—dare I say it—through ticketing between transport services. In the present climate, when the Government seekincredibly—to privatise our railway system, we need public and private partnerships to invest in our railways. We need to examine ways in which lines that are currently restricted to freight can be reopened to passenger service; we want to ease congestion on and damage to rural roads by promoting the use of rail for the movement of goods. The proper use of the railway system is one of the most effective ways of protecting the rural environment.
The organised hunting of foxes, deer, hares and other animals for pleasure, in which pain and suffering is inflicted, is unacceptable. The present law relating to cruelty to animals is seriously flawed, as statutes outlawing cruelty do not apply to wild animals. The law must be changed and strengthened. We have never proposed further limitations on country sports such as angling and shooting. We recognise that angling provides a healthy recreation for millions of people, and we should encourage angling associations and clubs to develop the sport through training schemes which will include the education of the young angler in the importance of caring for wildlife and the countryside generally. It is a wonderful occupation and recreational facility for ex-Ministers.
Sir Patrick Cormack: What about shooting?
Mr. Vaz: As for shooting, there is the issue of rural crime. It is not just the controllable crime seen through the eyes of those who watch the television series "Heartbeat"; it is real crime, and, as the Minister knows, there has been a staggering increase in it. In Kent there was an increase of 106 per cent. in recorded crime between 1987 and 1993. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack)—the new knight of the shires—will be astonished to learn that, during the same period, there was a 70 per cent. increase in recorded crime in Staffordshire. In Sussex the figure was 59 per cent., in Lancashire it was 43 per cent., in Hertfordshire
554
it was 33 per cent., in Leicestershire it was 96 per cent., in Dorset it was 35 per cent., in Hampshire it was 48 per cent., in Norfolk it was 55 per cent.—[interruption]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There are too many seated interventions and commentaries. If hon. Members wish to comment, they must rise and seek to intervene in the customary fashion.
Mr. Vaz: Conservative Members do not want to hear about the increase in crime in rural areas. They are ashamed and embarrassed about it. There appears to be no strategy for dealing with the problem. There are no more bobbies on the beat, in their cars or even on their bicycles and crime is disfiguring the lives of people in our rural areas.
The debate will show that the needs of the countryside and those who live in it are of great importance. It is not a case of competition between town and country, of city hall versus village hall; the real competition is with time itself. We must ensure that we do not waste our most precious assets, so that all who care for the countryside can work together—as William Blake wrote—
"Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land."
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members are anxious to contribute to this short debate so I ask hon. Members to exercise self-control and to make short speeches.
8.9 pm
Mr. Robert Key: After the quite extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), I hope that we can return to the issue of the future of rural England. The hon. Gentleman was not kind enough to give way when he attacked me. I am sorry that he did not agree with my policy of cancelling five motorways, which I deemed to be unnecessary. I was keen on promoting bypasses, one of the most famous of which was at Broughton and Scruton in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister, who is unable to mention it himself.
I declare an interest as president of the Wiltshire Association of Local Councils, and local councils have much to contribute to the future of rural England. Like the Minister, when I worked in the Department of the Environment I was able to travel the length and breadth of this country, which was a great privilege. One of my ambitions was achieved when I attended a parish council meeting in Warkworth castle in Northumberland and attended a meeting of the council of the Isles of Scilly.
I fervently hope that the future of rural England will not include regional government. The Labour and Liberal Democratic parties are wedded to the idea of devolution and regional government. In my book, that means more interference and bureaucracy and negates many existing checks and balances, such as the National Consumer Council and a number of regulators and the like. Above all, it means more Members of Parliament, more cost and more officials, and it raises the terrible issue of where regional assemblies might be located.
It may be seen as obvious that the north-east of England should have an assembly in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. In the north-west, an assembly might be located in Manchester,

555
and in the midlands it could be somewhere in Birmingham. Those who have dealt with the councils in those fine cities, all of which are under Labour control, know that the Labour leadership of metropolitan authorities loathe the idea of regional government. It would emasculate the politics of their regions and reduce their influence for good, in their terms anyway, in their areas. They do not want it, and I know of no one who does.
In the south-west you can bet your bottom dollar that someone will decide that any regional assembly should have its headquarters in Bristol. Unfortunately, many people believe that Bristol is in the west of England. I hate to disillusion them, but it is not. Bristol is a proud and ancient city that has always looked rather in towards itself, but if it is anywhere, it is in the west midlands. It is absolutely not in the west of England, which is why I fought so hard when I had the honour of being a member of the Government to locate some of the new regional government offices in Plymouth, which is far closer to the centre of gravity of the south-west. The delivery of Government and local services is what matters, and Government regional offices have made a major contribution to that.
Thank goodness we are getting to the end of the review of local government because it has been a difficult time for us all. Much of the opinion-taking by the Local Government Commission has been flawed. I regret having to say that, but there is a perception that it has not worked. A constituent of mine wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment on 20 January. He stated:
"There was a distinct lack of popular interest and even less comprehension of the true facts resulting in a natural reluctance to opt for change. A MORI interviewer indicated that of all the people seen in several different areas I was the first who could answer her questions without reference to the sparse green leaflet."
He went on to give further examples of the flaws as he saw them.
The Local Government Commission issued a number of press notices informing the local population of its decisions. I was rather alarmed about the Wiltshire decision because, in announcing a unitary authority for Swindon, for Thamesdown, which we all applaud and agree about, it announced that there would be no change to the rest of the county. Of course, that could not be further from the truth because, if a third of the population is taken from a county, the rest of the county must experience substantial change in the administration of local government.
My district council in Salisbury is excellent by all objective tests in financial management, administrative cost, tax collection and arrears and housing benefit: 98 per cent. of claims are dealt with within five days. On matters such as rent arrears, void council homes and energy ratio scores, my district council is doing very well. I know that we in south Wiltshire are fortunate in having one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the south-west. That is a privileged position but it has been achieved through hard work: it has not happened by accident.
I shall now deal with some of the particular issues affecting rural England, not just in my part of the world, but throughout the country, and I shall start with one or two points about the military. We in south Wiltshire are proud to have the largest training area in the country on Salisbury plain. The military have made a positive
556
contribution to the development of rural England and will continue to do so. They are a good neighbour and they look after the rural and built environment.
The military are good conservationists and plant so many trees that the nature conservation bodies complain that the habitat might be upset if planting goes on at the same rate. They are good at archaeology and at liaising with archaeologists and at the preservation of habitat for flora and fauna. If my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) were here, he would say that and I have no doubt that my other neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), will hope to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The military are good employers of civilians, and have been so in south Wiltshire for the best part of this century. They have made a dramatic impact on employment, so with particular sorrow I shall tomorrow attend the closure of RAF Chilmark, which is being closed because of the changing needs of the Royal Air Force.
Of course, the military bring housing problems in their wake, which was referred to earlier in the debate. Pressure arises when a family that has been in the Army for many years decides to leave it and needs housing. That family may originally have come from Liverpool or Manchester, but it has ended up in Salisbury via Germany, Belize or perhaps Hong Kong and its members feel more at home in my community than they do in their place of birth and upbringing.
There are great housing pressures on us all and good management by the housing authority has enabled it to cope very well. There has been a dramatic improvement, and the only measure that I shall offer is that in the past five years the number of letters and surgery cases about housing management has dropped dramatically. It is now manageable because there is a proper housing plan. Despite all the great financial difficulties that my housing authority faces, the housing stock is better than ever for the 15 per cent. of people in my constituency who depend on public housing.
There are also pressures on schools, social services, vehicles and roads and, of course, there is the pressure of noise. I pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence, which has done all that it possibly can to minimise noise disturbance. Firing ranges and RAF aeroplanes inevitably mean noise, but it is manageable and sophisticated computer models are operating on Salisbury plain to try to ensure that when meterological conditions are not right firing is stopped for a few hours.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: With his knowledge of that military training ground, perhaps my hon. Friend could tell my constituents, who are to receive the AS90 gun from Salisbury plain, that the charges to be fired in practice at Otterburn will not be the same as the rounds that caused the disturbance on Salisbury plain.
Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to confirm that. He is absolutely right. The AS90 is seen as something of a bogey. Of course it has the same barrel as the gun that has been firing on these ranges for 30 years but it is a high-tech version. What matters is the charge that is put in the gun, and the very high charge can be fired only on Salisbury plain. I think I can confirm that it will not be fired on the Otterburn ranges. At the same time, we want to share a little of the grief with Otterburn. I have known Otterburn all my life. I have cousins who farm at Otterburn, so I

557
understand the problems that my hon. Friend faces with his constituents. However, the position is not nearly as bad as he may imagine. Indeed, those living close to the plain sometimes wonder what is happening when it is quiet. Noise can be a problem, but the military take good care of the plain.
Another aspect is the science base of the MOD in rural areas. I have the good fortune to have in my constituency the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment and the centre for applied microbiology and research at Porton Down. Both are fine establishments that have done much to further basic medical science, to provide remedies and to protect our service men in time of war or threat. The science base is not just a matter of what goes on behind wire fences; it is part of our community. Its families are part of our community, of our schools and of our social life. That enriches our community. We are proud to have so many distinguished scientists in our midst, and are grateful for the employment that the establishments bring.
One area that concerns me is policing. Contrary to what the Opposition claim, the police—certainly in Wiltshire—have made dramatic strides in reducing crime. It is good news that crime has fallen for the first time in my constituency for some years. That is due to the excellence of the Wiltshire constabulary, whose motto rightly is primus et optimus. It is the oldest police force in the country and, of course, it is the best.
The problem with the Home Office funding under the new formula is that it does not take proper account of the sparsity of rural areas. My hon. Friend the Minister has already discussed that matter with me and others and we shall continue to press him on it. The basis of the new budget for the new police authority is one issue, but sparsity is another.
There is another side to the matter. Rural areas often have far more than one police force; seven police forces operate within my constituency. Many people do not know that there are seven police forces. The Home Office force has primacy, but we also have a full constabulary of the Ministry of Defence police. I pay tribute to their work, which is often unsung. It is important to the villages on Salisbury plain to know that the military police are supporting the county constabulary.
From time to time, we have the Atomic Energy Authority police and the British Transport police on our roads. There are other forces such as the provost marshals and, now, Guard Force. I suspect that in future there will be more semi-official police organisations—such as that on the Queen Elizabeth II bridge at Dartford. Its security force personnel look very much like policemen, although they are not strictly and legally policemen. Despite that, we are grateful for the work of all policemen, whichever uniform they may wear.
Inevitably, after the increases in police numbers in recent years there will have to be some constraint. There are now more police in Wiltshire than ever. There has been a 23 per cent. increase in the number of uniformed policemen since 1979 and a 97 per cent. increase in the number of civilians working in support of the police. It is not widely known that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is a special constable. Parish constables have been a success.
558
We like special constables in our community—they are people we know and meet every day. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary that it would be cheap, in his terms, to boost police forces in rural areas with sparse populations by using more special constables. I am sure that crime would reduce as a result.
Farming is absolutely basic to my constituency, as it is to most of rural England. Farmers have created our environment and preserved our countryside. They are quick to respond to changing needs and they deserve our congratulations. If anything has gone wrong, it is that 20 years ago no one would have air freighted calves to the continent, to be fattened and returned to our country as dead meat. All that added value should be going to our farmers, butchers and consumers, not to transport companies and French business interests.
I do not want to pursue that argument, but surely there will be some changes. I have suggested to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that we should be tweaking a very heavily subsidised industry to encourage more home markets. We must remove the need for that trade and encourage home subsidies.
For reasons that include the care of the environment, I am sure that we will move from a high-input, intensive farming regime to a more natural farming tradition. The system of environmentally sensitive areas is a major advance, which I welcome. Perhaps there will be a return to traditional farming in areas such as Wiltshire, which means the grazing of sheep and cattle on the plain—as at Parsonage down and Winterbourne Stoke—with dairying in the valleys. There may be less grain growing, which depends on a high input of nitrogen fertilisers. That could make a big difference to the pattern of agriculture. It may be a long way off, but it is definitely on the way. If we want a few clues, we could do worse than look at the example of New Zealand.
Land tenure changes will make a big difference to the future of rural England. I welcome the Government's plans and I look forward to the Bill being debated in the House. A serious review must be made of county council farm tenancies. In my county, there are many such farms, covering about 12,500 acres. The tenancy was designed to be a short-term stepping stone, but the average now runs for about 26 years; something is wrong there.
Forestry is gaining increasing attention as we manage to think long-term, but foresters need short-term cash flows to pay the wages. It is folly to tie them up in red tape and tie them down with planning restrictions, which is what I fear happens in some places.
I draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to an area that he has taken great care with, for which we are grateful—the New Forest heritage area. There are still problems with the overlapping of local plans and there is a fear that commoners, farmers and landowners will find themselves so tied up in red tape that they cannot do any productive farming.
Mineral extraction and waste management are matters that other hon. Members may wish to pursue, but planning is the key to so many things—as my hon. Friend the Minister said in his speech. Should there be a free-for-all? He was right to suggest that the instinct is to say yes, people should be able to use the property they own to their own advantage, in their own way. However, pragmatism insists that we provide an active framework of community

559
co-operation. Therefore, I have no quarrel with the concept of being locked into a tight planning system. Local plans have proved a great advance.
This is a small island, which is another reason why we do not need regional government. The transport needs of London and Manchester cannot be seen in isolation from their impact on the home counties, the east Thames corridor, Cheshire or, for that matter, Barrow-in-Furness. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was right in his aim of deterring green field development even further. However, we must be careful not to deter regeneration in existing communities. As a former Minister with responsibility for inner cities, I know what it is to talk in billions of pounds about the regeneration of urban environments.
It is wonderful to see Hulme crescent in Manchester coming down and Housing Association modest housing being put up in its stead. However, I am not talking about that; I am drawing my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in most market towns there are hundreds of acres of derelict land. Much of it may be railway land; much of it has simply been derelict for many years. Enormous problems need to be dealt with.
We need to deal with transport constructively. I do not wish to get sidetracked into issues of inter-urban travel. In preparing his White Paper, my right hon. Friend the Minister should consider the problems of rural poverty, which undoubtedly exist, low incomes for rural workers, however diversified industries become in rural areas, and the retired population, who will always be on tight budgets. They are all dependent on the motor car. My worry is that less well-off constituents in rural England will suffer most from a carbon tax and similar proposals. I cannot imagine how one can devise a subsidy system to get round the problem.
This country spends more than £1 billion a year on subsidising not people who want to travel but bus companies. Is that the right way forward? My right hon. Friend the Minister drew attention to the fact that we need to be much more imaginative in tackling the issues of rural travel. Of course, the rural transport development fund, which he mentioned in connection with post buses, is important, but sick and disabled people have transport problems in rural areas, which is understandable. The concessionary fare scheme may partly deal with that, but it does not deal with the needs of most people.
I am increasingly concluding that the best way of ensuring better targeted transport subsidy in rural areas is to subsidise not bus companies but people who need transport, which could be done through voucher systems. Many local authorities already operate such systems. To some extent, they are linked with voluntary car schemes. An extremely important study has been undertaken in Wiltshire by the Health and Safety Commission. It was published only this month and I draw it to my hon. Friend's attention.
Airports are another issue from which we cannot escape in discussing rural England. Regional airports are becoming increasingly important and they have an impact on rural development. There are many examples of that around the country. If ever there was one example of an airport that was a major opportunity waiting to happen, it is Newquay airport in Cornwall. That could make an enormous difference to the economy of western England. World tourism will continue to expand. Newquay can take
560
jumbo jets and Concorde. The matter should be considered carefully. Could Cornwall cope? I believe that it could.
The Rural Development Commission has been mentioned. I reiterate the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister. I congratulate Lord Shuttleworth and all the people who work for the commission. I hope that it will reach the right conclusions in its difficult and controversial decisions on market failure and direct rural training. It has saved thatching and wheelwrighting from extinction. Some of the trades that it has taught have moved entirely into the private sector.
I support the withdrawal of taxpayers' support where it is unnecessary, but we must be sure that we do not just abandon some of those traditional rural crafts where there is no alternative. Distance learning, telecottaging and small-scale tourism are taking place and the Rural Development Commission has played its part.
We have employment problems in, for example, Wilton, where, tragically, the carpet factory closed this week. Of course, Wilton carpets will continue in one form or another. The name may have been raided by Bradford, but the land, buildings and heritage remain.
Conservative Members and the Government are so often accused in rural areas of destroying rural communities. There is the image of school, church, pub, post office and shop. In one breath, we are condemned by Opposition parties for putting strains on those institutions. As soon as those parties get into a position of power and influence to do anything about the problems, they do the closing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has his own example; I have mine. My county council, where a pact has been formed between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, is putting under threat schools at Barford, St. Martin, Fovant and Dinton in my constituency. It is not being done on educational grounds. The hon. Member for Leicester, East said that those schools should close only on educational grounds. I hope that he will tell his county councillors of the decision that he has made.
Mr. Garnier: If he will not, I will.
Mr. Key: If our rural communities were being offered wonderful rural centres, with schools, sports halls, village halls for live culture and telecottaging, that would be fine and many of our little rural schools would say, "That is a better education," but that is not happening. Little rural schools are being closed so that we can have bigger town schools. That is not what my constituents want.
Tourism is crucial and will be more important than ever as the years go by. I remain worried about the structure of tourism and support for it. My message is that we should make tourism as local as possible in terms of the organisation of the tourist industry. In my time as a Minister with responsibility for tourism, I found that it was best for a town to take an initiative on tourism rather than rely on a regional tourist board or even a bigger tourist organisation.
England is a land of great diversity with a bright future and we should never talk it down; to do so costs jobs and prosperity. When I lived in Cornwall in the 1960s, I was told that Cornish fishing, the daffodils on the Isles of Scilly, early potatoes and broccoli, railways and the Cornish way of life were in terminal decline. None of that

561
was true. There was uncomfortable change in the area. If one group of people should shoulder some responsibility for that, it is those who made their way in the world by convincing people that the south-west was in terminal decline.
The Liberal party, which became the Social Democrat party, which became the Liberal Democratic party, made the politics of the south-west the politics of decline, protest and defeat. That was not clever because every Liberal Democrat vote in Devon, Cornwall, Somerset, Dorset, Avon, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire is a vote for surrender. That party tells boardroom decision-makers from Newquay to New York, from Truro to Tokyo, and from Salisbury to San Francisco that the people of the south-west cannot cope, that they opted out of the challenge for progress and quality of life.
Every Liberal Democrat vote says to Whitehall and to Brussels, "We beg for your money and we will do what we are told. We want federalism, the single currency, the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy." At the vote on fishing last week, which was so cynical and opportunistic, the leader of that party was not even present.
The south-west can make a great deal of difference to itself: it has a choice. It should not sulk or sink into that orange sunset and be represented at Westminster by a party that is proud to be out of step with the rest of the United Kingdom and that lacks influence.
In rural England, we see today's enterprise culture gaining markedly from the rich resources of the south-west. The heritage is better cared for than ever. I hope very much that in 1995 my constituency, where a quarter of jobs are in manufacturing industry, will be an example to the rest of the south. If my constituency is anything to go by, and I think it is, rural England has never had such a broad economic base. It is poised to take full advantage of the economic upturn. We have many problems to tackle, but we have never been better equipped to tackle them.
8.38 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I join in the all-party welcome both for the debate and for the Government's announcement that they will publish a White Paper on rural policy. Although I have no doubt that there will be plenty of disagreement about rural policy, it is good news for all hon. Members representing rural areas that the real problems and challenges affecting the communities are coming under scrutiny in that way. I welcome the tone and most of the content of what the Minister said at the start of the debate. Whether he will deliver on that remains to be seen. Regrettably, I noted some omissions from his comments. He sought, however, to highlight some relevant and important issues.
To draw up the kind of integrated approach that has been suggested, across all policies and involving all sections of the relevant communities, is an ambitious target. Despite the best intentions, the policies from different Departments, quangos and various tiers of Government too often pull in conflicting directions. The answer is to start with the basics.
Let us think of a typical rural community—a small village or town surrounded by a few dispersed homes and farms. Traditionally, such communities were virtually
562
self-sufficient. The starting point was usually farming or a similar primary industry such as fishing, which brought relatively high employment levels to the countryside. Nearby villages and small towns grew up to service their needs—markets, small shops and other services, a school, post office, church and chapel. The size of the community and the traditional methods employed in its business meant little risk to the environment and an essentially self-sustaining economy. However, I am not suggesting that everything was perfect. In many ways, opportunities were restricted, but it was in a very literal sense a sustainable economy and community.
However, all that has been under huge pressure in the past few decades and the net impact has left a huge question mark over the future of such rural communities.
In Cornwall, we are only too well aware that the urban view of the countryside—holidays, a good environment and a nice place to live—is very far from the reality for many of the people born and brought up there. To explain that we have to consider what is needed to keep rural communities alive.
First, housing must be available at a price that people can afford. However, several different pressures are making it ever harder for local people to find the housing that they need. The countryside has become a popular place to find a home for retirement, from which to commute or in which to buy a holiday or weekend cottage. City salaries or the value of a London house on retirement are available to such purchasers, but local wage rates cannot match them. With the supply of housing limited, not least by efforts to protect the countryside from over-development, local people are priced out of the market.
In Cornwall, for example, this has meant that a two-earner couple, with both individuals on average local earnings, could by the late 1980s secure a mortgage sufficient to buy only a house in the cheapest 2 per cent. of the housing stock in the county, almost none of it by definition in the more rural villages which were the most popular and, therefore, the most expensive.
Mr. Colvin: These days, people do not have to buy a house. In my constituency, there are on average 1,000 empty dwellings, roughly equivalent to the number of people on the urgent council house waiting list. If the Government's leasehold and short tenancy reforms were more widely known, more of that property could be let. People do not have to buy.
Mr. Taylor: I cannot dispute what is happening in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but that is certainly not the case in Cornwall, although I acknowledge that there are particularly acute pressures in Cornwall for the reasons that I have elaborated.
In the 1980s, more than half the sales in the most popular Cornish villages involved second homes and many of the rest were homes for retirement. That stops local people buying in their own communities, and I shall deal in a moment with the problems of rented accommodation.
If a young couple cannot find a home in their community, they have to leave. The village then empties of children, the school struggles and local businesses fail. When the summer holidays come, part-time residents wonder why the full-time services have disappeared—even though they are a major cause of that disappearance.

563
The problem is made worse by the loss of rented accommodation. Most rural communities have never had a great deal of private sector or council accommodation, but council house sales have been brisk and private landlords found that they could make more out of a summer holiday let than a year-round tenancy. The result is that homelessness has hit rural areas hard and forced young people out of their communities. We are all familiar with people who can get a winter let, but, when summer comes, are once again peripatetic, homeless, perhaps staying with family or friends or relying on bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Of course, well-paid local jobs could provide a solution to the dilemma. Traditional industries such as farming, fishing and mineral extraction employ nothing like the numbers that they once did, and they offer low incomes. In addition, out-of-town shopping and the concentration on larger towns by the major retail companies has destroyed much of the traditional small business base in villages. Once-thriving village centres now feel lucky if they can boast a part-time community post office.
For those with a car, that may be sad but not necessarily a real problem. However, for those without easy access to transport, it is a nightmare. On top of high housing costs, it makes rural living ever more unaffordable and, as young people, mothers and others are forced into the towns, more services are lost to the villages. Fewer children means pressure for the school to close, fewer people using local shops leads to still fewer shops; and so the cycle ratchets on. Fewer people use the buses, so routes are lost and the remaining people are stranded.
There is also the threat of the loss of rural post offices. Many have already closed and others are reduced to opening part time, but vast numbers are still struggling to survive although they have been hit by high business rates, by ever lower payment per item of business and by the Government's refusal to allow the Post Office to offer the new, competitive services that could help it survive while it remains in the public sector. If it is true that such an initiative is to be ruled out, it will be seen as nothing other than petty retaliation in a fit of pique by the President of the Board of Trade because he was not allowed the privatisation that he wanted. If the local post office is strangled in village after village, another strand of the mutual community and the elements of support that allow people to live in that community even though they are not rich is cut.
I hope that the House will now permit me to raise a couple of issues specific to the south-west which relate to Government decisions. The biggest fear in Cornwall, and what has most angered people in the region, is the cost of water. Capital costs used to be spread across the country but now fall to local communities. That may sound fine in theory, but the result is that the 3 per cent. of the national population living in the south-west has had to pay for more than one third of the national cost of cleaning Britain's beaches. With many bills soaring to more than £600—that is often the case for pensioners in my constituency—householders and, incidentally, local businesses, have been badly hurt. I fear that the same could happen with the decision to charge consumers for the costs of getting electricity and gas to us.
I have done enough to highlight the problems of rural areas which have been caused partly by structural and economic change and too often hastened by Government policy. I deal now with what we must do to turn this
564
around, and the kind of integrated policies that we need at all levels to rebuild the thriving, sustainable rural economy that Ministers say they are seeking. The Liberal Democrats published their proposals last year in the document entitled "Reclaiming the Countryside" and have already submitted it to the Government for consultation.
I must draw some conclusions from what I have said. The rural community cannot survive if all sections of that community cannot afford to live there. We cannot allow rural areas to become commuter dormitories or holiday home ghost towns, and that means affordable homes to buy and rent and helping young first-time buyers, for example, through a part-ownership scheme. Yet the private sector will not finance housing schemes with restricted sale clauses to meet local needs and, as housing associations have been required to get private sector finance, it is becoming a real problem to guarantee that the land specially set aside for rural needs will remain for local needs thereafter and councils are then naturally reluctant to make land available which would otherwise not get planning permission.
Many rural housing associations have suffered huge cuts for next year. For example, Cornwall Rural Housing Association will be unable to build any homes. The solution must be to relax the restrictions on the use of receipts from council house sales to build new homes to rent, whether by the council, housing associations or any other bodies, but present policies cannot continue without wrecking the nature of many of the rural communities that I represent.
I cannot speak for all areas of the country, but where there is high incomer pressure and pressure for second homes, one cannot service the need for local housing for local people without substantial Government investment beyond that which remains after the recent cuts.
Housing alone is not enough—with it must come jobs. The best way in which to tackle that desire is to give more muscle to backing local business. That means single, well-financed local development agencies. The highlands and islands and Wales have shown that they can work and it need not mean much more money. It means taking the funds already held by civil servants in Whitehall and the Government's regional offices, all of which, incidentally, are in big cities, taking money from the quangos and from the plethora of competing agencies and giving it to a single accountable local agency to back local business.
Much as I appreciate the efforts of those involved with, for example, Business Link, I simply do not believe that an office in or on the edge of some rural town, for which people have to pay, meets the need, with part-time attendance by people from various Government agencies.
Creating jobs also means taking a broader approach to development issues and planning and transport. It is nonsense that no assessment is made of the often negative economic impact of road schemes on local communities. We need to look at the transport needs of rural communities in a broader way to take into account the environment, the effect on local businesses and those who may have no access to private transport.
Much of the destruction of the countryside has been in the name of economic development, yet has contributed to the loss of economic and business success in the communities affected. It is extraordinary to find it confirmed in parliamentary questions that no assessment is made of the local impact of such road schemes on jobs, even though the Government have, over many years,

565
claimed that the schemes have contributed to the creation of jobs overall. They may contribute to jobs in the cities because the cities can supply the rural areas more easily, but, too often, such schemes destroy jobs in rural areas for small local businesses that never have any intention or ability to go into the cities to compete in that direction.
Creating jobs also means adopting a new approach to agriculture and protecting countryside. That is why we have advocated replacing the common agricultural policy with a new European common rural policy, in which agriculture continues to play a core role, but not an exclusive role. More advice and assistance needs to be made available for the start-up and expansion of small businesses, marketing and business planning, and diversification out of food production.
We need to move away from indirect price management in agriculture, which is not popular with the wider public and never will be. Therefore, it is always under threat from Governments responding to that public concern. We need to move towards direct payments for economic, environmental and social goods, which benefit the wider community, such as maintenance of the best features of the British countryside, biodiversity and areas of special interest.
It has been said several times in this debate that farmers have created the countryside. People value that countryside and we need to make people more aware that they cannot have it without a successful farming community. One of the ways in which to do that is to make people more aware that their support in pay goes into things that they want to keep, rather than a general impression that it goes into the pockets of people who buy and drive new Range Rovers.
Local government is best placed to respond to many of those local needs, but it simply cannot if restrictions, which were originally designed to tackle the sins of a few over-spending, out-of-control, left-wing city authorities, are extended to hit traditionally low-spending authorities in rural areas. It is especially harsh when authorities which for many years—decades rather than a few years—were low spenders, conserved spending as the Government wished, and very often underspent in areas such as education, find themselves, because the capping ceilings are based on historic levels, having to cut many more core services than authorities in the cities which were large spenders in the past and which have more fat to trim. It is not always the case, but some hon. Members would agree that very often that is what happens.
Extending the restrictions is especially hard to accept when the cost of services in rural areas, which cannot be delivered through one unit but have to be spread out over a wide area, are inadequately recognised by Whitehall. I shall give a couple of examples from the south-west.
In the south-west as a whole, the Government allow us £130 a year less in the standard spending assessment for each child's education than the average for England. Yet our schools have to deliver the same national curriculum and pay the same national wage rates. In addition, there is a tendency to employ older, more loyal staff in smaller village schools, so their wage costs are usually higher than average. Schools which may have only four, five or six teachers in the first place sometimes have to make a borderline decision about being able to afford to employ another teacher.
566
Secondly, the area cost adjustment transfers funding to London and the south-east. For 1995–96, the effect on the south-west is a £1.5 billion loss of funding, despite the high costs affecting us in the ways that I have already outlined. Ministers have already agreed that that transfer needs to be examined, but I regret that they are not doing it more speedily. Throughout the south-west, while there may be a debate about the detail, there is broad agreement that there is a problem for us with the working of the settlements.
Those problems are typical of rural areas, whose support the Conservatives have taken for granted for too long. If nothing else, the growing political success of the Liberal Democrats has helped at least to turn the political spotlight on the needs of rural communities. I have always argued that a marginal seat is best for the constituents in it. Politicians will always work harder and Governments will always seek to win or defend them as a result. The fact that the south-west has become an area of many marginal seats and a tight political battle has led to a change of attitude.
It is time that the documents on the lack of economic development funds, sitting currently on the Prime Minister's desk, the rhetoric about cutting water bills, and the rhetoric about greater investment in our needs and responding to the concerns that I have mentioned was turned into action. If the White Paper is to lead to real change, it will have to lead to a change of policies in areas to which the Government have wedded themselves ideologically. But embrace that change they must.
8.56 pm
Mr. Iain Mills: I shall be brief because it is a great shame and very selfish of ministerial colleagues, Opposition spokesmen and other hon. Members to take so long on their speeches late on a Thursday night when so many of us wish to speak in this important debate on rural England. I condemn hon. Members from all parties for taking far too long and I shall make an example with my speech by making it short and cutting it down to specific questions. I hope that the House finds some ways in which to prevent such use of its time, especially late on a Thursday night.
I have a different problem with my rural economy. I have the only county seat in the west midlands—Meriden; the bit between Birmingham and Coventry, which includes all the farms and all the countryside. It is doing too well. It is encouraging too much economic activity. With the M6 and the M42, the national exhibition centre, Birmingham international airport, Birmingham international station and Birmingham international business park, there is far too much concentration on the use of the green belt.
We also have the problem that the people with those jobs, which is great for the economy and great for the west midlands, need homes. We now have an extra 3,300 homes in the green belt. My first question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), is this: will she accept my strong concern about the unitary development plan and the extra houses required in the green belt? In my small constituency, that involves more than 3,000 houses. Will she comment on that? Is that really right in terms of the arrangements for the countryside?

567
Secondly, has my hon. Friend the Minister heard about the proposal, because of the magnet of the roads and all the rest of it, by Aston Villa and Birmingham City football clubs to build a new football stadium? That proposal could cause immense problems on the roads.
Thirdly, has my hon. Friend the Minister heard about, and what does she feel about, the widening of the M42 in the area by a further two lanes on each side which will lead to a super super-highway? What does she feel about that and its effects on local residents?
I have given my hon. Friend the Minister's office advance warning of my next question. All the developments to which I have referred pose questions for the rural countryside dweller who moved to the rural countryside in the belief that he would enjoy it. As I understand it, a judgment was made recently on appeal in the House of Lords that compensation can be paid to someone who can demonstrate that a property has lost value as a result of public works.
If the unitary development plan or a ministerial judgment gives rise to a planning permission in respect of which a rural dweller can prove loss of value in respect of his dwelling—whether due to a motorway, to airport expansion or to the construction of new houses close to the urban dweller's house—what does my hon. Friend believe will happen as a result of that judgment? My hon. Friend may have to reply to that later. I am not sure whether I am correct, but I believe that the judgment related to Colonel Owen.
I promised to be brief and I will be brief. I represent a rural constituency, but it will not remain a rural constituency unless we have concentrated and effective help from the Government and from all those concerned in preventing further development.
9 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall: I noted what you said about brief speeches, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many of my hon. Friends asked me to use their 10 minutes, but I shall refrain from doing so. However, I shall not speak for as long as the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).
When discussing this topic, it is very hard not to produce a shopping list of problems in rural areas. My constituents would expect me to do that and they would probably like to write such a list for me. My constituency is typical of scores of constituencies. It comprises a huge rural area between Merseyside and the River Ribble with a substantial new town, Skelmersdale, in one corner and two smaller towns, Ormskirk and Burscough, in the middle.
My constituency has eight rural parishes and four semi-rural parishes. It has the usual tensions between the contiguous rural and urban areas. While the townspeople envy what they see as the wealth of the rural parishes and strive to move into them, people in the rural areas envy the facilities in the urban areas. The solutions to reconciling those tensions lie in increasing ease of communication and the decentralisation of many public services. That has not proved easy in recent years. While the councils have done a great deal to decentralise some services into rural areas, recent swingeing cuts in local government finance have made progress very difficult.
For example, Lancashire county council's plans to extend nursery school and library provision, which have produced two excellent libraries in rural parishes and one
568
nursery class in an area outside the towns of west Lancashire, have been put into reverse by the huge cuts in standard spending assessments that Lancashire has suffered since 1992.
Ease of communication effectively means the private car for rural west Lancashire. Three vital bypasses projected for the district have been considered again recently, partly by the Minister for the Environment and Countryside in his previous job. The most crucial bypass has been completely cut out; one has been put on the shelf and the remainder seems to be permanently stalled.
The two rural railway lines are under constant threat. British Rail's inability to alter platforms or to prevent the decrease in the frequency of trains has left many people in rural areas, particularly the elderly, isolated. That situation has been made worse by the virtual collapse of rural bus services since deregulation. That issue has already been discussed and I shall not repeat it.
I often hear hon. Members attacking tax rises on petrol on the ground that rural people need cars. That may be true, but the complaint does not cover many elderly people who do not drive. Nor does it cover, crucially I believe, young people for whom rural life becomes an irritating and limiting experience so that they cannot wait to leave.
My constituency probably has the greatest total mileage of moss roads of any constituency in England. Those roads are built on peat moss. A combination of drought years—we are not experiencing such conditions now, but we have in the past—and increasing vehicle size, especially farm vehicles, is destroying those roads. The county has come up with imaginative solutions involving patch, make-do and mend solutions. It has made yearly bids for transport supplementary grant, but it has not been able to secure any. Therefore, some of those roads must be closed, which will divert more traffic on to fewer roads and increase maintenance problems.
In my constituency, like many others, there is increasing pressure on rural schools. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) says, the county has supported the tiny rural schools in my area. One now has 20 pupils. Figures—they are public—show that, per pupil, a small rural school can cost four times as much as an urban school, and there is great pressure from other areas to do something about that. Again, the shortfall in revenue support grant, particularly for education, makes it more likely that such schools will remain under threat.
If the argument for the retention of rural schools is based at least partly on their essential nature in the community—I support that, of course—and if small local communities are to flourish, perhaps we should consider other methods of top-up funding, possibly from the Department of the Environment, to relieve pressure on the education budgets of certain areas. Perhaps parish council precepts will even be considered.
There is increasing unease in the farming community of west Lancashire, which is brought about by pressure to sell county smallholdings, and uncertainty about medium-term and long-term effects of the abolition of minimum-term tenancies. The Prime Minister was wrong to suggest a few weeks ago in Parliament that all members of the National Farmers Union favoured the abolition of minimum-term tenancies. In the north-west, they certainly do not. The majority of tenant farmers, even though the decision will not be retrospective, are dead against it. Both

569
developments, they believe, could stifle new entrants into farming and horticulture, and, far from encouraging them, might point young people away from careers in agriculture.
Shops, post offices and housing have been adequately discussed, but the planning policy guidance to which the Minister referred still continues to use the wonderful phrase "limited affordable housing". When many of my constituents in rural areas see the word "affordable", they fall about laughing. What is affordable in the opinion of someone in Whitehall is different from what people in west Lancashire and others in the north can achieve by putting their hands in their pockets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) tempted me to refer to matters such as the police service. Hon. Members might know—the Minister certainly does—that it was announced that Lancashire's police budget was to be cut by £280,000. A letter was received a few days later, saying, "We are terribly sorry, but we got the decimal point in the wrong place," and the budget was to be cut by £2.8 million. That is the equivalent of 100 policemen. It is likely that we shall see a reduction in police numbers in rural areas, whereas in west Lancashire there has been the opposite tendency in the past.
I wish to spend a few minutes dealing with green belts. I intended to ask the Minister, "Where is the new PPG2?" Of course, it was published on Tuesday. That spoilt my best line. However, I am pleased to read revised PPG2, particularly paragraph 3.2, which states:
"It is for the applicant for planning permission to show why permission should be granted for development which is inappropriate within the Green Belt."
I am pleased also to note the stiffening of controls on building adaptation. The regulations have been substantially clarified, and my local authority will certainly be grateful for that.
I am sure that green belt policy commands support across the House and with the large majority of the population. But for local planning authorities, balancing the need to defend the green belt against the needs of the rural economy is like dancing on ice. The huge changes in rural employment, and hence in the make-up of the rural population, since 1955 when the green belt got going, have created stresses and pressures that planners find hard to resist and even harder to accommodate. It is something of an indulgence, but I must pay tribute to Les Abernethy, the chief planning officer in west Lancashire, and to Councillor Bob Pendleton, the chairman of the planning committee, who have both retained a clear, flexible and forward-looking attitude throughout all the difficulties.
In PPG7, published in 1992, the Government said that the retention of
"as much land as possible in agricultural use no longer has the same priority. The priority now is to promote diversification of the rural economy so as to provide wide and varied opportunities for rural people, including those formerly employed in agricultural and related sectors".
That passage, coupled with the drive to reduce agricultural surpluses, has led to substantial pressures to diversify in rural areas, which naturally push at the limitations in the green belt. Most of the diversification involves new or
570
altered structures, and those involving leisure and sporting activities can be extraordinarily ugly. The pressures continue to increase.
In my constituency, one of the most important industries is horticulture, which presents the familiar problems involving acres of derelict glasshouses, and land clearance. In horticulture, the influence of the main retailers—the large supermarkets—has been significant. They require produce to be packed under set conditions and delivered direct within a specified period, and the costs of meeting their requirements, as well as the introduction of tougher hygiene regulations over the years, have been prohibitive for smaller agricultural holdings. That has resulted in the rise of specialists providing facilities to wash, pack and distribute not only their own produce but that of other holdings.
Now, however, it seems that diversification is going back the other way. For example, because of demands to decrease the amount of handling of tomatoes, the tendency is to move back to the holding where the tomatoes are grown, and to do the handling and packing there, which will increase demand for buildings and new structures in more areas.
Similarly, it was common practice for most holdings to own vehicles for use in the distribution of their produce. Use of such vehicles was ancillary to the operation of the holdings, and therefore did not require planning permission. The move towards greater efficiency has led to an increase in the numbers of haulage contractors who primarily transport agricultural produce but may not themselves own land.
The number of farm holdings that use their vehicles to transport not only produce grown on their land but that grown on other holdings is increasing. That leads to enormous rows about planning permission, about which I have had endless nightmares over the past couple of years. There is a clear and obvious need for small industrial estates to accommodate hauliers and others close to the main roads, but also close to the farms that they serve.
That is difficult to achieve even under the revised green belt regulations, if I understand them rightly. Moreover, confusions in the wording of the original PPG2 and the resulting court cases, especially concerning alternative uses for agricultural buildings, have soured relationships and in some cases set for local farmers and landowners what they take to be precedents. The precedents are still there for local planning authorities to tackle, even now that the revised PPG2 has been published.
The more careful wording in the new version will help planners, but will hardly prevent the rows stemming from those precedents. Regulations concerning agricultural building for housing for essential workers have been mightily abused in the green belt. I could take hon. Members to see great mansions. No doubt the Minister will be seeing some of those—or at least, whoever defeats him in South Ribble will see them—because his constituency will inherit large sections of the territory that I am describing. I could take the Minister to mansions resembling Southfork, which technically are agricultural dwellings.
It is appalling, and the new annexe D in PPG2 is welcome, as is the inclusion of hospitals in paragraphs 3.8 and 3.9. That would solve many wrangles, such as at Greaves Hall, where we are dealing not only with the

571
hospital but with the local authority and the health authority, which is not even in Lancashire. The new annexe on white land is also welcome.
I have some questions for the Minister, which I shall rattle through. This is a little unfair, as I have not given her notice of my questions, but I would welcome an answer at any time. What is the precise meaning of the phrase in paragraph 1.7 of the new PPG2 which states that the purposes of including land in green belt are of paramount importance to their continued protection and should take precedence over land use objectives? Frankly, I cannot explain that.
Will the Minister also look at the extra difficulties caused by the sections of document that deal with the height of buildings and their visual impact? In an excessively flat area, such as the area that I represent, those buildings can cause enormous problems. One can sometimes see a house with a new roof from four or five miles away, and planners and inspectors have often said that someone cannot have a development in an area because it can be seen from five miles away.
On the question of sports facilities, the document says that possible examples of facilities include small changing rooms or unobtrusive spectator accommodation for outdoor sport, or small stables for outdoor sport and recreation. I can see what it is getting at, but most sports facilities require to be underpinned by a clubhouse or bar. There is tremendous pressure not just to develop a sports facility in a rural area, but to build a bar or a similar facility as well.
What does the Minister think the new policies—either those in the White Paper or those in the green belt document that I have been talking about—will do about farm fragmentation, which presents us with a terrible problem? The pressure to break up a farm is followed by the pressure to put a new building on each of the fragments of that farm.
It is possible to detect in the slow changes evidenced in planning policy guidelines, Department of the Environment circulars and subjects connected with the White Paper the evolution of an integrated approach to green belt policy, which will be enhanced by sensible district, strategic and structural plans, and by imaginative proactive policies that are emerging in some areas.
I read an imaginative document published by Halton borough council in Cheshire, which the Minister might like to look at. The document suggested—among other things—that rundown rural railway stations might be revitalised by planning proposals that allowed the reasonable development of affordable housing in the area of railway stations, in return for developer input into modernising the stations. That could include—crucially, in my area—raising platforms to allow people to get on to trains.
There will always be a problem in finding flexibility to allow the development of small businesses in the green belt. At some point, the problems of regulating farm shops must be sorted out, as must the problems of allowing non-agricultural businesses to occupy agricultural buildings. In the northern half of my constituency, the local economy depends to an enormous extent on such small enterprises.
The farmers and landowners of west Lancashire retain the sympathy and support of the rest of the population because the people in general like the countryside that has
572
been constructed—to an enormous extent—by farming practices during the centuries. The people of the area enjoy their access to the countryside for leisure activities, but they also enjoy their footpath access. Many farmers accommodate such access easily and with total co-operation. The other day, a farmer complained to me about the amount of time that he wasted talking to the nice people who walk along the path close to his land. Many other farmers are more hostile and sometimes actively obstruct footpaths.
The Minister was right to say that the countryside is a working and a living area and not merely a "chocolate box picture" for visitors to enjoy. I recall with pleasure the former Minister responsible for food saying that one should not set the countryside in aspic. One of my hon. Friends retorted, "If it was, you'd bloody well eat it."
While we recognise that the countryside is a working and a living area, we must also acknowledge that there is poverty and isolation—I was pleased that Conservative Members also acknowledged that. Most rural areas suffer from homelessness, overcrowded homes and a drastic shortage of some services. If those issues are dealt with seriously in the White Paper, it may well gather widespread support—including support from Opposition Members—but if it does not, it will descend into platitudes and irrelevance, which will not help the future of rural England.
9.20 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I shall follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and be brief, as some of my hon. Friends still want to speak.
When we listened to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) outline Labour's plans, we had a fascinating insight into what the Opposition would do for the countryside. He spoke for approximately half an hour—indeed, for more than half an hour—but he did not say one word about farming. How can the Labour party construct a rural policy without mentioning farming once, when they know that it is the bedrock of our rural life?
The hon. Member for Leicester, East listed a heap of new regulations. He seems to want a new Domesday book, a tougher environment protection agency, more national parks bringing more regulation, a policy for woodlands and a legal right of access to roam on common land, moorland, mountains, woodlands and heaths, which would destroy many country jobs, especially those that depend on grouse shooting, and affect the status of many wild birds for which privacy and quiet are essential.
To cap it all, in between talking about telecottages—I thought that I knew what a cottager was, but I am not entirely sure what they are—the hon. Member for Leicester, East proposed a ban on hunting. In my constituency—I also defer to your opinion on such matters, Madam Speaker—there are seven packs of hounds and the local hunts provide a social life and dances, and are an integral part of the community, but the hon. Member for Leicester, East wants to ban them. In contrast, my hon. Friend the Minister produced some good ideas, and showed his firm commitment to the countryside, and his understanding that it is not a plaything for urban people, but predominantly a place where people work and live.

573
The countryside has manifest problems. First, there is far too much bureaucracy. Interestingly, my county of Northumberland has a population of just over 300,000, but it has no fewer than six district councils, one county council and one national park with planning powers. Now, the hon. Member for Leicester, East wants to add a regional development agency and the north of England assembly, on which the Labour party is especially keen. The poor Northumbrians would sink under that weight of bureaucracy.
The countryside already has too much bureaucracy. There are Ministries, organisations such as the Countryside Commission, English Nature and English Heritage, which are all valuable in their way, countless protection agencies, such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and animal welfare organisations, such as the League against Cruel Sports and others that want to stop us enjoying ourselves. The countryside is over-managed and, in many respects, over-governed.
I believe that the environmentally sensitive areas programme has been successful, but it gives rise to a problem. The danger is that the ESAs create environmental ghettos in parts of the countryside. Jobs inside the ESAs are slowly being destroyed. As farmers in those areas get more funds for not doing various things on their farms, so they have more money to spend renting grazing land in countryside belonging to other farmers who do not get the benefit of such grants. That is causing serious problems on the edges of the ESAs.
People who have listened to this debate have had a warning about the kind of countryside that there would be if the Labour party were in power—one run by urban busybodies wanting to tell rural people how to live their lives. If we ever had a Labour Government it would be a case not of merry England, but of a very dreary countryside indeed.
9.25 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) for keeping his remarks so short.
Although I am a Scot, I have the privilege of representing a Hampshire constituency which is the epitome of what rural England is all about—beautiful, vibrant, productive, historic, well conserved, but probably over-gentrified by townspeople who have come to live there. It is certainly facing enormous pressures from nearby conurbations and from the spread of the concrete jungle.
I have an interest to declare, as a farmer. I get a slice of my income, and probably of my losses, from farming. I am also a member of the National Farmers Union, of the Country Landowners Association and of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I acknowledge that there can be conflicts between the former and the latter. They may not always march in step, but they march towards the same objective: a viable rural economy. That is how they will achieve what they both want, and perhaps people like me can be a bridge between the organisations.
Rural England is not just fields, woods, valleys and rivers. It is nearly a quarter of the nation's resident population. They live there, but they do not all work there. This evening, I shall try to suggest one or two items that
574
the Government should consider for their forthcoming White Paper. That paper is timely, because another debate is under way about the common agricultural policy—the so-called CAP 3. It has been interesting to hear what hon. Members have to say about it this evening.
I hope that CAP 3 will be much more about the whole rural economy, not just about agriculture. Farmers and landowners are not only responsible for our food production; they are also the stewards of the nation's land and as such they must remain the focus of countryside policy. Farming remains the dominant land use in rural areas. CAP 3 must embrace agriculture but must also have clear objectives for the rural environment and for rural social economies. A sustainable rural policy for the United Kingdom must be the objective for CAP 3. In that way, we shall get a better return from the European Union and from the Commission than we have hitherto enjoyed.
Agriculture has already moved closer to the marketplace, but I should like it to reduce still further its reliance on supply control, and on subsidy payments. As a fanner I am only too well aware that my activities are already subject to many environmental regulations, because of the impact of agriculture on the environment, but I resent the compulsion of what is known as cross-compliance, which attaches conditions to subsidies or grants under the CAP.
For example, the small print on the back of the IACS—integrated administration and control system—forms says that farmers will receive no set-aside payments unless, for instance, they retain ponds and stone walls. The CAP insists on retention only: there is nothing to help with maintenance. It would be better to have separate, positive incentives for landowners and managers to maintain ponds and walls, and the moss roads to which the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) referred, so as to deliver the clean, attractive countryside, rich in wildlife, historic features and recreational opportunities, that we all want. At present, only 1 per cent. of last year's CAP budget of 36.5 billion ecu was devoted to agri-environment measures.
What about the workers in the countryside? Only a small proportion of that growing quarter of the nation's population who live in the countryside actually works there. Structural changes in farming have radically reduced the agricultural work force, while improved transport has extended from the cities the distances that people are now able to commute. Twenty years ago, only people like Sir Cedric Brown could commute to London from my home town. Now, the car park at the station holds 200 commuters' cars. Over the past decade, both population and employment have grown faster in rural areas than in urban areas, in spite of poor local communications and services, and higher infrastructure costs.
What about diversification? That is the way in which we shall retain the viability of our rural economies. My accountant constantly reminds me that the current tax rules are hideously complex and a real deterrent to farmers and landowners who wish to diversify. Two years ago, the Country Landowners Association proposed the idea of the rural business unit, which would allow all those commercial activities traditionally associated with a rural estate, with those that are being integrated, to be assessed as one trading unit for tax purposes. That is something that my right hon. and learned Friend the

575
Chancellor really should look at, because it would not only help the rural economy, but could also increase his tax revenues.
For most people, the countryside will be seen as a place for recreation, and therefore good access is essential. We are all pleased to see what has already been done to make the countryside easier to enter and enjoy for those who are welcome, and more difficult to invade for those who are not.
Forestry has been mentioned. I am sorry that it will not be part of the White Paper. It took a terrible knock in the 1988 Budget. We have now seen a welcome trend towards broadleaf woodlands rather than conifers, thanks to the Government's woodland grants schemes, but there is a need to increase our woodland cover and also manage our existing woodland better than we are doing. We must look again at the tax provisions for woodland owners and forestry. If we do not, although we may well continue to see an increase in woodland planting, we may see less proper maintenance of existing woodlands, and we want them to be maintained so that they can be enjoyed in the way that we are accustomed to.
It is unlikely that we would have much woodland were it not for countryside sports, which have been mentioned by a number of hon. Members this evening. It would be a dreadful omission if, during a debate on rural England, we did not mention the financial and amenity benefits of field sports. The Cobham report, sponsored by the Standing Conference on Countryside Sports and updated three years ago, estimates that field sports generate £2.7 billion-worth of business and give recreation to more than 5 million people, of whom some 3.9 million are fishermen. Perhaps that is the only reason why the Labour party supports fishing. Field sports are estimated to support some 65,000 jobs. They improve access to the countryside. Those who manage them help to keep Britain beautiful and rich in wildlife, and they also assist in maintaining employment in both urban and rural areas.
There is no doubt that, if one is to be able to diversify out of agriculture, the planning process must make it possible. At present, I do not believe that the development control system can do that. We must see a proper balance. I wish that other counties would take an example from Hampshire, which some time ago set up its Committee for Rural Hampshire, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord the Earl of Selborne, to address the problems of reaching balanced decisions on planning matters.
The committee's membership is drawn from councils at all levels—county, district and parish, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Hampshire Council of Community Service, the Hampshire Wildlife Trust, MAFF, the National Farmers Union and the Rural Development Commission. It brings together all those bodies to
"promote a just and fair balance in the use and management of Hampshire's rural resources and sustain the well-being of balanced rural communities."
It will make a submission on what it thinks should go in the White Paper. It will be extremely valuable. If only other counties around the country had similar committees, it would be extremely useful.
Much has been said about the countryside, but one important subject that has not been touched on is rural crime. I am glad to see farm watch schemes springing up
576
everywhere, as criminals go for what they imagine will be easy pickings in the countryside. We have some schemes around us.
I have put down a few markers for CAP 3, which is crucial and should be part of what is considered within the rural White Paper. I particularly welcome the Agricultural Tenancies Bill, which we shall be debating on Monday week and I look forward to the levelling of the European playing field.
It is with some authority that I can say that British farmers and landowners, together with many other people, will ensure that the rural England remains not only economically viable but the green and pleasant land that we want to see.
9.34 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: This has been an important debate. I am only sorry that many of my colleagues from rural constituencies in the north of England have had to return home tonight because of the deplorable weather conditions of which the Minister will be aware.
However, they have made it clear that they give me their full support, along with those of my hon. Friends who are here, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) who made an excellent contribution on behalf of his constituents. Not all Opposition Members can at cord to live full-time in London, so they go home to their constituencies as soon as they can.
In Britain, 23 per cent. of the population live in rural England. When it comes to the way in which they are treated, they sometimes rightly think that they are the forgotten people. Many live in what some Conservative Members might regard as Conservative fiefdoms, but a great deal of good that has done them. We have seen their response to that in the verdicts delivered by local people in the recent county council elections.
Many British people have the same needs wherever they live, but the rural areas result in different emphases and circumstances. As has been said by some hon. Members tonight, not everything in the country is rosy. For example, 8.1 per cent. of the rural population is over 75—a higher percentage than in urban areas.
The elderly have particular needs. For example, they rely on rural sub-post offices. Despite what has been said today, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that it is still his intention to privatise the Post Office. The privatisation of the Post Office is bound to affect the range of services provided by sub-post offices.
Even now, the move to have pensions paid directly into bank accounts is affecting the viability of many sub-post offices.There is no doubt that a privatised Post Office would ultimately lead to two-tier pricing for postal services, with higher charges for those who live in rural communities.
Some Conservative Members might say that that guarantees have been given and that there will be protection in law for single pricing for the postal service, but similar guarantees were given with regard to single pricing for the delivery of gas. That is no longer the case. The further away one lives from the points of entry in Britain, the higher the gas charge will be.

577
With regard to health, 74 per cent. of parishes have no general practitioner practices to which they need access.
Transport has been mentioned. The deregulation of buses has been a disaster for country areas. My village used to have an early morning work service going into the town. Now, some people who live in villages in my constituency are asked when they go for a job interview whether they have a car. Employers want to ensure that they can get into work. They do not have a car because they do not have a job and cannot buy one. They cannot get into work because there is no bus service. There is no bus service so they cannot get a job. That is the situation in many rural villages.
What new services there have been as a result of deregulation have not been extra services on Sundays or services to the more remote areas. They have been provided by the odd bloke in the second-hand coach with a bit of cardboard in the windscreen saying where he is going.
Mr. Atkins: Nonsense.
Mr. Morley: I see that in the rural areas in my constituency. Such people do not provide a comprehensive service; they move in on the peaks. Many long-standing small private operators who have provided a good service should not have to face such unfair competition.
A quarter of all women living in rural areas have no access to a car, and 73 per cent. of parishes have no bus service. I see no Government policies to help that.
The trains are under threat. I do not believe that the rural train service in my constituency will survive if British Rail is privatised. I hope that the Government will see sense in the matter and recognise the feeling of people who live in rural areas who do not want to see British Rail privatised and who fear for the future.
I was amazed by the comments of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who said that there were enough empty homes to meet the needs of the homeless and that Government policies would help. Government policy, however, has moved towards market rents, which are not much different from mortgage repayments in many parts of the country. If people cannot make mortgage repayments, they can hardly pay market rents. The Government have accepted that in recognising the increasing cost of housing benefit, which they intend to cut, placing more strain on those who must find the shortfall. Moreover, those who lose their jobs will no longer receive as much mortgage support, which will increase homelessness and other problems.
A large proportion of people living in rural areas are self-employed-16.6 per cent.—and there is a wide variation in unemployment statistics. Wages tend to be lower in the country: 55 per cent. of workers in agriculture, forestry and fishing earn less than £200 a week. A minimum wage policy would therefore be very welcome in rural areas.
Low pay means that affordable housing is needed. People are being priced out of rural areas; they are being forced to leave the villages for the towns. Between 1990 and 1993, only 8,800 public sector homes were provided
578
in rural areas, meeting only 11 per cent. of housing need. The Housing Corporation target in 1994 was 1,850 new homes, 6 per cent. of the total need.
The right to buy has been a disaster in rural areas. Even Glanford borough council, in my constituency—which is Conservative-controlled—has complained bitterly about what it has done in the countryside, removing affordable homes and not giving local councils, whether Labour or Conservative, an opportunity to replace them because of Government restrictions. Some members of Conservative local authorities, however, do not recognise the problem. When challenged about homelessness, Glanford borough council's Tory housing chairman said that there was no homelessness in the area: he had asked persistently for the names and addresses of those involved, and no one had been able to give them to him.
In 1992–93, 46,270 adults and children were accepted as homeless. In January 1993, 4,542 families were in temporary accommodation. No one can deny that there are positive aspects of living in the community; it is often a nice place in which to live. As someone who lives in a village, I feel that the greatest advantage is the strength of the local community, shown in community action and village hall committees. I am proud to have played a modest part in the provision of a village hall in my own community. Good work is also done by parish and town councils, women's institutes, community councils, Action for Communities in Rural England and the Coalfields Communities Campaign. There is huge support for the voluntary sector—more than £20 billion worth, according to an estimate by the Centre for Policy Studies.
Football and other sporting clubs, such as Winterton Rangers, have applied for rate relief. As the Minister will know, it is discretionary. Winterton Rangers complained to the ombudsman about Glanford borough council, and the ombudsman criticised the council—finterruption.1 As the Minister suggests, it is a local authority decision, but he should realise that some borough councils—such as Scunthorpe—give 100 per cent. rate relief, while others such as Glanford are very difficult about it. Community organisations are being treated unfairly, and 1 hope that the Government will do something about it.
The problem may, in fact, be solved. Glanford and Scunthorpe are being amalgamated along with part of Boothferry, to form a new authority. The difference in political control will affect the situation, and I hope that all the rural football clubs who want their rate relief will support the establishment of a Labour-controlled North Lincolnshire authority. That will certainly provide better quality services.
There is no point in trying to duck the issue of Government policy towards the shire counties. We have heard about the problems of rural schools. Many shire counties have done badly out of the standard spending assessment calculation. A great deal of money has been shifted to the south-east, so it is little wonder that many rural schools are under threat. Labour-controlled councils, such as that in Humberside, have an excellent record of providing nursery facilities and of supporting tiny rural schools in my constituency. I doubt whether those schools would survive under any other political control.
Under Nicholas Ridley there was a huge growth in out-of-town planning and that had an impact on village and town shops. It will be said that people have a right to go to supermarkets and that is a fair point, but there should be balanced out-of-town development and a central

579
balance, and the impact that too much out-of-town development can have on rural shops and small towns and their centres must be recognised. We are currently experiencing that impact and there is a need for greater awareness. I hope that the Minister will confirm that planning systems within strong structural plans will be the principal future means of resolving land use conflicts. I hope he will recognise that planning in particular should meet local needs and should not be market driven.
We need a sensible roads policy, but if road building is reduced—and there are arguments for that—people must be provided with an alternative, and that must be public transport. Policies such as the privatisation of the railways and bus deregulation will not provide that alternative. Bus deregulation has led to higher fares, fewer services and a falling number of passengers.
Agriculture has an important influence on the countryside. Sadly, only about 3 per cent. of the population are employed in agriculture, and that percentage is declining. Between 1987 and 1998, it is projected that 38,000 full-time agricultural workers will be made redundant. In that period 20,000 farmers will leave farming. We must meet that challenge and the impact that it will have on the rural economy.
We must tackle the issue of the common agricultural policy which urgently needs reform. I pay tribute to the National Farmers Union, which produced an excellent document entitled "Real Choices", for recognising these changes and challenges. Support for agriculture has an important part to play in terms of agri-environment policy. We must support new entrants even in a declining market.
I am sure that the Minister has read, as I have, the 1993 report on agriculture in the European Union which contains some interesting statistics. For example, Britain is at the bottom of the European league for support given to entrants to farming. We are even below Luxembourg. Support has declined from 159,000 ecu in 1991 to 127,000 ecu. We should compare that with France, which supported new entrants to the tune of 100 million ecu. That is a considerable difference.
I recognise the impact of farming on the landscape and on recreation and leisure, nature conservation and jobs. There must be a balance between those, and schemes such as those for set-aside are especially important in that regard. The countryside is important to everyone in England and everyone pays for supporting it through taxes, the common agricultural policy and other schemes. The importance of tourism and recreation in supporting the countryside must not be underestimated.
There is great scope for agricultural reform that will support new access and diversification. We must support farmers in adapting farm buildings so that they can be used for businesses such as farm shops which sell everything from meat to ice cream.
The right to roam has been mentioned. I am strongly in favour of what most people see as a popular and sensible policy which applies only to uncultivated and common land. It is unacceptable for people such as the Duke of Westminster, who owns large areas of Bowland, to restrict access for millions of responsible people who simply want to walk on the land. There is no point in the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) saying that that would destroy nature conservation when I know that many birds, such as the hen harrier, are being illegally destroyed in that
580
area by gamekeepers. When there is better nature conservation, I might have more sympathy with restricting access.
Conservation is an important issue, but time does not allow me to deal with it now. Indeed, it is worthy of a debate in its own right. The Minister will have seen the recent report called "The Bio-Diversity Challenge", produced by the Butterfly Conservation Group, Friends of the Earth, Plant Life, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildlife Trust and the World Wide Fund for Nature. I know that he will welcome it, as I do. I hope that he recognises the targets set in the report as being achievable and important. Above all, I hope that he recognises that rural policy needs an integrated and balanced approach. All Government policies are relevant to both rural and urban areas and many of our people in both those communities feel that the Government have failed them miserably.
9.50 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): As my hon. Friend the Minister explained at the beginning of the debate, it has come at an opportune time. It is important that at the start of an exercise such as the production of a White Paper we establish the views of all those with an interest and identify the issues that are important to them. It has been helpful to hear the views of hon. Members tonight, especially those who represent truly rural constituencies. They have spoken with the depth of knowledge that that representation brings to them.
Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene at this early stage of her remarks, especially with the short time that is available to her. Does she agree that the speech that we heard for 26 minutes from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was a diatribe of nothing but ignorance and prejudice? Does she further agree that his absence from the Chamber during the winding-up speeches is discourteous not only to the House but to the rural residents of Leicestershire and the country?
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I had intended to draw attention to the fact that the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was based on his experience of travelling on and looking through the windows of InterCity trains at night. Speaking as a truly rural Member representing a constituency in the heart of Devon, I can tell him that people there would have sussed him out in a couple of minutes. He certainly does not have any real muck on his boots at home. In fact, I would be surprised if he even possessed a pair of boots. His knowledge of working life in the rural communities is somewhat suspect. However, he made a good try, given the fact that behind him were the massed ranks of Labour Members who show great interest in rural communities and the important issues that the House has discussed tonight.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) was the one token representative of the Liberal Democrat party, which trumpets its support for and knowledge of rural life throughout the country. However, even the hon. Gentleman is not here for the end of the debate.
Mr. David Faber: My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted the fairly typical absence of the Liberal

581
Democratic spokesman for the wind-up of the debate. Some of us have sat through the debate but not had an opportunity to speak, so we consider that to be a gross discourtesy.
Had the hon. Gentleman stayed, he might have had an opportunity to comment on the issue of rural schools, which he has said are so important to the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps he could have told us why, last Thursday evening, Liberal Democratic councillors in my constituency went around a village with a small school threatened with closure promising that the school would be safe in their hands, yet the next morning they voted with the Labour group to close the school. Only the Conservative group opposed it.
Mrs. Browning: I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents will be glad that he has put that fact on the record. As we all know, the difficulty with the Liberal Democrats is that they say what people want to hear, but when they go to another area or when they have an opportunity to vote they speak or vote in a different way. The rural areas have come to understand their tactics.
We welcome the fact not only that the White Paper will be produced for England, but that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced today that the Scottish Office will embark upon a similar procedure for Scotland. I know from conversation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales that the Welsh Office is also showing great interest and has done some work in that area.
Many Conservative Members made significant speeches, talking with the knowledge of the issues that affect their constituents in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), speaking not only as a rural Member of Parliament, but with the background knowledge that he gained as a Minister, raised many issues appertaining to his constituency, such as the military, housing, law and order, special constables, the pattern of agriculture, tenancy and derelict land.
All those issues are for debate and discussion. The Government hope that hon. Members who have spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, are happy that the White Paper, when it is produced, will not simply be an introspective look at what is going on. It will be a way of taking forward and fashioning policy.
That is in stark contrast to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who again played the politics of fear with post offices, and other policies that affect people in rural areas, who are genuinely worried when the facts are not put to them, and when they are frightened into thinking that somehow they will be deprived of their post offices and other facilities. Playing the politics of fear is cynical. Many hon. Members mentioned that many people in rural areas are vulnerable and elderly. That tactic is especially deplorable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) raised many issues. I can give him some positive answers to the specific issues that he raised. One concerned the case of Colonel Owen. I assure him that the guidelines on purchasing property will be amended following the Court of Appeal judgment. The matter is in hand, and I hope that he will be reassured.
582
so far, no planning application has been made to Solihull metropolitan borough council to build a new football stadium in the green belt. I am aware, however, that the matter has been discussed. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden heard hon. Members raise other issues, and I hope that he will allow me to pursue them.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthal I) raised many issues, but especially referred to several points in planning policy guidance note 2, which we welcome. I am grateful for the support that he gave to it. He raised specific issues and I assure him that I will draw them to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister, who will write to him. They are technical and detailed and I cannot cover them all this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), again speaking with the knowledge of a rural Member, raised the issue of CAP 3. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Minister has asked a panel of people to consider specifically the future of the common agricultural policy. My hon. Friend was especially anxious that environmental issues should be taken into account in fashioning the future of CAP. I assure him that the panel that has been appointed by my right hon. Friend will consider that.
Many hon. Members said that agriculture is still at the heart of rural life, although we understand the changes that agriculture has undergone. It is important, both for this country and for our role in the European Community, that we press on with reform of CAP and that we get it right. The introduction of new member states, many of which expect to enter the Community by the year 2000, will pose a great challenge to the CAP. That policy would not bear the additional costs and strains of widening the Community, although we support that widening.
I assure hon. Members that we want to influence our European partners so that the CAP will be reformed. We do not always have the support of all our partners, which is needed, but it is no good just saying that reform must be introduced. We must tell our partners how we believe it should be done and we should set out a strategy. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Minister has formed the committee, which I hope will report with a positive and practical structure for reform.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Watersicle mentioned his support for rural business units. The House will be aware that the Bunbury report was presented to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The issues are being dealt with and they have been discussed. I am sympathetic to suggestions for rationalisation of rural taxation, but those are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend.
I am grateful to the truly rural hon. Members who did not allow a little snow to prevent them from being here this evening. Those of us who live in rural areas are not put off by the elements; we get on with life just the same. I am grateful for their contributions, and I am sure that the White Paper will benefit from the suggestions that we have heard tonight.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Great Barr Hall
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
10 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I represent an urban constituency. Much has been said today about the problems of rural areas, but people living in metropolitan areas such as mine like a little rural idyll and it has been provided for us thanks to the wisdom of the Victorians, who gave us parks, and the wisdom of civil servants and politicians in the 1930s and 1950s who gave us the green belt. I wish to retain the green belt in my area for the benefit not of property speculators but of the citizenry of Walsall, Birmingham and Sandwell.
Adjournment debates are literally local lotteries. The timing of this Adjournment debate is most fortuitous and I am grateful to the failure of the law of averages which permitted me to speak tonight. There are three reasons why the debate is fortuitous. First, a formal application has just been submitted to Walsall council by West Midlands regional health authority for
"the erection of 98 Dwellings, Country Park, Roads and associated structures".
I understand that the project is to be advertised in the press tomorrow. The advertisement will show that it is a departure from the Walsall unitary plan adopted only in December, but more about that later.
Secondly, the debate is fortuitous because it is just three days since the publication by the Department of the Environment of planning policy guidance note 2 on green belts, which I generally endorse. Thirdly, this is the week of the launch of a campaign by the Great Barr Hall action committee against the West Midlands regional health authority application. I co-founded the organisation in December 1987 after a previous fright for people living in the area.
There is, in fact, a fourth reason why tonight's debate is fortuitous. Today's debate on the future of rural England has a relevance for people living in urban areas. If the Minister ever travels north along the M6—or, preferably, takes the train—I hope that he will make a detour to visit the area that I am talking about. If he comes, I shall take him to the top of Barr beacon. If he looks down to the south, he will see the urban centre of Birmingham which was once described as a "little hamlet near Walsalle". In front of him he will see Sandwell, Dudley and, to the north, Walsall. In the middle of that metropolitan urban area is an oasis provided by farsighted politicians and civil servants.
This enormous site of 300 acres comprises three sections, one being St. Margaret's hospital for the mentally handicapped which is owned by the West Midlands regional health authority. It is scheduled to close in 1997. The site also comprises Great Barr hall, its chapel and grounds. It is a grade II star listed building from the late 1770s on a site that goes back deep into medieval history. It is built in the Strawberry hill gothick style and is a rare example associated with Joseph Scott. The grounds were designed by Humphrey Repton in collaboration with John Nash. The hall is one of only four examples of its type in the country.
It was a meeting place of the world-famous 18th century Lunar Society and of scientists and entrepreneurs such as Matthew Boulton, James Watt, Joseph Priestley,
584
Erasmus Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood. They were the harbingers of the industrial revolution and the building served as a clearing house for the ideas that transformed this country and the world. It is therefore of great historic and architectural significance.
The hall and grounds were shamefully sold by the regional health authority in 1988 for £650,000 to a so-called financial adviser. I will not abuse parliamentary privilege by describing him in the way in which he should be described. I shall merely refer to him in Private Eye terms as a man with an uneven or chequered business career.
That man purchased the job lot, not for the purposes of preservation and conservation, but as a speculative development with the help of the regional health authority. He wanted to make himself wealthy and the former chairman of the regional health authority must accept ultimate responsibility for the shameful sale. The property is now in the hands of the official receiver Cork Gully and the Midland bank owns the freehold. I am afraid that many people have been left with their fingers severely burnt.
The third part of the site is away from St. Margaret's hospital; 89 acres of land south-west of Chapel lane, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who supports everything that I say. The land is north of Sutton's drive, and it includes a road of 100 m. Within that acreage lies the male homes complex of the hospital. It is in structural order. It is not derelict, and could be re-used in line with the appropriate green belt policies.
The proposal which I am opposing most strenuously is to build 98 domestic dwellings. The planning history of the site is profoundly unsatisfactory. There have been previous attempts to demolish Great Barr hall. Birmingham regional health authority applied in 1974 to demolish the hall. In 1976, Walsall planning committee approved an application to demolish the hall and chapel.
Now, the hall is boarded up. It is in danger, in a few years, of being worthy of nothing more than a bulldozer, and it would be criminal to allow that to happen. I appeal to the Minister to assist the restoration of this fine building to some form of acceptable use.
In 1991, the regional health authority made four planning applications to develop the male homes complex site to build houses and to build an estate of offices. It was totally inappropriate under the planning law then and it still is under the present guidelines that have been issued.
This large site is the most heavily protected in the west midlands. It falls in the green belt, Sandwell green wedge, Great Barr conservation area, Beacon regional park and the English Heritage gardens register, it has a grade II star listed building and, as I said, it contains a protected nature reserve.
My interest in the site goes back many years. I have submitted evidence to inspectors, given written evidence, made oral presentations and written numerous letters as, no doubt, the Minister's files will testify. I was very encouraged by a letter that I received in 1994 from the Minister's colleague, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), then Environment Minister. He wrote:
"However, the Secretary of State may well be involved at a later stage when precise proposals have been put to the Council and their attitude is known. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council has assured the Government Office for the West Midlands that if it

585
decides to approve the proposals it will submit them as departures from the development plan. If and when this occurs I will need to take a hard look at the applications for the Green Belt amongst other matters. As part of this, I would emphasise that we would undertake a very thorough assessment of the overall package of proposals for the site."
I am also very encouraged by documents which have been issued recently—PPG2 on the green belt in January 1995 and PPG15 on planning and the historic environment in September 1994. I will not go into any great detail of what they contain, but I ask the Minister to look especially at paragraph 4.26 of PPG15, which is very important to our case.
PPG2, issued only this week, almost completely vindicates my argument. I believe that when Walsall council looks at it, it may approve of what I am saying. Paragraph 2.6 says:
"detailed Green Belt boundaries defined in adopted local plans or earlier approved development plans should be altered only exceptionally. Detailed boundaries should not be altered or development allowed merely because the land has become derelict."
The section headed "Control over development" and paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 contain a restatement of my arguments. At C.11, it states:
"Suitable re-use is to be preferred to redevelopment."
The male homes complex is capable for re-use in line, one hopes, with planning guidance. The unitary development plan, which was approved only very recently, again vindicates the argument. An inspector said that he wanted to see the site viewed in its totality. He said:
"It is perhaps, this diffuseness of policies which belies the importance of the Great Barr Hall and Estate. That it is important in a Borough wide context is without doubt in spite of the fact that public access to it is limited. Its combination of characteristics, its size, the variety and quality of its landscape and buildings, the wild life habitats and its proximity to densely built-up urban areas make it worthy of the prominence it has been given in the urban development plan."
However, the inspector wants it to be seen in its totality and not in little bits, which is what is happening now. Walsall declined to accept some of the inspector's recommendations. To my amazement, its version appeared in the document that was finally published and that is to my regret.
Walsall refused to accept the recommendations and the plan was adopted without the recommendations of Mr. Williams, the inspector. My final endorsement of Government policy—this will be detrimental to my relationship with my constituency party, so I hope no one finds out about it—relates to the document entitled, "Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands", which states at paragraph 10.3:
"Detailed Green Belt boundaries should be altered only exceptionally, and as a last resort."
It states that housing must be found at locations elsewhere and it refers to a list of priorities where housing is to be located. I cannot say, and I defy anyone to say, that the site is necessary for the building of houses. Other sites must be exploited first.
Walsall council's record with regard to defending the green belt is far from scintillating, but it is not one of total indifference. I appeal to the council to consider the
586
application made by the West Midlands regional health authority very carefully, and I hope that its views will concur with mine.
The regional health authority's goal is to pick up a few million pieces of silver and then run like Mr. Worth, the so-called financial adviser. The way in which Mr. Worth proceeded is not much different from the way in which the regional health authority is proceeding.
We want to stop the development going ahead because, if it is not stopped, the regional health authority will see a green light and will build elsewhere on land that it already holds. There are more footprints in St. Margaret's hospital than in a Kenyan national park. The development would be exploited and there would be far more damaging applications in the next few years. West Midlands regional health authority is a danger.
The "listening bank", part of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, which knows a thing or two about building in confined spaces, quite rightly wishes to realise its assets. However, its aims are not for conservation or concern for the land. The commercial imperative is overwhelming.
I hope that I have not appeared to be rather negative, although I am sure that I have. I want that fine land to be properly utilised in line with Government policy. The scope for building on the land and for developing it is not limitless, but it must be used properly. I hope that it will be properly utilised in the next few years. I look to the Minister and to his Department to protect the land becauseI cannot look to the health authority and—I hope that I am wrong in this regard—I cannot look automatically to Walsall council to provide the protection that the land so richly deserves.
10.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We have heard such support for the Government's planning policy this evening that it is surprising that it did not come from Conservative Members. Nevertheless, I must admit that I always look forward to contributions from the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). He always approaches even the most difficult subjects with a touch of humour and more than a little journalistic licence. The subject of the debate is, of course, of considerable concern to the hon. Gentleman, his constituents and many neighbouring hon. Members and their constituents.
It is no exaggeration to say that Walsall is not over-endowed with properties and parklands of great historical and architectural interest. That adds, of course, to the importance of Great Barr hall, its chapel and surrounding and adjacent parklands, as outlined this evening. The fact that the chapel was never consecrated and has been used as a billiard room may appeal to the hon. Gentleman's sense of humour. As the hon. Gentleman has made quite clear, the areas under discussion this evening are in several parts and several ownerships—I shall concentrate on two—and subject to two different planning applications.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, those areas obviously interrelate with each other in the impact of one upon the other, and both are included within the confirmed green belt. To that we must add the fact that the hall is a grade II listed building and therefore of great interest to English Heritage. As the hon. Gentleman is abundantly aware, any

587
potential or aspiring developer must take note of the implications that will be of considerable interest to English Heritage, the local planning authority, and, of course, ultimately, the Department of the Environment. In addition, we all see that area as a valuable stretch of open space in a heavily built-up area, which makes it enormously important to those living in surrounding residential areas.
I shall now refer to Great Barr hall and its surrounding lands. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern at the state of that building, and it is recognised that English Heritage has classified it as seriously at risk. In fact, English Heritage has clearly expressed its extreme concern. The hall has been empty since the 1970s, and it has been subjected to fires, vandalism and structural problems. I understand that much of the interior timberwork is affected by dry rot, and a restoration job running into millions of pounds is obviously urgently required. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can urge the borough to look again at the problem and to redouble its efforts to ensure that at least the building does not deteriorate further.
Of course, the sooner a long-term future for the hall is secured, the better. As the hon. Gentleman and I are aware, for some years development proposals for the hall have been discussed by the local authorities, the receivers and English Heritage. English Heritage has accepted the need for some enabling development to offset the high cost of repairs to the hall, but of course that must be balanced against the need to avoid further damage to the landscape and, if possible, to improve and reinstate the parkland setting of the building.
The most recent planning application for the hall and grounds was submitted about two years ago. It included the conversion of the hall for office and leisure purposes and the erection of an office building within the curtilage of the hall on land presently occupied by wartime agricultural buildings. English Heritage has given its views on the application to Walsall council, and it has suggested detailed amendments to the work on the hall and its extension.
English Heritage has also recorded its objection to the planned building within the curtilage. That building, it believes, should be smaller and differently designed. The borough, in response, has written to the applicants asking for more information. The response is still awaited. Equally, any application will be of potential interest to the Department, as has been mentioned, in the light of the recently tightened PPG2 relating to the green belt, and the consideration of English Heritage, particularly if it continues to express concern.
We must recognise that a balance must be struck between encouraging a viable use of the hall and the safeguarding of its essential character. The obvious answer, therefore, is that real progress must be made through detailed negotiations between the parties, locally.
588
The same concerns apply to the park, which, as has been mentioned, is classified grade II. In PPG15, which has also been mentioned, the Government have emphasised the need to protect registered parks and gardens in determining planning applications. As the hon. Gentleman might be aware, a golf course is proposed on the parkland. Although English Heritage generally regards golf courses as inappropriate, it believes, exceptionally, that a golf course may be acceptable, provided that it is designed on parkland principles. That re-emphasises the need for detailed negotiations between the parties to find an acceptable scheme. As a long-stop, the Secretary of State has reserve powers, especially in this case, as the land is within the green belt.
The adjacent site has been given the interesting name of the "male homes" land. Demolition of the buildings, to which English Heritage had no objection, will take place soon, and a planning application for a country park and 89 homes—I understand that that, rather than 98, is the figure; perhaps someone has dyslexia—has just been submitted. The submission is with the local authority, and obviously it is at an early stage.
The local authority has agreed that if it is minded to approve, it will definitely refer the application to the Department of the Environment before approval. In view of the complications that is, of course, to be expected. Any development will have to take account of PPG2, which has recently been tightened, including the section relating to a proposal to increase floor area in comparison with that occupied by the properties demolished.
We must recognise that the site is within a conservation area. In addition, English Heritage will be especially concerned about the impact of the development because of its close proximity to Great Barr hall and its parklands; clearly, although there are two applications relating to two sites under separate ownership, they are closely interrelated and extremely complex.
Nevertheless, we must bear in mind the importance of the restoration of the hall and the maintenance of the parkland. Mindless opposition—I make no accusation here—to change on the estate will hinder not only the long-term restoration of the hall and the parkland but the search for an acceptable solution for the redundant hospital. Obviously, the search for the best solution is best carried out by those on the ground, who have detailed local responsibilities and knowledge.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that, while he is watching closely over one shoulder of those responsible, the Government, conscious of their responsibilities for the green belt, for historic buildings and the historic parkland and for the overall situation, are looking closely over the other.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE

  HMS Victorious
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons for the failure of the launch of HMS Victorious Trident submarine at Barrow-in-Furness.

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Victorious' departure from Barrow-in-Furness, scheduled for Sunday 15 January, was delayed for two days due to bad weather. A combination of restricted visibility and heavy sea swell meant that the safe passage of the submarine through the shallow and extremely narrow channels at Barrow could not be assured. HMS Victorious was accepted at sea by the Royal Navy yesterday.

  Trident
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost of the Trident programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The current estimate of the total project cost of the Trident programme is £11,682 million, if all expenditure, including payments already made, is brought up to current prices and a common exchange rate of £1 = $1.48, as assumed in the long-term costing of the defence programme. If payments already made are expressed at the prices and exchange rates actually incurred, the equivalent estimate is now £9,770 million. Expenditure on the Trident programme to 31 October 1994 represented some 78 per cent. of the overall hybrid estimate.

  After allowing for the effects of inflation and exchange rate variations, the revised estimate of £11,682 million represents a real cost reduction of £211 million compared with that announced last year. The increase in cash terms is £51 million. The reduction in real terms since the original 1982 Trident II estimate, including the savings resulting from the decision to have United Kingdom missiles processed at the United States facility at Kings bay, Georgia, now stands at some £3.7 billion.

  The proportion of the estimate for work undertaken in the United Kingdom has increased from 70 per cent. to 71 per cent., reflecting the effects of the change in exchange rate, price base and volume changes in the year.

  I am pleased to confirm that HMS Vanguard entered operational service in December 1994, achieving the in-service date set when the decision to purchase Trident II was taken in 1982, and that the remainder of the Trident programme remains on schedule. I am, as in previous years, sending to the Chairmen of the Public Accounts Committee and of the Select Committee on Defence a more detailed report on the programme. I am also placing a copy of this report in the Library of the House.

  Defence Agency
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about Defence Agency status for the defence dental services and the defence medical supply organisation.

  Mr. Soames
  Following my announcement in the House on 8 December, in which I confirmed the recommendations made by the "Front Line First" medical study, it has been decided that, in addition to the defence dental services, the defence medical supply organisation is also to be considered as a candidate for agency status under the next steps procedure. An entry to this effect will appear in the February 1995 market testing bulletin and I should welcome comments from interested parties. These should be sent by 10 March either to Air Vice-Marshal J. Mackey RAF, director defence dental services, Ministry of Defence, room 102 Lacon house, Theobalds road, London WC1X 8RY in respect of comments on the Defence Dental Care Agency; or to Mr. G.R. North, deputy director of medical supply, Ministry of Defence, room 134, Lacon house, Theobalds road, London WC1X8RY in respect of the Defence Health Care Supplies Agency.

  Support Vehicles
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about progress in encouraging private sector involvement in the financing, acquisition, management and operation of support vehicles for the armed forces.

  Mr. Freeman
  Very good progress has been made. A study team is considering a range of possibilities and is consulting widely in the private sector. Over 175 companies have expressed an interest. Yesterday my Department held a very successful briefing seminar for the private sector at Aldershot. The private sector has been asked for proposals, to include radical and innovative ideas, and we will be evaluating these in the coming weeks. We expect to be able to announce the selection of contractors for a number of pilot schemes by the end of this year.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many British service personnel involved in the Gulf war were administered with the combination of vaccines for anthrax, plague and nerve agent pre-treatment sets;

  (2) how many servicemen refused to be administered with drugs and vaccines during Operation Granby.

  Mr. Soames
  Details relating to biological warfare counter-measures available to British forces remain classified. The nerve agent pre-treatment set—NAPS—tablets were widely issued to British service personnel in areas and units judged to be under threat of chemical attack during Operation Granby. Taking NAPS is a personal responsibility and no information is available on the numbers of personnel, if any, who did not do so.

  Junior Medical Officers (RAF)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the course requirements for junior doctors entering the RAF as junior medical officers in 1989.
  289
  Mr. Soames
  The course requirements for junior doctors entering the RAF as junior medical officers in 1989 were:

  a. Officer training at RAF Cranwell.

  b. Initial medical officer training (administration).

  c. Initial medical officer training (aviation medicine).

  Bullying
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps is he taking to counter bullying among members of the armed forces.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department takes a very serious view of bullying and it has been made clear throughout the services that such behaviour will not be tolerated.

  Measures taken to counter bullying include the publication in July 1994 of the Navy's policy throughout the fleet to remind all ranks that there is an effective policy to deal with bullying. Officers and senior ratings were advised to be alert to the possibility of bullying, and victims were reminded of their rights of complaint.

  The Army has banned initiation ceremonies and has established additional posts in its training organisations to allow officers and non-commissioned officers to devote more time to their supervisory role. In 1993, the Army published a discipline and standards paper which included instructions to counter bullying.

  The Royal Air Force published a policy letter on bullying and initiation ceremonies in 1989, and similar letters were published in 1992 and 1994. The Royal Air Force produces orders to be read and signed annually by officers and non-commissioned officers which specifically cover bullying. The Royal Air Force's policy on bullying and initiation ceremonies is repeated in quarterly standing orders which all personnel are required to read.

  Planned Air Displays
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration underlay the decision to post key members who have planned past RAF premier air displays at Royal Air Force Finningley to Royal Air Force Waddington for a planned air display there on 1 and 2 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Preliminary plans drawn up for the purposes of consultation show that, should the decision be taken to close RAF Finningley following formal consultation, the station would not be capable of mounting a major air show in 1995. As the planning period for the air show is lengthy and complex it was decided, after careful consideration, that the air show should, for this year at least, relocate to RAF Waddington to ensure its continuance in the event of the decision being taken to close RAF Finningley. Two experienced staff from RAF Finningley have transferred to RAF Waddington, which has little experience of mounting such a complex event, to assist in the organisation of this year's show.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all of his Department's medical and health services which(a) have been or (b) are intended to be market tested; and if he will indicate the outcomes of market testing in those cases where the exercise has been completed.
  290
  Mr. Soames
  At this stage a number of medical and health services are being considered for competition but none is yet completed. The Department is currently involved in garrison market tests which include health services at Catterick, Aldershot, Salisbury Plain and Colchester and of all primary and secondary health services in British forces, Germany, with the exception of the provision of primary medical and dental care at RAF main operating bases—RAF Bruggen and RAF Laarbruch—and certain other locations remote from the main garrisons. Operational Army medical units are also excluded from the exercise.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the timetable for market testing the services provided by the RAF hospital at Wegberg, Germany.

  Mr. Soames
  The Department is currently in the process of market testing the provision of health services in Germany, including those provided by the RAF hospital at Wegberg, and hopes to make an announcement on the outcome of this exercise by 31 July 1995.

  Security
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the use of serving military personnel to provide security for private military, security and police exhibitions or conferences.

  Mr. Soames
  On occasion, service personnel may be provided to outside bodies or organisations on loan, to perform a variety of tasks. This is normally on the basis of full recovery of all the relevant costs involved. Service personnel are not normally provided for security duties at private military, security or police exhibitions and conferences.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the use of serving military personnel to provide security at the recent covert and operation procurement exhibition centre held at Sandown exhibition centre in November 1994; and what costs have been reimbursed by the exhibition organisers to his Department for security provided.

  Mr. Soames
  I am not aware that any serving military personnel were employed on security duties at the covert and operational procurement exhibition held at the Sandown exhibition centre in November 1994.

  Electro-shock Devices
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision or training in the use of electro-shock devices is made in respect of(a) his Department, (b) the Army, and (c) special forces; and what guidelines control the deployment and use of such devices.

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department has in respect of the sale or arrangement of sale of any form of electro-shock weapon or equipment from the United Kingdom to a Gulf state in the last 13 years; and if he will supply details of such transactions.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am not aware that my Department has any such information.

  Aurora Prototype Aircraft
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Aurora prototype aircraft of the United States air force are based at the Machrihanish air force base in Argyll; and for what period permission has been given for basing these aircraft in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  There are no United States air force prototype aircraft based at RAF Machrihanish and no authorisation has been given by Her Majesty's Government to the United States air force, or any other US body, to operate such aircraft within or from the United Kingdom.

  Joint Services Command
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis he formed the views expressed in paragraph l0g of his consultation paper on the proposed joint services command and staff college about the respective merits of Camberley, Greenwich and Bracknell in respect of(a) local schools, (b) medical care, (c) provision for overseas students, (d) shopping and (e) other facilities.

  Mr. Soames
  The basis for paragraph l0g of the consultative document was consideration of the provision of domestic support to the families of students at the proposed joint services command and staff college. The availability of common facilities which can be used by a large proportion of the students' families would help in establishing a sense of community within both the college and its associated married quarters. This would be of particular benefit to the families of overseas students.

  As explained in paragraph 10f of the consultative document, the married quarters serving Bracknell and Camberley are compact and relatively close to the colleges themselves and the extensive nearby facilities. By contrast, the married quarters serving Greenwich are dispersed and some distance from the college itself; the likelihood of families benefiting from common local facilities is therefore much lower.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report from Building Design Partnership on the refurbishment costs and implications of works at Greenwich necessary to accommodate the proposed joint services command and staff college.

  Mr. Soames
  The Building Design Partnership option study report into the siting of a joint services command and staff college contains both information that is classified and which comprises advice to Ministers. It would therefore be inappropriate to place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in undertaking the financial appraisal of options for the proposed joint services command and staff college, what assumption was made about the sale value of the Camberley site; and what figure has been included for this in the estimated costs of locating the college at Greenwich.
  292
  Mr. Soames
  This information is commercially confidential.

  Amport House
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the sale of Amport house.

  Mr. Soames
  We announced, as part of the defence costs study our intention to form a tri-service chaplains' school. A study is at present under way to determine the location of the school, and Amport house is one of the sites under consideration. No decisions have yet been made. If Amport house was not selected as the site for the school, and no alternative defence uses were identified for it, our intention would be to sell it on the open market in the normal way.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what actions and measures his Department has implemented in support of article 1 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Soames
  The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. My Department fully complies with the terms of article I of the NPT and works closely with other Government Departments to enforce export licensing procedures. This includes contributing to the work of the Zangger committee and the nuclear suppliers group.

  Firearms (Trade Missions)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department has in respect of and in what ways it is supporting trade missions to Latin American countries in January and February; what is the involvement of such trade missions in the sale or arrangement for sale of items classified under section 5 (1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968; and if he will list the items which are so classified.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no Ministry of Defence supported trade missions visiting Latin America in January or February 1995.

  Tugboat Rotesand
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his Department's decision to engage the tugboat Rotesand for use at Devonport in Plymouth.

  Mr. Freeman
  The tug Rotesand was chartered to provide assured continuity of in-port services at Devonport during a period when two Devonport-based tugs of the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service were deployed to Barrow-in-Furness to assist the departure of HMS Victorious. The Rotesand was chartered on the open market and was the cheapest suitable tug available. The charter was originally for one week from 10 January but this was extended to 27 January after severe weather prevented the timely return of the RMAS tugs to Devonport.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work has been undertaken by the tugboat Rotesand since its arrival at Plymouth; and how many times it has been used.
  293
  Mr. Freeman
  The tug Rotesand assisted HMS Westminster into port on 12 January. For the rest of the charter period it provided emergency cover for the safety of vessels at Devonport.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated total cost to his Department of hiring the tugboat Rotesand for use at Devonport in Plymouth; and if he will provide a breakdown of the costs.

  Mr. Freeman
  The charter costs are commercially confidential.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with the chief executive of the Atomic Weapons Establishment concerning the diversification of AWE Cardiff into production outside nuclear warhead production; and what efforts have been made in this regard.

  Mr. Freeman
  There have been continuing discussions between my Department and the managing contractor about diversification of work at the AWE Cardiff site, and my Department remains prepared to consider proposals for alternative work there.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Government are yet in a position to respond to consultation on the White Paper, "The Civil Service, Continuity and Change", CM 2627, and to the fifth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, Session 1993–94, on the role of the civil service, HC 27; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce a code of ethics concerning the operation of the civil service.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government are publishing today a Command Paper, Cm 2748, taking forward the policies on the civil service set out in last July's White Paper "The Civil Service: Continuity and Change", Cm 2627. The command paper incorporates the Government's response to the fifth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, "The Role of the Civil Service", HC(1992–94). It also takes account of other responses to the invitation to comment on the proposals in "Continuity and Change". Comments were received from 50 individuals and organisations. Copies of the responses where confidentiality was not requested have been placed in the Library of the House.

  In "Continuity and Change", the Government re-affirmed their commitment to the maintenance of a permanent civil service, based on the values of integrity, political impartiality, objectivity, selection and promotion on merit and accountability through Ministers to Parliament. This commitment has been widely welcomed—and was equally emphasised by the Select Committee in its report. The Government also welcome the Select Committee's belief that
  "the commitment of the overwhelming majority of civil servants to the principle and practice of a politically impartial Civil Service is undiminished".
  294
  The Command Paper announces further measures to underpin these values.

  The Government have accepted the Select Committee's recommendation for a new civil service code, to apply to all civil servants and summarising the constitutional framework within which civil servants work and the values they are expected to uphold. A draft code, suggesting the changes which the Government think necessary to the text proposed by the Select Committee, with an associated commentary, is published in the Command Paper as a basis for further consultation. The proposed code incorporates, as recommended by the Select Committee, a new independent line of appeal to the civil service commissioners in cases of alleged breaches of the code or issues of conscience which cannot be resolved through internal procedures.

  The Government also intend to enhance the role of the civil service commissioners as guardians of the principle of selection on merit. They will be responsible for the interpretation of the principles of fair and open competition on merit for all civil service recruitment. The commissioners will be responsible for approving all appointments from outside the civil service to the new senior civil service; and the next first civil service commissioner is to be given a new role in monitoring senior internal appointments. Consequently he or she will not hold the post as a serving civil servant.

  The Command Paper re-emphasises the Government's commitment to maintaining the civil service as a good employer, ensuring equality of opportunity, maintaining a predominantly career civil service, and to the training and development of all staff. It also confirms the Government's intention to proceed with the other approaches set out in "Continuity and Change" to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the civil service, including the delegation of pay and grading below senior levels to Department, and the introduction of efficiency plans in place of the centrally-driven "Competing for Quality" programme; to establish the proposed new senior civil service; to carry out senior management reviews in all Departments to introduce new pay arrangements for the senior civil service, including permanent secretaries; and to introduce contracts for all senior civil servants.

  The Government are also publishing today detailed responses to the "Review of Recruitment Responsibilities" and the "Review of Fast Stream Training" which were published in parallel with Cm 2627. Copies of the responses have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The command paper charts a clear course for the civil service. The Government believe that Parliament, the public and particularly the civil service itself should be encouraged by the degree of agreement on the way forward, reflected in the very considerable sharing of views on key issues between the Government and the Select Committee, as well as by those who have given evidence to the Select Committee and have commented on the White Paper. There is wide recognition of the work of the civil service, the values it upholds and the progress it has made in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the services it provides. This offers an excellent foundation on which to move ahead.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out for each of the next steps agencies in his Department, whether they have acquired their own headquarters buildings and, if so, at what purchase cost or annual rental; how many support staff they have required which were not required when their operations were within his Department; how many of them published periodical journals and at what annual cost; how many have fleets of executive cars or single executive cars and at what annual cost; how many have specially designed logos and at what cost; how many have corporate clothing and at what cost; and what is the cost of specially designed and printed corporate stationery.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am responsible for six agencies: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Central Office of Information, Chessington Computer Centre (Chessington), Civil Service College, Occupational Health Service and Recruitment and Assessment Services. The details requested concern mostly operational matters and I have asked the chief executives to reply directly.

  HMSO and COI are individual departments as well as being agencies. They already had their own headquarters and were self-contained for support staff.

  The other agencies are parts of the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service and Science. All had their own headquarters buildings and were self contained for support services or very nearly so. Four additional support posts were created when they were launched as agencies. Since that time there have been further changes in the agencies to reflect levels of business and efficiency and productivity gains.

  Within the Cabinet Office, excluding the agencies, there are now 25 fewer support staff than immediately prior to the launch of the first OPSS agency in 1989.

  Letter from E. C. McCloy to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 26 January 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Hughes) has asked me to provide, for my Agency, the information requested in your Parliamentary Question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about certain costs which might have been incurred by his Executive Agencies.
  Since its inception in 1986, the structure and organisation of the Civil Service Occupational Health Service (OHS) has undergone little change. Between 1986 and 1990, when OHS achieved Agency status, it functioned as a free-standing unit within the Cabinet Office (Office of the Minister for the Civil Service). In 1989, the Headquarters was transferred from London to our present offices in Edinburgh as part of the government's programme of dispersal of Civil Service jobs. No additional costs were incurred resulting from the change.
  Since 1990 the only addition to our support staff numbers has been the equivalent of one Executive Officer post which was added to our strength to take over accommodation and general support duties which had previously been undertaken by the Cabinet Office.
  There are two or three editions, in each year, of a journal called "Health at Work" which is aimed at promoting health and safety within the Civil Service. The cost of each edition is approximately £9,000. "Health at Work" replaced previous journals which had been published before we attained Agency status.
  Our logo was designed in 1987 before we became an Agency and our headed stationery also dates from that time.
  We have no executive cars or corporate clothing.
  296
  Letter from Michael D. Geddes to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 24 January 1995:
  There are two areas of the question that apply to Recruitment and Assessment Services (RAS).
  In 1991 RAS paid a one-off sum of £20,000 to produce a corporate image for the Agency. This included choosing a name, logo design and preparation of a design manual with specifications for future use, ie a house style.
  To supplement the use of the logo, RAS uses corporate stationery for a regular newsletter (Radius), for marketing and for tender documentation. This has cost £11,000 over the period late 1993 to date.

  Letter from R. N. Edwards to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 24 January 1995:
  Chessington Computer Centre is an Agency of the Office of Public Service and Science. I have been asked to respond to you directly on the Parliamentary Question tabled on the costs of Agency. The costs were as follows:-
  Headquarter Buildings—Nil, Chessington is wholly located at its single site in Surrey.
  Support Staff—No additional support staff were added to the Chessington complement on becoming an Agency.
  Periodical Journals—Chessington produces quarterly Newsletters to its customers. These were produced at a cost of £6261 in 1993/94, Chessington's first year as an Agency.
  Executive Cars—Nil.
  Logos—Chessington paid an amount of £5150 for professional consultancy and artwork in adopting a new logo as it became an Agency.
  Corporate Clothing—Nil.
  Cost of Specially designed Stationery—£7,500 in 1994/5. This included binders folders; headed stationery; compliment slips etc

  Letter from Stephen Hickey to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 25 January 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the expenditure incurred by the Civil Service College since it has been a Next Steps agency. I will cover the points in the order that you raised them:

  Headquarter building
  The College's main centre has been at Sunningdale Park since it was formed in 1971. No additional office accommodation has been created at Sunningdale because of the College becoming an agency. The current rent paid by the College totals £1.2 million per annum covering all the teaching, residential and office accommodation.

  Support staff
  Three additional support staff were employed as a result of the College taking on new roles when it became an agency. Other increases in staffing since 1989 have been a result of the College's continuing success at expanding its business.

  Periodic journals
  We do not publish any periodic journals.

  Executive cars
  We do not have any executive cars.

  Logos
  The College has commissioned no specially designed logos since it became an agency.

  Corporate clothing
  The College issues no corporate clothing.

  Corporate stationery
  The College expects to spend £75,000 this financial year on corporate stationery. This includes headed letter paper, envelopes, ring binders, document wallets and financial stationery. All of these would have been required as part of the College's normal business, whether or not, it was an agency.
  297
  Letter from Paul Freeman to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 24 January 1995:
  I have been asked by The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to reply to your question concerning expenditure by Next Steps Agencies.
  As well as being an Agency reporting to the Chancellor, HMSO is also a department in its own right and has been a Trading Fund since 1980. Assumption of Agency status in 1988 did not therefore represent a dramatic change.
  HQ accommodation. HMSO has 2 Headquarters buildings in Norwich. A 40-year lease was obtained on Sovereign House in 1968 with an annual rental of £97,000. St Crispins, which was previously leased, was purchased for £6 million in 1986. This pre-dates Agency status.
  Support staff. Support staff have reduced from 600 to 450 since HMSO became an Agency in 1988.
  Periodicals. The only 'periodical' produced by HMSO is an in-house magazine for staff communications. This pre-dates Agency status, and currently costs around £24,000 per annum.
  Cars. HMSO has one vehicle which serves both as an executive car and as a delivery vehicle for sensitive documents. It costs £10,000 per annum, and pre-dates Agency status.
  Logo. HMSO has a simple logo which is designed and developed by our own design team many years ago. The cost, which was modest, is not readily available.
  Corporate clothing. The only clothing purchased by HMSO is protective clothing for messengers and some reprographic staff. £5,000 was spent in 1994.
  Stationery. Headed stationery has always been used by HMSO but the extraction of this detail from the overall printing and stationery budget is not possible.

  Letter from Mike Devereau to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 24 January 1995:
  You asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for various figures and costs associated with Next Steps agencies.
  As these relate to operational matters I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Central Office of Information.
  COI was established as an Executive Agency on 5 April 1990.

  Government funding of higher education R and D

  Annual percentage growth in real GDP

  United Kingdom

  United States of America

  France

  United Kingdom

  United States of America

  France

  Percentage of GDP

  Percentage change year on year

  1981

  0.26

  0.31

  0.31

  1.7

  -2.2

  2.3

  1982

  0.26

  0.31

  0.32

  3.8

  3.6

  0.7

  1983

  0.26

  0.31

  0.32

  2.5

  6.7

  1.5

  1984

  0.26

  0.31

  0.33

  3.5

  3.1

  1.8

  1985

  0.27

  0.32

  0.33

  4.4

  2.8

  2.4

  1986

  0.27

  0.34

  0.32

  4.7

  3.1

  2.2

  1987

  0.27

  0.36

  0.32

  5.0

  4.0

  4.2

  1988

  0.26

  0.36

  0.32

  2.2

  2.7

  3.8

  1989

  0.25

  0.37

  0.32

  0.4

  0.8

  2.4

  1990

  0.25

  0.37

  0.33

  -2.3

  -1.1

  0.7

  1991

  0.25

  0.38

  0.34

  -0.4

  2.5

  1.4

  1992

  0.25

  0.39

  0.35

  2.0

  2.8

  -0.8

  Sources: OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators.

  (Real GDP calculated using OECD implicit GDP price indices, 1985=100).

  Decision Making
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for increasing the openness of decision making(a) in the national health service and (b) generally in 1995.
  298
  However, it is a Department in its own right and its operations have never been conducted within any other department.
  In answer to your specific questions:
  COI has not acquired any new headquarters accommodation since its establishment as an Executive Agency; indeed, headquarters accommodation holdings have reduced by 1182.3 square metres (10.57%) between 1989/90 and 1993/94.
  No new support staff have been required. Staff costs fell by 14.47% between 1989/90 and 1993/94 without any reduction in the span of activities performed.
  COI publishes a house magazine "Inform", the primary function of which is staff communication. The current annual cost is £25,000.
  COI has no executive cars.
  The COI logo is updated from time to time. The last significant change was made in 1990 at a cost of £10,000.
  Appropriate clothing for Receptionists and Porter/Messengers has been provided since the Department was set up in 1946. Annual cost is less than £1000.
  As a Department COI has always had to provide its own stationery. Any necessary changes in design are introduced when new stocks are printed and additional costs are avoided.
  In the four years since COI became an Executive agency it has achieved efficiency savings of £56.4m (18.1%).
  I hope that this information meets your needs.

  University Research
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of gross domestic product was devoted to the public funding of university research in(a) Britain, (b) the USA and (c) France from 1981 to 1992; and what are the corresponding figures for each country for annual percentage growth in real GDP.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  International comparisons of expenditure on higher education research are of questionable significance, because of the large structural differences in the make-up of this sector between countries.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has already consulted on a draft code of openness for the national health service, the final version of which will be published during 1995. One of the stated aims of the code is to provide people with an explanation of service changes in the NHS and give
  299
  them the opportunity to influence decisions on such changes.

  The Government remain committed to the principles of transparency and openness laid down in the White Paper on open government. We are currently preparing a report for Parliament on Departments' experience of the first nine months of operation of the code of practice on access to Government information. This will help us to assess its impact.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Disabled People (Court Access)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who is responsible for ensuring that court buildings are adequately accessible to disabled people.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor, through his officials, is responsible for ensuring that court buildings are accessible to disabled people. It is the Department's policy that the design of a court should enable disabled people to have access to and around the building appropriate to their functions there. Subject to resources and building constraints, every effort is made to improve access and facilities in existing courts.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of the cost of training and retraining(a) justices of the peace and (b) members of the professional judiciary in respect of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The estimate of the cost of training justices of the peace and members of the professional judiciary in respect of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was given in a written answer to the House on 27 May 1993,Official Report, column 658, as approximately £250,000. As subsequent training was included in the general training of magistrates and judges, the cost cannot be separately identified.

PRIME MINISTER

  British Association of Sheep Exporters
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings with the British Association of Sheep Exporters he has had since 1994.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on documents made available in the United States of America following the ending of the Pan Am insurers' appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to the loss of the airliner over Lockerbie; and if he will make a statement.
  300
  The Prime Minister
  The document in question quotes a source relying on"second and third party information"

  and stating that the former Iranian interior minister paid $10 million to have the Lockerbie bombing carried out. Allegations to this effect were first made early in the investigation; they were examined at the time by the competent authorities, together with a great deal of other often contradictory material, but no evidence has been found to substantiate them. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate remains satisfied that the evidence supports the charges against the two accused and that there is no evidence to establish that other persons or nations were involved.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) of 16 January,Official Report, column 275, if he will place in the Library a list of the offices of Government Departments and next steps agencies in the west country and Bristol.

  The Prime Minister
  A list of Government Departments and next steps agencies which have offices in the west country and Bristol has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Regional Offices
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Government Departments and agencies' have regional offices in each of the standard regions of England; and how many people are so employed in each region.

  The Prime Minister
  Twenty-seven Government Departments and 50 next steps agencies have offices in the economic planning regions of England.

  Information on the number of civil service employed in each region, including their agencies, is contained in "Civil Service Statistics" 1994 edition, table 3, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received concerning the impact of reduced activity by the Countryside Council for Wales on the commitment arising form the biodiversity convention under the Rio treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received two such representations. The Government remain committed to the convention on biological diversity signed in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.

  Channel Islands
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what discussions have taken place with the authorities on the Channel Islands regarding the 50th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany;

  (2) if he will make arrangements as part of the 50th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany for memorials to be put up in the Channel Islands in memory of those who were deported and died as a result of the German occupation;

  (3) if it is intended for him and the heads of Government invited for the 50th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany to pay homage in Alderney to the memory of those who were used as slave labour and died in the camps.

  The Prime Minister
  As internally self-governing dependencies of the Crown, the Channel Islands are themselves taking the lead in organising celebrations to mark the 50th anniversary of their liberation from war-time occupation, on 9 and 10 May. I am pleased to say that, following discussions between the relevant authorities here and in the islands, HRH the Prince of Wales will represent Her Majesty the Queen at the celebrations, and units of our armed services will take part in them.

  It is for the authorities and people of each island to decide on the setting up of memorials. In both Jersey and Guernsey there are already plaques commemorating those who died during the second world war, including deportees, and in Alderney there is a long-standing memorial dedicated to the memory of those prisoners who died in labour camps on the island, at which an inter-denominational service is held annually. The states of Jersey and Guernsey have each commissioned public memorials of the 50th anniversary of the liberation.

  It would not be feasible for me and the heads of state or Government invited to the commemorations of the 50th anniversary of VE Day in London on 6 and 7 May to visit Alderney.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect on his policy for the expansion of nursery education of the Government policy on the enactment of the Nursery Education (Assessment of Need) Bill of Session 1993–4; and to which provisions of the Bill Her Majesty's Government remains opposed.

  The Prime Minister
  There is no need for the provisions of the Nursery Education (Assessment of Need) Bill. We are already committed to providing, over time, a pre-school place for all four year-olds whose parents wish to take it up. We want to promote choice and diversity by building on the existing wide range of providers, including the private and voluntary sectors.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy not to authorise the detention of any asylum seeker who has 302
  entered the United Kingdom illegally but whose application for asylum has not been determined; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will instruct immigration officers that they do not have powers to compel an illegal entrant to submit to examination and to be detained for that purpose; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  These questions raise issues which are currently being considered by the Court of Appeal and the court's judgement will be given very careful consideration once it is received. In the meantime, it is not proposed to change our current general practice.

  Director General of the Prison Service
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the contract of the Director General of the Prison Service comes up for renewal; what criteria will be used to decide whether his contract should be renewed; and who will take that decision.

  Mr. Howard
  The appointment of the Director General of the Prison Service was made for three years in the first instance from 6 January 1993, extendable to five years by agreement between him and the Department. It will be for me, on the advice of the permanent secretary, to take the decision on whether the director general should be offered an extension of his contract.

  Mrs Qureshian Bibi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when, last year, the United Kingdom post in Islamabad requested a sponsor interview concerning the application by Mrs. Qureshian Bibi to enter the United Kingdom, GV100/25109; when a second request from the ECO in Islamabad for a sponsor interview was received; and when the sponsor is going to be interviewed.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The first request from the British High Commission in Islamabad for an interview with Mr. Rangzeb was received by the Home Office on 14 July 1994. There is no record of a further request having been received. The immigration service at Leeds Bradford airport will shortly contact Mr. Rangzeb to offer him an appointment for an interview on 5 February.

  Emergency Calls (Response Times)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken for(a) the Metropolitan police and (b) the London Fire Brigade to arrive at the scene following an emergency 999 call.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that during the period of three months from October to December 1994 the average time taken by the Metropolitan police to respond to a 999 call was 11 minutes 23 seconds.

  In 1992, the latest year for which the information is available centrally, the average response time to fire incidents for the London fire brigade was six minutes. This information is based on response times for fires involving occupied buildings, casualties or rescues and certain other types of fire.

  Electro-shock Equipment
  Mr.Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what permission has been given at any time to the companies(a) CAZ and (b) International Procurement Services to hold or trade in any form of electro-shock equipment in the last 15 years.

  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Stop and Search
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the relationship between the number of stops and searches carried out by police services and the remuneration allocated to(a) police divisions/areas or (b) individual police officers.

  Mr. Maclean
  None whatsoever.

  Criminal Offences
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the criminal offences that have been introduced by regulations or directives from the European Union in 1994.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Infanticide
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children were killed by their parents in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following table shows the number of offences recorded as homicide in England and Wales, as at 5 August 1994, where children under the age of 16 years were killed by their parents:

  Year

  Number

  1984

  62

  1985

  72

  1986

  36

  1987

  55

  1988

  76

  1989

  44

  1990

  49

  1991

  68

  1992

  52

  1993

  50

  Figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  Secure Remands (Juveniles)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 December 1994,Official Report, columns 566–67, when he will reach a decision on defraying the costs of local authorities accommodating juveniles subject to court-ordered secure remands; and at what stage discussions have reached on this subject.

  Mr. Maclean
  This work is at an early stage. I have yet to embark on discussions with interested parties. I shall make a decision once the discussions have been concluded.

  Parkhurst Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who provided him with the information that members of the Prison Officers Association were instructed not to co-operate with the police inquiry at Her Majesty's prison, Parkhurst; and what evidence he has that they did not do so.

  Mr. Howard
  I received this information, and evidence that some members of the POA did not co-operate with the police inquiries into the escapes from Parkhurst on 3 January 1995, from the police.

  Inquests (Legal Expenses)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what authority or vote appropriation Her Majesty's Government made available funds to assist or defray the legal expenses incurred by the relatives of the King's Cross and Clapham disasters at the relevant inquests; and if similar provisions could be made available to the relatives of the victims of the Marchioness disaster at the resumed inquest.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  The costs of legal representation for the relatives who attended the inquests into the King's Cross and Clapham disasters were met by London Transport and British Rail respectively. Generally, relatives' costs are not met in inquests or fatal accident inquiries. The proceedings are informal and are concerned with facts surrounding a death rather than issues such as civil or criminal liability. Legal representation is usually unnecessary. We therefore do not consider that it would be appropriate, or necessary, for the Government to underwrite the legal costs of the families' attending the inquest into the Marchioness disaster.

TREASURY

  Royal Mint
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made on the Royal Mint's review of the coinage.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Mint has consulted the general public and organisations representing people with special interests, for example, the blind and the elderly, as well as major coin users or handlers. The formal consultation period ended on 31 December 1994 and the analysis of the results is now underway. My right hon. and learned Friend expects to be able to make an announcement on the results of the review in the spring.

  Personal Allowance
  Ms. Rachel Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost of extending the additional personal allowance to married women with dependent children who have husbands who are mentally incapacitated or mentally infirm.

  Sir George Young
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Inflation Target
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to reduce the
  305
  Government's inflation target of 1 to 4 per cent for the retail prices index excluding mortgage payments in RPIX;

  (2) what is his target for the underlying rate of inflation, RPIX, after the current Parliament; and what plans he has to specify a narrow sub-range for this target.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government's aim is to keep underlying inflation, as measured by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments, in the range 1 to 4 per cent., and to bring it down in the lower half of this range by the end of the present Parliament.

  The Government remain committed to keeping inflation permanently low.

  The target for after the current Parliament will be announced in due course.

  Bank of England (Meetings)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the forward dates of his monthly monetary meeting with the Governor of the Bank of England.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The monthly monetary meetings I hold with the governor are generally held in the first week of each month, but the precise dates are only confirmed one month in advance in the monthly monetary report.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines are operated by his Department as regards the use of executive search agencies to fill vacancies within his Department and his Department's executive agencies; and in what circumstances his Department employs executive search agencies instead of relying fully on departmental resources to fill vacant posts.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury refers to central guidance on the use of executive search agencies. Decisions on when to recruit and the method of recruitment are taken in the light of the overall staffing requirements of the Department.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the total net annual change in Government tax revenues as a consequence of the introduction of the national lottery.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The 12 per cent. duty rate was set so as to have no effect on tax revenues.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Rwanda Refugees
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure humanitarian aid is effectively delivered in the refugee camps in Rwanda and Zaire.

  Mr. Baldry
  We keep in close touch with non-governmental organisations and the United Nations agencies working in the refugee camps in neighbouring countries and the camps for internally displaced within 306
  Rwanda. An ODA assessment and monitoring mission visited the region last week.

  Steps taken to improve effective delivery include targeted distribution of food aid to family units. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees plans a comprehensive registration exercise in early February.

  Pergau Dam
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what means subcontracts were allocated on the Pergau dam project; and how many British firms benefited from the allocation of subcontracts on the project.

  Mr. Baldry
  Sub contracts were let by the main contractor, Kerjaya Balfour Beatty Cementation. A list of the main subcontractors, vendors, plant and spares suppliers and main material suppliers was presented to the Foreign Affairs Committee in connection with its inquiry into the Pergau project, Cm 271–11, pages 80 to 85. One hundred and eighty-one British firms were involved in the project.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Corporate Manslaughter Charges
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to review the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to pursue a charge of corporate manslaughter against Fewston Transport Ltd. and H. G. Pheasey.

  The Attorney-General
  The evidence in relation to an incident on 6 September 1993 involving a vehicle owned by Fewston Transport Ltd. was considered by the Crown Prosecution Service at the conclusion of the police investigation and again after the inquest taking account of the evidence given to the coroner. On both occasions the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the company for manslaughter.

  Herbert Graham Pheasey was a sole trader who owned a vehicle involved in an incident on 22 May 1992 as the result of which the driver, Robert Edward Marsden, was prosecuted for and convicted of causing death by reckless driving. The evidence did not justify proceedings for manslaughter against Herbert Graham Pheasey.

  The two cases were not in any way connected.

  The CPS is not aware of any material which would justify further reconsideration of either case.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Attorney-General how many corporate manslaughter charges were brought against heavy goods vehicle operators in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service maintains no central records of proceedings in respect of specific offences. The information is recorded
  307
  on individual cases files, and a definitive answer could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is however the recollection of senior Crown prosecution lawyers that there have been no such cases.

ENVIRONMENT

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many parliamentary questions he has referred to chief executives of next steps agencies in each year since 1992.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is as follows:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Building Research Establishment

  4

  0

  0

  1

  Planning Inspectorate

  4

  1

  3

  0

  The Buying Agency

  4

  0

  0

  1

  Ordnance Survey

  4

  2

  2

  1

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Security Facilities Executives

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the occasions on which Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has informed his Department in each year since 1979 of the discovery of illicitly dumped nuclear materials, giving details of locations, quantities and types of materials involved.

  Mr. Atkins
  Approximately 900kgs of depleted uranium was discovered at Poplars farm, Chelveston, Northamptonshire in January this year. The inspectorate is carrying out an investigation of the circumstances.

  A review of the inspectorate's records, covering the period 1979 to date, reveals no other incidents of illicitly dumped radioactive materials.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what records and maps are kept indicating(a) the radioactive inventory, (b) nature and (c) the exact location of low level radioactive wastes disposed of on authorised landfill sites; and to what extent this information is publicly available.

  Mr. Atkins
  Records of disposals are maintained by disposers in accordance with the conditions of authorisations granted under the provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. The quantities consigned for burial at those sites currently receiving such wastes are listed in the answer I gave to the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) on 25 January,Official Report, column 206.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is planning to extend the chemical release inventory, which is maintained by the inspectorate and is the subject of published reports, to include details of radioactive disposals.

  The exact location of each deposit within a landfill site is not significant in determining the radiological safety of this practice and it is not usual for such records to be kept.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the 308
  Environment (1) what is the volume of low level radioactive waste disposed at (a) Milton landfill, Cambridge, (b) ICI Ltd., Cowpen Bewley Tip, Cleveland, (c) Vickers waste ponds, Walney island, Cumbria, (d) Rolls-Royce, Hilts quarry, Derbyshire, (e) Magnesium Elektron, Swinton, Manchester, (f) Cilgwyn quarry, Caernarfon, Gwynedd, (g) Braziers landfill, Hertfordshire, (h) SCM Chemicals, site tip, Humberside, (i) Clifton Marsh, Preston, Lancashire, (j) Sefton Meadows tip, Merseyside, (k) Beighton tip Sheffield, South Yorkshire, (l) Beddingham quarry, Sussex, (m) Ryton tip, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, (n) BNFL, Drigg, Cumbria, (o) BNFL Sellafield, Cumbria, and (p) Ulnes Walton in the last 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 January 19951: The volume of low level radioactive waste disposed at the listed sites is as follows:

  Site

  Volume M3

  Period1

  Milton Landfill

  83

  1993

  Cowpen Bewley

  52

  1993–94

  Vickers

  less than 1

  1994

  Hilts Quarry

  37

  1994

  Magnesium Elektron

  1,750

  1994

  Cilgwyn Quarry

  less than 1

  1993

  Braziers landfill

  15

  1993

  SCM Chemicals

  0

  1994

  Clifton Marsh

  0

  1994

  Sefton Meadows

  0

  1994

  Beighton Tip

  20

  1994

  Beddingham Quarry

  4.5

  1993

  Ryton Tip

  0

  1994

  BNFL Drigg

  23,185

  1993

  BNFL Sellafield

  0

  1994

  Ulnes Walton

  0

  1994

  1 These are calendar years, other than at Cowpen Bewley where the disposal figures are for the financial year.

  Docklands Light Railway.
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what is the fare box ratio of the revenue costs of operating the docklands light railway and the appropriate level of public support and total costs per passenger mile for operating that railway in the last financial year.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The ratio between the revenue costs and the farebox of the docklands light railway was 4.3:1 in the last financial year. The total cost per passenger mile was 78p, of which 18p was supported by revenue and 60p was covered by public subsidy.

  Kirklees Council
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the spending by Kirklees council on(a) education, (b) social services and (c) highways in relation to those functions' individual standard spending assessments in 1993–94 and 1994–95.
  309
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information is as follows:

  Kirklees Council

  £ million

  1993–94 (Outturn)

  1994–95 (budget estimate)

  SSA

  Expenditure1

  SSA

  Expenditure1

  Education

  140.873

  142.755

  138.275

  146.614

  Personal social services

  38.863

  35.503

  42.814

  43.400

  Highways maintenance

  13.454

  12.536

  12.365

  13.048

  1 Net Revenue Expenditure to compare with SSA

  Surrey County Council
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list Surrey county council's(a) standard spending assessment and (b) actual expenditure on social services in each year since 1991–92; and what will be (i) the standard spending assessment and (ii) the budgeted expenditure for 1994–95.

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

  Surrey County Council

  £ million

  Personal Social Services1

  Standard spending assessment

  Expenditure2

  1991–92

  71.410

  358.831

  1992–93

  78.371

  369.467

  1993–94

  82.152

  372.231

  1994–95

  94.880

  489.086

  1 Figures reflect the transfer of responsibilities for community care to local authorities in 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  2 Net Revenue Expenditure to compare with SSA.

  3 Outturn.

  4 Budget.

  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations underlay the decision of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), to give a detailed reply to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) on 17 January,Official Report, columns 411–12, on the subject of the Merseyside development corporation rather than to wait until his Department was able to issue a Treasury minute in response to the Committee.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The question asked by the hon. Member for Wallasey referred to the position of the chairman and chief executive of the corporation. My reply addressed that issue, which was not raised in the conclusions or recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee report. It also referred to the action already taken to address shortcomings in financial management following the publication of the National Audit Office report in March 1994. Those actions are on the record and are summarised in paragraph 51 of the PAC report.

  The Government's response to the PAC report will be made shortly in the normal way.

  Northumberland County Council
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the level of local government expenditure in Northumberland county council in each year since 1988.
  310
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information is as follows. The figures are not adjusted for changes in local authority functions, of which the most significant were, in 1993–94, the loss of responsibility for further education and the addition of responsibility for community care.

  Northumberland County Council expenditure1

  £ Million

  1988–89

  2140.44

  1989–90

  154.170

  1990–91

  161.481

  1991–92

  178.739

  1992–93

  190.553

  1993–94

  185.770

  1994–95

  191.127

  1 Total expenditure 1988–89 to 1989–90. Net revenue expenditure 1990–91 to 1994–95.

  2 Outturn expenditure 1988–89 to 1993–94; budgeted expenditure for 1994–95.

  Dioxins
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to eradicate dioxin pollution in the Bolsover and north Derbyshire area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The industrial processes which have been identified as the most significant potential sources of dioxin production are now either subject to control under part I of the Environments Protection Act 1990 or are about to transfer to this control from earlier legislation. These processes are regulated either by the local authorities under the local authority air pollution control procedure or are controlled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution using integrated pollution control. Both these regulatory regimes require the application of best available techniques not entailing excessive cost — BATNEEC—to prevent the discharge of dioxins and only where that is not practicable to minimise and render harmless the discharges. For the processes controlled by HMIP, work is already progressing well to require companies to achieve substantial reductions in discharges to all media. Where appropriate, process changes are being sought to eliminate the releases.

  Reductions in the level of dioxin pollution already in the environment are being studied. Substantial reductions in the level of dioxin on plants in the Bolsover area have already been reported. It is expected that tighter emission controls on the industrial processes will allow this trend to continue. Dioxin already in the soil is subject to slow degradation by natural processes.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the average percentage change in business rates in 1995–96 as a result of the recent revaluation of rateable values for(a) shops, (b) offices, (c) warehouses, (d) factories and (e) other premises in each region; and what is his assessment of change for all property types in each region.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information requested is given in the tables below which show estimated average changes in rates bills both before and after the effects of the Government's transitional arrangements are taken into account. They reflect the impact of the 1995 revaluation and also of the cessation of the previous transitional arrangements from which some ratepayers were still benefitting in 1994–95.

  Estimated percentage change in rate bills: 1995–96 compared with 1994–95

  (a) Shops

  Region

  Percentage change before transition

  Percentage change after transition

  South West

  +20

  +8

  Rest of South East

  +15

  +6

  East Anglia

  +22

  +8

  North West

  +39

  +10

  Northern

  +33

  +9

  East Midlands

  +30

  +9

  West Midlands

  +39

  +10

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  +34

  +9

  Inner London

  +4

  +3

  Outer London

  +18

  +7

  All

  +22

  +7

  (b) Offices

  Region

  Percentage change before transition

  Percentage change after transition

  South West

  +22

  +7

  Rest of South East

  -6

  +1

  East Anglia

  +19

  +8

  North West

  +54

  +10

  Northern

  +53

  +11

  East Midlands

  +40

  +11

  West Midlands

  +62

  +12

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  +62

  +11

  Inner London

  -56

  -3

  Outer London

  +1

  +2

  All

  -25

  0

  (c) Warehouses

  Region

  Percentage change before transition

  Percentage change after transition

  South West

  +20

  +8

  Rest of South East

  +8

  +5

  East Anglia

  +19

  +7

  North West

  +49

  +11

  Northern

  +45

  +11

  East Midlands

  +26

  +9

  West Midlands

  +54

  +12

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  +41

  +11

  312

  (c) Warehouses

  Region

  Percentage change before transition

  Percentage change after transition

  Inner London

  -6

  +2

  Outer London

  +10

  +5

  All

  +22

  +7

  (d) Factories

  Region

  Percentage change before transition

  Percentage change after transition

  South West

  +12

  +6

  Rest of South East

  +1

  +3

  East Anglia

  +8

  +5

  North West

  +32

  +9

  Northern

  +29

  +8

  East Midlands

  +22

  +9

  West Midlands

  +39

  +10

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  +29

  +9

  Inner London

  -2

  +2

  Outer London

  0

  +3

  All

  +17

  +6

  (e) Others

  Region

  Percentage change before transition

  Percentage change after transition

  South West

  +29

  +7

  Rest of South East

  +20

  +5

  East Anglia

  +26

  +7

  North West

  +27

  +7

  Northern

  +22

  +6

  East Midlands

  +27

  +7

  West Midlands

  +36

  +9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  +28

  +7

  Inner London

  +13

  +4

  Outer London

  +22

  +7

  All

  +24

  +6

  (f) All properties

  Region

  Percentage change before transition

  Percentage change after transition

  South West

  +22

  +7

  Rest of South East

  +9

  +4

  East Anglia

  +20

  +7

  NorthWest

  +37

  +9

  Northern

  +30

  +8

  East Midlands

  +27

  +9

  West Midlands

  +42

  +10

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  +34

  +9

  Inner London

  -34

  -1

  Outer London

  +12

  +5

  All

  +9

  +5

  Source: Inland Revenue.

  South Yorkshire Navigation
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on how many occasions in the last 12 months freight traffic has been subject to delay on the
  313
  South Yorkshire navigation; and for what reasons such delays were experienced;

  (2) what action is being taken to ensure that freight traffic can be carried on the South Yorkshire navigation without delays due to obstruction in the waterway, inoperable locks or lack of staff.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Sheffield and South Yorkshire navigation is in the undertaking of the British Waterways Board. These questions should be addressed to the board since they relate to management and operational matters for which the board is responsible.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines are operated by his Department as regards the use of executive search agencies to fill vacancies within his Department and his Department's executive agencies; and in what circumstances his Department employs executive search agencies instead of relying fully on departmental resources to fill vacant posts.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Executive search agencies are appointed by competitive tender in accordance with the Department's rules on the engagement of consultants. They are used to assist the mandatory process of public open competition for the occasional recruitment to singleton specialist and senior posts. The agencies provide expert knowledge of the target market sector, and handle ancillary clerical tasks such as the procurement of advertising and the processing of applications, for which it would not be cost-effective to maintain stand-by resources in the Department.

  Standard Spending Assessment, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total standard spending assessment for Nottinghamshire county council for each year from 1992–93 to 1995–96; and, within the total, what was the standard spending assessment for(a) education, (b) social services, (c) police, (d) fire, (e) highway maintenance, (f) other services and (g) capital financing in each of these years.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The figures requested are as follows. They have not been adjusted for changes of responsibility.

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  11995–96

  Education

  383.420

  2342.430

  343.437

  347.054

  Personal social services

  93.884

  95.941

  107.583

  120.920

  Police

  48.595

  50.485

  52.894

  3—

  Fire

  20.482

  21.087

  21.612

  20.848

  Highway maintenance

  36.575

  33.168

  33.109

  33.344

  Other services

  36.979

  36.095

  38.449

  41.271

  Capital financing

  32.630

  32.517

  29.683

  26.893

  Total SSA

  652.566

  611.723

  626.766

  590.331

  1 1995–96 figures are those in the proposed local government finance settlement 1995–96, announced by the Secretary of State on 1 December 1994.

  2 Responsibility for most further education was transferred out of local government from 1 April 1993.

  3 Nottinghamshire police authority receives a police SSA of £54.380 million and a total SSA of £55.365 million.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, (1) pursuant to his answer of 12 December 1994,Official Report, column 436, when he expects to reach a conclusion in his considerations as to whether further measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are necessary following the decision not to increase value added tax on domestic fuel to 17.5 per cent;

  (2) what is his estimate of the effects on the Government's ability to meet its targets agreed to at the Rio summit on the environment of the decision to retain value added tax rate for domestic fuel at 8 per cent., rather than the previously planned rate of 17.5 per cent.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 18 January 1995,Official Report, column 706. We will conclude our work on this review as soon as possible.

  EC Directives (Funding)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation he has had with his opposite number in the European Union concerning the implications of reduced funding for the Countryside Council for Wales on United Kingdom compliance within Wales with the habitat and species directive and other timetabled European directives.

  Mr. Atkins
  None: there are no such implications.

  Local Government Finance, Redbridge
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment what were the(a) standard spending assessment and (b) single regeneration budget bids from the London borough of Redbridge for 1995–96; what was the value of the settlement given; and how much Redbridge will receive.

  Mr. Curry
  The revenue support grant settlement for 1995–96 will be the subject of a report to the House. Under the proposals announced by the Secretary of State on 1 December 1994, the standard spending assessment for the London borough of Redbridge would be £176.167 million. Total external support would be £134.553 million, including £87.766 million revenue support grant and £46.786 million business rate income.

  No final bids were received from the London borough of Redbridge for funding from the single regeneration budget.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to take design considerations into account when deciding whether or not to call in planning applications to be decided under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  My general approach is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. I will therefore be very selective about calling in applications to determine myself and will,
  315
  in general, only take this step if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Each case must be considered on its individual merits. An application for development which raises significant architectural and urban design issues is one example of the type of case which may be of more than local importance. Other examples include cases which, in my opinion, could have wide effects beyond their immediate locality, which give rise to substantial regional or national controversy which may conflict with national policy on important matters, and those where the interests of foreign Governments may be involved.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Exhibitions
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to "Liverpool: Architecture and Design" to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 6 February to Friday 10 February 1995.

  Hall Keepers Lodge
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what changes occurred regarding the vehicle used by the Hall Keepers Lodge for collection purposes until the beginning of this year, what are the present financial arrangements for outside firms to undertake the work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

EDUCATION

  Standard Spending Assessment Settlements
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she had made of the effect of the 1995–96 standard spending assessment settlement (1) on the number of teachers employed in England; and (2) on class sizes in England.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The effect of the settlement on the number of teachers and on class sizes will depend on decisions yet to be made by individual LEAs and schools, and on the cost of the teachers' pay award.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many independent sector schools have had pupils under the assisted places scheme in each financial year since 1980.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of independent schools participating in the assisted places scheme for 316
  each academic year since the scheme's inception in 1981 is given in the following table:

  Assisted places scheme

  Academic year

  Number of participating schools

  1981–82

  220

  1982–83

  220

  1983–84

  223

  1984–85

  226

  1985–86

  226

  1986–87

  226

  1987–88

  226

  1989–90

  278

  1990–91

  295

  1991–92

  295

  1992–93

  295

  1993–94

  295

  The figures relate to England only

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many independent sector schools have had(a) more than 5 per cent., (b) more than 10 per cent., (c) more than 15 per cent., (d) more than 20 per cent. or (e) more than 25 per cent. of their school roll made up of pupils covered by the assisted places scheme in each financial year since the establishment of the scheme.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not available for each financial year since the establishment of the scheme and could be derived only at disproportionate cost. Information is available in respect of the academic year 1993–94; the number of schools in each category is(a) 238, (b) 166, (c) 116, (d) 75 and (e) 43. In addition there are 57 schools with less than 5 per cent. assisted pupils.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which independent sector schools charged(a) the highest and (b) the lowest fees to assisted places scheme pupils on the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The school which charged the highest fee in academic year 1993–94 was Charterhouse, in respect of its sixth form assisted pupils. The annual fee was £9,348. Salesian college, Farnborough charged the lowest fee at £2,283 per year.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she has taken to reduce the costs of operating the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We are committed to providing 35,000 available places in England and Wales and will continue to support this excellent scheme within the resources which can be made available for it. Assisted pupils achieve outstanding results in public examinations and the scheme is good value for money. We must, of course, manage the available resources prudently and have taken steps over the past few years to restrain fee increases for assisted pupils at participating schools.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about the level of parental contributions to the fees of pupils in the assisted places scheme in the next academic year.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Remission of tuition fees under the assisted places scheme is dependent on the level of fees at participating schools and the amount parents can afford
  317
  to contribute. Subject to parliamentary approval, the parental contribution scales will be adjusted upwards for the school year 1995–96 as set out in the table. Where the relevant income for the appropriate financial year does not exceed £9,572, the tuition fees will be wholly remitted.

  Percentage

  Part of relevant income to which percentage applies

  One assisted pupil

  Each of two assisted pupils

  Each of three assisted pupils

  That part which exceeds £9,406 but does not exceed £10,228

  9

  6.75

  5.25

  That part (if any) which exceeds £10,228 but does not exceed £11,063

  12

  9

  7

  That part (if any) which exceeds £11,063 but does not exceed £12,720

  15

  11.25

  8.75

  That part (if any) which exceeds £12,720 but does not exceed £15,271

  21

  15.75

  12.25

  (over) That part (if any) which exceeds £15,271 but does not exceed £18,599

  24

  18

  14

  That part (if any) which exceeds £18,599

  33

  24.75

  19.25

  Student Grants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people aged 29 to 50 years and over 50 years are in receipt of(a) a student maintenance grant and (b) a mature student allowance.

  Mr. Boswell
  Data on the ages of students in receipt of maintenance grants or older students' allowances are not collected centrally.

  Public Sector Schools
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average amount of money which her Department spent on educating a student at a school within the public sector during the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Boswell
  Each local authority is responsible for setting its own budget and deciding its priorities between and within services, including education, from funds distributed by the Department of the Environment through the standard spending assessment system.

  The average spending per pupil by LEAs in England in LEA-maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools is estimated to be £1,972 in 1993–94.

  Equivalent information on grant-maintained schools is mainly the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the FAS to reply separately to the hon. Member.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 13 January,Official Report, column 233, how many independent schools were operating in England in each year since 1990, excluding city technology colleges.
  318
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information available is given in the following table for January of each calendar year:

  Year

  Number of independent schools

  1990

  2,280

  1991

  2,280

  1992

  2,256

  1993

  2,247

  The figures relate to England only.

  Schools, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the capital bid for 1995–96 from the George Spender school, Ravensdale middle school and Greenwood Dale school, Nottinghamshire; for what purpose the bids—grant maintained—were made in each case; and what capital allocation has been agreed.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These matters are mainly the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines are operated by her Department as regards the use of executive search agencies to fill vacancies within her Department and her Department's executive agencies; and in what circumstances her Department employs executive search agencies instead of relying fully on departmental resources to fill vacant posts.

  Mr. Boswell
  An executive search agency might be used to fill a key vacancy in the Department or the Teachers' Pensions Agency, which is the only executive agency administered by this Department. The decision in each case would be based on need and value for money.

  Secondary Schools
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) local education authority maintained and (b) grant-maintained secondary schools in each local authority have fewer pupils than their standard number; and in how many the number of pupils is equal to or greater than the standard number.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not collected by the Department.

  Schools, Wolverhampton
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of a state secondary place in Wolverhampton local education authority controlled schools in 1993–94; and what is the estimated cost in 1994–95.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Provisional outturn figures returned by Wolverhampton LEA show net institutional spending per secondary pupil of £2,300 in 1993–94. The authority has given an estimate of its net expenditure for 1994–95 in a return published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. This amounts to an estimated cost per pupil of £2,531.

  Non-state Schools
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of children between the ages of five and 16 years were educated in non-state schools in 1993–94; and what is her estimate of the percentage in 1994–95.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In England in January 1994, 6.5 per cent. of pupils aged five to 16 were being taught in non-maintained schools. The projection for January 1995 is 6.3 per cent.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the total cost of the 10 most expensive parliamentary questions in the past 15 years for which calculations have been made; which hon. Members asked the questions; and what considerations led him to waive the normal rule regarding disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Newton
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Judgment about the application of the rule are for individual Ministers.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many employees for which his Department is responsible were women(a) in 1991, (b) 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994, of these, how many were (i) at grade 7 level, (ii) at grade 3 level, (iii) at executive officer level, (iv) at administrative officer level and (v) at administrative assistant level.

  Mr. Newton
  The details are as follows:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total

  16

  14

  16

  23

  Grade 3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 7

  1

  1

  1

  2

  EO

  2

  2

  2

  3

  AO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AA

  1

  1

  1

  1

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employees for which his Department is responsible were women(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994; and, of these, how many were (i) at grade 7 level, (ii) at grade 3 level, (iii) at executive officer level, (iv) at administrative officer level and (v) at administrative assistant level.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total number of women

  51,102

  49,138

  55,234

  56,752

  Grade 3

  16

  14

  13

  13

  Grade 7

  88

  91

  141

  142

  Executive officer

  11,996

  11,579

  12,858

  13,271

  320

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Administrative officer

  25,610

  24,899

  29,286

  30,398

  Administrative assistant

  8,098

  7,608

  7,821

  7,510

  Note: Permanent non-industrial staff on 1 April each year expressed as full-time equivalents.

  Part-time staff are counted as half-units and totals are rounded to whole units.

  1 The figures in the table do not include the following numbers of female Grade 3 staff who were on loan to other Departments: 1 in 1991; 2 in 1992; 2 in 1993 and 2 in 1994.

  Electronic Cards
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans exist for the distribution of electronic cards to benefit claimants as replacements for the present order books; what research has preceded such plans or is at present under way; and what rights of access will be granted to holders of such cards to the information contained on these.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government have already announced plans to automate post offices and introduce a benefit payment card to replace order books. These plans were based on a feasibility study by the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. who are now developing detailed proposals with five potential suppliers. We will require the new system to be acceptable to customers, including elderly and disabled people, and consultation with their representatives is planned for the coming year. The system will be subject to the right of access provisions of the Data Protection Act.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the average time for the Child Support Agency to complete first line reviews in the last year for which information is available; and what was the longest time that such a review took;

  (2) what was the average time for the Child Support Agency to complete submissions to appeal tribunals in the last year for which information is available; and what was the longest time for such a submission to .be made.

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

  Letter to Mr. Stephen Byers from Ann Chant, dated 26 January 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the average times taken by the Child Support Agency to complete first line reviews and submissions to appeal tribunals.
  The Agency does not keep information on the average time taken to complete a Section 18 review or a submission to an appeal tribunal. There is no business requirement for the Agency to keep information on the longest time taken to complete either a Section 18 review or a submission to an appeals tribunal. The information which is available is contained in the tables below.

  Time taken to complete Section 18 review: August—2 December 1994

  Time taken

  Cases reviewed

  Per cent.

  0–3 months

  805

  20.5

  3–6 months

  985

  25.1

  More than 6 months

  2,134

  54.4

  321

  Time taken to complete Section 18 review: August—2 December 1994

  Time taken

  Cases reviewed

  Per cent.

  0–3 months

  104

  8.5

  3–6 months

  397

  32.5

  More than 6 months

  721

  59

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out(a) the number of letters from hon. Members which received a full reply (i) in 14 days, (ii) between 15 days and 28 days and (iii) in more than 28 days from the Child Support Agency and (b) the target set by the Child Support Agency for the time to respond to letters from hon. Members since the appointment of the current chief executive.

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 26 January 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the time taken and the target set to reply to letters sent to me by Members of Parliament.
  The information is not available in the form you request. The Agency aims to reply to letters from Members of Parliament within 20 working days, in line with the Department of Social Security target. Whilst I recognize that this target has not always been met procedural changes have been introduced and I hope that Members will have noticed an improvement in both the quality and speed of the replies sent to them over recent months.
  Average clearance times between September and November 1994 are shown in the table:

  Percentage

  1–20 days

  21–40 days

  over 40 days

  September

  14

  55

  31

  October

  26

  44

  30

  November

  53

  37

  10

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many cases were cleared by the Child Support Agency in the first half of 1994–95(a) without maintenance assessments and (b) with an assessment; and what are the reasons for this;

  (2) what was the total number of the Child Support Agency's uncleared cases at 30 September 1994; and if this information could be added to the Child Support Agency's monthly statistical information.

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 26 January 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary for Social Security about cases cleared by the Child Support Agency.
  A total of 338,642 maintenance assessment cases were cleared between April and September 1994, of which 152,482 resulted in a maintenance assessment and 186,160 were other clearances. Cases may be cleared without a maintenance assessment being completed for a variety of reasons. There is no business requirement for the Agency to record the specific reason for clearance in each individual case. Analysis of cases falling into this category suggests, however, that the majority are a result of the parent with care ceasing to
  322
  receive benefit and not proceeding with a private application; good cause not to co-operate being accepted; or the case becoming ineligible for consideration by the Agency as a result of a change in circumstances.
  The total number of cases in which a maintenance application had been received, but a maintenance assessment had not yet been completed at 30 September 1994 was 474,000; this figure includes cases progressing normally through the system. By the end of November 1994, the figure had fallen to 444,000.
  The statistical information made available on a monthly basis is under review. I hope this is of help.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the most recent review he has carried out on the system for paying(a) deposits and (b) rents for prospective and actual tenants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Help with returnable deposits for accommodation was excluded from the social fund in 1988 because of the abuse of such payments under the old supplementary benefits single payments scheme. Help with rent in advance may be available as a social fund loan. Each application is assessed on its merits to see if payment can be made. We have no plans to reintroduce a statutory key money scheme. Under the access to local authority and housing association tenancies proposals, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering encouraging local authorities to make greater use of rent guarantee schemes.

  Disability Injuries Committee
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the remit of the Government's interdepartmental committee on disability injuries; what information it has published; and if it accepts representations from the public.

  Mr. Hague
  The inter-departmental group on disability provides a forum for officials from Government Departments to co-ordinate work on policy and operational issues affecting disabled people.

  Sub-groups involving officials and representation of voluntary organisations have been set up to consider particular issues.

  The group itself has not received representation from the public or published information. Representations should be made to the relevant Minister, who will ensure that they are given appropriate consideration.

  Severe Hardship Payments
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications were made by 16 and 17-year-olds for severe hardship payments in each month since January 1994; and what is the number which were successful.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table.
  323

  Applications for severe hardship payments January to October 1994

  Month

  Number of applications

  Successful applications

  January

  13,870

  12,348

  February

  12,707

  11,190

  March

  14,154

  12,518

  April

  10,209

  8,892

  May

  12,777

  10,953

  June

  11,483

  9,587

  July

  11,995

  9,731

  August

  11,352

  9,322

  September

  9,994

  8,268

  October

  8,739

  7,149

  Source: Severe Hardship Claims Unit database.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines are operated by his Department as regards the use of executive search agencies to fill vacancies within his Department and his Department's executive agencies; and in what circumstances his Department employs executive search agencies instead of relying fully on Departmental resources to fill vacant posts.

  Mr. Hague
  Executive search agencies are employed where their expertise can add value to the recruitment of certain senior or specialist staff.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what considerations led to the decision not to operate the assisted places scheme in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The assisted places scheme in England and Wales enables children to attend independent schools. In Northern Ireland there is no significant independent schools sector.

  Equine Infectious Anaemia
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of equine infectious anaemia there have been in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Ancram
  There have been no cases of equine infectious anaemia in Northern Ireland.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was the absenteeism rate for(a) his Department, (b) the Compensation Agency, (c) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (Northern Ireland), (d) the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency, (e) the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency, (f) the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland, (g) the Rate Collection Agency, (h) the Social Security Agency (Northern (Ireland), (i) the Training and Employment Agency (Northern Ireland) and (j) the Valuation and Lands Agency in each year since 1991;

  (2) what was the absenteeism rate for the Valuation and Lands Agency in each year since 1991.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The absenteeism rates are not fully available in all Departments in the format requested. However, available information is as follows:

  (a) NI Departments and the Northern Ireland office:

  Departments (All figures based on a seven day week)

  per cent.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Education

  Non-industrial

  3.6

  3.29

  3.75

  3.93

  Industrial

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Environment: (including: Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency, Ordnance Survey of NI and Rate Collection Agency)

  Non-industrial

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  15.1

  Industrial

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  326

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Economic Development: (including Training and Employment Agency)

  Non-industrial and industrial

  n/a

  3.07

  3.06

  15.93

  1 = Five-day week.

  n/a = Figures not available and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Per cent.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Finance and Personnel: (including Valuation and Lands Agency)

  Non-industrial

  n/a

  n/a

  14.84 (April to December 1993)

  14.74

  Industrial

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Health and Social Services:

  Non-industrial

  3.2

  2.8

  4.62

  4.32

  Industrial

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 = Five-day week.

  n/a = Figures not available and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Per cent.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Agriculture:

  Non-industrial

  4.3

  4.0

  4.2

  15.3

  Industrial

  17.3

  16.1

  16.6

  17.7

  1 = Five-day week.

  Northern Ireland Office (All figures based on a seven-day week)

  Per cent.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  HCS

  n/a

  4.55

  6.2

  n/a

  NICS

  4.5

  4.4

  5.3

  5.6

  (b) Compensation Agency: (established April 1992)

  —

  5.1

  3.8

  5.4

  n/a = Figures not available and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Per cent.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  (c) Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (NI): (established August 1993)

  —

  —

  —

  16.8

  (d) Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency: (established April 1992)

  —

  —

  n/a

  14.7

  (e) NI Child Support Agency: (established April 1993)

  —

  —

  —

  4.51

  (f) Ordnance Survey of NI: (established April 1992)

  —

  —

  n/a

  15.6

  (g) Rate Collection Agency: (established April 1991)

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  16.4

  1 = five-day week n/a = Figures not available and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  327

  Per cent.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  (h) Social Security Agency (NI): (established July 1991

  5.8

  6.3

  6.78

  8.33

  Per cent.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Training and employment Agency (NI): (established April 1990)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  17 25

  1= Five-day week, n/a = Figures not available and could be provided only at disporportionate costs.

  Per cent.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  (j) Valuation and Land Agency: (established April 1993)

  —

  —

  n/a

  4.9

  n/a = Figures not available and could be provided only at disporportionate costs.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of sheep scab there were in each year since 1990 and in each month for 1994.

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of cases of sheep scab in Northern Ireland since 1990 is:

  Year

  Cases

  1990

  36

  1991

  46

  1992

  59

  1993

  48

  1994

  71

  Under 20

  England and Wales 20 to under 25

  25 and over

  Under 19

  Scotland 19 to under 25

  25 and over

  1989

  419

  639

  758

  —

  1

  2

  1990

  416

  671

  768

  1

  1

  2

  1991

  367

  632

  776

  —

  1

  1

  20 to under 35

  35 and over

  1992

  376

  1,230

  188

  —

  3

  1

  1993

  303

  1,148

  178

  —

  —

  1

  Notes:

  1. Information for 1993 is the latest available centrally, and is provisional.

  2. From 1992 information from England and Wales is available only for the under 20, 20 to under 35 and 35 and over age band.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many employees for which his Department is responsible were women(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994; and of these, how many were (i) at grade 7 level, (ii) at grade 3 level, (iii) at executive officer level, (iv) at administrative officer level and (v) at administrative assistant level.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:328

  The number of cases of sheep scab in Northern Ireland in each month for 1994 is:

  Number

  January

  14

  February

  10

  March

  14

  April

  3

  May

  7

  June

  5

  July

  nil

  August

  2

  September

  3

  October

  3

  November

  7

  December

  3

  Total

  71

  Abortions
  Ms Mowlem
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many abortions were performed by each health and social services board in Northern Ireland in the past five years; and what were the age categories of the women.

  Mr. Moss
  While the Abortion Act 1967 does not extend to Northern Ireland, therapeutic abortions can be carried out in Northern Ireland hospitals on strictly medical grounds. The number of such terminations cannot be identified separately in the information collected centrally on obstetric and gynaecological procedures.

  Ms Mowlem
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of women travelling from Northern Ireland to Great Britain for abortions during the past five years aged(a) under 19 years, (b) between 19 and 25 years and (c) 25 years or over.

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not collected in the form requested. The table shows the number of legal abortions performed on Northern Ireland residents in England, Wales and Scotland between 1989 and 1993 by available age bands.

  (i) Home civil service

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total

  93

  109

  113

  110

  Grade 7

  2

  4

  5

  4

  Grade 3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Executive officer

  12

  13

  16

  19

  Administrative officer

  15

  14

  12

  10

  Administrative assistant

  3

  7

  7

  8

  329

  (ii) Northern Ireland civil servants, non-industrial

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total

  12,175

  12,554

  12,871

  13,119

  Grade 7

  73

  81

  100

  124

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Executive officer I

  1,082

  1,102

  1,176

  1,166

  Executive officer II

  2,041

  2,106

  2,167

  2,198

  Administrative officer

  5,390

  5,513

  5,614

  5,794

  Administrative assistant

  2,706

  2,797

  2,780

  2,780

  NB:

  Part-time staff are included (by head count)

  Travellers
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision is made for the health needs of travellers in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Moss
  Travelling people are entitled to the full range of health and personal social services on the same basis as the rest of the community in Northern Ireland. Health and social services boards are required to identify groups with particular needs arising from their particular location, level of deprivation or lifestyle, and to ensure that services are targeted accordingly.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidelines are operated by his Department as regards the use of executive search agencies to fill vacancies within his Department and his Department's executive agencies; and in what circumstances his Department employs executive search agencies instead of relying fully on departmental resources to fill vacant posts.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Recruitment to the Northern Ireland civil service and to the Northern Ireland Office is regulated by the Civil Service Commissioners to ensure selection on the basis of merit in fair and open competition. When filling vacancies at the higher appointment levels, where candidates with the relevant combination of skills and experience may be in short supply or may not be attracted by advertisement, the use of executive search agencies may be considered to supplement the pool of applicants. All candidates receive equal treatment at interview irrespective of the source of their application and selection is made on merit.

  Club Licensing
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the review of the licensing arrangements in Northern Ireland in respect of registered bona fide clubs will be completed; and if he will make it his policy to consult the Working Men's Club Institution and other umbrella organisations before publication.

  Mr. Moss
  The review of the legislation on registered clubs has been completed and I have today announced the main changes which I propose to make. A copy of my statement has been placed in the Library. In due course I shall publish for consultation draft legislation containing the Government's full proposals for amending the law. At 330
  that stage, I shall welcome comments from a wide range of interests, including organisations representing registered clubs.

  Prison Cells
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the daily timetable for locking and unlocking cells for each Northern Ireland prison.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:
  There is no uniform daily timetable for locking and unlocking cells in prisons in Northern Ireland. Variations take account of a variety of factors.

  Belfast

  Time

  Unlock

  0800

  Lock

  1230

  Unlock

  1400

  Lock

  1630

  Unlock

  1700

  Lock

  2030

  Maghaberry Erne, Lagan and Mourne Houses

  Time

  Unlock

  0810

  Lock

  1630

  Unlock

  1730

  Lock

  2030

  Selected prisoners in the latter stages of their sentence in Bann House are not routinely locked in their cells.

  Magilligan

  Time

  Unlock

  0800

  Lock

  1630

  Unlock

  1730

  Lock

  2030

  Selected prisoners in Foyleview, a low security facility, are not routinely locked in their rooms.

  Maze
  Long-term and remand prisoners are not routinely locked in their cells. This follows a recommendation from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons that access to sanitation should be available at all times.
  The morning unlock time for the small number of short-term sentenced prisoners who service the prison varies according to their work commitments. They are not routinely locked during the day. Evening lock up is at 2030 hours.

  Young offenders' centre

  Time

  Unlock

  0810

  Lock

  1230

  Unlock

  1400

  Lock

  1630

  Unlock

  1730

  Lock

  2000

  A small member of selected special privilege inmates are not routinely locked in their room.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Commission on the Status of Women
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries are currently members of the UN Commission on the Status of Women; how countries have achieved membership; and what is the position of the United Kingdom in respect of membership criteria.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Membership of the UN Commission on the Status of Women is by election on a regional basis by the UN Economic and Social Council. The United Kingdom will seek election in 1996. The current members are:African States (13 seats): Algeria, Angola, Congo, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Namibia, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Zambia
  Asian States (11 seats): China, Cyprus, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Thailand
  Eastern European States (4 seats): Belarus, Bulgaria, Russian Federation, Slovakia
  Latin American and Caribbean States (9 seats): Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela.
  Western European and Other States (8 seats): Australia, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, Portugal, Spain

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs to what extent the United Kingdom will be represented at the meeting in March of the Commission on the Status of Women when the draft platform for action for the fourth world conference on women in Beijing in September 1995 is discussed; which Government Departments will be represented and by whom; who will lead the delegation; and if the delegation will include non-governmental organisation representatives.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Although not a member of the UN Commission on the Status of Women at the moment, the United Kingdom will play an active role as observers at the meeting of the commission in March and at the parallel drafting group for the platform for action for the fourth world conference on women. The United Kingdom will be represented by officials from the Department of Employment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration, who will work closely with NGOs.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when joint discussions have been held with the European Union member states on the draft platform for action for the 1995 fourth world conference on women in Beijing; and which states were represented.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There have been no discussions with our European Union partners about the platform for action for the fourth world conference on women because the draft has not yet been circulated by the conference secretariat.

  Lockerbie
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he was informed of a paper produced by a United States air force intelligence unit in February 1991 relating to the 332
  destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We first learned of the report from a press inquiry on 23 January 1995. The allegation contained in the paper was first made at an early stage in the investigation and has been reflected in books about the Lockerbie diaster. It was examined at the time by the competent authorities, as part of their investigation, but no evidence has been found to substantiate it. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate remains satisfied that the evidence supports the charges against the two accused and that there is no evidence to establish that other persons or nations were involved.

  Mutual Defence Agreement
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent,Official Report, 30 November 1994, column 710, what further developments have taken place in regard to the proposed extension of the 1958 United Kingdom/United States mutual defence agreement.

  Mr. David Davis
  The 1994 amendment to the 1958 United Kingdom/United States mutual defence agreement was discussed during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 15 December. On 23 December there was an exchange of notes in Washington and the 1994 amendment entered into force.

  Bermuda
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 745, if the Governor of Bermuda is accountable to him for matters relating to policing in Bermuda.

  Mr. Baldry
  Section 62 of the Bermuda constitution states that:"The Governor, acting in his discretion, shall be responsible for the conduct subject to the provisions of this Constitution and any other law of any business of the Government, including the administration of any department of government, with respect to the following matters:

  (a) external affairs;

  (b) defence, including the armed forces;

  (c) internal security;

  (d) the police."

  These 'reserve' powers of the Governor have been the subject of considerable delegation. Under (d) the following matters have been delegated to the Minister of Home Affairs:
  Establishment matters; Finance; General Organisation; Training; Recruitment Policy; Community Relations and Equipment.

  In those areas of policing for which the Governor retains responsibility he is of course accountable to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 745, if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Governor of Bermuda, the Government of Bermuda, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and himself in relation to the administration of their colony.

  Mr. Baldry
  The relationship between HMG and Bermuda is governed by the constitution of that territory.
  333
  The FCO, as the Government Department responsible for co-ordinating policy towards the dependent territories, liaises with Bermudian Government departments through the governor. Under the constitution, the governor, in his discretion, has special responsibility for certain aspects of government which have not yet been delegated to a Bermudian Minister, for example external affairs, defence, internal security, and certain matters relating to the police. All other aspects of government are dealt with by the elected Government of Bermuda.

  The governor is accountable to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who in turn is ultimately responsible to Parliament for the good government of Bermuda.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many terrorist offences have occurred in Bermuda in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 744, what allowances are payable to the new expatriate Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police in Bermuda; what is their value; if they would be payable to a Bermudian appointee; and what funding Her Majesty's Government are providing for the posts.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no allowances payable to the expatriate commissioner and deputy commissioner of police which would not be payable to a Bermudian appointee. Her Majesty's Government provides no funds towards either post.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 744, how long the expatriate Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police in Bermuda will be required to remain in post; and if he will name them; and indicate from which United Kingdom police force they came.

  Mr. Baldry
  Three and two years respectively. Mr. Coxall, assistant chief commissioner of the City of London police, and Mr. Mylod deputy chief constable of Hampshire have been appointed as commissioner and deputy commissioner.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the crime statistics in Bermuda for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Baldry
  The statistics which are readily available are for the five years up to and including 1993. These are:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Crimes:

  Against the person

  409

  466

  428

  474

  483

  Against property

  3,558

  4,291

  4,515

  3,936

  5,216

  Others, including drugs

  1,173

  861

  714

  792

  625

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 744, what training Her Majesty's Government are providing for Bermudian police officers with a view to their being appointed in future to the posts of commissioner and deputy commissioner of police.
  334
  Mr. Baldry
  The commissioner of police will address the training requirements of the Bermuda police when he takes up his appointment. Officers at all levels of the Bermuda police force regularly attend police training courses in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who paid for the report compiled by HM Inspector-General of the Dependent Territories constabulary; if the report is a private document; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The report was paid for jointly by the FCO and the Government of Bermuda. It was compiled for the Government of Bermuda and is confidential to that Government.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the principal achievements of his recent visits to(a) Bangladesh and (b) India; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's visit to Bangladesh and India enabled him to judge personally the practical value of the United Kingdom's two largest bilateral aid programmes. In Bangladesh he urged the importance of political stability for foreign investors. In both countries he met the Prime Minister and gave high level support to the process of economic reform, notably in a well received speech at the centenary of the Confederation of Indian Industries in Calcutta. He also discussed the future direction of the massively successful Indo-British partnership initiative.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines are operated by his Department as regards the use of executive search agencies to fill vacancies within his Department and his Department's executive agencies; and in what circumstances his Department employs executive search agencies instead of relying fully on departmental resources to fill vacant posts.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 15 December,Official Report, column 760. My Department's executive agencies make no use of executive search agencies, so there are no guidelines. Should my Department or an executive agency under its control decide to use an executive search agency, it would follow the guidelines set out in "Guidance on Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment".

  Nigeria
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom Government will put pressure on the Government of Nigeria to release all prisoners of conscience.

  Mr. Baldry
  With our European Union partners we have consistently deplored all abuses of human rights, including the frequent use of detention without trial. We look to the Nigerian Government to respect all their international human rights obligations.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Nigerian Government concerning the trial of Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa.
  335
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 25 January 1995]: With our European partners we have consistently urged the Nigerian authorities to release political detainees, or ensure fair judicial process. Mr. Saro-Wiwa's trial started on 16 January, and we and our EU partners are following developments closely.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Shell International concerning the trial of Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa in Nigeria.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 25 January 1995]: No such representations have been made.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of(a) the low enriched uranium, (b) the highly enriched uranium and (c) the natural uranium imported into and exported from the European Union in each year since 1982, came into and out of the United Kingdom annually since 1982.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information, where available, is given in the table.

  United Kingdom share by value of European Union extra-EU trade in uranium

  Share of European Union extra-EU imports

  Per cent.

  Year

  Low enriched uranium

  Highly enriched uranium

  Natural uranium

  1988

  8.2

  n/a

  n/a

  1989

  7.7

  n/a

  n/a

  1990

  8.5

  n/a

  n/a

  1991

  27.3

  16.8

  n/a

  1992

  37.8

  n/a

  n/a

  1993

  28.1

  n/a

  3.3

  Share of European Union extra-EU exports

  Per cent.

  Year

  Low enriched uranium

  Highly enriched uranium

  Natural uranium

  1988

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1989

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1990

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1991

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1992

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1993

  15.8

  98.1

  49.1

  n/a not available: data is confidential.

  Source: EuroStat Comext database.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of gross domestic product manufacturing currently represents; and what was the figure in 1979.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is available from the Central Statistical Office's "United Kingdom National Accounts"—the "CSO Blue Book". A copy of the "CSO Blue Book" is available in the Library of the House.

  British Coal Enterprise
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the west midlands regional forum of local authorities about the continued existence of British Coal Enterprise after March; and what plans his Department has to continue the financial contribution to job creation which British Coal Enterprise has made.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy has received several representations from and on behalf of the west midlands regional forum of local authorities about British Coal Enterprise.

  The Government and British Coal are continuing to explore options for the range of services provided by BCE. No final decisions have been taken about its future.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met representatives of British Coal Enterprise to discuss their record and future plans.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My ministerial colleagues and I meet representatives from British Coal Enterprise as necessary to discuss a variety of issues.

  Engineering Steel Prices
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the average cost per tonne of engineering steel produced at the Sidenor works in Spain and the Klockner works in Germany during the last two years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government do not have access to this type of commercially sensitive detailed information about individual companies, and therefore is not able to provide a meaningful estimate of production costs at these plants.

  Lyon Instant Coffee Factory, Greenford
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers he has to intervene in respect of the proposed closure of Lyons instant coffee factory in Greenford by Kraft, Jacobs and Suchard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The closure is most unfortunate and we have every sympathy for the work force involved. However, manning levels are a matter for the commercial judgment of the company and it would be counter-productive for the Government to try to interfere in normal commercial processes. There are a range of facilities available to help redundant workers find new jobs, retain or set up businesses of their own.

  Competitiveness White Paper
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to update the White Paper, "Competitiveness, Helping Business to Win".

  Mr. Heseltine
  As part of its commitment to the continuous improvement of the United Kingdom's competitiveness, the Government plan to publish a second White Paper on competitiveness this summer. This will report on progress over the last year, extend the analysis of the UK's competitiveness and bring forward new initiatives to help business to win.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will outline the main activities of the green Minister in his Department, in his role as green Minister, during 1994.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 25 January 1995]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has designated me as the green Minister for the Department. During 1994, I and my predecessor as green Minister have continued to ensure that environmental considerations are integrated into the strategy and policies of the Department. Specific environmental initiatives taken during the year will continue to feature in the Department's report on its expenditure plans.

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) on how many occasions in the last four months he or any of his Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answers 25 January 1995]: I refer to my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's answer of 25 January 1995, Official Report, column 197.

HEALTH

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has available to determine the effectiveness, duration and commencement of United Kingdom screening for hepatitis C compared with European Union countries and the United States.

  Mr. Sackville
  Routine testing of all blood donations for antibodies to the hepatitis C virus was introduced in September 1991 when the expert committee advised that sufficiently reliable tests, including confirmatory tests were available. In considering their advice the expert committee took into account the experiences of other countries, including EU countries and the United States.

  Mental Handicap Hospitals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many long-stay mental handicap hospitals in England are still open.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) on 27 October 1994 at column 821.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of remaining residents in long-stay mental hospitals in England.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is estimated that at 31 March 1994 there were 11,500 people with mental handicap needs and with 338
  a length of stay of one year or more, in national health service hospitals.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many long-stay mental handicap hospitals do not yet have an agreed closure plan;

  (2) what plans she has to close the remaining long-stay mental handicap hospitals;

  (3) how many long-stay mental handicap hospitals have closed;

  (4) what are the closure dates of the remaining long-stay mental handicap hospitals.

  Mr. Bowis
  Under Departmental guidance HSG(92)42, copies of which are in the Library, health authorities should work with matching social services departments in planning the transfer of residents and the resources to support them to the community by a mutually agreed date. No deadlines have been set but the aim is to close the old long-stay mental handicap hospitals as soon as practicable. No central record is kept of proposed and actual closure dates.

  Secure Hospital Beds
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made with the provision of the additional 550 medium secure hospital beds which the Government plan to have in place by 1996; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  There were no medium secure places by 1979 in response to the Glancy report recommendations which were published in 1974.

  The number of purpose-built national health service medium secure places has increased from 602 in January 1992 to 712 at the end of December 1994.

  A further 446 places currently being developed are due to open by December 1996, and will take the total to over 1,150. We have allocated £47 million in centrally-funded capital to support this development, and additional places are being funded through the main NHS capital programme.

  Blood
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what volume of blood donated was used within the NHS, annually, from 1989 to the present day.

  Mr. Sackville
  The last year for which complete information is available centrally about the number and usage of blood donations is 1993. Complete information is not available centrally for earlier years.

  In 1993 there were a total of 2,312,000 donations of whole blood and 120,000 plasmapheresis donations.

  An individual donation may be put to a number of uses as a number of components may be harvested from it. In 1993 the figures for the use of donations were:
  Whole blood—106,000 of which 97.9 per cent. was NHS usage;
  Red Cell Components—1,959,000 of which 99.5 per cent. was NHS usage;
  Platelets—842,000 of which 99.3 per cent. was NHS usage; Fresh Frozen Plasma—266,000;

  In addition some 486,000 litres of plasma were recovered from whole blood donations and 60,000 litres of plasma from plasmapheresis donations.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it a mandatory requirement for all health authorities and national health service trusts to inform patients if treatment is not being provided on economic grounds.

  Mr. Malone
  The patient's charter already sets out the right of all patients to receive health care on the basis of their clinical need, not on their ability to pay, their lifestyle, or any other factor. Health authorities are responsible for purchasing health care to meet the needs of their local population.

  Suicide Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has ben the suicide rate for (i) each local health authority, (ii) each regional health authority and (iii) nationally among(a) young men, (b) young women, (c) all men, (d) all women and (e) the population as a whole for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information will be placed in the Library.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the number of terminally or very seriously ill people who commit suicide with or without assistance from others.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys routinely collects information relating to deaths registered in England and Wales for which there is a statutory requirement to do so. For each death it is possible for the certifying registered medical practitioner to record on the death certificate"Other significant conditions CONTRIBUTING TO THE DEATH but not related to the disease or condition causing it".

  Whole-time equivalents of consultant rheumatologists by region as at 30 September 1986–1993

  Region

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Northern

  15

  15

  15

  16

  16

  16

  18

  17

  Yorkshire

  7

  7

  7

  7

  8

  9

  10

  12

  Trent

  16

  17

  17

  18

  18

  18

  18

  18

  East Anglia

  10

  10

  10

  11

  10

  9

  11

  7

  North west Thames

  21

  22

  20

  20

  21

  24

  19

  17

  North east Thames

  30

  23

  28

  23

  30

  28

  31

  27

  South east Thames

  27

  24

  24

  26

  28

  28

  27

  27

  South west Thames

  15

  15

  15

  15

  17

  19

  13

  18

  Wessex

  20

  21

  20

  20

  18

  17

  21

  21

  Oxford

  12

  11

  13

  14

  14

  13

  13

  12

  South Western

  5

  6

  8

  8

  8

  9

  7

  7

  West Midlands

  12

  10

  11

  11

  13

  13

  12

  14

  Mersey

  4

  5

  4

  4

  5

  8

  6

  6

  North Western

  17

  15

  16

  18

  19

  16

  15

  16

  SHAs

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  England Total

  210

  200

  210

  210

  230

  230

  220

  220

  Note:

  1. Figures for 1990 and 1991 are estimates.

  2. Regional figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number; England figures to the nearest 10. Regional figures may not sum to the England totals because of rounding.

  Physiotherapists
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to introduce legislation to protect the patients of physiotherapists in the private sector.
  340
  Analysis of this information could, if present, provide an indication of the presence of terminal illness or very serious illness. The information, however, would be unlikely to be complete, difficult to interpret, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  A death known and recorded as having been assisted by a person or persons unknown would not be recorded as a suicide.

  Mundesley Hospital
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulations govern the sale of the Mundesley hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regional health authorities manage the disposal of surplus property by virtue of regulation 3(1) of the Functions Regulations, SI 1991/554, subject to the Health Authorities Land Transactions Directions 1989. These directions require RHAs to dispose of land in accordance with property transactions in the NHS, part of the "Estatecode" issued by the Department.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the effect on the hospital of the vandalism committed between June and December 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  As this information is not available centrally, my hon. Friend may wish to contact Sir Stuart Burgess, chairman of Anglia and Oxford regional health authority, for details.

  Consultant Rheumatologists
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant rheumatologists were practising in each health authority area in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table:

  Mr. Bowis
  In order to practise within the national health service or local authorities physiotherapists must be registered under the provisions of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960.
  341
  The Government are considering what action may be needed in the light of concerns about the activities of unregistered practitioners.

  Recovered Memories
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the "Recovered Memories" report by the British Psychological Society, a copy of which has been sent to her.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have received a copy of this report and we welcome its publication by the British Psychological Society, as we accept that psychologists, both as scientists and clinical practitioners, can make an important contribution to the understanding of human memory phenomena. Although strong arguments have been made for and against "false memory", there is a dearth of clear evidence and work which examines these matters is helpful.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the composition of regulatory bodies for health care professionals.

  Mr. Malone
  Information relating to the composition of regulatory bodies for health care professionals will be placed in the Library.

  Smoking
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the impact of a total ban on cigarette advertising on(a) the prevalence of smoking amongst the population as a whole and (b) the prevalence of smoking among the 11 to 15-year-old age group.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1992 the Department of Health reviewed all the available evidence on the effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption. The findings were published as a discussion document. "Effect of Tobacco Advertising on Tobacco Consumption", copies of which are available in the Library. The Government concluded on the basis of the evidence reviewed that a ban on tobacco advertising in the United Kingdom would not have a major impact in reducing levels of smoking.

  The Department of Health review did not identify any studies which seek to quantify the effect of a ban on the prevalence of smoking amongst children aged between 11 and 15. The report "Why Children Start Smoking" Office of Population Censuses and Surveys 1990—identified a number of risk factors in this age group associated with starting to smoke. The report concluded that
  "greater awareness of cigarette advertising is associated with a slightly increased likelihood of starting to smoke in the future. However, the effect appears to be small in comparison with some of the other influences on children such as the example set by parents and siblings".

  Consultants
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will undertake an inquiry to establish the extent to which NHS consultants are not fulfilling their NHS contracts.
  342
  Mr. Malone
  No. National health service employers are responsible for ensuring that individual NHS consultants are fulfilling their contractual obligations.

  Uniform Complaints Procedure
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she intends to introduce legislation to implement the findings of the Wilson committee in respect of a uniform complaints procedure; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  We welcomed the publication of "Being Heard", the report of the Wilson committee, and support its central recommendation for a simpler, speedier national health service complaints system. Over 600 responses were received to the consultation exercise on the report, raising some complex issues. We are carefully considering our response to the report in the light of this and will make an announcement as soon as our present considerations are complete.

  Hospitals (Safety)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to review safety in hospitals to ensure the proper protection of patients and staff; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government place great importance on the creation of a safe and secure environment in hospitals as part of quality health care. Specific arrangements for the safety of patients and staff in hospitals, whether in relation to health and safety requirements or security, are a matter for local national health service employers. Guidance on both of these areas has been made available to hospitals by the NHS Executive ((EL(93)66) and (HSG(94)51)), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Disabled People (Access to Health Centres)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is responsible for ensuring that health centres are adequately accessible to disabled people.

  Mr. Sackville
  Under part M of the Building Regulations 1991, local authority building control officers are responsible for ensuring that health centres and other public buildings are adequately accessible to disabled people.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are operated by her Department as regards the use of executive search agencies to fill vacancies within her Department and her Department's executive agencies; and in what circumstances her Department employs executive search agencies instead of relying fully on departmental resources to fill vacant posts.
  343
  Mr. Sackville
  There are no central guidelines on the use of executive search agencies in the Department of Health. The Department and its agencies use such agencies only when internal advertising and inter-departmental advertising are unlikely to produce the right number or type of candidates.

  Mentally Ill People (Registers)
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities have not yet established registers of mentally ill people in the community and how many names have now been entered on those registers which have been published.

  Mr. Bowis
  The latest reports indicate that all districts have established supervision registers. The National Health Service Executive is taking action to ensure that reviews of all patients are completed so that registers are fully implemented as soon as possible. Information on the numbers of mentally ill people placed on supervision registers is not yet available centrally.

  Continuing and Respite Care
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place copies of responses to her consultation on the draft guidance concerning NHS continuing and respite care in the Library; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Copies of the replies which were sent in response to our invitation for comments on "NHS responsibilities for meeting long term health care needs" will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Charges
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated total value of charges levied on NHS patients for(a) dental treatment, (b) ophthalmic treatment, (c) hospital treatment, (d) hospital facilities, including television and telephone, (e) car parking at hospitals and (f) other items.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: The general dental services charge income, net of refunds, in 1993–94 was £367 million. People who are entitled to a national health service sight test do not pay anything towards its cost. People not entitled to an NHS sight test pay for a private test, and all purchases of optical appliances are private transactions.

  For information on private patient income for hospital treatment I refer the right hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave her on 13 January at columns 267–68 and on 20 January at column 766. Information on NHS 'charged' patients—that is, overseas visitors not exempt from charges for NHS hospital treatment—are given in tables 1 and 2. Figures for NHS trusts are not centrally available.

  The income generated by amenity beds in each year from 1979 to 1993–94 is given in table 3. Figures for NHS trusts are omitted since these cannot be separately identified. Information on the net income for patient television hire and other non-medical services is not available centrally.
  344
  The information requested on car parking charges is not collected centrally.

  There are no figures available centrally for any other items.

  Table 1: NHS charged income (overseas visitors) regional health authorities

  Region

  1991–92 £000s

  1992–93 £000s

  1993–94 £000s (provisional)

  Northern

  168

  100

  75

  Yorkshire

  106

  67

  28

  Trent

  143

  45

  7

  East Anglian

  130

  180

  26

  North west Thames

  722

  963

  645

  North east Thames

  178

  141

  200

  South east Thames

  312

  416

  115

  South west Thames

  180

  248

  79

  Wessex

  113

  145

  145

  Oxford

  319

  334

  455

  South western

  148

  42

  16

  West Midlands

  189

  153

  89

  Mersey

  74

  8

  0

  North western

  74

  121

  171

  Source:

  Receipts and payments returns of health authorities (England).

  Table 2: NHS charged income (overseas visitors) London postgraduate teaching hospitals

  Special health authority

  1991–92 £000s

  1992–93 £000s

  1993–94 £000 (provisional)

  Hospital for Sick Children

  0

  0

  0

  National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery

  0

  0

  0

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  The Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospital

  0

  24

  56

  The Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  The Royal Marsden Hospital

  1

  0.7

  92

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's Hospitals

  25

  26

  15

  The Eastman Dental Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  Source:

  Receipts and payments returns of health authorities (England).

  Table 3: Income generated from amenity beds

  Year

  Amenity bed income £000

  1979–80

  224

  1980–81

  239

  1981–82

  241

  1982–83

  369

  1983–84

  389

  1984–85

  345

  1985–86

  409

  1986–87

  454

  1987–88

  621

  345

  Table 3: Income generated from amenity beds

  Year

  Amenity bed income £000

  1988–89

  764

  1989–90

  1,013

  1990–91

  1,260

  1991–92

  2,022

  1992–93

  1,776

  1993–941

  1,227

  Source:

  Annual accounts and receipts and payments returns for regional health authorities, district health authorities and London postgraduate special health authorities.

  Notes:

  The 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 figures are taken from the receipts and payments returns and are not therefore comparable with those of earlier years.

  1 1993–94 figures are provisional

  Specialty Statistics
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give for each financial year since 1989–90 the numbers of(a) hospital spells and (b) finished consultant episodes in NHS hospitals in England recorded in the hospital episode system for (i) acute specialties, (ii) geriatrics, (iii) mental illness, (iv) mental handicap, (v) maternity, (vi) well babies and (vii) all specialties.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: The number of finished consultant episodes in Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) for each financial year 1988–89 to 1992–93 is given in the annual publication "Hospital Episode Statistics, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Previously quoted estimates of hospital spells have now been superseded by emerging new information and revised figures will be available in due course.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 9 December 1994,Official Report, column 401, on NHS expenditure on health care for non-NHS providers, if she will provide comparable information on a regional basis.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 19 January 1995]: The total expenditure, by region, in the last three years by district health authorities, regional health authorities, national health service trusts and general practitioner fundholders on the purchase of healthcare from non-NHS providers will be placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Arts Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he has undertaken in arts education in areas of priority treatment.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office provides financial assistance to 22 urban programme projects, the broad aims of which include developing interest in the arts and culture. The estimated cost in the current financial year is £1.65 million. The projects cover eligible areas throughout Scotland.
  346
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many full-time equivalent arts teachers there are in secondary schools; and how many there were in 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There were 1,368 FTE art teachers in education authority secondary schools in September 1992, the latest year available. Information is not available for 1985; the estimated FIE figure for 1984 is 1,660.

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the approximate average net profit for dairy farmers in each year since 1985.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Information on incomes of full-time dairy farms and other farm types is collected in the Scottish farm accounts scheme and published each year in "Farm Incomes in Scotland" and "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom". The latest editions of these publications show incomes for 1991–92 and 1992–93. Incomes for 1993–94 will be published in "Farm Incomes in Scotland" in February.

  Longer-term trends in income are given in both publications by means of an index series back to 1986–87, the earliest year for which data are available on a consistent basis.

  Both publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Heart Transplants
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 573, when he expects to be able to provide the information for the number of heart transplants in November and December 1994.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Two heart transplants were carried out in November and three in December 1994.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received since October 1990 from Scottish health boards in relation to the pay structure for dentists and the de-registration of patients.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No specific representations on these points have been received from health boards. However, all health boards submitted views on the Government's proposals for changes to dentists' remuneration and the provision of NHS general dental services, which were published in the recent consultation document "Improving NHS Dentistry". Ministers are now considering the way forward in the light of all views received.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been spent in each of the last five years on the provision of dental services in each health board area in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  347

  Scotland: expenditure on general dental services by health board

  Health board

  11989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Argyll and Clyde

  6,290,569

  10,802,044

  12,890,396

  12,411,748

  11,917,843

  Ayrshire and Arran

  5,310,984

  9,713,742

  11,055,246

  10,258,789

  9,932,647

  Borders

  1,130,419

  2,140,213

  2,558,491

  2,685,779

  2,688,599

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,675,012

  3,096,774

  3,676,321

  3,403,027

  3,083,698

  Fife

  3,995,958

  7,163,997

  9,427,329

  8,527,073

  8,778,454

  Forth Valley

  3,405,517

  6,146,760

  7,434,756

  7,600,139

  7,350,682

  Grampian

  5,667,864

  9,787,472

  11,880,510

  12,737,186

  12,379,006

  Greater Glasgow

  14,820,897

  24,687,323

  29,297,575

  30,173,664

  28,749,945

  Highland

  2,447,005

  4,437,021

  6,148,825

  5,425,063

  5,071,681

  Lanarkshire

  7,063,075

  11,973,160

  14,023,907

  13,287,843

  12,892,180

  Lothian

  10,149,229

  17,772,247

  21,779,982

  22,413,356

  22,107,244

  Orkney

  107,078

  167,944

  215,526

  272,306

  268,380

  Shetland

  151,191

  266,018

  303,321

  340,094

  422,639

  Tayside

  5,414,768

  9,949,846

  11,651,600

  11,698,422

  11,754,764

  Western Isles

  242,736

  365,206

  483,725

  509,997

  512,629

  Total

  167,872,302

  118,469,767

  142,827,510

  141,744,486

  137,910,391

  Note:

  Information taken from the annual accounts of the 15 Scottish health boards.

  1 Owing to accounting changes in 1990–91, the 1989–90 figures show net expenditure, i.e., total expenditure less patient charges collected by dentists. From 1990–91 figures show gross expenditure, without deducting patient charges.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dental patients within Scotland received private medical treatment in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No information is available on private treatment.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dentists were on each health board's dental list; and how many dentists joined each health board's dental lists and how many dentists withdrew from each health board's dental list in each of the last five financial years.

  Table 1: Dentists on health board dental list in Scotland

  Health board

  1March 1990

  1March 1991

  21991–92

  21992–93

  21993–94

  Argyll and Clyde

  134

  142

  190

  211

  205

  Ayrshire and Arran

  111

  120

  139

  134

  139

  Borders

  33

  31

  38

  38

  45

  Dumfries and Galloway

  39

  39

  44

  45

  47

  Fife

  101

  103

  128

  129

  141

  Forth Valley

  76

  82

  90

  94

  102

  Grampian

  134

  138

  148

  161

  178

  Greater Glasgow

  327

  338

  391

  417

  428

  Highland

  64

  67

  71

  77

  78

  Lanarkshire

  138

  144

  182

  189

  193

  Lothian

  281

  271

  298

  312

  333

  Orkney

  3

  3

  5

  4

  4

  Shetland

  7

  7

  5

  6

  7

  Tayside

  141

  144

  164

  166

  169

  Western Isles

  13

  12

  10

  13

  16

  Scotland

  1,602

  1,641

  1,733

  1,745

  1,792

  1 For the 1990 and 1991 data the figures show the number of dentists on health board list at 31 March. Dentists contracted to more than one health board are counted only in one health board.

  2 For 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 the figures show the total number of dentists that practised during the financial year in each of the health boards. The data counts some dentists more than once, and so the total number of dentists shown in Scotland for these three years is less than the sum for the health boards.

  Table 2: Number of dental list number3 commencements and withdrawals per health board in Scotland

  Financial year

  Health board

  1992–934

  1993–94

  Commencements

  Withdrawals

  Commencements

  Withdrawals

  Argyll and Clyde

  41

  16

  28

  30

  Ayrshire and Arran

  13

  4

  21

  17

  Borders

  0

  0

  12

  1

  348
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Table 1 shows the number of individual principal dentists on health board lists for each of the last five financial years. Table 2 shows the number of new list numbers allocated and list numbers cancelled for the most recent two years. It is not possible to identify from these figures the number of individual dentists joining and withdrawing from lists as dentists already on a list may acquire additional list numbers, and dentists who surrender one number may hold other numbers.
  349

  Table 2: Number of dental list number3 commencements and withdrawals per health board in Scotland

  Financial year

  Health board

  1992–934

  1993–94

  Commencements

  Withdrawals

  Commencements

  Withdrawals

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11

  4

  9

  4

  Fife

  14

  2

  33

  19

  Forth Valley

  12

  6

  22

  15

  Grampian

  43

  16

  48

  42

  Greater Glasgow

  63

  19

  79

  70

  Highland

  15

  5

  16

  12

  Lanarkshire

  18

  14

  22

  16

  Lothian

  SO

  29

  63

  44

  Orkney

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Shetland

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Tayside

  25

  14

  40

  33

  Western Isles

  3

  3

  4

  3

  Scotland

  310

  132

  339

  306

  3 A dentist may hold one or more list numbers. The table shows a count of the list numbers that commenced in the given period, not dentists.

  4 Information on a comparable basis cannot be provided for previous years.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many(a) residential and (b) nursing homes were operating for (i) each health board and (ii) each regional council area in Scotland in the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) how many (a) residential homes have been closed down in each regional council area and (b) nursing homes have been closed down within each health board area because of the enforcement of the current regulations on the operation of these facilities in each of the last five financial years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information on the number of residential care homes as at 31 March 1994, is as follows:

  Region

  Local authority homes

  Private and voluntary Homes1

  Total

  Borders

  11

  40

  51

  Central

  17

  29

  46

  Dumfries and Galloway

  13

  31

  44

  Fife

  44

  35

  79

  Grampian

  47

  76

  123

  Highland

  21

  68

  89

  Lothian

  40

  265

  305

  Strathclyde

  124

  324

  448

  Tayside

  44

  107

  151

  Orkney

  3

  3

  6

  Shetland

  4

  6

  10

  Western Isles

  17

  4

  21

  Scotland

  385

  988

  1,373

  1 Only includes private and voluntary homes registered with the local authority.

  With regard to nursing homes, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 27 October 1994, Official Report, columns 729–30.

  Information on the number of residential care homes closed is only available for the last three years. The table below shows the total number of closures. Information on the reasons for these closures is not collected centrally.
  350

  Number of closures of registered private and voluntary residential care homes

  Region

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994

  Borders

  —

  4

  —

  Central

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  1

  Fife

  1

  —

  1

  Grampian

  1

  —

  1

  Highland

  4

  —

  —

  Lothian

  9

  —

  1

  Strathclyde

  6

  8

  4

  Tayside

  6

  3

  3

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  West Isles

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  27

  15

  11

  With regard to nursing homes, this information is not held centrally. This is a matter for individual health boards as registering authorities who have the power under section 2 of the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938, as amended, to cancel registration at any time if they consider that standards are not being maintained.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the guidelines which currently exist for the operation of nursing and residential homes; and what representations he has received from regional councils and health boards seeking changes to the current regulations.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  With regard to nursing homes, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 27 October 1994,Official Report, columns 728–79.

  The Scottish Office guidance on the registration and inspection of residential care establishments has been included in circulars issued to local authorities following the implementation of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the Registered Establishments (Scotland) Act 1987 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Those matters have been discussed at meetings with representatives of regional councils and are among the issues presently being considered by officials.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons are currently employed in the sea fishing industry; what were the numbers in(a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1990; and how many of the jobs are (i) on fishing vessels and (ii) ashore.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The latest available information is published in table 2.6 of "UK Sea Fisheries Statistics 1993", a copy of which is available in the Library. Figures for Scotland for 1993 reflect changes to the collection of information on vessels and fishermen following the requirement to license vessels of less than 10 m in length. Information on the level of employment ashore is not available.

  Incomes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average national household income in 1993–94 and 1994–95 for(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information derived from the family expenditure survey, covering a sample of households, shows that average gross weekly household income in 1993 in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland was, respectively, £334, £359, £306, and £326. Data for 1993 are the latest available.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for the financial year 1994–95 for each independent sector school in Scotland in descending order the proportions of their school rolls covered by the assisted places scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistical information on the assisted places scheme is collected in respect of each school session and not by reference to financial years. The information provided is in respect of the autumn term of school session 1994–95:

  Number of assisted place pupils as a percentage of the total school roll (at autumn term 1994–95)

  School

  Per cent.

  Kilquhanity House School, Castle Douglas

  48

  Keil School, Dumbarton

  31

  Morrison's Academy, Crieff

  24

  The Park School, Glasgow

  24

  Rudolf Steiner School, Edinburgh

  22

  Kilgraston School, Bridge of Earn

  20

  St. Denis and Cranley School, Edinburgh

  18

  Laurel Bank School, Glasgow

  18

  High School of Dundee

  17

  Merchiston Castle School, Edinburgh

  17

  George Heriots School, Edinburgh

  17

  Glenalmond College, Perth

  17

  Kelvinside Academy, Glasgow

  15

  Rannoch School, Perthshire

  15

  St. Aloysius College, Glasgow

  15

  Wellington School, Ayr

  14

  Crawfordton House School, Thornhill, Dumfries

  13

  George Watson's College, Edinburgh

  12

  St. Leonard's School, St. Andrews

  11

  St. Margaret's School, Edinburgh

  11

  Daniel Stewart's and Melville College and the Mary

  Erskine School, Edinburgh

  11

  Lomond School, Helensburgh

  11

  Fernhill School, Glasgow

  9

  Craigholme School, Glasgow

  9

  Loretto School, Musselburgh, Midlothian

  9

  352

  Number of assisted place pupils as a percentage of the total school roll (at autumn term 1994–95)

  School

  Per cent.

  Glasgow Academy

  9

  Butterstone School, Perthshire

  9

  Aberlour House School, Banffshire

  8

  Hutcheson's Grammer School, Glasgow

  8

  Fettes College, Edinburgh

  8

  Gordonstoun School, Morayshire

  7

  Belmont House School, Glasgow

  6

  Dollar Academy

  6

  Edinburgh Academy

  6

  St. Columba's School, Kilmacolm

  6

  Clifton Hall School, Midlothian

  5

  Lathallan School, Montrose

  5

  Croftinloan Preparatory School, Pitlochry

  5

  St. Margaret's School, Aberdeen

  5

  High School of Glasgow

  5

  Albyn School, Aberdeen

  5

  Craigclowan Preparatory School, Perth

  4

  St. Mary's School, Melrose

  4

  Beaconhurst School, Bridge of Allan

  4

  Ardvreck School, Crieff

  3

  St. George's School, Edinburgh

  3

  New Park School, St. Andrews

  3

  Belhaven Hill School, Dunbar

  3

  Cargilfield School, Edinburgh

  2

  Drumley House School, Ayr

  2

  Hamilton College

  2

  Park Lodge School, Helensburgh

  1—

  Strathallan School, Perth

  2—

  Robert Gordon's College, Aberdeen

  2—

  1 No assisted pupils on 1994–95.

  1 Autumn term claim not yet submitted by the school.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils were covered by the assisted places scheme; how many independent schools were covered by the scheme; and how many schools were participating in the scheme in each financial year since the introduction of the scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistical information on the assisted places scheme is collected in respect of each school session and not by reference to financial years.

  The table provides the information requested for each school session since 1981–82 when the scheme commenced:

  School session

  Number of assisted pupils

  Number of independent schools covered by the scheme

  Number of independent schools participating in the scheme

  1981–82

  790

  39

  39

  1982–83

  1,450

  41

  41

  1983–84

  1,900

  42

  42

  1984–85

  2,265

  42

  42

  1985–86

  2,620

  42

  42

  1986–87

  2,626

  41

  41

  1987–88

  2,680

  41

  41

  1988–89

  2,695

  41

  41

  1989–90

  2,841

  59

  59

  1990–91

  2,861

  158

  59

  1991–92

  2,911

  58

  58

  1992–93

  13,032

  58

  58

  1993–94

  33,058

  154

  55

  1994–95

  2 32,854

  154

  55

  1 One participating school had no assisted pupils in these sessions.

  2 Two schools yet to submit first term claims/statistics.

  3 Provisional figures.

  Rural Policy
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on rural policy in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  It is now almost three years since the publication of the Scottish Office rural framework, which outlined a new approach to the development of rural policy in Scotland. It emphasised our commitment to ensuring that the needs of our rural communities are met in a way which fully reflects their distinctive and diverse character. Co-ordination of action by Government Departments, agencies, the private and voluntary sectors and local authorities has been achieved through the mechanism of the rural focus group.

  It is now an appropriate moment to review our rural policies and the machinery we have in place for delivering them and I intend to report the outcome of that review in a White Paper on rural Scotland, to be published in the autumn.

  "Progress in Partnership"
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals for urban regeneration policy in Scotland following consideration of the response to the consultation paper "Progress in Partnership."

  Mr. Lang
  I am pleased to announce today the outcome of the review of urban regeneration policy in Scotland. The consultation paper attracted a good response and I am grateful to the many organisations and individuals which offered their views. We have studied the responses carefully and they have been influential in shaping our proposals. I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the paper. "Programme for Partnership", which is being published today by the Scottish Office and which sets out our key proposals. I shall also send individual copies to all hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies.

  Regeneration has to be comprehensive, tackling the economic, physical and social problems of disadvantaged urban areas. Each area needs a co-ordinated strategy and a partnership of public and private sectors and local communities.

  We plan to encourage the formation of city/district wide partnerships in areas with significant concentrations of deprivation. They will involve, as key partners, the local authorities, Scottish Homes and the local enterprise companies as well as other public sector agencies and representatives of the private and voluntary sectors. These partnerships will be invited both to produce regeneration strategies at city/district level and to develop more localised proposals for priority areas.

  About two-thirds of urban programme resources will, in future, be allocated to "Priority Partnership Areas" designed by the Scottish Office following discussions with city/district partnerships. The remainder of urban programme resources will be available to support regeneration activity in other eligible disadvantaged areas. In both cases, allocations will take account of need and the quality of proposals submitted. The Scottish Office will no longer be involved in assessing and approving individual urban programme project applications. These decisions will be made locally.
  354
  We plan shortly to consult those bodies chiefly involved in implementation on a range of matters, including the timetable for introducing the new arrangements and a number of detailed issues concerning the operation of the urban programme, and will be circulating a consultation document to them.

  The Government are firmly committed to promoting greater private sector involvement in urban regeneration. We therefore propose to establish a working group to examine current private sector involvement in regeneration, identify any factors constraining this involvement and report back with recommendations. The membership of this group, which will draw in leading representatives of key private sector interests and their counterparts from relevant public authorities and agencies, will be announced shortly.

  Publications
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost of his Department's publications on health matters in the financial year 1993–94.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 January 1995]: The total cost to the Scottish Home and Health Department for publications on health matters in the financial year 1993–94 was £317,500.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Crop Development
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he is encouraging the development of viable crops for industry and energy.

  Mr. Jack
  We have set up an alternative crops unit within the Ministry, and sharply increased research and development funding in this area. We have also been consulting widely on how to help develop these new markets.

  Farm Council
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the EU Farm Council about the need to reform the common agricultural policy regimes for wine, olive oil, fruit and vegetables.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have led the campaign for reform, not only in these sectors, but more widely. I have set up a policy group to look into the CAP which is meeting this afternoon.

  Organic Food
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on support for organic food production.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government are providing help to the organic sector through aid to help conversion from conventional farming; through a substantial research and development programme; and by support for the work of the independent United Kingdom register of organic food standards.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to minimise the trauma to animals raised for slaughter.

  Mrs. Browning
  There is already much legislation and guidance to protect, during rearing, transit and at the slaughterhouse, the welfare of animals raised for slaughter.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve standards in the transportation of farm animals.

  Mrs. Browning
  We have issued a proposal to supplement our own comprehensive domestic legislation with a code of practice, and are pressing for EU legislation which matches our own high domestic standards.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the welfare of animals in transit.

  Mrs. Browning
  Animals in transit have the protection of the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994, which came into effect this week. This re-makes its 1992 predecessor, with the addition of tighter controls and tougher sanctions in relation to journey plans.

  The order implements the provisions of Community directive 91/628, and sets down strict national standards on feeding and watering in transit, including for exported animals, as permitted by the directive pending EC agreement on these aspects.

  We are continuing to press for tough and enforceable measures at Community level, and will supplement our national provisions with a code of practice, which we have circulated in draft for comment.

  Spanish Fisherman
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the exclusion of Spanish fishermen from the North sea, agreed in 1986, will continue unaffected following the agreement at December's Fisheries Council.

  Mr. Jack
  Yes. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 18 January,Official Report, column 543.

  Forestry
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met members of forestry trade unions to discuss the future of the Forestry Commission in England.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Representatives of the forestry trade unions regularly meet the Forestry Commission's senior staff discuss a range of issues; they have not sought a meeting with me.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in ensuring the effective implementation of EU general agreement on tariffs and trade obligations in relation to the CAP.
  356
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Agriculture Council from 12 to 15 December agreed changes in all the basic CAP commodity regulations needed to honour the EU's new commitments under the GATT agriculture agreement, which was ratified by the EU on 30 December. Implementation will generally begin from 1 July 1995, the start of most of the commodity marketing years. The Council's agreement means that management committees should now be able to take timely decisions on precisely how the GATT requirements are to be respected in each sector within the flexible framework laid down by the Council.

  Speciality Food
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in promoting Britain's speciality food products.

  Mrs. Browning
  We continue to provide help for this dynamic and growing sector of the food industry through Food From Britain which actively supports over 20 county or regional marketing groups and administers the Government funded scheme of grants. My right hon. Friend will be seeing at first hand an excellent example of successful group activity when he opens the third show of "Taste of the West" in March.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the level farm incomes in 1994.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In accordance with the practice of recent years, estimates of farm incomes in 1994 will be published on 31 January.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the President of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector of the industry.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend the Minister regularly meets representatives of all sides of the agriculture industry, including the President of the National Farmers Union, to discuss issues of importance to them.

  Food Industry
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken to encourage deregulation in the food industry.

  Mrs. Browning
  Since we published our food law deregulation programme in September 1993 we have made important progress. Proposals to update and simplify general food hygiene rules have been drawn up as part of the implementation of the EC general food hygiene directive. We have held preliminary consultations on various food composition regulations and will be following these up shortly with firm proposals. Now that directives on food additives have been agreed in Brussels, we expect to be able to consolidate our regulations in this area. We are consulting on updated and revised food labelling regulations and we are reviewing options for the simplification and co-ordination of various vertical food hygiene directives with a view to discussing our ideas in Brussels.

  Countryside Preservation
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that the Government are working in partnership with farmers to conserve the countryside.

  Mrs. Browning
  Farmers have a vital role to play as stewards of the countryside and we work in partnership with them in all our expanding range of environmental schemes.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live farm animals were exported in(a) 1994 and (b) 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  Data for 1994 are not yet available. Published figures for 1993 and 1979 are given in the table below. Data for 1993 are provisional, and are thought to under-record the true level of exports.

  Numbers of farm animals exported

  1993

  1979

  Cattle

  391,130

  506,491

  Sheep

  662,846

  445,438

  Goats

  136

  483

  Pigs

  151,149

  41,171

  Poultry

  20,450,736

  9,386,293

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  British Pig Breeders Association
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will be supporting the British Pig Breeders Association's application for European Union capital grants to facilitate structural change; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The British Pig Breeders Association is seeking grant aid towards the cost of replacing sow stalls and tethers. Such expenditure would not necessarily attract reimbursement under EC regulation 2328/91, on the improvement of agricultural structures, and any other reimbursement would only be at the rate of 25 per cent. of the eligible national contribution. We are maintaining a tight control over public expenditure and we are not able to meet all demands placed upon the taxpayer by organisations such as the British Pig Breeders Association. The Government carefully considered the costs of the stall and tether ban in 1991 and our view remains that the eight-year transitional period will keep industry costs to an accommodatable level.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out for each of the next steps agencies in his Department, whether they have acquired their own headquarters buildings and, if so, at what purchase cost or annual rental; how many support staff they have required which were not required when their operations were within his Department; how many of them published periodical journals and at what annual cost; how many have fleets of executive cars or single executive cars and at what annual cost; how many have specially designed logos and at what cost; how many have 358
  corporate clothing and at what cost; and what is the cost of specially designed and printed corporate stationery.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  These are matters which are delegated to agency chief executives and I have asked them to reply.

  When functions were transferred from the department to the agencies, so was the necessary funding. Expenditure and staffing in the core Ministry was accordingly reduced. There have been various accommodation changes within the agencies which will overall result in savings.

  All agencies have to meet performance targets which encompass cost recovery and efficiency gains or savings; these are reviewed each year. Achievement against these targets are summarised in the "Next Steps Review 1994", Cm 2750.

  Letter from Martin J. Savage to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 26 January 1995:
  In Dr. Walsh's absence, she has asked me to reply on her behalf. We thank you for the questions (PQ 402) in which you asked the Minister of Agriculture for information about each of the Next Steps Agencies within his department. This reply refers to ADAS.

  Headquarters buildings
  ADAS acquired its own Headquarters building at Kidlington, Oxfordshire in 1992 at an annual rent of £228,893. However, by 1 April 1996, ADAS expects to have relinquished accommodation in central London and elsewhere in England and Wales at an annual saving of approximately £3.5 million.

  Support staff
  There are no support staff which have been required which were previously not required when our operations were within MAFF. In fact, at the start of the agency there were 546 permanent full-time equivalent support staff and this has now reduced to 364. Thus there has been a reduction of approximately 33 per cent.

  Periodical journals
  Only four periodical journals have been published with a circulation of 72,000 copies at a cost of £215,760.

  Executive cars
  There is only one executive car which is used by the Chief Executive. This is at an approximate annual cost of £7,800.

  Lagos
  At the start of the agency there was a relaunch of ADAS as an executive agency. This resulted in the creation of a new logo, its development and field-testing of the new identity. The total cost was approximately £15,000.

  Corporate clothing
  Before agency status, protective clothing for field and laboratory work was provided for staff. Following the change to agency status, new badges for these items were provided at a nominal cost. As old clothing was replaced new items bearing the corporate logo machined-on were introduced.
  Pre-agency, all staff were provided with ties bearing the previous logo; these were replaced at the establishment of the agency. Female staff were provided with brooches bearing the corporate identity. This was at a total cost of £13,000.

  Specially designed and printed corporate stationery
  Prior to agency status, stationery was available at each office bearing the individual address and the corporate logo. Following the move to agency status this was replaced but the new stationery was generally introduced as the old was used. ADAS was able to purchase new stationery (including the design and artwork) for a total of 96 different offices at a total cost of £35,500 which was equivalent to £370 per office.
  I hope that these details provide the answers you require.
  359
  Letter from C. J. Lawson to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 26 January 1995:
  PQ11 18 January 1995
  In the absence of the Chief Executive on business, I have been asked by the Minister to reply on behalf of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate to your questions about Next Steps Agencies in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  The information you requested is as follows:

  Headquarters building
  The Directorate has not acquired its own headquarters buildings since becoming as an Agency on 2 April 1990. It occupies the same site at the Central Veterinary Laboratory, Addlestone as it did before Agency status.

  Support staff
  Since 1990 there has been an increase of four in the number of support staff required, three dealing with information technology and one with finance.

  Publications
  Excluding the Annual Report and Accounts, the Directorate publishes only one periodical journal, the Medicines Act Veterinary Information Service (MAVIS) quarterly newsletter. This was first issued in May 1992 to improve both the quality of service provided to our customers and the transparency of the licensing process for veterinary medicines. Approximately 6,000 copies are issued each quarter to holders of marketing authorisations, veterinary surgeons, interested organisations and individuals. The cost of publication in 1994 was £23,288.79.

  Executive cars
  The Directorate does not have any executive cars.

  Logos
  Details of the costs incurred in the design of the Directorate logo are held in our archive store, and it has not been possible to access these in the time available. I will write with the information required as soon as possible.

  Corporate clothing
  The Directorate does not have any corporate clothing.

  Corporate stationery
  The Directorate had its own stationery before Agency status was achieved. As stocks ran out, it was replaced at no additional cost by stationery indicating that the Directorate was an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Letter from A. M. Kerr to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 26 January 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your Question seeking details of various corporate and related cost aspects of the Next Steps agencies in his Department (MAFF).
  The Directorate has not acquired its own headquarters buildings as a consequence of obtaining executive agency status. However, the agency has since been relocated along with some other parts of MAFF from buildings in central London and the South East to a MAFF office complex in York. PSD's share of the rental for the York office complex is estimated to be around £550,000 per annum.
  The only published periodical journal that the agency has responsibility for is The Pesticides Register. This is produced jointly with the Health and Safety Executive each month and provides a listing of UK pesticide approvals and other official announcements on pesticides. It is available as an HMSO priced publication and the production costs are met by HMSO and recovered through the annual subscription charge of £55 and sales of individual issues costing £4.50 each.
  The Directorate has its own specially designed logo. This was drawn up at the time of the agency launch on 1 April 1993 following an in-house competition and therefore no design costs were incurred. As far as corporate stationery is concerned, an initial set-up supply was obtained at a cost of £680.33. Apart from the need to obtain a new supply as a consequence of the change of address following relocation to the York site, the only stationery costs incurred by the Directorate have arisen from the general need to replenish used
  360
  stocks and as such do not constitute any additional cost to the normal operational requirements of the organisation.
  Finally, the Directorate has not required any additional support staff to that which was required when its operations were part of the core Department, nor has it purchased any executive cars or corporate clothing.

  Letter from T W. A. Little to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 26 January 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question covering the various running cost issues of the Ministry's agencies in so far as the Central Veterinary Laboratory (CVL) is concerned.
  Perhaps I could deal with the issues you raise in the order they appear in your Question. CVL has not acquired a new Headquarters building and remains on the site it occupied at Weybridge when it became an Agency in April 1990.
  As you will note the Agency has been in existence for nearly five years now. In that time there have been a number of changes both in central MAFF and at the Agency and it is therefore not possible to draw meaningful comparisons between support staff prior to the creation of the Agency and after. This is particularly the case since CVL now carries out some functions such as marketing and business development not previously undertaken by the Ministry.
  CVL does not publish periodical journals nor does it have a fleet of or any single executive cars.
  As a separate part of the Department even prior to Agency status, CVL had its own logo. We updated this two years ago at a cost of £503.70. Given we have always had a logo our stationery could not be regarded as specially designed and change was effected as old stocks ran down.
  Finally, we do not use any corporate clothing at CVL.

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 26 January 1995:

  Information About HQ Buildings, Support Staff Periodic Journals, Executive Cars, Logos, Corporate Clothing and Stationery for the CSL Agency
  The Central Science Laboratory (CSL) was first launched as a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) executive agency on 1 April 1992. Two years later CSL was re-launched as an enlarged Agency following the merger of the original Agency with the Food Science Laboratories at Norwich and Aberdeen.
  In your question you asked specifically for information on several items, and taking each one in turn:
  —prior to gaining Agency status CSL occupied several sites and had its headquarters building at Slough. This continues to be the case and so I can confirm that the Agency has not acquired any new headquarters building;
  —since gaining Agency status it has been necessary for CSL to create its own support functions. However the cost has been met from funding that already existed as a result of posts being transferred from the Department along with the operations;
  —the Agency has not produced any periodical journals;
  —the Agency does not provide executive cars but does operate a leased cars scheme under Departmental rules, which, in order to obtain best value for money, is based upon minimum official mileage and is open to all staff;
  —creation of the CSL logo resulted from an internal staff competition at a cost of a £50 award to the winning entrant;
  —corporate clothing has not been introduced by the Agency;
  —as a discrete part of the Department, prior to Agency status, CSL had its own bespoke stationery. This was replaced with new stationery bearing the Agency logo as stocks ran out.

  Sea Fishing Industry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people are currently employed in the sea fishing industry; what were the: numbers in(a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1990; and how

  361
  many of the jobs were (i) on fishing vessels and (ii) ashore.

  Mr. Jack
  The latest available information is published in table 2.6 of "UK Sea Fisheries Statistics 1993", a copy of which is in the Library. No separate information is available on the number of United Kingdom onshore jobs from sea fishing.

  Bananas
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is his assessment of the accuracy of the estimate of the proportion of the benefit of the EU banana policy which accrues to banana producers; and if he will identify where the rest of the benefit goes;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the additional costs of banana purchases to United Kingdom consumers in consequence of the EU banana policy; and what estimate he has made of the impact on the consumer prices in other EC nations;

  (3) when he received the World bank report on the operation of the EU banana policy; and if he will make a statement outlining his view of their conclusions and also the power available to the United Kingdom Government to take any initiative on efficiency of use of Community funds and the prices charged to the general public;

  (4) what impact the general agreement on tariffs and trade will have on the banana scheme of the EEC.

  Mr. Jack
  The EU schedule drawn up and deposited under the terms of the GATT agriculture agreement sets out the tariffs which will apply to imports within and above the EU tariff quota for bananas together with the size of the tariff quota. Also incorporated in the EU schedule is the text of the framework agreement negotiated between the EU and Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela and Nicaragua in the closing stages of the Uruguay round. This grants specific shares of the tariff quota to these suppliers. Under the terms of the agreement they have agreed not to bring any further challenges to the EU regime in the GATT/WTO.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines are operated by his Department as regards the use of executive search agencies to fill vacancies within his Department and his Department's executive agencies; and in what circumstances his Department employs executive search agencies instead of relying fully on departmental resources to fill vacant posts.

  Mr. Jack
  All recruitment in my Department and its executive agencies is undertaken in accordance with the Minister's rules applying to departmental recruitment as set out in the civil service order in council of 1991. Executive search agencies are only used for more senior appointments where it is difficult to attract a good field through advertising alone. I can confirm that an executive search agency has been used on only one occasion in 1994.

  Goat Producers
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial assistance is available to goat producers.
  362
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: In the United Kingdom there are no premia payable specifically to goat producers under either the sheep annual premium scheme or the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme. Nor are there any specific measures of assistance available to goat farmers under the farm and conservation grant scheme. However, provided that they meet the eligibility criteria, they would qualify for grant under the farm and conservation grant scheme. Grants are available towards the costs of conservation measures, such as repair or reinstatement of traditional buildings, hedges, stone walls and banks and the provision of shelter belts, to established agricultural businesses.

  Goat producers may also be eligible for grant under the marketing and development scheme and in relation to goat milk and meat products, the EC processing and marketing grant scheme.

  New Zealand Flatworms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has carried out into the areas where the New Zealand flatworm has been found; if it is increasing in numbers and areas affected; what assessment he has made of its impact on native earthworms and soil structure; what measures are available to control its spread; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Ministry of Agriculture has commissioned a research project to look into the questions posed by the hon. Member in England and Wales. The results of that project will be known shortly and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment at this stage.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training, Leeds
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage of those who progressed to(a) full-time work, (b) part-time work, (c) self-employment, (d) further education and training and (e) unemployment from the youth training schemes of the Leeds training and enterprise council in 1992–93; and what are the latest available figures for 1994.

  Mr. Paice
  The information is not available in the format requested. The following table shows information on outcomes from youth training in the Leeds training and enterprise council area.

  Per cent.

  1992–93

  1994

  Full-time work, part-time work, and self-employment

  34

  39

  Further education and training

  8

  6

  Unemployment

  10

  14

  Found voluntary work or destination not known

  48

  41

  Source: Leeds TEC follow-up survey.

  Disability Symbol
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list employers now using the disability symbol.
  363
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. John Heppell, dated 26 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question requesting a list of employers now using the disability symbol.
  May I refer you to the National List of Disability Symbol Users, copies of which are available in the Library.
  The published list is updated approximately every six months and a revised list is currently in preparation. Copies will be sent to the Library when they become available.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 16 December,Official Report, column 818, which posts were filled as a result of the employment of executive search agencies; which executive search agencies were involved in this exercise; and what were the values of the individual contracts involved.

  Miss Widdecombe
  St. James's Management Recruitment was used to fill the post of head of financial services branch and head of the accountancy profession for the Employment Department group. Price Waterhouse is being used to fill the post of permanent secretary of the ED Group. Details of the individual contracts concerned are confidential.

  Unemployment
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current(a) unemployment rate and (b) number of persons unemployed among black people (i) under 25 years of age and (ii) in total, giving the figures by gender.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The following table gives the latest information available from the labour force survey:

  ILO Unemployed people from the black ethnic group Summer 1994 (not seasonally adjusted) Great Britain

  All persons

  Men

  Women

  ILO unemployment rate (Per cent.)

  26

  31

  19

  Numbers unemployed (thousands)

  103

  69

  35

  Of which aged 16–14

  ILO unemployment rate (per cent.)

  42

  53

  1

  Numbers unemployed (thousands)

  27

  18

  1

  1 Estimate below 10,000, therefore not shown.

  Source: LFS.

  Spares Depot, Bromley-by-Bow
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will request the Health and Safety Commission to assess the effects of the current level of service to the public of the spares depot at Bromley-by-Bow as part of his referral of matters of safety related to the reorganisation of British Gas to the Health and Safety Commission.
  364
  Mr. Oppenheim
  No. This is not a safety matter. The siting of spares depots and the level of stocks held are purely commercial decisions. Nevertheless, British Gas is obliged to conform to all health and safety legislation, including that relating to gas safety.

  Jobcentres (Overseas Jobs)
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's policy on vetting overseas jobs advertised in jobcentres; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The existing instructions in the Employment Service are that vacancies notified to jobcentres for jobs abroad must be vetted by the ES's overseas placing unit before they can be made available to jobseekers.

  The overseas placing unit carries out a number of checks including an examination of the contract of employment to be as sure as possible that jobseekers will not be put at risk by taking such employment.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs currently advertised in jobcentres involve work in(a) the European Union and (b) other countries.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. John Hutton, dated 26 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about how many jobs currently advertised in Jobcentres involve work in either the European Union or other countries.
  We have at present 154 vacancies in Jobcentres for work outside the UK; 105 for work within the European Union and 49 outside it.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines are operated by his Department as regards the use of executive search agencies to fill vacancies within his Department and his Department's executive agencies; and in what circumstances his Department employs executive search agencies instead of relying fully on departmental resources to fill vacant posts.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Once a decision has been made to fill a senior vacancy by open competition the decision whether to use an executive search agency is taken on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the post, the type of person being sought and whether advertisement alone would produce a satisfactory field of candidates.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria his Department employs for assessing the effectiveness of a TEC's equal opportunities action plan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  The training and enterprise councils are contractually required to have an equal opportunities strategy which must include a statement and a plan of implementation and assessment. TECs are assessed according to their action plans for each identified target
  365
  group; the provision and funding for each group; and the TECs' partners in delivering the provision.

  TECs are being helped by the Department and the TEC advisory group on equal opportunities to develop their equal opportunities strategy. The effectiveness of the strategy will be a requirement for TECs to receive a three-year operating licence.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 619, regarding creditors of the South Thames training and enterprise council, how many providers of training and business support programmes within the area covered by the South Thames TEC have not been issued with letters of comfort; and for what reasons.

  Mr. Paice
  The only providers of training and business services, contracted with South Thames training and enterprise council to deliver initiatives funded by the Department, which have not been issued with letters of comfort, are providers of employer investment in people services. I understand from the receiver that there are 33 employer investment in people providers contracted to South Thames TEC. The Department's main aim is to secure the continuation of training for individuals and therefore providers of such programmes have received assurance about funding. The employer investment in people programme is directed towards organisations and has not therefore been covered by a letter of comfort.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of training and enterprise councils has produced a mandatory action plan in accordance with the TEC's operating agreement clause 8; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  All training and enterprise councils in England have plans for implementing their equal opportunities strategy. The Department is working closely with TECs to ensure that those plans are up to date and effective.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to ensure that all TECs produce an action plan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  Each training and enterprise council is required to implement and assess and equal opportunities strategy in order to receive an agreement with the Department.

  They are monitored by Employment Department officials to ensure compliance.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 619, how many employees of the South Thames TEC are to be made redundant by 1 February; what proposals there are to make further redundancies by (a) 1 March and (b) 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  I understand from the receiver that 34 employees of South Thames training and enterprise council have so far been made redundant. I further understand from the receiver that six employees of Routeways, a wholly owned subsidiary of South Thames TEC, have been made redundant and that another 18 Routeways employees are to be made redundant on or around 31 January. Any further redundancies are a matter for the receiver.

  Training
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) of 2 December, 1994 Official Report, columns 913–32, if he will provide estimates of (a) Government expenditure or planned expenditure on training in cash terms, (b) Government expenditure or planned expenditure on training in 1994–95 prices, (c) claimant count unemployment, (d) long-term unemployment over one year, (e) real expenditure on training per unemployed person and (f) real expenditure on training per long-term unemployed person for each year from 1978–79 to 1997–98.

  Mr. Paice
  I have recently written to the hon. Member and placed a copy of my reply in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  Westminster Underground Station
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision has been made for access for people with disabilities to Westminster underground station, London(a) during its rebuilding and (b) on its completion.

  Mr. Norris
  The existing Westminster underground station makes no special provision for people with disabilities. I understand that London Underground Limited is endeavouring to ensure that the current standard of access to the station is maintained throughout the period of the rebuilding. When the rebuilding is completed, the station will feature lift access from street level to both Jubilee line platforms and at both District and Circle line platforms.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines are operated by his Department as regards the use of executive search agencies to fill vacancies within his Department and his Department's executive agencies; and in what circumstances his Department employs executive search agencies instead of relying fully on Departmental resources to fill vacant posts.

  Mr. Norris
  The guidelines followed when using executive search agencies to fill vacancies are those issued by the Office of Public Service and Science in its publication, "Executive Searchlight". Executive search agencies are employed where it is considered by the Department that a wider field of applicants is required for a particular post than might be attracted by an advertisement alone.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that the proposals contained in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill will not preclude an appropriate connection between CTRL and Crossrail being built by the private sector at some future stage.

  Mr. Watts
  The proposals in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill do not preclude a connection between the rail
  367
  link and Crossrail being provided at some point in the future.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he decided to hold the photographs on driving licences in digital form; and when Parliament was first informed of the decision.

  Mr. Norris
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on 9 June 1992,Official Report, column 115, that digitalised photographs of drivers will eventually form part of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's driver record.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the chapters of the study, referred to in the document "Photographs on Driving Licences", which relate to his Department's study into the main privacy issues; and if the study will be accessible to individuals using procedures established to meet the requirements of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to his question on 25 November 1994,Official Report, column 474.

  Oxygenated Fuels
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase the use of oxygenated fuels.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The environmental case for oxygenated petrol is not yet clear. The research on emissions, fuels and engine technologies—the EPEFE programme—which is being undertaken by the European oil and motor industries in conjunction with the European Commission, is looking extensively into the potential environmental benefits of future vehicle and fuel technology, including the effect of oxygenates. The results are due later this year. I believe that initiatives on fuel composition should be taken in that context.

  Aircraft Safety
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the responsibility of(a) his Department and (b) other agencies in respect of (i) the issuing of licences for aircraft operators and (ii) satisfying themselves of the safety and air worthiness of aircraft operated by air freight operators; and if he will outline the procedures and regulations involved.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: Under article 6 of the Air Navigation Order 1989, operators of United Kingdom registered aircraft must hold a valid Air Operator's Certificate, issued by the Civil Aviation Authority certifying that aircraft operated by the holder are operated safely.

  For an aircraft operated by an European Economic Area airline, the UK recognises an air operator's certificate issued by the country of registration and no further permit is required.

  For an aircraft operated by non-EEA airline, under article 88 of the Air Navigation Order 1989 a permit must be obtained from the Secretary of State for Transport for the carriage of passengers or cargo to or from the United
  368
  Kingdom. In support of an application, an operator must supply evidence that:

  a. the national authority of the state of registry of the aircraft considers that the operating company is operationally competent to undertake the type of flight concerned. This is normally in the form of an air operator's certificate.

  b. the aircraft to be operated is considered by the national authority of the State of registry of the aircraft to be airworthy.

  c. the operating company has entered into adequate insurance arrangements in respect of the aircraft to be operated.

  d. the aircraft to be used complies with noise compliance standards.

  e. Aerodrome operating minima have been provided and approved by the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how often airworthiness checks on aircraft operated by air freight operators are carried out.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: A United Kingdom aircraft is not permitted to fly unless there is a valid certificate of airworthiness in force issued by the Civil Aviation Authority. This requires that the aircraft is maintained by the operator in accordance with a maintenance schedule approved by the CAA. This schedule specifies when maintenance reviews should be carried out.

  As part of its monitoring and regulations of UK operators, the CAA checks the airworthiness of aircraft and maintenance schedules on a random basis throughout the year. All UK aircraft are checked in depth at least every three years when their certificates of airworthiness are renewed. Prior to each day's flying, and prior to each flight, all UK aircraft are checked by the commander to ensure that they are fit for flight.

  For other aircraft, the frequency of checks depends on the policy adopted by the administration in the country of registration. The CAA also inspects foreign-registered aircraft when in the UK and when requested by the Department if there is any concern about the safety standards of a particular aircraft.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many inspections of aircraft have been carried out over the last five years at Coventry airport; how many licences were refused; what were the reasons for any refusals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not readily available. As part of its responsibilities the Civil Aviation Authority carries out regular inspections of all United Kingdom operators as well as inspecting UK airports and aerodromes. The Department has asked the CAA to carry out two inspections of foreign aircraft at Coventry. The first on 11 January 1995 was on a Nigerian registered Boeing 707 aircraft owned by ADC Airlines of Nigeria. My Department is currently discussing the CAA's findings with the Nigerian authorities. No further applications by ADC Airlines will be considered until these discussions have been completed. The second was on a Russian aircraft operated by Atlant Soyuz on 23 January 1995. My Department is awaiting a report from the CAA.

  Airports (Noise Nuisance)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the criteria for grants in respect of noise nuisance to people living
  369
  near airports, with particular reference to (a) Coventry and (b) Birmingham.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: My right hon. Friend may lay down criteria for noise insulation grants for airports designated for the purposes of section 79 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. The only airports so designated are Heathrow and Gatwick. At other airports, provision of noise insulation is at the discretion of the local airport management or may be the subject of planning conditions.

  There have been various noise insulation schemes at Birmingham, but none at Coventry.

  The boundary of the present scheme at Birmingham, which has been implemented in phases, was published in 1991. It is based on 66 Leq—16-hour—daytime aircraft noise exposure contour. The scheme provides grants for noise insulation to specified standards in up to three habitable rooms. The grants are subject to a cost limit of £1,600 plus VAT per dwelling and are paid by the operator of the airport.

  Coventry Airport
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to announce the findings of the final report into the crash at Coventry airport.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: After the formal investigation is complete, probably this year.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department received about the issue of licences for landing and taking off of freight operators from Coventry airport, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: Three hon. Members have written to Ministers about the licensing procedures for flights by freight operators from Coventry airport. No letters from the public have been received on this subject. Two telephone calls have been received on the general issue of livestock flights.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his findings regarding the issuing of the licences for air freight quotas at Coventry airport and the airworthiness of the aircraft.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: There is no air freight quota licensing system in this country. However, under article 88 of the Air Navigation Order 1989 and non EEA airline operating a public transport flight for the carriage of passengers or cargo to or from the United Kingdom must obtain a permit from the Secretary of State for Transport. My right hon. Friend has ordered an investigation into certain flights from Coventry airport last year and this is expected to be concluded soon. The question of further action will be decided once the outcome of the investigation has been considered.

  In addition, the air accidents investigation branch of this Department is carrying out a formal investigation into the crash on 21 December under the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents) Regulation 1989. The AAIB will examine all issues having a bearing on this accident, including the airworthiness of the aircraft. A special bulletin detailing the initial facts established by the investigation was issued on 6 January 1995. It is expected that the final report will be published later this year.

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to carry out an economic impact assessment of the roads programme and to include a measure of employment effects when assessing the local impact of new roads.

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Truro, (Mr. Taylor) on 23 January at column 54 and on 24 January at column 98.

  Railways (Operating Subsidies)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual operating subsidy given by each of the member states of the European Union to their railways, expressed(a) in pound sterling and (b) as a percentage of total operating costs for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Watts
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Queen Elizabeth II
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has called for an investigation into why the Queen Elizabeth II was allowed to sail from Southampton to New York in December 1994 but was delayed from proceeding on its journey to the Caribbean; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  No. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, while satisfied that proper standard procedures were followed, has asked the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency to consider this case as part of his review of the agency's survey and inspection instructions.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the consultants, (b) the tasks for which they were employed and (c) the payments made to them from the budget of his Department in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94.

  Mr. Norris
  I will write to the hon. Member with details.

  Vehicle Inspections
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many full-time vehicle examiners were employed by the Vehicle Inspectorate on(a) 1 April for each year since 1989 and (b) at present;

  (2) how many full-time traffic examiners were employed by the Vehicle Inspectorate on (a) 1 April for each year since 1989 and (b) at present;

  (3) how many heavy goods vehicles were examined by (a) traffic examiners and (b) vehicle examiners by traffic area in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and how many received (a) prohibition or (b) defect notices.

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for the Vehicle Inspectorate Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  371
  Letter from Ron Oliver to Ms Joan Walley, dated 25 January 1995:

  Number of Vehicle Examiners and Traffic Examiners
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your 2 questions concerning the number of full-time Vehicle Examiners and Traffic

  Numbers of Vehicle and Traffic Examiners employed by the Vehicle Inspectorate

  Operating division

  Staff discipline

  April 1990

  April 1991

  April 1992

  April 1993

  April 1994

  December 1994

  Enforcement

  Vehicle examiners

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  244

  241

  Traffic examiners

  2—

  160

  175

  170

  168

  158

  Testing

  Vehicle examiners

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  180

  138

  Vehicle inspectorate total

  Vehicle examiners

  474

  477

  465

  436

  424

  379

  Traffic examiners

  2—

  160

  175

  170

  168

  158

  Notes:

  1 The separate Testing and Enforcement Divisions were not formed until November 1993.

  2 Traffic Examiners were not part of the Vehicle Inspectorate in 1990.

  1 Traffic examiner grades are not employed on vehicle testing work.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Joan Walley MP, dated 25 January 1995:

  Heavy Goods Vehicles Examinations: Prohibition and Defect Notices.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the number of heavy goods vehicles examined by (a) traffic examiners and (b) vehicle examiners by Traffic Area in each of the last 5 years for which figures are available; and how many received (a) prohibition notices or (b) defect notices.
  The attached 5 tables show the total number of heavy goods vehicles examined by Vehicle and Traffic Examiners in each of the

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) examined and prohibited by vehicle Examiners; and HGVs examined and prohibited by Traffic Examiners in 1989–90

  Traffic area

  HGVs examined by VEs

  Number receiving prohibitions

  Number receiving defect notices

  HGVs examined by TEs

  Number receiving prohibitions

  North Eastern

  19,509

  1,902

  not available

  48,777

  1,075

  North Western

  22,468

  4,880

  not available

  42,465

  1,073

  West Midland

  11,212

  1,113

  not available

  23,570

  1,270

  Eastern

  27,285

  2,642

  not available

  41,220

  1,425

  South Wales

  5,994

  1,316

  not available

  21,678

  220

  Western

  12,103

  1,467

  not available

  20,203

  1,161

  South Eastern

  12,153

  1,483

  not available

  36,392

  1,640

  Metropolitan

  10,207

  1,719

  not available

  36,392

  901

  Scottish

  21,125

  2,527

  not available

  42,593

  637

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) examined and prohibited by vehicle Examiners; and HGVs examined and prohibited by Traffic Examiners in 1990–91

  Traffic area

  HGVs examined by VEs

  Number receiving prohibitions

  Number receiving defect notices

  HGVs examined by TEs

  Number receiving prohibitions

  North Eastern

  27,069

  2,937

  not available

  35,158

  1,530

  North Western

  24,189

  2,840

  not available

  38,443

  830

  West Midland

  11,160

  1,040

  not available

  22,240

  651

  Eastern

  30,198

  2,633

  not available

  31,541

  1,096

  South Wales

  5,755

  1,296

  not available

  20,399

  109

  Western

  16,134

  1,988

  not available

  21,894

  1,131

  South Eastern

  15,559

  1,912

  not available

  33,184

  946

  Metropolitan

  14,601

  2,022

  not available

  33,198

  901

  Scottish

  22,637

  3,176

  not available

  45,083

  753

  Note: The Metropolitan and South Eastern Traffic Areas were merged from 1990–91.
  372
  Examiners employed by the Vehicle Inspectorate on a) 1 April for each year since 1989 and b) at present.
  The numbers of full-time Vehicle Examiners and Traffic Examiners employed by the Vehicle Inspectorate on 1 April for each year since 1989 and at present are provided in the attached table.
  last 5 years in each Traffic Area, together with the number of vehicles issued with Prohibitions and, where the information is available, Defect Notices.
  The number of examinations provided in the tables for Vehicle Examiners cover all roadworthiness inspections apart from those done in connection with accidents or mechanical defect investigations. The prohibitions for these examinations are all for roadworthiness defects. The Traffic Examiner checks concentrate on other legal requirements, not roadworthiness. The prohibitions for this work would all have been issued to vehicles weighed and found to be overloaded.
  373

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) examined and prohibited by Vehicle Examiners; and HGVs examined and prohibited by Traffic Examiners in 1991–92

  Traffic area

  HGVs examined by VEs

  Number receiving prohibitions

  Number receiving defect notices

  HGVs examined by TEs

  Number receiving prohibitions

  North Eastern

  27,829

  3,080

  not available

  52,809

  1,515

  North Western

  30,623

  3,547

  not available

  39,233

  947

  West Midland

  15,344

  1,756

  not available

  20,938

  870

  Eastern

  39,818

  4,328

  not available

  29,918

  967

  South Wales

  7,015

  1,313

  not available

  16,618

  306

  Western

  17,582

  2,382

  not available

  30,688

  1,102

  South Eastern and Metropolitan

  15,768

  1,781

  not available

  39,044

  1,584

  Scottish

  17,748

  2,438

  not available

  37,498

  694

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) examined and prohibited by Vehicle Examiners; and HGVs examined and prohibited by Traffic Examiners in 1992–93

  Traffic area

  HGVs examined by VEs

  Number receiving prohibitions

  Number receiving defect notices

  HGVs examined by TEs

  Number receiving prohibitions

  North Eastern

  31,249

  2,878

  3,738

  49,742

  976

  North Western

  36,889

  3,902

  7,376

  40,944

  737

  West Midland

  16,881

  1,501

  not available

  17,239

  806

  Eastern

  37,644

  4,110

  3,280

  52,476

  954

  South Wales

  8,003

  1,206

  not available

  23,456

  244

  Western

  21,687

  2,932

  1,454

  35,370

  899

  South Eastern and Metropolitan

  24,416

  2,746

  1,713

  43,142

  1,211

  Scottish

  19,706

  2,806

  478

  32,756

  1,160

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) examined and prohibited by Vehicle Examiners; and HGVs examined and prohibited by Traffic Examiners in 1993–94

  Traffic area

  HGVs examined by VEs

  Number receiving prohibitions

  Number receiving defect notices

  HGVs examined by TEs

  Number receiving prohibitions

  North Eastern

  26,463

  3,155

  2,763

  40,466

  987

  North Western

  34,087

  3,634

  7,233

  31,811

  736

  West Midland

  21,296

  1,897

  809

  19,212

  436

  Eastern

  28,673

  3,356

  2,894

  42,194

  639

  South Wales

  11,372

  1,324

  383

  10,647

  444

  Western

  24,666

  3,299

  1,625

  26,215

  714

  South Eastern and Metropolitan

  20,934

  2,380

  1,980

  36,641

  668

  Scottish

  24,695

  3,215

  278

  30,193

  624

  Kingskerswell Bypass
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to expedite the start of the A380 Kingskerswell bypass; and when he expects work to commence.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 17 January 1995]: This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 26 January 1995:
  I am writing in response to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Transport about progress on the A380 Kingskerswell Bypass scheme.
  This scheme carries Priority 1 status following last year's Review of the Roads Programme. We are currently re-assessing the scheme's traffic effects in the light of the Government's recent response to the SACTRA Report. However, we will press ahead with this work as quickly as possible, with a view to publishing detailed proposals in the form of draft Orders by the summer.
  It is still too early to say when the scheme may enter construction. Future progress will depend largely on the successful completion of the statutory planning procedures (which will almost certainly include a public inquiry) and the continuing availability of funds.

WALES

  Milk Quota
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what proposals he has to establish a milk quota pool for young entrants to farming; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) what proposals he has to monitor the movement of milk quota within, out of and into Wales, and make the relevant information publicly available; and if he will make a statement;

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultation he has had with the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales concerning the reduction in support for the Wales Environment Education Committee;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales concerning the commencement of the Plynlymon Elenydd experiment;
  375
  (3) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales regarding the achievement of the United Kingdom action plan under the Government's obligations under the biodiversity treaty in (a) 1995–96 and (b) subsequent years;

  (4) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales concerning the commencement of the heritage coast principle extension test; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what consultation he has had with the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales concerning the reduction of support for (a) the year of the coast programme, (b) the makers of Wales and (c) earth science trails projects;

  (6) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales concerning the commencement of the Carneddau commons management experiment;

  (7) what consultation he has had with the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales regarding the achievement of the obligations under the European Union habitats and species directive;

  (8) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales concerning the reduced support for the national nature reserve and biodiversity for the layman interpretation programmes.

  Mr. Redwood
  I met the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales on 10 and 24 January 1995 to discuss a very wide range of issues concerning the council's functions. I will publish the conclusions in due course.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the Countryside Council for Wales concerning changes in legislation pending in relation to the administration of the(a) Tir Cymen and (b) hedgerow renovation schemes; what increase in staffing his Department will require to administer such schemes; and if he will give an estimate of the date of publication of any amended statutory provision enabling a corresponding transfer of responsibilities.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received no such representations from the Countryside Council for Wales. The necessary statutory provision which would enable the Tir Cymen and hedgerow renovation schemes to be transferred to the Welsh Office and the countryside stewardship scheme in England to be transferred from the Countryside Commission to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in clause 80 of the Environment Bill which had its First Reading in another place on 1 December 1994. But no decisions have yet been made on whether the Welsh schemes should be transferred, or on the staffing increase which my Department would require.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those sites of special scientific interest in national parks which are to be transferred for management purposes to local authorities; and if he will list all those sites of special scientific interest subject to international designation or classified as particularly fragile, intended to be excluded from any such transfer.

  Mr. Redwood
  No decisions have yet been made regarding the functions of the Countryside Council for Wales.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultation he has had with the local authority associations in Wales in relation to the transfer of powers,376
  duties and resources from the Countryside Council for Wales to the local authorities for (a) public rights of way, (b) local landscape and nature conservation schemes. (c) country parks, (d) publications on sites of conservation interest, (d) oversight and monitoring of small sites of special scientific interest and (f) other miscellaneous duties and powers; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the nature conservation voluntary bodies concerning transfers of functions, duties and resources for the management of national nature reserves; what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales in relation to the competence and capacity of voluntary bodies to undertake such work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not consulted local authority associations or others on these matters as discussions are still taking place with the Countryside Council for Wales. If I decide that the CCW should play less of a direct role in any of these activities, I will ensure that interested parties are consulted.

  Coal Mining (Illness)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will placed in the Library a copy of the survey conducted by general practitioners in West Glamorgan in 1988 on the links between opencast coal mining and illness.

  Mr. Richards
  No. The report is the property of the authors, Dr. N. M. Temple and his partners. Dr. Temple is now a trainee registrar in public health medicine and can be contacted at Powys health authority, the Laurels, Bronllys, Brecon, Powys.

  A copy of a report of September 1988, commissioned by the Welsh Office and undertaken by Dr. P. C. Elwood, commenting on Dr. Temple's report, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  NHS Suppliers (Payment)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the Welsh Health Consumer Services Authority concerning delayed payments to suppliers to the Welsh NHS; what information he has on the number of suppliers who have put a stop on supplies to the Welsh Health Consumer Services Authority because of payment delays; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the Welsh NHS trust hospitals and health authorities' directly managed hospitals concerning the delayed payments by purchases for hospital treatment, and delayed payments for supplies to the Welsh Health Consumer Services Authority.

  Mr. Redwood
  Meetings between the Welsh Office and representatives of NHS trusts and health authorities are held regularly to consider a wide range of issues. These have included the Government's requirement that all NHS organisations settle bills promptly. Appropriate guidance has been issued and I expect it to be followed.

  New Zealand Flatworm
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what studies he has carried out into the numbers of areas in Wales where the New Zealand flatworm has been found; if it is increasing in numbers and areas affected;
  377
  and what assessment he has made of its impact on native earthworm and soil structure.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines are operated by his Department as regards the use of executive search agencies to fill vacancies within his Department and his Department's executive agencies; and in what circumstances his Department employs executive search agencies instead of relying fully on departmental resources to fill vacant posts.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department does not use executive search agencies to fill vacancies in the Department or its executive agencies. It would consider doing so if this offered a cost-effective means of recruitment and was consistent with the principles of fair and open competition.

  Patients
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many patients from each health authority were referred to Rookwood hospital, Cardiff, for assessment and for rehabilitation following severe head injury in each year since 1988;

  (2) how many Welsh patients in a coma or persistent vegetative state have been discharged to a private nursing home without the health authority accepting the costs, in each year since 1988, giving the figures for each health authority;

  (3) how many Welsh patients with severe head injuries, following neurosurgery, were discharged for assessment and for rehabilitation to (a) a recognised specialist assessment/rehabilitation centre, (b) a district general hospital, (c) an independent nursing home and (d) their home in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not available centrally.

  Sea Fishing
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are currently employed in the

  Full-time students at publicly funded institutions in Wales 1

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–942

  Total

  Per cent. female

  Total

  Per cent. female

  Total

  Per cent. female

  Further education courses3

  Clwyd

  4,441

  55.5

  4,957

  51.5

  6,054

  50.3

  Dyfed

  3,210

  56.0

  3,344

  55.7

  3,757

  54.1

  Gwent

  5,122

  52.0

  5,601

  50.4

  5,967

  49.7

  Gwynedd

  1,975

  55.4

  2,292

  53.2

  2,609

  52.4

  Mid Glamorgan

  4,635

  54.8

  5,185

  53.9

  5,609

  52.6

  Powys

  1,033

  58.7

  974

  54.8

  970

  58.0

  South Glamorgan

  3,566

  54.6

  3,535

  53.5

  4,570

  50.8

  West Glamorgan

  5,758

  50.2

  5,928

  50.8

  5,921

  51.1

  Wales

  29,740

  53.8

  31,816

  52.5

  35,453

  51.6

  378
  sea fishing industry; what were the numbers in (a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1990; and how many of the jobs were (i) on fishing vessels and (ii) ashore.

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Training Contracts
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposal he has to ensure that the Welsh training and enterprise councils swiftly conclude their contracts for the next financial year with AST Training.

  Mr. Richards
  The negotiation of contracts between Welsh TECs and training providers such as AST Training is a matter for the parties to such contracts not my Department.

  Head Injuries (Rehabilitation)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information has been made available to general practitioners in Wales about the availability of assessments and rehabilitation for patients with severe head injuries; on what date this was given; and in what form it was issued.

  Mr. Richards
  Only in a limited number of cases would general practitioners make such referrals. However, the Welsh Office has issued a series of protocols and technical documents which cover the type of care people with such injuries should receive. The protocol on "Physical Disability and Discomfort" was sent to family health services authorities in November 1991 and he protocol on "Injuries" in June 1992.

  Students
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each county in Wales and for Wales as a whole for the last three available years the number of full-time students in(a) further education, (b) higher education and (c) further and higher education in total, indicating the percentage of women in each case.

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 25 January 1995]: Information on the number of full-time students on further and higher education courses at publicly-funded institutions in Wales for the academic years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94, is the latest available year, are shown in the following table.
  379

  Full-time students at publicly funded institutions in Wales 1

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–942

  Total

  Per cent. female

  Total

  Per cent. female

  Total

  Per cent. female

  Higher education courses

  Clwyd

  1,916

  49.9

  2,196

  49.3

  2,247

  51.0

  Dyfed

  6,775

  51.8

  7,783

  53.1

  8,949

  :53.1

  Gwent

  1,769

  51.7

  2,109

  52.2

  2,584

  51.7

  Gwynedd

  4,762

  51.6

  5,500

  52.9

  5,952

  54.1

  Mid Glamorgan

  6,006

  34.3

  8,110

  37.9

  9,799

  39.0

  Powys4

  South Glamorgan

  14,634

  51.1

  17,015

  52.7

  18,818

  53.2

  West Glamorgan

  8,716

  47.9

  9,610

  49.6

  10,395

  50.3

  Wales

  44,578

  48.4

  52,323

  49.7

  58,744

  50.2

  Further and higher education courses

  Clwyd

  6,357

  53.8

  7,153

  50.9

  8,301

  50.5

  Dyfed

  9,985

  53.1

  11,127

  518

  12,706

  53.4

  Gwent

  6,891

  51.9

  7,710

  50.9

  8,551

  50.3

  Gwynedd

  6,737

  52.7

  7,792

  53.0

  8,561

  53.6

  Mid Glamorgan

  10,641

  43.3

  13,295

  44.1

  15,404

  43.9

  Powys

  1,033

  58.7

  974

  54.8

  970

  58.0

  South Glamorgan

  18,200

  51.8

  20,550

  52.9

  23,388

  52.8

  West Glamorgan

  14,474

  48.9

  15,538

  50.1

  16,316

  50.6

  Wales

  74,318

  50.5

  84,139

  50.8

  94,197

  50.7

  1 Full-time includes Full-time year, Sandwich and Short full-time courses. Data for the University of Wales are at December, the non-university data are at November. Students are recorded in the County in which the institution they attend is located.

  2 Data are provisional pending publication.

  3 Numbers include Coleg Harlech from 1992–93 and sixth form colleges from 1993–94 but exclude link students.

  4 There are no higher education institutions in Powys.

  Prescribing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the percentage figures for(a) brand name and (b) generic prescribing for (i) general practitioner fundholders and (ii) non general practitioner fundholders in each family health service authority in Wales for each of the past three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 January 1995, c. 66]: The following information was omitted from the original table:

  October

  October

  October

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Dyfed Fundholders

  50.87

  52.74

  51.62

  FHSA

  43.07

  45.03

  48.01

  Gwent Fundholders

  43.15

  43.83

  46.65

  FHSA

  39.89

  42.53

  45.55

  Gwynedd Fundholders

  n/a

  54.61

  46.28

  FHSA

  36.68

  40.53

  43.70

  Mid Glamorgan Fundholders

  52.55

  53.14

  58.19

  FHSA

  42.21

  44.19

  46.13

  Powys Fundholders

  20.21

  44.71

  45.36

  FHSA

  39.63

  42.23

  44.51

  South Glamorgan Fundholders

  44.00

  58.53

  50.16

  FHSA

  43.97

  45.86

  48.28

  West Glamorgan Fundholders

  41.86

  47.95

  52.11

  FHSA

  40.72

  44.13

  47.49

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Financial Statements
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners if the Church 380
  Commissioners will consider publishing quarterly financial statements in accordance with the "Bulletin Review of Interim Financial Information" issued by the Auditing Practices Board.

  Mr. Alison
  All listed companies, in which the public may buy or sell shares, are required by the council of the stock exchange to publish interim financial information every six months. The purpose of the APB bulletin is to provide auditors with guidance as to the methodology and scope of audit work in relation to such six monthly information. It contains no reference to, or definition of, quarterly financial statements.

  The commissioners are an exempt charity and do not believe that the publication of quarterly audited information at a considerable cost would be either justifiable or appropriate.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months he or any of his Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.
  381
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 25 January 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 25 January 1995, Official Report, column 197.

  Tourist Board Grants
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the level of grant given(a) to the English tourist board and (b) to each of the regional tourist boards in the last five years.

  £ millions

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  11994–95

  Cumbria

  590,000

  551,000

  690,000

  596,000

  —

  East Anglia

  531,000

  531,000

  591,000

  510,000

  —

  East Midlands

  493,000

  587,000

  613,000

  565,000

  —

  Heart of England

  691,000

  667,000

  600,000

  595,000

  —

  London

  806,000

  884,000

  950,000

  748,000

  —

  Northumbria

  441,000

  479,000

  505,000

  484,000

  —

  North West

  541,000

  537,000

  617,000

  606,000

  —

  South East

  588,000

  638,000

  635,000

  696,000

  —

  Southern

  622,000

  567,000

  726,000

  636,000

  —

  Thames and Chilterns

  413,000

  449,000

  167,000

  2—

  —

  West Country

  890,000

  830,000

  747,000

  1,147,000

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  760,000

  676,000

  710,000

  621,000

  —

  TOTAL

  7,366,000

  7,396,000

  7,551,000

  7,204,000

  6,999,800

  Notes:

  1 Figure for 1994–95 is total only, since RTBs have until 31 March 1995 to complete the draw down of funds from ETB.

  2Thames and Chilterns tourist board went into liquidation midway through 1992.

  382
  Mr. Dorrell
  (a) The grant in aid allocated to the tourist boards in the last five years was:

  £ millions

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  BTA

  27.5

  29.2

  30.9

  32.2

  33.2

  ETB

  14.9

  15.1

  16.2

  13.9

  11.3

  Totals

  42.4

  44.3

  47.1

  46.1

  44.5

  (b) The English tourist board made grant allocations to the regional tourist boards as follows:

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Sport and Television Broadcasting
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept the recommendation of the House of Commons National Heritage Select Committee that listed sporting events should not become available exclusively on subscription satellite or cable television services.
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords. The Government believe that sporting rights owners should be able to realise the full market value of their events and should be allowed to judge the balance between the level of income from the broadcasting rights, the size of the television audience, the amount and type of coverage and the impact on potential spectators and players. A copy of the Government's full response to the Select Committee is in the Library.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for reporting that rather unfortunate decision. Will she inform the Secretary of State that the free market and selling to the highest bidder is not the only issue at stake here? Will she tell him that the basic principle of guaranteed national access to great national sporting events is of great importance and that the Government, in eroding that principle—a principle set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990 and reaffirmed by the all-party committee—will cause great unhappiness to the millions of elderly, poor and unemployed people who cannot afford to pay the price of subscribing to Murdoch's satellite subscription channels? Will she ask the Secretary of State to reconsider this decision?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to people on fixed incomes, the Government can understand and sympathise. But, on the other hand, the organisers of events and the holders of broadcasting rights want to be able to sell the rights to obtain what they believe to be the best advantage. When the list was drawn up certain events were included. A new list of events was drawn up by the then Home Secretary in April 1991. There are eight events on the list. They are: cricket Test matches involving England; the Derby; the FIFA World Cup finals; the FA Cup final; the Grand National; the Olympic Games; the final weekends of the Wimbledon Tennis Championships; and, additionally, in Scotland, the Scottish FA Cup final. Recommendation No. 8 of the committee's report was accepted and the list will be kept under review. It would be impractical to seek to protect through any statutory listing system coverage of every sporting or other event.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friend Lord Donoughue is correct
1176
that under the present legislation, as it is being applied by the Government, there are two different sets of viewers—those who can afford to see these events and those who will never be able to afford to see these events which are the prerogative of Sky Television? Will the noble Baroness seriously consider pleading with the Home Secretary to reconsider the decision in order to make it a completely national franchise and not a selective one?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong. It is no longer the responsibility of the Home Secretary. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I shall, of course, ensure that my right honourable friend reads this part of Hansard from cover to cover. Consumer choice is being enhanced by the introduction of specialist sports channels increasing the extent and variety of sports coverage on television services generally. Satellite services have provided for the first time live ball-by-ball coverage of overseas Test matches involving England. There is still plenty of sport on terrestrial television.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that since the advent of satellite television there has been very much more sport of all kinds on television and in particular some of the minority sports which were never shown on terrestrial television beforehand? Is not the income from satellite broadcasting very welcome indeed to those sporting associations?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to thank him, as vice-chairman of the Sports and Arts Foundation, for the marvellous work that it does. He has made an important point. Sky now shows martial arts, snowboarding, powerboat racing, ten-pin bowling, equestrianism, vintage auto-racing and a montage of fringe sports.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify her earlier remarks and the list she gave of what the previous Secretary of State said in 1991 would be available to all television companies? Does her answer mean that the Government have decided that that list can be eroded if satellite television wishes to do it?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords, that is not what I said. I said that the list will be kept under review and that it would be impractical to seek to protect through any statutory listing system coverage of every sporting or other event. That is in the acceptances sent by the Secretary of State to the committee. That is No. 8.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who are associated with the Football Trust are delighted at the Home Secretary's announcement yesterday that the pools companies are to be allowed to advertise on television and radio?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is not exactly pertinent to this particular Question, but again it gives me an excellent opportunity to comment on the

1177
wonderful work done by the Football Trust. I believe that my noble friend is chairman of that organisation. If he is delighted, then so am I.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, it appears from the Broadcasting Act 1990 that the Secretary of State, in compiling his list of great sporting events, has completely unfettered control, is answerable to nobody and can change the list of sporting events at will without being answerable in any way to anybody. Is that the case, and do the Government believe that that is a satisfactory situation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, when the list was drawn up the Government gave broadcasters the opportunity to comment. They consulted the Sports Council and the Central Council of Physical Recreation.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I do not fully understand the answers given by the noble Baroness. Is it right that the list she read out of events which are at present not exclusive to the television service or anything else will continue in that way, or is it possible that for the future they can say "We are going to keep them all to ourselves and nobody else can have them"?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords. If we are talking about the list, as I have already said, it will be kept under review.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, will the noble Baroness now answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale?
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Baroness does not understand the question. The noble Lord is asking whether the present position will remain and those sports will continue to be available. Will that list still be available to everyone?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes.

Parliament: Science and Technology
3.16 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to promote an understanding of science and technology among the Members of both Houses of Parliament.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Government have sponsored a large variety of initiatives under the campaign which they launched in January last year to promote greater understanding and appreciation of science, engineering and technology. The aim of the campaign is to reach all members of society, including of course Members of both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I compliment the noble Baroness on her elevation to the Front Bench. I hope that she will have an exceedingly worthwhile job while she is there. I also thank thank her for her reply, which was very useful indeed. Is she aware that the scientific office and POST do remarkably good work, but that
1178
their activities do not seem intensive enough? Is she further aware that businessmen involved in science and technology would like to see a larger department of state giving them and their employees more information? Can that be considered? Perhaps a sub-department of state could be created with particular emphasis on examining defence. That would be of help to British businessmen involved in science and technology.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his gracious remarks. I am glad that he commends, as I do, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. As regards the office being made larger, we believe that it is already probably large enough. But there is no reason at all why one cannot put forward to that office more suggestions for further discussions.
Lord Porter of Luddenham: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it may now be rather late to teach many of us old dogs new tricks? Does she further agree that the problem started many years ago when we were 16 years of age or even earlier, with the narrowness of our educational system? Is she aware of the proposals that have been put forward by the Royal Society, the British Academy, the Salters' Institute of Industrial Chemistry and the Confederation of British Industry, to name but a few, which would promote a common understanding of science and technology and the arts from the age of 16 and for the rest of life? Have the Government any plans to implement these many proposals?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Porter, may be right in saying that perhaps some of us are too old to learn new tricks, but he certainly learnt his tricks very well when he was younger because he is very distinguished. I understand that he has a Nobel Prize for Chemistry. I believe that the noble Lord will agree with me that this question is rather wide of the original Question, but the noble Lord was courteous in that he gave me advance notice of it. I have made one or two inquiries. I am happy to tell him that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and her Ministers are engaged in a debate with those concerned with the qualification structure for those aged 16 years of age and upwards. Indeed, meetings have been arranged already with most of the groups which the noble Lord mentioned.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the quality and variety of reports that come from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, covering such subjects as radiotherapy and cancer treatment, urban air pollution, and national identity card technology? They are available to all Members of both Houses of Parliament and provide very good background material to those who need an understanding of science and technology if they are to consider a wide variety of solutions to the problems of the day.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Platt for bringing that point to our attention. I have a list of all those publications with me, but it would take far too long to read it out.

1179
However, your Lordships might like to know that only 21 Members of this House have listed science and technology as an interest and that only 27 Members of another place have done so. However, the fact is that 250 Members of both Houses receive the material to which my noble friend referred. The list is still open to any other Member who would like to receive such material.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this House participates in and contributes financially to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which serves both Houses? Indeed, we do so as a result of a recommendation of some two-and-a-half years ago from the Library and Computers Sub-Committee of this House. The noble Baroness may not be aware that there is a great deal of anxiety about the fact that that preliminary agreement runs out in 1996. We hope very much that that office will continue. Perhaps the noble Baroness will give her weight to seeking to secure the continuance of that office, which, as has already been mentioned, is valuable from all points of view. Is the noble Baroness aware that this House has been unique in establishing its own Select Committee on Science and Technology, which produces reports which carry a great deal of weight, and which has done so for well over 10 years?
Finally, the noble Baroness may or may not be aware that there are yet other sources of information. I refer to the professional bodies which have already responded to the needs of Parliament by setting up committees specifically to produce documents which are available to Members of both Houses. They are also very willing to brief us. I refer to bodies such as the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics. There is no lack of sources of information. Although these are early days, it is absolutely essential to continue to support such efforts.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am aware of the points which the noble Lord has raised. In 1992, both Houses of Parliament accepted the recommendation of the House of Commons Information Committee that Parliament should provide funding for the work of POST for three years from 1993 to 1996. It is not a government body and both Houses will have to consider the extension of financial support for POST after April 1996.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the work of two other all-party parliamentary associations with which I am involved? I refer to the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee, which is part of that on science and technology. It has been going for 10 years and currently has 97 members across both Houses. I refer also to EURIN, which was formed only a year ago and deals with the European aspects of information technology. It is in its first year but now has 75 members: 39 Members of Parliament, 14 Members of the European Parliament—which we think is extremely important for the future since the
1180
European Parliament is gaining in power—and 22 Peers. I think my noble friend will agree that there is a lot of scientific knowledge in this House.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing all that information to the attention of this House.
Lord Ironside: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross-Benches!
Lord Ironside: My Lords, is it not the case that if Members are interested in science, they can always join the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, yes.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her answers. Does she agree that there seems to be great interest in science and technology on all sides of the House? There is massive interest outside. All I am asking is that the noble Baroness will consider all that has been said here this afternoon to see whether some improvements can be made in the arrangements whereby those outside Parliament can have contact with the Members of both Houses on this subject.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I shall do so.

Road Works in London
3.25 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieuasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect London to be relieved of the congestion caused by the utility and road works currently being undertaken.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport
(Viscount Goschen): My Lords, essential maintenance and new construction work on transport infrastructure and below ground services must continue if London is to prosper in the future. Inevitably this will continue to cause inconvenience to road users and others. However, following the enactment of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, both the utilities and highway authorities are working hard to implement its new co-ordination arrangements to minimise congestion and delays.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but does he agree that motorists might be forgiven for assuming that that new Act, which was so warmly welcomed in this House as a step forward, is either not working or is not being enforced? Is my noble friend also aware that drivers are becoming increasingly frustrated at hearing every week about more and more threatened restrictions on motoring in London, given that the congestion is caused by other factors? I refer, for example, to the incredible fact that 300,000 holes are dug in Westminster every year and that 60,000 miles of cable TV are being laid at the moment, all of which is unsupervised and causing even worse congestion. So when can Londoners—

1181
pedestrians and motorists—look forward to an end to that nightmare of congestion that is far worse than was caused by Hitler's bombs in World War II?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is important to realise that many of the works described by my noble friend are either urgent maintenance work that is being carried out by the utilities or openings of the roads to fix major emergencies such as gas leaks. The Government have a strong interest in reducing congestion in London and in keeping the traffic flowing. I believe that the new Act will be a big step towards that once its provisions have had a proper chance to be implemented.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that across wide areas of London the problems of congestion come not from the public utilities or the necessity for repairing the roads but from the private cable companies which appear to be able to conduct their activities free of any kind of control whatever? They not only cause grave congestion, but in many areas come back a fortnight later to duplicate the business all over again. Has the noble Viscount, either as a Minister or via the local authorities, any control whatever over the activities of those private cable companies?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes, the noble Lord is not correct to say that those activities are uncontrolled. The cable TV companies generally operate under licence from the Department of Trade and Industry. That gives those companies many of the statutory powers that are available to the larger established utilities. In the same way as the utilities, they are required to give advance notice of their works to the highway authority. They have a duty to co-operate with that authority and one another in the same way as the utilities.
Lord Avebury: My Lords—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it not a case for Brussels?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord will have to repeat his question.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the cable companies are not under any kind of control, is it not a case for Brussels?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why the streets of London are in a greater mess today than they have been since the war? Has my noble friend noted in particular the appalling mess of the roadway in front of Buckingham Palace, and can he say why that has been allowed to happen?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I cannot verify, or otherwise, my noble friend's claim about the state of the roads since the war. I would have to take advice on that matter. Indeed, proper records have existed only since the passage of the New Roads and Street Works Act,
1182
which I mentioned earlier. The Buckingham Palace scheme is important for the tourism industry in this country and has valuable safety benefits.
Lord Monson: My Lords, do those private non-utility cable companies pay any compensation to the local authorities concerned? That would at least allow council tax to be reduced slightly, which would be some consolation to the afflicted residents.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall have to find out that piece of information. I have explained that those companies are under a duty to notify the highway authority and to co-ordinate with the other utilities. It is important to note that many people value the services that the cable companies provide. It is not just cable television but a range of other services such as telephone and information that comes down the cables.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House will be astonished that the Minister has not announced the usual recipe for dealing with critical situations. Perhaps he will indicate why not. The usual recipe is, of course, for the Government to set up a quango, people it with their friends, including a chairman at a salary of £450,000 a year. Does the Minister recognise that this is a serious matter which is causing a great deal of concern, notwithstanding the fact that the Act to which he referred has not come fully into operation? Will he give an undertaking that the Government will carry out some inquiries into the situation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that the local authorities are doing a bad job in maintaining the highways for which they are responsible. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is obviously responsible for maintenance on the trunk roads. We place great store on reducing congestion and getting traffic moving in London. I believe that the co-ordination provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act will make a great difference to the situation.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, but I am aware that we have only six minutes for the final Question. As always, I am in your Lordships' hands, but your Lordships may feel that the time has come to move on.

The Disabled: Council Tax Liability
3.32 p.m.
Lord Rix Lord Rix asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take on the reports that people with disabilities and those looking after people with disabilities are gaoled for failing to pay council tax or the former community charge.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, a council tax defaulter may be imprisoned only in cases of wilful refusal to pay or culpable neglect, and after account is taken of means. The Government are conscious of the particular needs of disabled people. We have today issued a consultation paper which proposes that dwellings which are occupied solely by people who are severely mentally impaired should from 1st April 1995 be exempt from the council tax.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that response. I had no knowledge of that proposal before I asked the Question. On the other hand, I should still like to stress the point that there must be something seriously wrong with a situation whereby a man who is physically and mentally handicapped and suffering from cancer can be gaoled for 28 days. Because it is not a criminal charge, he would not be entitled to report his condition to the magistrates. The magistrates could pass sentence in his absence, and he would be found guilty. of a charge and debt which he might be totally unable to comprehend. Does the Minister agree that that could still happen, even with the announcement that he has just made?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. The Government share the noble Lord's anxiety for people with disabilities. I hope that the proposed changes in the council tax liability regulations that I have just announced will alleviate those anxieties. The committal of debtors is very much the last resort and should be used only when people have not met their commitments, and other enforcement measures have proved to be inappropriate or unsuccessful.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Government are anxious to avoid these unfortunate cases in the future, would my noble friend consider it helpful if somehow, when such cases arise again, the local government welfare officer was informed by the court and was asked to see what he could do to help?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, before the magistrates use their powers, they must try to find out all the circumstances of the case. It is only in rare instances where they are persuaded that there is some form of culpable neglect or wilful refusal that such a committal can be made.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister reconsider the answer he has just given? Some disturbing cases are being reported in the newspapers, including cases of single mothers who have made an offer to pay and who are then imprisoned although there is no provision for care for their children, and also cases, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, of people
1184
unable to make provision for disabled relatives once they are sent to prison. Given that the High Court has intervened on more than one occasion to overrule magistrates who have sent such debtors to prison, can the Minister make further inquiries to ensure that we do not revert to the 18th century structure of debtors' prisons?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand that the Magistrates' Association is taking seriously reports that some magistrates have not been adequately advised or trained in the use of powers to imprison people for non-payment of the community charge or council tax. The Government share those anxieties and therefore welcome the association's announcement that it will be studying Mr. Justice Turner's judgment, and issuing further guidance to magistrates as soon as possible.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is not the problem that the magistrates are not informed of the situation of the persons coming before the bench? Unless there is some procedure whereby the individual concerned can inform the bench of the disability or the disadvantage, the magistrates have to act in ignorance.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if there is no show from the defendant, that puts the magistrates in a difficult position. Again, I should have thought that the further advice of the Magistrates' Association would go a long way towards assisting in this matter.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.37 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 COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 20 [The Scottish Environment Protection Agency]:
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: It may appear to the Committee that this is a negative Motion. I raise it largely because I want to emphasise the importance of the arguments put forward on Second Reading and at other times in support of the SEPA, many of which I believe to be false. The establishment of the SEPA will result in the ousting of the control of potentially polluting processes, and a lack of local presence on the enforcing authorities and a lack of points of contact for advice, which currently exist through the local authorities, particularly through locally elected representatives.
I favour a genuine Scottish environmental protection commission operating in partnership with local government and covering a wider range of services

1185
They should include coastal protection and flood prevention, which would be most apposite in Scotland after the serious damage caused two or three weeks ago. The proposed timing for the establishment of the agency could not be worse when viewed against the background of the upheaval that will be caused by the implementation of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.
If it is inevitable that a single body is to take over pollution control, the Health and Safety Commission provides the best model for achieving that. The commission, which includes a local elected member, enjoys the benefits of a policy overview, with enforcement being shared between central government and local authorities. The uniformity of enforcement is assured to a great extent by the existence of the Health and Safety Executive and the local authorities association enforcement liaison committee and its various sub-committees.
The use of a commission model would seem to satisfy the objectives of both central and local government and should be further investigated. Such a commission could be engaged in policy formulation and research and development, leading to the development and auditing of minimum environmental standards.
Instead, the Government have proposed a narrowly focused, service-providing regulatory agency, which will have great difficulty in moving beyond its purely pollution control remit to take on the much broader agenda of sustainable development. The allied concepts of integrated pollution control and the polluter-pays principle must be the guiding force behind the work of any agency involved in the field.
The Government's strictures on the need to relieve the burden of costs on industry cuts right across that. I do not want industry to have additional or unreasonable costs, but someone must pay for the costs of pollution. If that is not industry, the local authority and the local people must pay. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 recognised the proper role of local authorities in giving them new powers in relation to the control of certain areas of pollution and the management of solid waste disposal. Despite the commitment of authorities in preparing to undertake their new task, it is proposed that those should be absorbed by the SEPA. That hardly indicates an integrated approach to the legislative process. It is widely believed, in particular by those in Scotland who are knowledgeable about pollution issues, that the system of pollution control provided for in the 1990 Act achieves an optimum level of integration.
Authorities have restructured departments and increased staffing levels to meet the new more specialised responsibilities. Staff in local authorities are not only capable of undertaking the new duties but also possess the expertise to look at issues of public health and environmental protection on a global basis. They are also able to respond positively and comprehensively to all environmental matters, and those such as building control and health and safety functions, giving them the ability to deal effectively with issues closely related to
1186
the duties that the SEPA seeks to absorb. The net result is that if the SEPA is established it is likely to be a poorer and less effective service.
It is sad that, after all that work, we shall produce a less effective body and I oppose the Question that Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Do we not have a ministerial response to this Question?
The Earl of Lindsay: Yes. While I stand at the Dispatch Box I represent the Minister, and therefore I am the Minister.
Clause 20 establishes the Scottish environment protection agency to carry out the functions assigned to it elsewhere in the Bill. SEPA would bring together responsibility for the prevention and control of the key forms of pollution to air, water and land. The functions that will be transferred are set out in Clause 21.
It is widely recognised that an integrated approach to pollution prevention and control is essential. Pollution to one environmental media can affect another. At present, however, our environmental regulators are organised separately. Pollution to air, water and land are dealt with in isolation to each other.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, suggested that the transition to the new arrangements would represent a loosening on the control of pollution. That will not be the case. The constituent parts that will be brought into SEPA have to date performed extremely well in their own rights and they will be absorbed in the functioning systems. The polluter-pays principle will be maintained and enforced where necessary. SEPA will instead offer a one-door approach to pollution prevention and control to the benefit of both the environment and industry.
The noble Lord suggested that pollution control could be styled on a commission, such as the HSC. The HSC works with three distinct partners; industry, government and the workers. To a large extent, policy is already settled. The problem with using such a model for the environmental protection agency is that much environmental policy is still being settled or must be allowed to evolve. Therefore, policy is best left to an arrangement between government and an agency.
I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that despite the pollution prevention function, which is at the centre of SEPA's existence, the agency is not precluded from seeking to improve the environment. The existing river purification authorities have successfully proved that during the past few years.
SEPA will be a non-departmental public body. We believe that it is within this organisational framework that a body such as SEPA will best operate. It will be one stage removed from the day-to-day work of government, but it will also remain accountable to Parliament through my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised other issues relating to the relationship between SEPA and local authorities. The first group of amendments on the Marshalled List today deals with that matter in detail and therefore I shall not go into the detail immediately.

1187
Clause 20 brings into effect Schedule 6, which sets out the constitution and proceedings of SEPA. I therefore recommend that Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread belief that this new organisation represents no more than the centralisation of current pollution control arrangements? There is no confidence that the agency will be one for the protection of the environment, to which the noble Earl is devoted. On the contrary, the loss of the local nature of waste regulation, air pollution control and river purification is bound to lead to a much greater potential for pollution. How can the noble Earl say that this is an advance in environmental protection when it is a retreat?
Lord Elton: I do not know whether the exchange is intended to be only a duet; but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will bear in mind advantages which flow from the arrangements. At present, a host of authorities set standards and people conducting business in Scotland have to apply to each one. Each is able to apply different standards, and each must give permission for activity in its area. There is a general principle, which is satisfied by the Bill, which would not be satisfied without Clause 20; it is that there should be a single agency and a single point of application for permissions and licences.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, always supports the Government on these matters. That is .perfectly reasonable. He sits on the Conservative Benches, and why should he not do so? But the fact is that there are local variations in relation to the protection of waste regulation, air pollution control and river purification. To say that there should be one Scottish body because it is useful for somebody to be able to telephone one telephone number does not seem to me to hold any confidence at all.
Lord Elton: I rise only to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for that glowing testimony, which I draw to the attention, through the record, of my party's Chief Whip.
The Earl of Lindsay: The noble Lord made two principal points, both of which I think are inaccurate. The first is that very few people now with an interest in the environmental field do not believe that an integrated approach to environmental management, the prevention and control of pollution and then enhancement of environmental issues is the right method. To deal with different environmental needs in isolation from each other is seen by very few people as correct.
The second point I stress to the noble Lord is that many issues have a certain complexion which must be taken into account when they are managed. SEPA has a duty to appoint regional boards. That is not an option but a duty. Those regional boards will have executive functions delegated to them.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to prolong the debate but the noble Earl cannot have it both ways. We cannot have the noble Lord, Lord Elton, saying that a central body is of the greatest advantage to the people of Scotland while at the same time the noble Earl says
1188
that there will be regional boards all over the place which will take account of all the different variations. It must be one thing or the other.
The Earl of Lindsay: I cannot agree with the noble Lord. I believe that my view is shared by many Members of the Committee. There is a need for centralised cohesion, co-ordination and integration but very often there needs to be localised input to take account of local factors.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am disappointed by the noble Earl's reply, although I did not expect him to agree with me as that would have been very damaging to the Bill. Existing bodies are looking after pollution control reasonably well but would do so a great deal better were there to be one co-ordinating body bringing them together with their representatives who have direct contact with the people and who know, perhaps better even than the scientists, what are the local pollution problems. I am very disappointed but I shall not oppose the Motion.
On Question, Clause 20 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [The Scottish Environment Protection Agency]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 131 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 132 to 135 inclusive.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 134, leave out lines 13 to 36 and insert:
("() SEPA shall consist of elected members appointed by such associations of local authorities as exist.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 140, 143, 144, 145, 146 and 181C. The amendments seek to ensure that members of SEPA are elected members of the new councils when they are formed. During our discussions on the Bill, I have emphasised the need for SEPA to have as its members people who are known locally and who have to be elected periodically. It is important that the control of the SEPA remains in the hands of local people who are democratically accountable. The only feasible way in which to achieve such an end is to require that membership of the agency is drawn from local authority members. It is not sufficient that the members of the agency should, as suggested in the schedule,
"have knowledge or experience in some matter relevant to the functions".
That is far too wide a definition. The vital point is that decisions should be taken by elected members who are democratically accountable and who appear regularly before their electors.
Amendment No. 140 seeks to ensure that democratic accountability of the membership on the boards is retained. As I said, it is vital that decisions are taken by democratically elected members.
Amendment No. 143 seeks to retain the function of waste regulation within local authority control. The schedule is not strengthening the organisation of

1189
environmental protection in Scotland; the proposals merely seek to supplant the operational aspects of pollution control work which, in the view of most of us in Scotland, are matters for locally based personnel who are locally accountable. It is important that that matter should remain close to the industries and communities with which and within which it operates.
District and highland councils in Scotland have, since 1975, been responsible for waste regulation, first in terms of control of pollution under the 1974 Act and since May 1994 under the waste management licensing regulations which brought into force the licensing provisions of Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Even now consultations are taking place to amend the regulations and to revise the associated waste management functions. No justification has been offered for the removal of that function from local government.
I commend also Amendment No. 144 which seeks to ensure that the regulatory functions of waste disposal authorities are retained within local control. The other amendments are on the same theme. I cannot stress strongly enough how important it is for local government to be represented in matters which affect everyone in the locality. Local government members are the best people to be contacted when things go wrong. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I support the amendment. I should have thought that the more democratic control we have, the better it will be. It is not to be expected that the Government will be very enthusiastic about that, particularly in Scotland where they have even less representation in local government than they do in England. Nevertheless, whatever the political control, it is right that the people, the voters, should have a say as to who runs that very important agency.
Lord Monkswell: I support the amendment. We must be very clear about the responsibilities of SEPA. I understand that it is to ensure the protection and enhancement of the environment in Scotland. That is for the benefit, I assume, of people living in Scotland.
The difficulty with which we are faced is that the agency will be answerable to the Secretary of State. I am sure that the noble Earl will say that it will be the Secretary of State for Scotland. But he is a national Minister. He is a Minister of a national government and therefore has to take cognisance of what is best for the UK as a whole and not just what is best for Scotland.
If the Government were to change the way in which the Secretary of State for Scotland is chosen so that Scottish Members of Parliament elect who is to be the Secretary of State for Scotland, I am sure that we should all welcome the proposals in the Bill. But I suspect that the Government will not do that. Therefore, the problem is that the people who are to be responsible for environment and pollution control in Scotland will not be answerable to the Scottish people; they will be answerable to a national government. There is a contradiction which I believe needs to be addressed.
1190
Obviously, the best way that we have to address it at present is to support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think it is time that a Scottish-based Peer entered into this short debate. I must tell the noble Lord who has just spoken that what he said constitutes a most interesting and different form of Scottish nationalism which, perhaps, he would like to discuss some time during debate. It is quite strange, and if the noble Lord came a little more often to Scotland I believe that he would realise just how strange it is.
However, having said that, I know that the noble Lord is trying to be constructive and is representing the interests of local government in the matter of which he has knowledge and in which he is very interested. I, too, am most interested in it. In his response, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can outline a little to the Committee how the local government interest in such matters will link with the interests of SEPA. That is a critical question. In other words, we need to know how the powers, which to an extent overlap, will operate and how people who go to their local government councillors about a problem will be dealt with. I believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has in mind.
I do not believe that the magic solution of political control of SEPA is the probable answer. But it is extremely important that local government people should know how they are to relate to the agency. I have not given my noble friend notice of that question, but I should be most grateful if he could assist us in that respect.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to intervene for a moment, drawing from my practical experience of having, off and on, close contact with the river purification boards that presently exist in Scotland. One-third of the membership of those boards was appointed by the Secretary of State. Over the past 30 years it has been very much my opinion that those members who were appointed by the Secretary of State were by far the most active. That is not meant in any way as a criticism of the representatives who were appointed by local authorities. But, of course, local authority councillors had many other duties to attend to and, in many cases, did not have the time to address their extra duties—it I may put it that way—of being members of a river purification board.
With very great respect to our elected councillors, many of whom are extremely dedicated people regardless of political party, I must stress that when it comes to environmental matters I believe it is important for us to have people who have the greatest experience in the field, and not necessarily locally-elected personnel.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord is thinking of this as more than a probing amendment, I believe that it would probably be worth his while to explain how it is that the wording, which would appear to be designed to replace only paragraph 4 of the schedule, actually strikes out paragraphs 3 to 7, thus leaving the size of SEPA and

1191
the method of appointment, the duration of appointment and the actual role of the Secretary of State completely unstated. I do not believe that that point is picked up in the rest of the group, although there may be something that I have missed.
Lord Monkswell: During her remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, referred to my local government experience. I thank her for doing so. However, I should have advised Members of the Committee of a vested interest in the matter. I was educated in Scotland and I have relatives in Scotland. One of the things that I like doing in Scotland is swimming. Indeed I like swimming off the beach of Portobello in Edinburgh and I also like swimming off the Western Isles.
My vested interest is in ensuring that bathing water is clean. We have only to look at the history of the past few years to realise that our national Government do not seem to have that as a very high priority. I am concerned for the people of Scotland and, as I said, I want nice, clean bathing water when I go swimming. I want to ensure that the Scottish people have control, so to speak, of SEPA so that they are looking after their vested interests. That would ensure the best for the people of Scotland. It must not be controlled by the national Government here in Westminster who, unfortunately, still seem to like this country to go under the epithet of "the dirty man of Europe". I hope that that helps the debate.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not want to prolong the debate, but I expect that the noble Lord appreciates the fact that beaches have, for a long time, been the responsibility of local authorities.
The Earl of Lindsay: We are discussing a most important part of the Bill; and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raises a most important issue. The amendments seek to involve local authorities in the work of SEPA. Yet, at the same time, they seek to remove from the proposed scope of the agency those functions currently carried out by local authorities in Scotland.
Amendment No. 131 would mean that SEPA would only comprise of local councillors who, in effect, would be appointed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (CoSLA). I would certainly not rule out that appointments to the SEPA board made on the basis of merit, and the contributions that could be made to the effective running of the agency, may well include some individuals from local authorities. However, I cannot accept that that group should have an exclusive right of membership.
It has been suggested that the amendment would make the agency more accountable. I am not sure whether I accept that that would be the exact case. CoSLA is not itself elected and any representatives appointed to SEPA would not be accountable to their electors for that work. That is not to say that individuals with experience of local government may not have much to offer, but they would be appointed for their personal
1192
qualities and, most important, those appointments would not be made simply because their status is that of a councillor.
It would be very difficult for this non-departmental public body to be accountable to the Secretary of State, and through him to Parliament, if he was not responsible for appointing the members of the body. Choosing the members of the board is a crucial element of the Secretary of State's responsibility for the overall performance of the agency. I stress that point for the benefit of all noble Lords who are concerned that there may be a weakening of the democratic link between the operations of SEPA and those people who live in Scotland.
It seems to me to be vital that the operation and performance of SEPA is properly accountable to Parliament. I should stress that the Secretary of State will be answerable for the agency's overall performance, the specific aspects of its work related to his responsibilities as set out in Clause 4 and the appointments he makes to it. If the appointments to the board and the regional boards were made by the local electorate, the responsibility of the Secretary of State to Parliament would be very much diminished.
However, no one doubts that there is very probably a role for elected councillors at different levels of SEPA. I have already described the duty that SEPA has to establish regional boards. The Government certainly envisage elected councillors playing a full part on regional boards. I emphasise that to both noble Lords opposite and my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. Everyone acknowledges, especially in Scotland, the great role played by local authorities in environmental protection.
Amendment No. 140 would ensure that each of SEPA's regional boards included an elected councillor appointed by each local authority within its geographical area. I can envisage that the regional boards will, as I said, include a significant number of elected councillors. That will be included in the guidance which my right honourable friend gives to the agency. However, appointing one representative per authority could, in certain cases, make the regional boards unmanageably large as a wide range of interests would need to be reflected on the boards.
Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 would stop the transfer of local authorities' waste regulatory functions to SEPA. Amendment No. 145 would stop the transfer of local authority air pollution control to SEPA. Amendment No. 181C would remove integrated pollution control and local air pollution control from the list of SEPA's pollution control functions in Clause 31. In order to deliver environmental protection in a properly integrated manner it is important that the agency assumes responsibility for waste regulation. Another key benefit is the removal of dual responsibility for waste regulation and waste disposal. District and islands councils in Scotland currently perform both roles which effectively requires them to regulate themselves. Although this may not have caused serious problems to date, in principle there is a potential for conflict which need not exist.

1193
The Bill also transfers local authority air pollution control to SEPA. In Scotland we believe the balance of advantage lies with this more integrated approach. It reflects the comparatively small number of air polluting processes in Scotland with many local authorities responsible for only a handful of them even after taking local government reorganisation in 1996 into account. In a country of Scotland's size it makes little sense to establish a 600-strong agency with all the facilities and back-up that that entails while the 25 or so local authority staff working on air pollution control remain dispersed across all the local authorities. Pooling resources will bring real benefits in an area which is becoming increasingly technical. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that integration of such skills is widely welcomed by environmental groups as well as others.
I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed over the transfer of local authority functions to SEPA, in particular the transfer of responsibility for local air pollution control under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act. The Government believe that local authorities will continue to play an important role in combating air pollution, even after the transfer. Indeed they will be assisted by the strengthened powers to tackle nuisance in Clause 89.
However, I can announce to the Committee today that regulations will be brought forward to make local authorities in Scotland statutory consultees for the prescribed processes which they currently regulate. I hope that the noble Lord welcomes that. The new arrangements will come into force when the air pollution controls are transferred to SEPA. They will ensure that local authorities continue to have a voice in the operation of such processes in their locality.
In the meantime I can further announce that, as part of the Government's air quality initiative, local authorities in Scotland and in England and Wales will become statutory consultees for IPC processes from this April. The new consultation arrangements will remain in place after regulatory responsibility for IPC transfers to the new agencies. This is a measure which local government has been keen for us to introduce. I hope that it is welcome to all noble Lords who spoke on the need for links between SEPA, the regional boards and the local electors. I hope too that the two announcements will reassure the Committee of the important role which the Government believe local authorities should continue to have in environmental protection matters. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: Before my noble friend sits down, I think he will find that the grouping of amendments includes Amendment No. 146 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ullswater. I presume that it is purely drafting but he did not say anything about it.
The Earl of Lindsay: My noble friend is correct: it is a minor drafting amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord, Lord Williams, rises, which I know he is bound to
1194
do, I would say to my noble friend that I did not know he was going to make the announcement that local government will be statutory consultees in relation to SEPA. That is precisely what I was trying to get at when I asked him to tell the Committee—I was waiting for an answer in his speech—how the functions of local government and of SEPA which overlap will be taken care of. It seems to me that that is a good solution to the problem. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is pleased; I certainly am.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Earl has made the important announcement in response to the amendment that local authorities will be statutory consultees and that the Government will bring forward, I think he said, some statutory instrument to that effect. That is not only in the case of Scotland—as I understood the noble Earl to say—but also in the case of England and Wales. If I am wrong perhaps the noble Earl will correct me now. However, as I understood it, he included England and Wales as well. That is a very important announcement. I find it rather odd—perhaps I should address the noble Viscount here—that this important item comes in the middle of a debate about the Scottish environment protection agency. Leaving that aside, I assume that the Government will bring forward some sort of amendment at a later stage in the Bill to implement what we have been told. If I am wrong, the noble Earl, when he comes to speak again, will tell me.
I hope I may ask a question of the noble Earl relating to Amendment No. 145. I am not an expert in Scottish affairs. I have never pretended to be an expert in Scottish affairs. However, I am advised—as the noble Earl, I think, said—that air pollution powers were given to district and island councils quite recently. They have trained officers, and the new controls came into effect, I understand, on 1st April 1992 following a great deal of preparatory work. Apparently—I say "apparently" because I am open to correction—there has been no criticism of those local authorities in their carrying out of the work. It is rather odd, having given them all these powers and trained all the officers, that the functions should now be transferred to the new agency.
There is a second question to which I would ask the noble Earl to respond. He rightly says that air pollution is to be a matter for SEPA rather than local authorities in the future if the Government have their way but that this is not the case in England and Wales. He declared that Scotland in some way was different to England and Wales. I am not quite certain that I follow his argument as regards in what sense Scotland can be said to be different from Wales other than the fact that they are at different ends of the United Kingdom. The problems in Wales are more or less analogous to the problems in Scotland. Are we to take it, as a result of the noble Earl's arguments, that the Government are now prepared

1195
to accept Amendment No. 264, which we shall deal with later, which sets air quality standards for the rest of the United Kingdom apart from Scotland?
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asks a number of questions. As regards the two announcements made today, both of which I regard as being of great importance, one will involve regulations which will be brought forward. That is the one whereby local authorities in Scotland will be statutory consultees for the prescribed air pollution processes which they currently regulate. The other, I believe—if I am incorrect, I shall make sure the noble Lord receives the correct information—involves powers which already exist under Part I of the EPA Act 1990. To repeat, it allows local authorities in Scotland, England and Wales to become statutory consultees for IPC processes from this April. That is a duty they will enjoy both from April and through the EPA. The difference between Scotland, and England and Wales, on air pollution control is very marked. While Scotland has between perhaps 1,000 and 1,200 air emission processes which fall under the scope of the regulations, England and Wales have some 14,000. Therefore the scale of the problem and the management of the problem are rightly being handled in a very different way.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: First of all I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I will look at what he said. It may well be that something has been missed in the Bill. I am sure that that has happened before. I shall certainly consider the matter.
The situation would have been rather different if the announcement had been made earlier, but perhaps the amendments that we put down jogged the Government into providing a little more democracy. We are increasingly disturbed by the growth in the number of appointees. I believe that the country as a whole is becoming disturbed about the fact that there are these bodies which have such control over people's lives but which are accountable to nobody but the Secretary of State. People are conscious that these services are vital. We believe strongly that there should be contact with somebody on the board who can do something about those anxieties. What the noble Earl said may be helpful.
It seemed to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was rather against local authorities and CoSLA for pushing these points through. I know that CoSLA is troublesome, but it is meant to be. The fact that its members are predominantly not members of the party opposite makes the matter more difficult. I suspect that some of the antagonism directed towards CoSLA is not at what it does but to its members.
I thank the Minister for giving us that information, even if it is rather late in the day. We shall study the regulations very carefully when they are available. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 132 to 135 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elliott of Morpeth): I have to tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 136 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 137.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrovemoved Amendment No. 136:
Page 134, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert:
("(1) The members of SEPA shall elect, from amongst their members, both a chairman and a deputy chairman.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 136 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 137 to 139, 141, 159 to 161 and 173.
This group of amendments represents another strike for democracy. We want SEPA committee and board meetings to be open to the public. Most local authority committees are now open to the public. They attract a reasonable attendance because people are interested. The amendment would ensure local and general public accountability of SEPA's performance. It is also consistent with the Government's commitment under the European Union directive on freedom of access to information on the environment. I wonder whether the Government were aware of that when they prepared the Bill. That is the general tenor of this group of amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: I rise to support Amendment No. 136 in particular. I believe that we could learn a lesson from the way in which this Chamber itself conducts its business in that we are all equal and we can all contribute to debates. When we come to a decision it is either a consensus or a democratically-determined decision. We are all part of that decision.
One of the difficulties of having the chair and deputy chair of SEPA appointed by the Secretary of State is that effectively it raises two members of that collective body into superior beings who are answerable to the Secretary of State, who has nominated them. That will devalue the other members of SEPA and what should be the collective nature of its decisions.
I implore the Government to think again and to bear in mind the positive benefits that would accrue from accepting my noble friend's amendment. As I said, we can seek no better example than the operation of our own Chamber.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, seeks to strike for democracy once again. In drafting the Bill I hope that the Government have anticipated some of the anxieties which the amendments raise.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 is to take responsibility for the appointment of SEPA's chairman and deputy chairman away from my right honourable friend and place it in the hands of the agency board itself. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, also focused on that area. I remind the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is in any case responsible for all the appointments to the SEPA

1197
board. Therefore, any difference would be marginal should the chairman and deputy chairman be elected rather than appointed.
The critical issue is that the chain of responsibility from the chairman to the Secretary of State and through him to Parliament is kept intact and is not diminished in any way.
The chairman of SEPA is also likely to have a high public profile. That is another reason why, for strategic reasons, his appointment must be made in line with the wider scheme of SEPA's operations.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Are we now to assume that the Secretary of State will appoint the chairman of SEPA and that he will not be elected by the members, who I agree under the terms of the Bill will themselves be appointed by the Secretary of State? Are we to assume from what the noble Earl has just said that because the chairman of SEPA will be a high profile public figure it is important that a Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland should appoint such a person, and should perhaps give him a generous contract? Are we not to say that a future Labour Secretary of State for Scotland can reverse that appointment? Are we saying that the appointment will be made by a Member of Parliament for somewhere or other who happens to be Secretary of State for Scotland and that when the Bill becomes an Act the appointment will not be reversible?
The Earl of Lindsay: I do not know the terms and conditions of the appointment. However, whoever is the Secretary of State at the time will have the power to appoint the chairman, the deputy chairman and the other members of the SEPA main board.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I do not want to prolong the discussion, but before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House, let alone this Committee, will we know the terms and conditions of the appointment of the chairman of SEPA?
The Earl of Lindsay: I shall certainly endeavour to get all the relevant information to the noble Lord so that he can consider it.
Lord Elton: I hope that my noble friend will not be persuaded that, as in America, if there is a change of government there should be a change in chairmen of all the agencies dependent on the government, as there is of sheriffs and so on the moment the whistle goes. We all know of the steady process of erosion of appointments made by one party by its successor, but that is at the end of the term of the contract of employment. I watch the noble Lord's face with great interest as I make these remarks because it shows me his view of how the politics of this country work. It is not the same as mine.
The Earl of Lindsay: The appointment is for a fixed term, but there is provision in the Bill to remove the chairman should that be necessary.
Perhaps I may turn to the other amendments in the group as we have quite a lot of ground to cover. Amendments Nos. 138, 139 and 141, and 159 to 161
1198
would require SEPA to hold its meetings in public, and to make any minutes of such meetings and any of its records available for inspection free of charge, and to make copies obtainable on payment of local photocopying rates. Amendment No. 173 would place a duty on SEPA to be transparent in meeting its statutory requirements in relation to public access to information.
I sympathise with the underlying aim of the amendments: to make SEPA's decision-making process more transparent in order to gain the confidence of the public. Nevertheless, Amendment No. 138 would prevent SEPA from holding any meetings in private to discuss matters in confidence; for example, where important commercial issues are at stake. Because of such considerations I believe it is right that the agency itself should be free to determine whether its meetings should be in public.
In addition to the statutory public registers which SEPA will be obliged to maintain, information held by it including minutes of its meetings will be available to the public through the Environmental Information Regulations 1992. Those regulations were in response to the European directive to which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred. Some of the amendments would, however, circumvent the important exclusions in the regulations to safeguard commercially confidential information—information which either is or might be used in legal proceedings and information which might in some way threaten our national security.
One immediate and tangible benefit of the establishment of SEPA will be in relation to the greater ease of access to its public registers. For the first time, those registers will be available for inspection at single points of contact, greatly improving the existing arrangements where the registers are dispersed across a number of authorities.
Since SEPA will obviously be obliged to meet all of its statutory requirements, Amendment No. 173 is not therefore required in this respect. Ensuring that it does so in a transparent way, and without undue inconvenience, is a matter, I suggest, for the agency's management statement. A section on public access to information is already contained in the draft published in October last year. I believe that there is already good access for the public under those regulations and I cannot therefore accept the need for the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 141 and 159 to 161 would also require copies of minutes and records to be available at "local photocopying rates" in preference to "reasonable" rates as prescribed in the 1992 Environmental Information Regulations.
I recognise the concern that can arise about the interpretation which may be placed on the "reasonableness" of photocopying charges. The establishment of a single, national agency should assist in this respect. I also believe that it is right in principle that SEPA should be able to set reasonable charges which recover the costs it incurs in providing copies of documents. But I agree that it should not seek to debar access through inflated charges.
The Government are keen to ensure maximum openness in the affairs of SEPA, without compromising its ability to discharge its functions effectively. The

1199
provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations will apply to the agency, and I believe that this will ensure good public access. I also remind noble Lords that SEPA is not obliged to charge. If it so wishes, it can provide information and facilities for inspection free of charge. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: In many ways what the noble Earl says is welcome. However, does he agree that Amendment No. 173 should be accepted by the Government because it states in so many words, exactly what the noble Earl said?
The Earl of Lindsay: I stated that under the provisions in the Bill SEPA will have to provide the transparency and ease of access for which the amendment calls. Therefore, the amendment, although not unwelcome, is unnecessary.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said that we have achieved something from this group of amendments. With regard to public meetings, I appreciate the necessity for certain commercial confidentiality; even in local authorities that must arise. One cannot avoid some confidential meetings. However, the amendment provides that it should be clear to people where the meetings are held and who will attend; and a general idea of what is minuted should be available.
On publication and duplication at commercial rates, a large number of small businesses in the high street, having bought the equipment do well by charging for duplicating. I do not understand why a body such as SEPA could not do the same as it does not seem to be terribly complicated.
I am glad that the register will be available and I hope that it will also be intelligible. Some reports are written in such a way that it takes diligence such as is applied by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, when in the Library. He is one of the few people I know who can apply such diligence when required. The public in general are not always as hardworking and diligent as the noble Earl. I should like some reassurance that the report will be intelligible to the average person.
The Earl of Lindsay: With SEPA not even in existence at this stage, all I can say is that the information asked for will be provided. If there is any disappointment with the prose or presentation of that information, complaints can be made to suitable sources.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsaymoved Amendment 137A:
Page 135, line 26, leave out ("Subject to paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 of this Act,").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 137A and 147A contain minor changes to certain provisions concerning the staff of SEPA.
1200
The intention underlying the reference in Schedule 6 to paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 was to ensure that the provisions enabling SEPA to determine pay and conditions would not conflict with the requirement in Schedule 2 that staff transferring to SEPA by way of transfer schemes would do so on existing terms and conditions. On reflection, we now consider that there will be no such conflict.
Amendment No. 137A makes the necessary change and would bring the provisions relative to the two agencies in this respect into line.
Amendment No. 147A is a technical amendment which ensures that when negotiations are started with existing local authorities concerning the transfer of staff and property to SEPA, it will be possible for SEPA to continue these negotiations with the new unitary local authorities where necessary after the reorganisation of local government in Scotland on 1st April 1996. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 138 to 142 not moved.]
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Transfer of functions to SEPA]:
[Amendments Nos. 143 to 145 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsaymoved Amendment No. 146:
Page 21, line 30, leave out ("so far as exercisable in relation to Scotland, are") and insert ("are, so far as exercisable in relation to Scotland").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Transfers of property etc: supplemental provisions]:
The Earl of Lindsaymoved Amendment No. 147A:
Page 117, line 7, at end insert ("and, as respects any such local authority which is a district or islands council, includes, in relation to any time on or after 1st April 1996, the council for any local government area named in column 1 of Schedule 1 to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 which is wholly or partly conterminous with the area of that council.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 148 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvelmoved Amendment No. 150:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE
COMMON LAND
Retention of land on registers
1.—(1) Where any land is for the time being registered in a register of common land in accordance with the Commons Registration Act 1965 and the registration has become final, the land shall not be removed from the register except where, under the provisions of an enactment, the land is discharged from all incidents and restrictions relating to common land and to land so registered.

1201
(2) In section 13 of the 1965 Act (amendment of registers) after the words "village green" in paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the words "under the provisions of any enactment discharging the land from all incidents and restrictions".
(3) In regulation 27(1) of the Commons Registration (General) Regulations 1966, after the words "village green" there shall be inserted the words "in accordance with paragraph (a) of section 13 of the Act".
Amendment of registers
2. After paragraph (c) of section 13 of the 1965 Act there shall be inserted the words "; or
(d) the owner of the land applies to the registration authority for its registration as common land or as a town or village green".
Disturbance of land
3.—(1) Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (restrictions on inclosure of commons) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for the words "whereby access to land to which this section applies is prevented or impeded" there shall be substituted the words "or the disturbance of the surface of the land with the assistance of any machine or vehicle, on land to which this section applies".
(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Any consent given under this section may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate.".
(4) In subsection (2)—

(a) after the words "other work constructed" there shall be inserted the words "or other such disturbance as aforesaid made";

(b) for the words "the council of any county or district council concerned, or by the lord of the manor or any other person interested in the common" there shall be substituted the words "the Environment Agency"; and

(c) for the words "the work was erected or constructed" there shall be substituted the words "the work or disturbance was erected, constructed or made".

(5) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) Notwithstanding the proviso to subsection (3) above this section applies after the commencement of section (Agency to register common land) of the Environment Act 1995 to any land which is for the time being registered in a register of common land.".
(6) In subsection (4) after the words "or work constructed" there shall be inserted the words "or disturbance made", and after the words "or constructed" there shall be inserted the words "or made".
Saving for statutory undertakers
4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, nothing in section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 shall require statutory undertakers to obtain consent for any disturbance of the surface of land which is necessary for the purpose of laying a pipe or cable in accordance with any general powers of those undertakers to lay the same in the generality of other land.
(2) In exercising such powers as aforesaid, statutory undertakers shall comply with such requirements as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument.
(3) For the purposes of the exercise of such powers as aforesaid, a local authority having functions in respect of the land under section 9 of the 1965 Act (protection of unclaimed common land) shall be deemed to be an owner of the land and a person who owns a registered right of common over the land shall be deemed to be an occupier of the land.").
1202
The noble Lord said: I hesitate to weary the Committee, which has been discussing Scottish affairs, with matters which relate substantially to England and Wales. However, it so happens that this is the appropriate place in the Bill for the schedule I propose. For reasons of time, which I know the noble Viscount will understand, I did not move the paving amendment the other evening. I thought that it would be useful, however, to move the schedule so that we could discuss the whole matter of common land. I emphasise to the Committee that this is a probing amendment; it is not designed to be written verbatim into the Bill.
Members of the Committee will be aware of the importance of common land. It is privately owned land over which others have rights in common with the landowner to graze stock, to collect wood and to cut turf, bracken and so on. Those rights probably pre-date the private ownership of land. Commons have remained largely undisturbed and unenclosed throughout a long period of history. I am told that there are some 1.3 million acres of common land in England and Wales, but, like everywhere else, that land is under threat.
The Government recognised the importance of common land as long ago as 1983 when they set up what was known then as the Common Land Forum. The forum was a body consisting of people who had interests in commons in all respects. Its aim was to agree proposals for legislation. The Government said that if the forum reached agreement, they would consider legislation.
In its 1986 report the forum did reach agreement on proposals for access to and management of—two important points—common land. It also agreed on tidying up registration. I recognise that the Government have had great difficulty in keeping the members of the forum together in—if I may use a rugby analogy—one single scrum. They seem to have gone off in different directions since the forum reported.
I do not think it right that the Government should do nothing. I therefore propose this schedule to the Bill which will deal with the most urgent threats facing our common land. First, although the Commons Registration Act 1965 required that all common land be registered by a certain date, I am afraid that much was not registered. Therefore, by virtue of the Act, it ceased to be common land. Furthermore, not even those commons which were registered are safe. Since the registers closed in 1972, there has been a steady exit of commons from the registers. The Open Space Society has compiled a list of 75 commons which it knows have been deregistered since then. However, there may be many more that the society has not been able to find.
There are a number of commons, even at present, which are subject to deregistration procedures. The amendment I propose prevents the deregistration of commons and ensures that those which remain are safe and secure on the registers.
I refer the Committee to paragraph 3 of my proposed schedule, "Disturbance of land". Despite the existing legislation, commons do not enjoy much legal protection. I should explain— perhaps I ought to have said this at the outset—that in Wales I live on the border of a common of some 770 acres. Thus, in that sense, I

1203
have an interest. Perhaps I should also declare that I have a pecuniary interest in that I am allowed to graze 60 ewes on the commons adjoining my property. The fact that I have a grass-keep arrangement with the neighbouring farmer, which includes that, will, I hope, allow me to continue with what I have to say without being debarred through the fact that I have a pecuniary interest.
Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires that the consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment—that is the case in England—or the Secretary of State for Wales must be obtained for fences, buildings or other works which prevent or impede access to commons. The section excludes disturbance of the soil by ploughing or other means which can be very damaging, not least to the bird life or the archaeology of our commons. My amendment brings such operations within the ambit of Section 194 of the Act. At present, that section applies only to land which was subject to common rights on 1st January 1926 when the Law of Property Act came into force. We are a long way from 1926 —nearly 70 years—and it is frequently impossible to know—
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. This is a rather important point. I agree with what he says about the Law of Property Act, but the application of that Act has to a considerable extent been overtaken by the Commons Registration Act 1965. So we do not have to look quite so far back perhaps as the noble Lord thinks.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord who is an expert in the matter. However, if he will kindly hear me out, perhaps I may answer his point. It is not easy to know whether the land in question was subject to rights at that point. This carries through to the 1965 Act and to today. Anyway, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, quite rightly points out, since we have common land registers, if all the common land were on the registers I would agree that that point is of a minor nature. But it is not.
The schedule that I propose is merely to clarify and simplify the matter. The schedule should apply to all commons on the Common Land Register and the agency should be the agency that keeps the register. That is the minimum that is necessary at the moment. I agree that this Bill may not be the right place and I would have liked the Government to produce legislation of their own. If that is impossible, we have to try to ensure that the minimum is achieved. It is for that reason that I put forward this schedule for discussion. We can have a debate, the Government can respond and, in responding, perhaps the noble Viscount can tell us why we have not had legislation to fulfil the Conservative manifesto of 1987. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has done a valuable service by moving this amendment containing a new schedule which is intended to fill in what he regards as gaps in our law relating to common land and the administration of it. Undoubtedly there have been gaps. I must disclose, in relation to a case that went to the High Court—it is no longer there so it is not sub judice and I can therefore
1204
mention it—that we were very anxious about the way in which we thought that lands were common lands at Huntingdon. Until the High Court made a new scheme it would seem that they were not common lands in the full sense; but they are now. It is very important indeed that we should get the whole of this law right with regard to common land.
I would have thought that the amendment should easily fit into the framework of this Bill. It is perhaps a bit of an adumbration when it comes to fitting it in to the protection of the environment as a whole, but it relates to a part of the environment, and a part that we need to protect. Therefore, I should have thought that it is relevant for us to consider the matter.
I have to confess that I find the amendment of the noble Lord a very technical one. Although he was kind enough to imply that I know something about this branch of the law, I would not claim to understand all the detailed implications that arise from his amendment. My noble friend Lord Ullswater has no doubt taken advice on this and I shall be very interested to hear what he has to say.
Quite clearly, we do not want land which has been registered as common land to be easily removed from the register. But my experience has been that there has been difficulty in getting land which ought to be registered put on the register. That seems to me to be an even higher priority.
Lords Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am sure that he will recall what I said: the register set up under the 1965 Act closed in 1972.
Lord Renton: Yes, that is so—and there were very considerable difficulties during the time that it was in operation.
To summarise, this is a matter which should be considered in relation to the Bill. This schedule, technical though it is, is something that we should consider and on which we should receive the advice of my noble friend Lord Ullswater. I do not commit myself, until I have heard my noble friend, to saying that I support the amendment. But I am in broad sympathy with its aims.
Baroness David: I should like to support my noble friend in this amendment. I am very glad indeed to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, because I think it has been a rather sad tale about our commons. There is no doubt that a lot were not registered which should have been registered and that a great many of those that have been registered have suffered, and are being reduced in number and indeed in the quality of what they offer. The tale goes back a long way. It was in 1958 that the Royal Commission on Common Land published its report and made a number of recommendations to safeguard common land and improve access to it. In fact, that did lead up to the passing of the Commons Registration Act 1965. Since then, successive governments have expressed sympathy with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but very little has happened. We do know of the losses that are happening.

1205
The Government have not kept their word. We had a commitment to legislation in the 1987 manifesto, and repeated questions have been asked since then. My noble friend Lady Nicol, who is very sorry that she cannot be here tonight, has, I think you might say, pestered the Government over and over again with questions about when they are going to do something about common land. In April last year she asked a Question and was told by the noble Earl, Lord Arran:
"I can confirm that it still does remain our policy to safeguard the status of common land and to strengthen the ways in which it is protected and used".—[Official Report, 14/4/94; col. 1618.]
Our contention is that they are not being satisfactorily protected and the Government really ought to be committed to do something. My noble friend's amendment goes some way towards adding some protection. I hope that it will be very seriously considered. I know that he said it is a probing amendment and I hope that we shall get a sympathetic response. The Government owes that to the Committee.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was referring to Spring Common in Huntingdon when he was speaking, but I think he was. I understand that it is, in fact, still being damaged and, of course, we all regret that, so I shall hope for a favourable response from the Minister.
Viscount Ullswater: The amendments made by this schedule to the law relating to common land and town or village greens seek to provide a partial answer to the problems arising from common land. They do not entirely attain even that objective, and in some respects would do more harm than good.
I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, put them forward by way of probing amendments; but he did say that his amendments address the most urgent threats. I have to say to him that I believe that they fail to address the principal problems associated with common land— those of removing from registers land which has been registered incorrectly and providing improved arrangements for the management of commons. I have to say, therefore, that this partial approach is not acceptable.
There is a wide range of interests concerned with this subject, particularly those who earn their living from common land. I notice that the noble Lord indicated his close connection with commons. His experience obviously gives him a certain amount of expertise in the matter. Experience with the Common Land Forum, which reported in 1986, and the consequent discussions have shown just how difficult it is to balance the interests involved, and how difficult the process of changing the arrangements for registration and management of common land would be.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde advised the House on 27th July 1993 that the Government could see no way in which comprehensive legislation on the basis of the Common Land Forum report could be taken forward. He indicated that the priority questions which the Government wish to address are those of registration and management. Since that time a lot of careful thought and informal consultations with a wide range of
1206
interested bodies have been applied to these questions. I hope to be able to report the result of those consultations in the near future. Therefore, I do not think that it would be right to think that the Government have been entirely sitting on their hands. There are difficult problems and the way forward has not been easy to find.
5 p.m.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Viscount. Is it not a fact that at one point there was a draft Bill in his department?
Viscount Ullswater: I am not aware of that but I shall find out and write to the noble Baroness.
As a general comment, I understand the noble Lord's desire, in the context of the Bill, to involve the environment agency in matters relating to common land. But the environment agency is to be formed from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and the National Rivers Authority. Although both organisations may operate on common land in the course of their current duties, they have no history of involvement with the subject nor expertise in the sometimes arcane legislation which governs common land.
Present arrangements place the responsibility for the registration of common land with the county councils and the London borough councils. That ensures that the registers are available for inspection in reasonably accessible locations for all who may wish to consult them. The records and the experienced staff of the registration authorities together are an invaluable resource at the core of that tier of local government.
At present, also, the power to apply to the county court in the case of any contravention of Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 rests with the county and district councils and with persons interested in the land in question. The amendments made by the proposed schedule would give the sole power to the environment agency. With the best will in the world, I cannot see the agency having the resources or the local knowledge to tackle unauthorised incursions onto common land, let alone to become involved in disputes concerning unauthorised fencing or other work. Nor can I understand the logic of preventing people interested in the common from applying to the court to restrain transgressors.
In fact, I find it rather unusual to hear from the Benches opposite the suggestion that power be taken away from the commoners and the local authorities. The usual stance of the party opposite is to make certain that local authorities retain power. Giving it to the environment agency would remove the power from both the commoners and the local authority.
Lord Williams of Elvel: That is only if the environment agency has no local authority representation.
Viscount Ullswater: I bear in mind that perhaps we trespass into Scottish time. I could go through the schedule in some detail and point out inadequacies in the drafting. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head. Perhaps we need to address the matter on another occasion.

1207
In conclusion, the Government continue to believe that the problems associated with common land need a more considered and structured approach than this amendment would provide. I hope I have said enough to show why we cannot accept it. Therefore, perhaps the noble Lord will be persuaded to withdraw it.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Williams, replies, perhaps I may say that I fully understand the reply given by my noble friend Lord Ullswater. I was particularly interested when he said that he hoped to make a statement before long on the result of further thoughts in the department about the protection of common land. When he makes such a statement, will it be while the Bill is going through Parliament so that any consequential amendments in the present law that might be considered necessary could be made in this Bill?
Viscount Ullswater: I quite understand that that would obviously be of some interest. But the report that I would make as a result of the consultations would not be at such an advanced stage as to allow for the statutory requirements or amendments to be made to this legislation while it is before noble Lords.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and to my noble friend Lady David. I am also grateful to the Minister for responding to my amendment. I accept every criticism about its drafting. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, will be aware that I am not a conspicuously good drafter of amendments. The amendment may be rather technical. It comes from a hand which, I am bound to say, is not mine.
Nevertheless, the amendment tries to address what we consider to be the initial and major problems relating to common land. The Minister says that the amendment does not address the major problem relating to common land. I should like to have moved an amendment which addressed the whole problem of registration and the management of common land. If I may speak from my own experience, and, indeed, as the noble Viscount knows, it is the management of common land which is a major problem. In fact, the common land which abuts my property in Wales is simply not managed at all by anybody.
I should like to have introduced such an amendment. But, as the Committee knows, my aims in all things are modest. I do not try to persuade the Committee that I want to solve all the problems at once. In moving the schedule, I simply wanted to put the item on the agenda. It is now very firmly on the agenda.
The Minister replied to the amendment and clarified his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, saying that he would make an announcement "shortly" or "before long". We are rather cynical about ministerial announcements which are to be made as soon as possible, shortly or before long. So I wish to press the noble Viscount further. I said that the amendment was a probing amendment. If I do not receive a suitable reply—not at this stage of the Bill but at some future stage—it could easily become an amendment which stops being probing and on which I would seek the opinion of the Chamber. But since we are in Committee, we are entitled to a discussion and to have an assurance
1208
from the Minister that the Government at least recognise the problem and recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, that this Bill is the proper place for the matter to be addressed. I understand that the Minister may say that it cannot be done while the Bill is before this Chamber, but before the Bill leaves Parliament there should be some announcement from the Government about their intentions on common land.
As my noble friend Lady David pointed out, the problem has been around for a long time. The Government have a long-standing commitment. It is simply not good enough to say that they are still studying the problem and still consulting on it. We have heard that since their manifesto commitment of 1987. The ball is very firmly in the Government's court. I hope that the noble Viscount will honour us with an assurance that, before the Bill leaves Parliament as an Act, we shall have some announcement of the Government's future intentions for common land and the prospect of legislation.
Viscount Ullswater: I have to say no, I do not believe that this Bill is the proper place for that. It is not the proper legislation in which to include this point on common land. The use of the environment agency as a peg on which to hang this little piece of legislation is not appropriate. I indicated that informal consultations have been going on with a wide range of interested bodies. In order to report on the result of those consultations, there is need for further consideration. In this instance I sought not entirely to destroy the amendment the noble Lord proposes but I do not feel that this is the right place to introduce such legislation. I feel that it needs further thought and further consultation. It will not be ready before this Bill passes through Parliament.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may add one point. The Bill deals with national parks. Common land and national parks are both of public concern and they are both precious parts of the environment. This is an Environment Bill. Whether or not we require the environment agency, which has quite different powers, to consider the matter, I should have thought that what we are doing for national parks would not be very different from what we might wish to do for common land.
Viscount Ullswater: What we are doing with national parks is setting up some authorities to deal with the management of national parks. That is a transfer of some local authority functions to the national park authorities. We shall be discussing that in some detail next week. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, indicated that he wanted the environment agency to have some function in common land. However, I do not believe that it is the right place to involve the environment agency in this rather specialised form of legislation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I find the Government's response to all that the Committee has said extremely disappointing. As my noble friend Lady David said, we have been walking around this problem now for years and years and years. The Government had a commitment in the Conservative manifesto of 1987 to

1209
bring forward legislation on the basis of the common land forum. Even today, in 1995, the Minister can get up and say, "We are still considering the problem and we are still consulting with interested parties. We will make an announcement some time after this Bill receives Royal Assent". We are not satisfied with that. At a later stage of the Bill, regardless of what the noble Viscount says about whether or not this is the right place, there will be further amendments on this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Functions of staff commission]:
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrovemoved Amendment No. 152:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
("Production of environmental quality plans
SEPA shall coordinate the production of environmental quality plans with the aim of integrating the activities of environmental regulatory authorities in Scotland and to provide a framework for guiding decisions on the management and protection of the environment.").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford, I wish to move Amendment No. 152 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 182 to 184, 184A, 185, 185A, 185B and 185C. The purpose of Amendment No. 152 is to enable SEPA to fulfil the Government's intention to secure the opportunity for more integrated environmental protection. It is concerned with quality plans. Threats to the environment do not arise solely from pollution and Scotland's environment cannot be protected by an agency concerned only with the pollution control end of the cycle. The environment is complex and interrelated and requires to be looked at in an integrated way.
This amendment would enable SEPA to draw up environmental quality plans which build on the experience of the National Rivers Authority which produces water catchment management plans in England and Wales. Such plans would enable the integration of the various functions of Scotland's agencies as they relate to water catchments. Integrated planning of activities within catchments would enable SEPA to play an active part in tackling problems where a number of bodies may be acting at cross-purposes. It would enable SEPA to take account of and influence activities which may have a cumulative impact on the environment but which are currently planned or managed under separate and unconnected systems. For example, a catchment plan could address the cumulative effects of agricultural run-off, forestry practice, sewage inputs and other activities on a water body and would be an economic way of avoiding problems which are very costly to remedy.
The estuary of the River Ythan in Grampian is badly affected by nitrate enrichment, mostly from agricultural activities, which has been exacerbated by the removal of buffer strips along water courses. The nutrient enrichment causes algal mats on the surface of the mudflats which prevent birds, such as dunlins, from
1210
feeding on invertebrates. An action plan based on catchment management is now seen as the only solution and is being developed by a consortium of agencies. This amendment would enable SEPA to take this approach as a matter of course before costly problems reach that stage.
The other amendments are supportive of Amendment No. 152. Amendment No. 183 brings the Bill into line with current thinking on protection of the water environment. "Cleanliness" of the water, while important, takes an extremely limited view of the water environment, ignoring the biological quality, hydrological quality and geomorphological quality. All these factors should be within SEPA's duties with respect to water.
I hope that the Minister will be able to make another little concession on what to me is a commonsense and helpful group of amendments. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: I do not doubt the common sense of the amendment and especially the sentiment behind it. SEPA's relationship to the water environment is crucial to its functions and duties.
Amendment No. 152 would require SEPA to take the lead in the preparation of environmental quality plans, as the noble Lord described, to integrate the work of environmental regulatory authorities in Scotland and to seek to apply a common framework for the consideration of matters by these authorities. The noble Lord explained that the intention behind Amendment No. 152 is to require SEPA to adopt the catchment based management approach used by the NRA. The Government do not believe that approach is necessary in Scotland. Scotland's geography is very different from that south of the Border. Its rivers are relatively short and fast flowing with nothing comparable to the long and meandering rivers such as the Thames, the Severn, the Ouse and Bristol Avon. In addition, 95 per cent. of Scotland's public water supplies come from upland sources whereas that is true for only one-third of water supplies in England. The other two-thirds in England come from abstraction lower down the river or from groundwater sources.
These factors, combined with Scotland's relatively lower density of population and comparative lack of heavy industry, mean that the scale of potential pollution is less. As Scotland's river flow is greater, the result is that the effects of any pollution incidents are mitigated. Against this background there is less of a need for comprehensive controls of the kind which have been adopted in England and Wales.
That being said, the Government have acknowledged that existing arrangements can be improved. It is precisely because current regulatory arrangements are so fragmented that SEPA is to be set up to bring together responsibility for the key forms of pollution to air, water and land. In addition, we envisage SEPA agreeing memoranda of understanding with other public bodies which impinge upon its work. One such public body would be the HSE. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned a specific location in Scotland, the river Ythan estuary. It is where there are specific areas

1211
requiring environmental management that the work of SEPA will need to be co-ordinated with the work of other authorities that the memorandum of understanding and the bilateral obligations on both parties will be established.
I am satisfied that SEPA has the power to draw up joint plans, if necessary; but it would be wrong to give it the main co-ordinating role in every circumstance. For example, Scottish National Heritage might have a major interest in an issue. It would not be right therefore for SEPA to be in the lead. On reflection, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that these are not aspects on which the precision of legislation is appropriate.
The purpose of Amendment No. 182 is to remove the possibility of ministerial directions in connection with SEPA's duties with respect to the cleanliness of waters and the conservation of water resources. There is no hidden agenda here. The Government have no anxieties in relation to the river purification authorities meeting their existing duties. Clause 32(1) strengthens the current duties by widening the scope of the waters to be protected specifically to include groundwater. We should however bear in mind that these duties will in future apply to a body with a very different nature from river purification authorities. SEPA will be an integrated body whose functions encompass the prevention and control of pollution to air, water and land.
We accept the need for SEPA to have specific duties in relation to the water environment over and above its general environmental duties reflecting the existing RPA's wider scope in relation to pollution of controlled waters. However, we do not want these duties to skew unreasonably the work of the agency. This amendment would remove the safety net which we have built in to ensure this does not happen.
I should now like to turn to Amendments Nos. 183 to 185C. I have some sympathy with the general direction of these amendments, but I do not see their adoption for SEPA as appropriate. Other bodies will also have their part to play in achieving these objectives. Our aim is broadly to transfer the existing duties of the river purification authorities for water protection to SEPA with some strengthening in relation to groundwater.
Amendment No. 183 appears to reflect the European Commission's proposals for a new ecological quality of water directive. It would be inappropriate to define SEPA's role in these terms, particularly at this early stage in the preparation of a new directive, when it is far from clear what its eventual shape will be. SEPA is, for instance, unlikely to be the only statutory body contributing to the work of achieving high ecological quality in terms of the directive, should it be adopted. Other organisations such as Scottish Natural Heritage are likely to have a part to play. We should wait until the directive is adopted to define such roles.
Amendment No. 184 effectively removes any reference to practicability in relation to SEPA's role in conserving water resources, and places an onus on SEPA to determine what uses of water are proper. This is too wide a task for SEPA.
1212
Amendment No. 184A similarly removes the reference to "practicable", and would place duties on the agency which it could not meet, given the powers available to it.
Amendment No. 185 gives a promotional role to SEPA which again goes well beyond its powers and duties as an environmental regulator. It seems to me that such a role more appropriately lies with the new water authorities. The same also applies to Amendments Nos. 185A, 185B and 185C. Those impose an absolute duty in relation to the conservation of the water environment that would deflect SEPA from its primary role as a pollution prevention and control body.
The noble Lord may be aware of Section 65 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 which will place a new duty on the Secretary of State and the new water authorities to promote the conservation and effective use of the water resources of, and the provision of adequate water supplies throughout, Scotland. I would suggest that this existing legislative provision is sufficient to meet his concerns.
This is an important area and water is an important factor within Scotland. I trust that I have been able to reassure the Committee that the existing water duties on the new agency and on other bodies are sufficient. On that basis, I ask noble Lords to consider withdrawing their amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister has put a very convincing case. I certainly see the relationship between Scottish and English rivers as being quite different: there is no comparison. However, I do not believe that we should take the matter too easily in that we do not need a greater ability to co-ordinate. The Minister gave the impression that there was more information to be brought out fairly soon about the powers of SEPA to carry out more co-ordination than exists at present. I believe the noble Earl said that a memorandum of understanding will be brought out to clarify some of the points which are put forward in these amendments.
The Earl of Lindsay: It may be useful if I add that the memorandum of understanding was set out in the draft management statement in October 1994. I suggest that I write to the noble Lord and include a copy of that draft management statement concerning the memorandum of understanding. The noble Lord will then know exactly what details have been established.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: If we can have that before we reach Report stage, and with that assurance, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Consultation with respect to drainage works]:
The Earl of Balfourmoved Amendment No. 152ZA:
Page 23, line 30, after ("works") insert (", other than scouring or repairing any existing drain, watercourse or outfall, or carrying out any drainage works for the purpose of improving drainage for agriculture of any land which has at any time been cultivated,").
The noble Earl said: I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and to the Scottish Landowners' Federation for assisting me with this amendment. From

1213
a practical point of view, much of the drainage of the best agricultural land in Scotland was put down during the 18th century. Some of it involved amazing feats of engineering. The trouble is that after this length of time in some of the beautiful drainage schemes which were put in with horseshoe tiles, the tiles have collapsed.
The object of this amendment is to allow landowners in normal repair and maintenance, particularly as regards agricultural land, to be able to carry out the necessary repairs without it being necessary to get approval from SEPA or anybody else. In many ways there is a wonderful advance in knowledge today, which simply did not exist a few years ago, of how drains can be cleaned out by scouring them.
Literally, since I entered the Chamber I have received a letter from my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie in which he states,
"The intention behind Clause 24 is to place on a statutory footing the consultation which is currently required as a condition of the payment of grant for drainage works from the Forestry Commission and the Scottish Office, and to extend the consultation requirement to other significant drainage works".
I am not aware of any Forestry Commission grants. There were some grants for drainage to agricultural land. The letter continues:
"We [the Government] therefore envisage that the Regulations will prescribe those minor drainage works … rather than in the Bill".
In drafting the amendment, it was partly to try to reduce the need for SEPA having to deal with every sort of minor repair. To a great extent, the ordinary landowner on an average estate today is very conscious of the effects of pollution and is only too keen to preserve his own interests without again having to go to yet another authority in order to carry out his responsible repairs and maintenance. This amendment is grouped with other amendments to which other noble Lords will no doubt wish to speak; but, for the moment, I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: Amendment No. 152ZA stands in my name also. I have been briefed by the Scottish Landowners' Federation which generally welcomes the concept of SEPA. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 24(1) appear extremely restrictive and could include everything from cleaning a minor field drain upwards. The amendment seeks to allow normal farm drain maintenance. Clause 24(2) states:
"The Secretary of State may, by regulations…prescribe types of drainage works in relation to which subsection (1) above shall not apply".
Perhaps I may ask the Minister when the draft regulations will be available.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I do not know whether the noble Earl is agreeable to the grouping that was put forward—
The Earl of Balfour: Yes, but I thought that the noble Lord might want to speak to his own amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The noble Earl's amendment, Amendment No. 152ZA, precedes the amendments that have been grouped. I refer to
1214
Amendments Nos. 152A, 152B, 153, 154, 154A and 154B. I should like to refer particularly to Amendments Nos. 153, 154 and 154B.
I appreciate the efforts that the noble Earl has made; but I have a slight concern about his amendment. In general, the clause has to be welcomed, but it unfortunately takes a limited view of the environmental impact of drainage work. It requires only "consultation" on the precautions that should be taken to prevent pollution. It fails to encompass drainage works which could have highly damaging effects on the environment. There is great anxiety over the piecemeal, site-based approach to land drainage and flood defence in Scotland. Excessive land drainage has resulted in a loss of valuable wetland habitat and buffer strips along water courses which can filter pollutants and sediment. Despite that impact, there is no government body to maintain an overview of the potential environmental impact, be it local or catchment-wide, of such works.
The principal object of land drainage is to carry water away from the land as fast as possible. That process gives rise to many problems, including an increased tendency for rivers to flood in wet weather and a loss of wetlands in dry weather, both of which give rise to secondary problems. Improvements in technology since the 1950s have made it possible to drain almost all lowland farmland so that very little grassland is left. Drainage has also been extended to the uplands. In Tayside, for example, up to 8 per cent. of the land area was hill-drained in the 1970s, increasing the erosive potential of run-off and contributing to losses of soil and nutrients. Not only do the silt and nutrients cause problems for rivers, but farmers have no wish to lose them from the land in the first place. The consequent effect of all the drainage has been a serious decline in the wide variety of wildlife that is dependent on those wetlands.
Amendment No. 154 strengthens what I have described as a "consultation procedure". It requires those carrying out drainage works to "have regard to" rather than simply "take account of the views of SEPA. That is a fairly important difference which the Minister may find it worth endorsing. That change emphasises the importance of consultation and highlights the significant weight that should be accorded to SEPA's opinion on drainage operations.
Turning to Amendment No. 154B, the clause allows the Secretary of State to prescribe types of drainage works for which consultation shall not be required. That causes us some anxiety because it provides no rationale or clarification as to why, or what, drainage works may be excluded. Again, the Minister should be able to clear up that point fairly quickly. It would be more appropriate for SEPA to determine in the pursuit of its functions the extent and degree to which consultation is necessary for various types of drainage work. Why is it desirable to allow some drainage works to be excluded from the consultation process, and on what basis is that being done? I am sure that there is some rationale to it, but there may be a quicker way of achieving that end.

1215
Is it possible to specify the categories that could be excluded? I commend my amendments to the Committee.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I have great sympathy with the amendments which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove; and, with the possible exception of Amendment No. 154B, I would support them.
Amendment No. 154B, and Amendment No. 152ZA (which stands in the names of the noble Earls), provide an important derogation from the main provisions. It is worthwhile having something like that. On the point of whether the derogation is too widely cast and the exceptions too wide, I shall wait to hear what the Government have to say before making up my mind. On the whole, I think that we should be strengthening anti-pollution methods in this area. As I have said, the majority of this group of amendments are worthwhile, and I hope that the Government will accept them.
Lord Elton: I imagine that my noble friend will say that the power in subsection (2) will be used to make any exemption which is necessary, such as that referred to in Amendment No. 152ZA which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Balfour. On the other side of the coin, however, I hope that my noble friend will take on board a point which I am not quite sure that I understood from the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, although it may have been there. One function of undrained land is to act as a buffer between a rainstorm and a river system. It takes the water in quickly and lets it out slowly. If you drain that land, it takes water in quickly and lets it out quickly. The result is a much greater strain on the river system which has to dispose of it. That may result in floods. Therefore, I see why the noble Lord seeks to establish the way in which there shall be some communication between those who intend to increase the load on the river system and those who are responsible for the river system.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am glad that we have been able to get 18th century horseshoe tiles into the debate. Much of the debate has been about the less attractive forms of pollution, so it is good to cast our minds back in that way.
The first amendments in the group relate to SEPA's function in relation to drainage works. Amendment No. 152ZA, which has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Balfour and the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, seeks to prescribe on the face of the Bill types of drainage works for which consultation with SEPA is not required. Conversely, Amendment No. 154B would remove the Secretary of State's power to make regulations exempting those proposing to carry out specified types of drainage works from the consultation arrangements.
I do not believe that all drainage works are significant enough to warrant the imposition of these new arrangements. I therefore have great sympathy with the intention behind Amendment No. 152ZA. I am, however, afraid that the imprecise nature of the terms used in the amendment would jeopardise the successful implementation of the consultation arrangements.
1216
The Government's intention behind Clause 24 is to place on a statutory footing the consultation which is currently required as a condition of the payment of grant for drainage works from the Forestry Commission and the Scottish Office, and to extend the consultation requirement to other significant drainage works. I say to my noble friend Lord Balfour that Forestry Commission grants cover planting, and therefore specific conditions relating to drainage and other relevant matters are linked to the grants made.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and my noble friend Lord Elton are all seeking some pattern and rationale behind the exemptions that are likely to be made. "Why, and on what basis?", was asked. We envisage that the regulations will prescribe those minor drainage works where the risk of pollution is so low as to make the need to consult unwarranted, such as tile drains, and repairs to existing drains. In view of the need to prescribe clearly the types of works to be exempted, it seems appropriate for the Government to include the detailed provisions required in regulations rather than in the Bill itself. I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, that draft regulations will be brought forward in good time for consultation before the obligations in Clause 24 come into force. I can however assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will consult widely among interested groups over the detail of such regulations and exemptions.
Amendments Nos. 152A and 152B seek to change the locus of SEPA's interest away from the preventing of pollution to controlled waters to the effect of such works and the prevention of any environmental damage. The amendments would unduly broaden the agency's interest beyond that of its functions, and could result in it becoming embroiled in matters such as land use planning.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the definition of "controlled waters", which seems to be the concern behind Amendment No. 153, is wide enough to cover the entire aquatic environment that might be affected by drainage works. I hope that gives him some comfort.
The term "pollution" can be seen very much in the context of harm and is a well understood term in legislation. Relying additionally on the term "damage", however, as suggested in these amendments might cause problems, given that it might be interpreted in too wide a sense. For example, any works which might affect a river course, for instance by widening it, could be argued to be damaging it in the sense that it is being altered.
There is no material difference between the provisions in Clause 24, "to take account" of SEPA views, and the amendment requiring "due regard". The amendment would not strengthen the amount of attention or weight to be applied to the agency's comments. There is therefore no reason for changing the existing provision.
Amendment No. 154A would however require SEPA "recommendations" to be followed. I do not believe that individuals should be compelled to accept, lock, stock and barrel, the views of SEPA, in respect of drainage, no matter how authoritative. It is for those carrying out such works to accept the final responsibility for their actions. If they were merely "following recommendations", that responsibility would pass inevitably to SEPA.

1217
Finally, Amendment No. 215 contains proposals for forestry works to take account of their effect on the environment, including the aquatic environment. The Forestry Commission already approves proposals only if they follow the forests and water guidelines. Those guidelines have been drawn up in consultation with water and fisheries interests, including the Scottish river purification authorities. In addition, the Forestry Commission has been directed by Ministers to consult statutory bodies before approving forestry proposals.
I am quite sure that those arrangements are sufficient to ensure that the river purification authority's views are taken into account before it approves any significant proposals. The river purification authorities' responsibilities would be assumed by SEPA and the commission's consultation arrangements would therefore be extended directly to the new agency.
I do not believe that there is a need for an inflexible statutory duty. The arrangements for taking account of the effects of forestry proposals on water have worked well and the Government will wish them to continue after the new agency has been set up.
I trust that I have been able to reassure the Committee that the land drainage arrangements provide the necessary safeguards against pollution. On that basis I would ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: In view of the serious anxieties of landowners about the provisions of Clause 24, it would be a tremendous help if my noble friend would be kind enough to ask the Secretary of State, under Clause 24(2), to produce draft regulations as to how it will affect landowners and foresters. We should be in a much better position to know how much we shall be affected. There are some amazing cundies in stone varying from four inches square to those which are large enough for us to walk down easily, and which were built years and years ago. The problem is that when they give trouble, they give real trouble. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend does that, I did not hear what my noble friend the Minister said about Amendment No. 152A and the effect of such works. As I understood it, it is not a matter of pollution but of the loading of the river system. Perhaps my noble friend will write to me about that if he does not wish to reply now.
The Earl of Lindsay: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 152A to 154B not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrovemoved Amendment No. 155:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Abstraction of water: control order
.—(1) The Secretary of State may make an order (referred to in this Part of this Act as a "control order") for the purpose of controlling, restricting or prohibiting any abstraction of water.
1218
(2) The Secretary of State may make a control order only on the application of SEPA, acting in pursuance of their duties under this Act.
(3) A control order shall apply to all inland waters or ground waters within an area specified in the order (referred to in this Part of the Act as a "control area").
(4) The power to make a control order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(5) A person who abstracts water in an area to which a control order applies, or causes or permits any other person to abstract such water shall, subject to subsection (6) below, be guilty of an offence under this section.
(6) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (5) above if he abstracts such water under and in accordance with a valid licence under this Part of this Act.
(7) SEPA may grant a licence for the abstraction of water in an area to which a control order applies in favour of and on application by a person who is, or will be when the licence comes into force, the occupier of the land within a control area.
(8) Licences as granted in subsection (7) above shall be set in pursuance of SEPA's duties under section 7 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to take also Amendments Nos. 156, 157, 158 and 158B. The purpose of Amendment No. 158B is to accord comprehensive abstraction control to SEPA. Water abstraction has a significant effect upon the cleanliness of rivers, inland tidal waters and the conservation of water resources. That matter is dealt with more fully in Clause 32.
For example, water abstraction affects directly the dilution ability of the water. If the river flow is allowed to get too low, it is unable to dilute sewage effluent and therefore the river purification board cannot guarantee water quality. Abstraction can also have a damaging effect upon the aquatic environment, at times leaving rivers dry and lifeless. The shoreline can be reduced to bare mineral substrates without vegetation.
RPBs licensing powers are limited currently to the promotion of irrigation control orders under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act which we dealt with in this place a few years ago. That control order mechanism is wholly unsatisfactory and inadequate. First, it is reactive in nature. Abstraction cannot be controlled until the damage has been caused. Furthermore, the Scottish Office has made it clear that designation of extensive control areas in anticipation of problems will not be allowed.
Secondly, it is time consuming. Experience has shown that it can take two years or longer to obtain a control order. Perhaps the Minister will be as surprised as I was to learn about that. Thirdly, it is limited to irrigation. SEPA must be able to control all types of abstraction. Due to those factors, and despite indications that the problem is far more widespread, only one control area has been established in Scotland. It is easy to foresee that a financially constrained SEPA will not allocate resources to this labour-intensive and unrewarding process unless it is forced to do so in a crisis.
Previously, the Scottish Office argued that Scotland has sufficient water and therefore does not require overall abstraction controls. It is true that Scotland has a lot of water but there are periods of considerable difficulty, in particular in the south west. However, the Government have concluded that selective abstraction

1219
controls should be produced following discussions with the EC on groundwater protection. Obviously, that will take several years, leaving SEPA without the powers necessary to perform its duties under Clause 33. Will the Minister say why SEPA has not been given the abstraction controls necessary for the proper performance of its duty?
Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, set out in Amendment No. 155, provides:
"The Secretary of State may make an order (referred to in this Part of this Act as a 'control order') for the purpose of controlling, restricting or prohibiting any abstraction of water".
The notes that I have been given on the new clauses are rather long-winded and I am sure that the Minister has already seen copies. Therefore, I shall briefly outline the intention of the new clauses. Subsection (2) provides that:
"The Secretary of State may make a control order only on the application of SEPA, acting in pursuance of their duties under this Act".
Subsection (3) provides that:
"A control order shall apply to all inland waters or ground waters within an area specified in an order (referred to in this Part of the Act as a 'control area')".
Subsection (4) provides that:
"The power to make a control order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument".
Subsection (5) provides that:
"A person who abstracts water in an area to which a control area applies, or causes or permits any other person to abstract such water shall, subject to subsection (6) below, be guilty of an offence under this section".
Subsection (6) provides that:
"A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (5) above if he abstracts such water under and in accordance with a valid licence under this Part of this Act".
Subsection (7) provides that:
"SEPA may grant a licence for the abstraction of water in an area to which a control order applies in favour of and on application by a person who is, or will be when the licence comes into force, the occupier of the land within a control area".
Finally, subsection (8) provides that:
"Licences as granted in subsection (7) above shall be set in pursuance of SEPA's duties under section 7 of this Act".
That gives SEPA the power to license the abstraction of water in areas which have been identified as control areas. Is that not a way around the problem of the authority having too much power? Perhaps a fair amount of trouble would be saved if there were control areas over which it had discretion. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I refer the Committee to subsection (8) of Amendment No. 155. The last line refers to "section 7". However, it should be "section 30" because Section 7 is an English provision and Section 30 is the Scottish equivalent. For that reason, the proposed new clause is slightly defective.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to "underground strata" in Amendment No. 157. I am anxious about my personal position because the 42 households on the estate—by no means all of which belong to me—draw water from a spring maintained by the estate. We have never paid water rates and I should object most strongly to being charged for water, which
1220
is purely for household and farm purposes, when for many years it has been privately maintained and so forth. That is by no means an exception.
Furthermore, many of the distilleries in the Highlands have abstracted water from springs entirely maintained by them. In some cases, they have been used for more than 100 years and it would be unfair for them now to pay a fee to obtain a licence for that purpose.
Amendment No. 158B refers to water abstraction licences and I wish to add the abstraction of water from rivers. If too much water is taken out and the river is not clean and contains raw sewage, the suspended solids and the raw sewage extract the air from the water and cause the fish to suffocate. Raw sewage does not do much harm to animals and humans but it can be extremely detrimental to fish. Where people are abstracting vast quantities of water for, say, irrigation, perhaps licences should be applied for and paid for.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for his sharp eyes. I shall pass on the correction that he suggests to those who are best placed to make it.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made his points well, as he did those proposed by his noble friend Lord Ewing. I hope that his noble friend is grateful for his tireless efforts. He will be glad to note that many of their anxieties relating to water abstraction are shared by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Amendments Nos. 155 to 158 enable SEPA to license abstractions in certain areas and adopt, in broad terms, the kind of selective approach that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in another place in November. Unfortunately, the amendments are incomplete and include other features that I must resist.
First, I cannot regard it as acceptable to apply the licensing regime retrospectively to statutory permissions already granted by the Secretary of State under other legislation for the use of water for hydro-electric generation or water supply purposes. It would be wrong to take away statutory rights already legally obtained by abstractors.
Secondly, the powers for charging, set out in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, are designed to defray the costs of works undertaken to ensure the better use of water. The construction of such works is not a matter for SEPA, which will not have powers for this purpose. On the other hand, the proposed charging powers would not enable SEPA to recover the costs of administering a licensing scheme, a feature which the Government would regard as essential.
An ability to review any licence at intervals of not less than two years would be inappropriate. In many cases, abstractors will need—and will be entitled to—the assurance that a licence will enable them to use water on a long-term basis. Those are, however, matters which can be resolved.
On the general point, we are at one on the principle of selective abstraction controls contained in the noble Lord's proposals. As the Secretary of State announced in November, the Government will bring forward their

1221
own legislation to introduce such a scheme in the light of the European Commission's action programme on groundwater, on which proposals are due by mid-1995.
Because of the timing of those, it is not practical to include provisions in this Bill. I also envisage further public consultation on the proposed charging arrangements before any scheme is introduced. I believe that that answers one of the specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, as to why SEPA is not being given the power proposed by his amendments.
Broadly similar considerations apply to Amendment No. 158B tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. However, that amendment seeks to introduce a comprehensive system of controls with SEPA having powers to exempt abstractions below a threshold which it would set.
The pressures on the Scottish water environment do not justify a comprehensive system of control even if, in specific locations—and the noble Lord mentioned one in the south west of Scotland—at specific times there are temporary pressures. Where there are potential problems, those can be dealt with through a selective approach. That approach is flexible enough to enable preventive action to be taken. The problem does not need to have first occurred. I cannot accept also that it is proper for SEPA to set exemptions. That is a matter which should be prescribed in regulations, which would enable there to be Parliamentary scrutiny.
In view of the fact that the Government will introduce their own legislation in relation to water abstraction controls in Scotland, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: We shall need to look at the proposed legislation but, in view of that, it would be wrong for me to pursue this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 156 to 158B not moved.]
Clause 25 [Power of SEPA to purchase land compulsorily]:
The Earl of Balfourmoved Amendment No. 158C:
Page 23, line 43, at end insert: (", but only—

(a) after SEPA has taken all reasonable steps to reach agreement for purchase of the land and has been unable to do so on terms which the Secretary of State considers reasonable;

(b) where it is necessary for SEPA in the proper exercise of its functions to acquire the land; and

(c) it is reasonable in all the circumstances that the land be purchased compulsorily.").

The noble Earl said: The noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and I have no objection to SEPA having compulsory purchase powers but they should be available only as a last resort and only after consultation with the owner has broken down.
We feel that without proper consultation compulsory purchase powers sometimes may be abused. I heard a tragic story of a water or sewerage authority acquiring
1222
a piece of very good agricultural land—something like 20 acres out of 100—on which to build a sewerage works. Those works were never built. The land was offered back to the original owner at a grossly inflated price because it was discovered that there was gravel underneath. The original owner could not afford to buy back the land. The authority abstracted a great deal of gravel, making a lovely profit. It then offered the land back to the original owner, by which time, he had lost what might have been his mineral rights. I believe that we need to be very careful in such circumstances.
I am very grateful to the Scottish Landowners' Federation for its help in drafting the amendment. That organisation is in favour of the Bill but it feels that the landowner must be protected, wherever possible, from an abuse of compulsory purchase powers. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kintore: Clause 25(1) reads rather like mid-20th century confiscatory legislation rather than rapidly approaching 21st century legislation. The Minister may tell me that I am talking rot but I feel that landowners today are far more co-operative towards public bodies. I accept that SEPA must have compulsory purchase powers but I hope that those powers will be used only as a very last resort.
Lord Elton: I hesitate to intervene on what is a technical matter but I sympathise with the position which my noble friend Lord Balfour has put before the Committee. I wonder whether the same purpose would be achieved more simply if the requirement for which the land was to be bought were to be stated in the order made for its purchase and thus became a covenant on the purchaser. I put that forward as an alternative because I know that the Government like to consider all options in relation to matters that they have not thought of doing themselves.
The Earl of Balfour: I am afraid that I do not know enough about land law to comment on that.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful on behalf of the Government for those helpful suggestions, especially from my noble friends, Lord Elton and Lord Balfour and the noble Earl, Lord Kintore. The noble Earl, Lord Kintore, described the extent to which landowners now co-operate with various bodies and authorities. I believe that is true not only in relation to that aspect but across the whole environmental spectrum. Over the past three or four years there has been tremendous co-operation between those who use land or admit to land and those who seek to regulate how it is used and admitted. There is much greater co-operation in that regard now.
I believe that the spirit of the amendment is borne out in practice. The provisions of the Bill as regards compulsory purchase reflect an identical arrangement which has operated satisfactorily for river purification boards since 1951. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will feel that what has worked successfully in the past will continue to work successfully in the future.
I should point out that the clause as drafted already requires the Secretary of State to authorise SEPA to purchase land compulsorily. The ,noble Earl referred to that as dated, confiscatory prose but the involvement of the Secretary of State should reassure both my noble

1223
friend and the noble Earl because the Secretary of State will act as a safety net against any such unreasonable use of such powers. In a sense, he acts to protect against the abuse of those powers.
Perhaps I may respond to my noble friend Lord Elton by saying that the Secretary of State is unlikely to authorise the necessary consent to SEPA without sufficient reason being given for the use of that compulsory purchase power. Therefore, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I am much comforted by my noble friend's response. However, I should like to read carefully what my noble friend said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Records held by SEPA]:
[Amendments Nos. 159 to 161 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Guidance on sustainable development and other aims and objectives]:
[Amendments Nos. 163 to 165 not moved.]
The Earl of Balfourmoved Amendment No. 165A:
Page 25, line 27, at end insert:
("(4) The Secretary of State shall consult the bodies and persons specified in subsection (5) below before giving guidance under subsection (1) above.
(5) The bodies and persons mentioned in subsection (4) above are—

(a) SEPA;

(b) Scottish Natural Heritage;

(c) Historic Scotland;

(d) Scottish Enterprise;

(e) Highlands and Islands Enterprise;

(f) the East of Scotland Water Authority;

(g) the West of Scotland Water Authority;

(h) the North of Scotland Water Authority;

(i) such bodies, representing industrialists and the owners and occupiers of land in Scotland, as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult; and
(j) such other persons as he considers it appropriate to consult.").
The noble Earl said: Clause 29 deals with sustainable development and other aims and objectives. All we seek by way of the amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State,
"shall consult the bodies and persons specified",
in the proposed subsection (5), including SEPA, before issuing any guidance. I am certain —indeed, it has been my experience in every walk of life—that, if consultation takes place between all parties, we manage to compromise and that makes life very much easier. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kintore: Paragraph (j) of the amendment is intended to include organisations which have advanced from being mere pressure groups to holding a useful fund of local knowledge.
1224
Amendment No. 170A is included in this group of amendments. It deals with Clause 30 which does not appear at present to mention farming, forestry and the rural economy. Those aspects are essential for the preservation of the countryside and of local communities. Amendment No. 170A seeks to rectify that omission. Its wording is taken from Section 3 of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 which sets out the duty of Scottish Natural Heritage to take account of certain matters in exercising its functions.
Scottish Natural Heritage has been successful in its work for the environment in Scotland. Its balanced approach is widely regarded as being fair and successful. There is at least as great a need for SEPA to have equivalent balancing duties. It would be logical for the agency to have, so far as possible, the same balancing duties as those of Scottish Natural Heritage.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I do not wish to detain Members of the Committee for any length of time, but we are dealing with a very miscellaneous grouping of amendments which contains my Amendments Nos. 169, 170, 171, 172 and 174. Those amendments are very narrow and have nothing whatever to do with sustainable development, and so on.
I should like to say how agreeable it is for me to see the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, sitting on the Government Front Bench. I had not noticed his promotion and had therefore neglected to congratulate him. The noble Earl and I meet from time to time on railway matters. I believe that he strengthens the Government substantially; indeed, that is probably why they have advanced in the opinion polls during the past few days.
I have little to say about the amendments which are almost identical to those I moved last week on Clause 7 which deals with England and Wales. I referred to them in detail, so I need not elaborate too much. My general argument can be found in the Hansard report of the debates.
Basically, when considering the preservation of artefacts, especially in relation to waterways, railways and so on, Clause 30 of the Bill provides that SEPA must,
"have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest".
I am really saying that if things can have architectural interest—which they certainly can—there are also many things which can have engineering interest, which is quite separate and different. That fact should appear on the face of the Bill.
I wish to outline a situation which is somewhat fanciful. If we desired to preserve, for example, the Forth Bridge on some future occasion, it would be because it is a great engineering achievement and one on which no architect laid a hand. At present, it would be rather good if the Forth Bridge received a coat of paint; but that is a totally different matter.
Perhaps I may refer to a less fanciful situation. Clearly, the Forth Bridge would be preserved under some guise. For example, let us suppose that under privatisation the railway line (which the noble Earl will

1225
know well) up to Mallaig were to be abandoned. It is quite feasible that it could be. Not many people travel on the line. In that case, we would have to consider the Glen Finnan viaduct, a great mass concrete structure which is not architectural, historical or archaeological. It is, however, of great engineering interest. It was built by Sir Robert McAlpine whose grandson is a Member on the Benches opposite. If that viaduct were to be preserved in the future— as, indeed, it ought to be— the reason would be its great engineering significance and not any other. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, has entered the Chamber. I hope that the noble Lord takes his seat so that I can congratulate his grandfather, "Concrete Bob". I am glad to see that he has done so.
When we debated the matter last week, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, looked pretty kindly on my amendments. However, I believe that he thought I was slightly churlish in my reception of his response. I hope that I can reassure the noble Viscount that that is not so. I hope also that the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, will be at least as accommodating so that we can reach some agreement along the lines I have suggested. I believe that that would greatly enhance the Bill and greatly please the engineering profession.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has given the Committee a most interesting trip around the historic engineering sites of Scotland. I wonder whether the noble Lord knows (again, this is a diversion) that within the Glen Finnan viaduct, there is, not a human body, but that of a horse, which fell in while concrete was being poured in. Unfortunately, it was not possible to get the animal out. That is one of the stories I have heard; no doubt, the noble Lord will be more familiar with it.
I endorse some of the remarks that have been made. Perhaps I may first deal with Amendment No. 166 which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford. The purpose of the amendment is to give a duty to further conservation across all the functions of SEPA. The duty proposed for SEPA in the Bill is to,
"have regard to the desirability of conserving and enhancing".
This strikes me as being a rather weak duty. I am advised by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that Scotland should be able to do better. This amendment, which is put forward by that body, and which I and my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford are only too pleased to submit to the Government, would give the agency a duty to further wildlife heritage demands rather than just have regard to them. We seek to make this duty more positive rather than a purely passive one.
The effect of Amendment No. 167 is again to give a duty to further conservation across all the functions of SEPA. It is a brief amendment to Clause 30 and will strengthen the environmental duty for SEPA. The proposal to give SEPA only a weak duty in relation to the natural heritage of Scotland is not convincing or too satisfactory. The duty to have regard to the desirability of doing that is rather weak. I would suggest that the words of the amendment are preferable.
1226
We shall reach Amendment No. 186 later. It is grouped with the amendments I have been discussing. This amendment removes an unnecessary burden on Scottish Natural Heritage to provide SEPA with predictions as to why important sites might be vulnerable to SEPA's activities. I will move these amendments when the time comes.
The Earl of Balfour: I feel that I must apologise to the Committee for not bringing into my original remarks Amendment No. 170A. However, I am very glad to say that the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, did bring it in. Equally, I feel that unless this Bill and SEPA help farmers, foresters and fisheries, urban rules and regulations will kill rural industries and development. I also very much support the principle behind Amendment No. 173 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I feel that, if we can have statutory rights of access to information held by SEPA, I personally shall feel that the situation is better.
Lord Monkswell: I rise in this debate to support the amendments that have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. I must advise the Committee that when a similar amendment was discussed earlier in the Committee's proceedings it was rather late at night and it would not have been useful for the Committee to hear more speakers at that time of night. However, tonight— thank goodness!— we are discussing this matter a little earlier and it gives me great pleasure to support my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon with regard to his amendments.
The Committee needs to be aware that, although the previous debate held in Committee involved only the one speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, that does not signify that he was the only one who felt the subject was important. I would remind the Committee that earlier today we discussed at Question Time a Starred Question which concerned the importance of science and technology. There was support for what was proposed from all around the Chamber. I was going to suggest— however, there was limited time— two of the things that the Government could do, bearing in mind the shortage of engineers in both Houses of Parliament. First, the Government could promote the idea among all political parties that they should select for election to the other place candidates who were engineers. Also, as regards the membership of this Chamber, whenever the powers that be consider conferring peerages, the qualifications of engineers should also be highly regarded in terms of elevation to the peerage.
As regards the consideration of this Bill, one of the ways in which we can give support to the very important role in our society and our lives which is played by engineering and engineering structures is to support this amendment. I believe it would send a message not only to the engineering community in this country that its work was supported and recognised, but also to the public at large that Parliament felt that the contribution of engineers, and of these engineering structures that we

1227
are talking about, is important. With those few words I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on these amendments.
The Earl of Lindsay: In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, it is not the quantity of engineers that one has in either Chamber but the quality that is important. This Chamber is lucky to have the noble Lord, Lord Howie. He is probably worth 100 engineers put together. Therefore we have no need of others.
As I think the Committee can guess, railwaymen when they get together— even if they are staring across this Chamber— have a rather blurred vision of each other. It is not always accurate but nevertheless it is warm. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for his kind remarks. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I thoroughly enjoyed the tour of the Western Highlands, and indeed the Forth Rail Bridge, which he gave us. As regards the Forth Rail Bridge a period of research and analysis is being undertaken at the moment to assess different systems of maintenance and of painting. I do not want the noble Lord to think there is inactivity with regard to the bridge. This is simply a time for deciding on the best way forward. I am sad that my noble friend Lord McAlpine is not in his seat because I think his grandfather's viaduct on the West Highland Line is indeed one of the finest there is.
I now turn to this group of amendments. I start with Amendment No. 165A, which seeks to set out who my right honourable friend should consult before issuing guidance to SEPA with respect to its aims and objectives. Of course, this guidance must include guidance in relation to the contribution SEPA is to make towards the Government's goal of sustainable development, and my right honourable friend has already announced that he will consult fully on the content of this guidance.
In the light of his commitment, I do not see any need for the specific list of consultees proposed in this amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Balfour and the noble Earl, Lord Kintore. I am happy to assure both noble Earls that all eight specific bodies listed in the amendment will be consulted, as will such industrial and landowning groups as the CBI and the Scottish Landowners' Federation. Indeed, I would expect the consultation to go much wider than that. The Committee may for instance be interested to know that over 160 comments were received on the original SEPA consultation in 1992.
Amendments Nos. 166 to 168 seek to strengthen the Secretary of State's and SEPA's environmental duties. Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 would mean that rather than "having regard to the desirability" of conserving and enhancing the natural heritage of Scotland, they would be required to "further" such matters. Amendment No. 168 would have a similar effect in relation to the protection and conservation of certain buildings and sites.
The Committee will be familiar with this debate, as these issues were raised in relation to the duties on the environment agency for England and Wales in Clause 7. Therefore, I do not wish to dwell at length on Clause
1228
30 because of the extent to which we aired all those issues on another occasion. However, I wish to make a few points.
The Bill recognises that matters such as nature conservation are important, and SEPA should, where appropriate, take account of them. However, a duty to further nature conservation could distort the exercise of SEPA's pollution control functions, and its pollution prevention and control functions lie at the heart of its very existence. Few pollution control licences could be issued if SEPA were required to ensure that the levels of pollution they permitted furthered nature conservation.
Unlike the provisions for the Environment Agency for England and Wales, there is no need to make a distinction in the Scottish provisions between SEPA's pollution control and other functions. The more limited scope of the Scottish agency means that it will not have functions for which a duty to "further" would be appropriate.
It is for that reason that SEPA's constituent bodies have no such "furtherance" duties. However, SEPA's duties will not be any weaker. Indeed, given that the full range of SEPA's environmental and recreational duties are not currently imposed on all of its constituent bodies, the new duties will be broader in their application.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, also raised in Amendments Nos. 169, 170, 171, 172 and 174 the question of whether engineering structures fall within the scope of SEPA's environmental duties. I can assure the noble Lord that if he withdraws the amendments I will ensure that the further consideration promised by my noble friend Lord Ullswater in relation to the equivalent provisions for the Environment Agency for England and Wales is extended to cover the relevant provisions for SEPA.
Amendment No. 170A seeks to give SEPA much wider general duties in relation to carrying out its functions. SEPA will need to take account of many such matters, all of which could be covered by specific references to duties in the Bill. These are matters which the guidance issued under Clause 29 was designed to address. I therefore do not see the need for the amendment, although I understand what it seeks to achieve.
The noble Earl, Lord Kintore, drew a parallel with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act and what he saw as the balanced duties imposed on SNH. He quite rightly said that SEPA needs the same balanced duties. Indeed, it does have the same balanced duties. I draw the noble Earl's attention to the guidance which must be issued in the pursuit of its duties. I also draw his attention to the fact that any body seeking to contribute to sustainable development can only do so in a balanced manner. The concept behind sustainable development is that one balances and reconciles different needs and requirements.
I must also point out that SNH legislation is designed for a specific body which has been set up for a specific purpose. The clauses relating to SEPA are designed for a specific body set up for a specific purpose. Therefore, to seek to mirror clauses from one Act in another is not something that the Government would like to consider.

1229
Amendment No. 186 would remove the requirement on Scottish Natural Heritage to give SEPA reasons for considering that an area of land may be affected by activities or authorisations of SEPA.
Clause 33 requires SNH to notify SEPA of sites of special interest or natural heritage areas which SNH considers may be affected by actions by SEPA. I believe that it is appropriate for SNH to be additionally obliged to make the reasons for its considerations known to SEPA. SEPA must, except in an emergency, consult SNH where it appears likely to SEPA that its actions may affect such land. Knowing why SNH thought that the land might be so affected in the first place would, I suggest, help SEPA meet that obligation.
Amendment No. 187 would restrict the definition of emergency to "danger to life or health". That would limit the circumstances in which the consultation arrangements could be circumvented. I recognise that we should be careful to avoid any unnecessary abuses of that exemption, but I do not believe that this is the best way of doing so as it would fetter SEPA's discretion to an unreasonable extent. For example, it does not seem to cover an emergency which may cause serious environmental harm. Much would depend on how "life" was interpreted. Contamination of soil may not directly threaten life but it could well constitute an emergency. We should be prepared to trust SEPA to discharge its statutory functions to protect the environment when it believes it is imperative to do so urgently.
There is, of course, still a requirement on SEPA, if it takes emergency action, to notify SNH as soon as practicable after the event.
The Government are keen to ensure the correct balance is struck in SEPA's environmental duties. We believe that the provisions as drafted achieve that. On that basis, I hope that Members of the Committee will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: That is a very satisfactory answer to the points that were raised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [General environmental and recreational duties]:
[Amendments Nos. 166 to 174 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [General duties with respect to pollution control]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrovemoved Amendment No. 175:
Page 26, line 13, after ("of') insert ("protecting the environment and").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 175 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 176 to 181. These amendments are intended to strengthen the independence of SEPA and to reduce the total power which seems to rest with the Secretary of State, who
1230
generally speaking has sufficient power in any case. We want a body which will have a certain amount of autonomy. We are not opposed to the establishment of SEPA; we feel that it should be more representative.
The amendments are tabled because under the Bill as currently drafted assessments will be undertaken only at the discretion of the Secretary of State. We believe that SEPA should be free to provide regular assessments of the effects of pollution on the environment on a proactive basis. Otherwise SEPA may be requested to carry out assessments only in response to a crisis rather than using these studies to tackle issues before they become problems. That is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 176, 177 and 178.
The purpose of Amendment No. 179 is to ensure that, unlike other quangos, the working of the agency will not be shrouded in mystery. The Minister has already said that it would be going too far for board meetings and other meetings to be open to the public. I hope that he will come a little way with us and give us a reassurance that there will not be any secrecy which is detrimental to the public.
The purpose of Amendment No. 180 is to ensure that environmental costs and benefits are accounted for in identifying options for pollution prevention. When considering the costs and benefits of options for pollution control it is critically important that the environmental costs and benefits are clearly outlined. Many of SEPA's measurements of success will be the environmental benefits—clean water, clean air and clean land—which accrue from its actions. Therefore, it will assist SEPA to undertake some analysis of both the short and long-term costs and benefits to the environment which result from its action or lack of action. If it is lack of action, that may spur it on to do something more quickly. As the relationship between environmental economics and cost-benefit analysis remains a matter for debate, it should be clear on the face of the Bill that SEPA is expected to consider the environment as well as financial costs and benefits in the clause. Although it may be possible to do a purely financial analysis, in the long run from the ecological point of view that may prove to be disastrous. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance on those points. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: At this hour of night—I speak in the sense of what we look forward to—it is sufficient to say that we support the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: Before my noble friend Lord Lindsay replies, perhaps I may say a word on Amendment No. 181B. It is a government amendment to Clause 31. Perhaps the Committee will also consider Clause 5, which is the mirror clause. Perhaps I may cite briefly from Clause 5. There is reference to the Alkali &c., Works Regulation Act 1906. That has been included in the Scottish provisions. There is reference to the river purification provisions which apply to Scotland. There is also reference to Part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which deals with waste on land. Why has Part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 not been included in the Scottish provisions of Clause 31? I note from the amendment

1231
that the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 will appear in both clauses. I do not need to go further. However, I wished to ask that question before my noble friend speaks.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: I begin by speaking to Amendments Nos. 181 and 181B. Once again, I compliment my noble friend Lord Balfour for putting forward his analysis of the way in which the drafting of the Bill may need improvement. Again, I shall ensure that his suggestions are passed on. Perhaps I may draw my noble friend's attention to Clause 31(5) (b) where he may find some relief. I shall certainly provide him with some more prep. to do tonight before he reports tomorrow morning.
These amendments seek to include within the definition of "pollution control powers" and "pollution control functions" for the purposes of Clause 31, references to Part 1A of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which is inserted by this Bill and deals with abandoned mines, and the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, which makes provision for the registration of waste carriers.
Equivalent references are already included in the definitions with respect to the Environment Agency for England and Wales at Clause 5(5). I presume that those amendments will be moved in the normal chronological order.
I turn now to the amendments so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. Amendment No. 175 would put "protecting the environment" on an equal footing with SEPA's purpose to exercise its pollution prevention and control functions. I think that the amendment seeks to make an artificial distinction. What is pollution prevention and control if not protecting the environment?
The term "protecting the environment", of course, goes much wider. That is why we are placing other, more general, environmental duties on the agency. However, I think it would be confusing if we were to weaken SEPA's raison d'être: the effective control of pollution, which is a vital element in protecting the environment at large.
Amendment No. 176 and the consequential Amendment No. 178 would require SEPA to carry out and report on assessments of environmental pollution, without the need for them to be first requested by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
I understand the noble Lord's concern that, as drafted, it might appear that SEPA would be unduly constrained by the current provisions. I can assure him that it is in fact not so. Clause 31(2) places a duty on SEPA to compile information relating to pollution. SEPA's general and incidental functions in Clause 35 would also enable it to do anything which would facilitate or is conducive to the carrying on of its functions. Carrying out assessments of environmental pollution and reporting its findings of its own volition would certainly fall into that category.
1232
The provision in Clause 31 is merely to clarify the relationship between my right honourable friend and the agency. It gives him a specific power to require SEPA to carry out such assessments and report its findings to him; and I think it is right and proper that he is able to direct the agency in that way.
Amendment No. 177 links SEPA's duty to undertake assessments of environmental pollution with its duty to report on options for preventing or controlling pollution.
I can certainly see that, in some instances, it would be appropriate for such an assessment to be followed up with a report on the options for preventing or controlling such pollution. But I do not think it necessarily follows in all cases. For example, an assessment may show that the level of pollution is below limits requiring any action; or the assessment may be of a very general nature for information purposes only.
I also do not feel that Amendment No. 179 is required. Some reports will, of course, be of interest to Parliament and it is right and proper that when they are my right honourable friend places copies in the Libraries of the House. But I do not believe that that will always be the case.
Amendment No. 180 seeks to define the costs and benefits identified in reports on the options for preventing or controlling pollution in financial and environmental terms. In principle, we share the belief that costs and benefits should not be viewed in narrow economic terms. Yet by seeking to define them more closely the noble Lord may be excluding other important matters such as social costs and benefits.
The present drafting has a wider meaning which already encompasses the matters specified in the amendment. I can assure the Committee that non-financial aspects will not be ignored.
Amendment No. 181 would have two effects: first, to change SEPA's duty to "follow" developments in techniques to prevent or control pollution, so that it would "promote" them; and, secondly, to include a specific reference to "damage to the aquatic environment".
As my noble friend explained in last week's debate on a comparable amendment to the duties on the environment agency, a duty to "follow" developments is not passive. Those developments will underpin SEPA's application of BATNEEC in relation to Part I of the 1990 Act.
Moreover, Clause 35 places SEPA under a duty to conduct research which could cover such developments, where appropriate. On that basis, I do not believe that there would be value in imposing such an undefined promotional role on SEPA. That is more properly a concern of others. Nor do I believe that the further refinement of this duty to highlight the aquatic environment is appropriate or necessary. The whole purpose of SEPA is to move away from regarding the environment in separate segments. We must recognise that the environmental media are often

1233
interdependent. To highlight one of them would therefore be a step backwards. SEPA is a step forward into a more integrated, inter-disciplinary era.
On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Having looked at the amendments, the Government may have realised that one or two matters required greater explanation; and we have had good explanations from the Minister. I am grateful to him for what appears to be unusual flexibility on the part of the Scottish Office. We welcome that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 176 to 181 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsaymoved Amendment No. 181A:
Page 26, line 43, after ("I") insert (", IA").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsaymoved Amendment No. 181B:
Page 26, line 45, at end insert:
("() the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 181C not moved.]
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [General duties with respect to water]:
[Amendment Nos. 182 to 185C not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Environmental duties as respects Natural Heritage Areas and sites of special interest]:
[Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Codes of practice with respect to environmental and recreational duties]:
The Earl of Lindsaymoved Amendment No. 188:
Page 28, line 33, leave out (" 32(1)") and insert (" 32(2)").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment which seeks to correct an erroneous cross-reference in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrovemoved Amendment No. 189:
Page 28, line 36, at end insert:
("() reviewing and revising all existing codes of practice in the light of new authorities and responsibilities within three years of SEPA's establishment").
The noble Lord said: This group of Amendments, Nos. 189, 190 and 191, concerns SEPA. With Amendment No. 189 we feel that SEPA, combined with the new water authorities under the local government reorganisation, will create quite a different grouping. We therefore believe that the existing codes may not be relevant, and they should at least be redrawn, reviewed and rewritten for the new circumstances.
Amendment No. 190 asks that since all the bodies detailed as consultees are quangos, if there is to be any degree of public accountability, the list must include as
1234
a matter of priority some democratically elected councillors who represent the interests of those affected by the services which SEPA is to provide.
The Minister may already have answered that point on an earlier amendment when he said that there would be a selection from local authorities on SEPA. I await his answer on this point. I should like the three amendments to be considered. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: Amendment No. 189 would require the Secretary of State to review and revise existing codes of practice within three years of SEPA's establishment. Amendment No. 190 would in effect add the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, COSLA, to the list of bodies he has to consult before approving a code of practice. Amendment No. 191 would similarly add Historic Scotland and the Scottish Sports Council while Amendment No. 191ZA would add owners of land and industrialists.
A statutory review of codes of practice within three years of SEPA's establishment appears to be unduly prescriptive. I would certainly expect that to be achieved, but do not believe that this need be set out on the face of the Bill. It would appear to be a fairly modest objective for SEPA's corporate planning process.
I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that the views of Historic Scotland are fed into the process of approving a code of practice. But as that body is an executive agency of the Scottish Office, a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult Historic Scotland is tantamount to obliging him to consult himself.
As SEPA will not have the range of responsibilities of the Environment Agency, I do not believe the Scottish Sports Council has a strong enough interest in the activities of SEPA to justify its specific and automatic inclusion. Indeed, it is often unlikely to have any interest. I accept that COSLA and owners of land or industrialists are likely to have a valid interest more frequently. However, if it is appropriate to do so in relation to a particular code, my right honourable friend will consult these parties among others. I am not aware of any anxieties in Scotland about the range of bodies to be consulted. I believe that the consultation arrangements already on the face of the Bill are sufficient to meet the noble Lord's worries. I therefore hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I think that the Minister's answer is slightly disappointing. The amendments were not put down by any means to try to tie the Secretary of State's hands but rather to get the various bodies in Scotland enthusiastically behind SEPA. I am sorry that the opportunity has not been taken. I should have thought that three years would be sufficient to write a new code; we should know how and whether it is working by that time. I am also marginally disappointed that there was a certain holding back in co-operation on that. Perhaps we could come back to these small but important amendments on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 189.

1235
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 not moved.]
The Earl of Balfourmoved Amendment No. 191ZA:
Page 29, line 6, at end insert:
("including owners of land and industrialists").
The noble Earl said: Again, the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, the Scottish Landowners' Federation and I have the rural areas, rural industries and rural development very much in mind. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I think that I have already spoken to this amendment in replying to the ones moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. The "rural heartbeat", as it was recently appropriately described, is something which the Government are anxious to conserve and enhance. Therefore, the list of consultees will almost certainly include owners of land when codes of practice have been established.
The Earl of Balfour: I regret that I shall be unable to be present in your Lordships' House next week. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34, as amended, 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.

South Africa Bill [H.L.]
6.58 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of the Bill is to modify existing legislation in order to place South Africa on an equal footing with other Commonwealth countries, following South Africa's resumption of Commonwealth membership on 1st June last year. This has been welcomed not only in this House and on all sides of it, but throughout the length and breadth of our country, in the Commonwealth and, not least of all, South Africa itself. That was emphasised to me only today by the Deputy High Commissioner, Mr. Gert Grobler.
The Bill involves purely technical amendments to a number of Acts, in order to apply them to South Africa. It deals with South Africa's relationship with the Commonwealth Institute; it reinstates the right of the Government of South Africa to appoint a trustee to the board of the Imperial War Museum. It makes some amendments to our legislation so that South African forces are included in the definition of Commonwealth forces with implications for their legal status when, for example, training in this country. It makes provision for the exercise of command and discipline when British forces and Commonwealth forces are serving together and for attachment of members of one force to another.
The immigration and electoral implications of South Africa's return to the Commonwealth have been dealt with separately by an Order in Council made on 22nd
1236
June last year. That order added South Africa to the list of Commonwealth countries included in Schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981.
The return of South Africa to the Commonwealth after an absence of some 30 years is a cause for celebration in all Commonwealth countries.
These have been long years for South Africa, years of isolation: isolated from the West because it affronted democratic values; isolated in Africa because of its treatment of Africans and others. But South Africa was never forgotten. It was never out of our affections. We knew that change must come. Her return is a reminder both of the gulf that opened up between our two countries after 1961 and of the closeness of our historical ties with all the peoples of South Africa.
Britain has a formidable relationship with South Africa. Almost 1 million people of British descent live in that country. Our peoples are inextricably linked in all manner of public and private relationships: in business, and through cultural, sporting, scientific, military and political ties. Britain also has a very substantial economic interest in South Africa. Our investment there has an estimated market value of over 40 million rand—greater than our investment in the whole of the rest of Africa combined. It shows the depth of Britain's national commitment to South Africa. But that commitment is not one-way. The United Kingdom is South Africa's second largest supplier; Britain is South Africa's second largest export market.
I believe that we can now truly say that we are re-united: re-united in the Commonwealth as true democracies; re-united as trading partners; and re-united in seeking solutions for the problems of Africa.
I commend the Bill to the House and trust that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Inglewood.)
7.1 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for introducing this short and mainly formal Bill. But the House would not wish to let the occasion pass without our joining the noble Lord in expressing once again our very sincere joy at the re-entry of South Africa to the family of the Commonwealth, and our desire to support the new government in all its daunting tasks to the extent of our ability. Her departure from the Commonwealth was self-imposed; and the mad and hateful imposition of apartheid led to exclusion and international ostracism. The momentous historical change that led up to the formation of the first truly democratic parliament and government of the republic has been welcomed throughout the world. The new government's early application to rejoin the Commonwealth was acclaimed by all members. A vital limb of the Commonwealth was cut off when South Africa left. It is now restored.
Noble Lords will, I hope, allow me to go back in time to the distant days before the war when there were only five full Commonwealth members, and, after 1947, eight. In the Commonwealth then, the Dominion of South Africa played a full and active part in

1237
Commonwealth counsels and her steadily expanding resources put her in a unique position south of the Sahara. This is not a mere historical reflection, for her role and influence then in the Commonwealth and in international affairs illustrates the immense potential role of South Africa in the continent in the challenging years ahead. South Africa's notable military contribution in the war and her constructive contribution in the post-war Commonwealth counsels meant, as I said, that a void was left.
I once had to convey to Field Marshal Smuts at the Paris Peace Conference in 1946 a very awkward last-minute request to execute a U-turn over our policy regarding the future of Libya. It put him in a most embarrassing position vis-à-vis his colleagues. He nevertheless accepted without demur and at once simply to help the British Government. South Africa carried international weight then and the new pluralistic democracy can and should achieve still greater international influence again and make a unique contribution throughout Africa south of the Sahara.
Of course South Africa faces great difficulties, especially in meeting as —I expect the noble Lord, Lord St. John, will remind us—the unrealistic expectation of a miraculous transformation of the quality of life of the great mass of unemployed and deprived in the shanty towns. We pay tribute to the courage, wisdom and readiness to put the past behind that President Mandela and Vice-president de Klerk have shown. They have demonstrated consummate leadership in the face of daunting challenges.
As has been asserted on a number of occasions in recent weeks in this House, it is an obligation on this country to do everything we can to support the priority goals of the South African Government, with emphasis on education and health in public sector aid, but also to give assistance in the fields of public administration, police reform and small business development. I hope that the earmarking of the initial £100 million for bilateral help may soon be increased. In the private sector every facility should be given to British business to play the maximum part in new enterprise and investment. That clearly requires the maximum stability. Any ways in which the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth can help must command our support. The Commonwealth Secretariat is no doubt playing its part.
The vast stakes involved go far beyond even the enormous bounds of South Africa itself. The whole of Africa south of the Sahara has been in racial turmoil and economic decline for years, with only a few recent bright beacons of hope such as Ghana's impressive resurgence. I look forward to the day when the new South Africa will join hands with other Commonwealth governments south of the Sahara to supply guidance and resources perhaps in new forms that may be harbingers of an entirely new and more hopeful dawn of greater stability and expansion throughout the continent. As a flight of fancy, I like to imagine what co-operation between 100 million in a restored Nigerian democracy
1238
and the human and material resources of South Africa could give in pilot projects of social and economic value. I believe that we cannot exaggerate that.
The first building blocks must probably be mainly in education and health. New methods of accelerated education may be forged in the social pressures of the new South Africa. Any such initiatives must receive every possible support from this country. The potential for transformation of the continent under South African leadership is almost infinite. We send our sincere good wishes to her Government and people: to her leaders and to all who are engaged in the many urgent tasks. And we take this opportunity again to record our desire to give support.
7.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I too approach this debate with a sense of joy. A few years ago the possibility of the readmission of South Africa into the Commonwealth would have been unthinkable. But here we are in a new and exciting situation. Over 30 years ago Harold Macmillan, as Prime Minister, spoke of the wind of change blowing through Africa. That wind of change has finally blown away apartheid.
The event was celebrated in the sermon at the special Commonwealth service in Westminster Abbey by the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, as symbolising the return of the prodigal son. However, as with the return of the prodigal, one should not assume that all is well in the immediate family. True reconciliation can only take place once the truth is known. The injustices of the past that are manifested in the pain of today will not disappear. They cannot be swept under the carpet. The readmission of South Africa to the Commonwealth is not only a question of drafting the appropriate legislation, although clearly that must be done; it is an opportunity for us to think creatively of the way in which we can today help to right the wrongs of the past.
The visit of Prime Minister John Major to South Africa occurred in happy circumstances. During that visit the Prime Minister explicitly encouraged investment in the country. That is of the highest importance. The tremendous step of transition to a democratic society which is no longer based on the principle of racial discrimination requires a sound economic and financial basis. Therefore, it is to be welcomed that, on the one hand, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are viewing sympathetically the claims of South Africa, and that, on the other, in the private sector, firms are seeking to invest in people and projects.
I have to utter a word of caution. While welcoming both public and private investment, that should not reinforce the inequality between the races. The South African Council of Churches and other organisations have sought to establish a code of conduct for investors, laying down the principles for investment. Such a code seeks to encourage investments that will serve to build up the country rather than perpetuate the divisions and the inequality that continue to exist.

1239
There is now widespread support from all sections of the population, including much of the white community, for the reconstruction and development programme of the South African Government. Much more, though, is needed in terms of inward flows of capital to fund that programme. The government have, as has already been mentioned, a massive task, particularly in the fields of housing, education and employment.
It is to the Churches that the Minister of Education in South Africa recently appealed. The new South African Government plan to provide adequate education for all South African children, black and white. Historically, the Churches have sought to increase educational opportunity for all. Their efforts reach back to a time long before the distortions of apartheid education. The current needs for education are far beyond the resources of the new government and the Churches put together.
Recently, Archbishop Desmond Tutu's main educational adviser visited the Churches and aid agencies in Britain to place before them the needs and opportunities in the educational sector. The South African Churches have, as an urgent task, the further formulation of a detailed programme to complement the leading responsibility of the government. The assistance and expertise of other governments, including our own and those of our partners in the European Union, will be required.
In the six months leading up to the first truly democratic elections in South Africa, I had the privilege of seconding one of my senior diocesan staff to Natal as part of the international church monitoring team. He saw for himself the enormity of the task that lies ahead: the need for rebuilding homes, the education system, a police service rather than an armed force; and, most importantly, building trust and reconciliation between groups that have been at war with each other. Those tasks and opportunities are tremendous.
I believe that we must do all that we can, bilaterally and multilaterally, through the European Union, to support the reconstruction of post-apartheid South Africa. That can be most effectively achieved through the European Programme for Reconstruction and Development so that the massive task of overcoming the legacy of the past 45 years is addressed as thoroughly and effectively as possible. Support should also be given to the educational programmes of local non-governmental organisations which are currently facing funding difficulties.
Let me make one final point. I believe that, as well as supporting South Africa, it is vital to the future of the whole region that Her Majesty's Government should support the reconstruction of South Africa's neighbours who were victims for many years of the destabilisation programme of the South African Government. Only by promoting peace and prosperity in the region can we hope to achieve in the long term all that is needed for the people of South Africa.
The new South Africa needs all the prayer and practical support we can provide. I urge your Lordships to support with open hearts the democratic republic of South Africa, remembering the pain of the past but
1240
embracing the real hope for the future of that beautiful country and, as Archbishop Tutu calls his fellow citizens, "the rainbow people of God".
7.16 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, every one of us rejoices at the return of South Africa to the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, paid an eloquent tribute to Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk. In the interests of brevity, I say simply that I endorse everything that he said. Under their leadership, not only have we seen a remarkably peaceful general election, but also we have seen emerge an assumption that the redress of ancient grievances should be looked for not through violence but through the institutions of government. That is an enormous step forward.
There are bound to be problems—for example, over the pace of progress with the reconstruction and development programme—and there may be tribal rivalries. But I want to mention some grounds for hope. First, there is a leadership dedicated to parliamentary democracy and human rights. Secondly, South Africa has the most powerful economy in Africa and a strong private sector. It has immense natural resources. Thirdly, apartheid has been crumbling for some time. It was not simply a matter of a sudden and shallow-rooted decision by the white government in 1990 that Nelson Mandela should be released from prison and that there would be a totally new course—although the white leadership at that time deserves credit for taking the decisions that they took.
One needs to look further back. In the 1980s, apartheid was already dissolving in practice. Despite laws about segregation on the sports field, in factories, in offices, on trains and in restaurants, apartheid was crumbling. The process has been compared by a writer for the South African Institute of Race Relations, Mr John Kane-Berman, to the Industrial Revolution which ushered in democracy in England. I give one example of what was happening. In 1988 the five-star Carlton Hotel in Johannesburg reported that 50 per cent. of its weekend packages were purchased by blacks.
With the biggest economy in Africa, South Africa has a particular role to play in helping to develop the economy of the whole of southern Africa. The right reverend Prelate referred to that important point. South Africa has already been welcomed as a member of the Southern African Development Community. With peace now in Zimbabwe and Namibia, which are both members of the Commonwealth, in Mozambique and one hopes soon also in Angola, there is a new opportunity for economic progress in the region which can be led by South Africa.
We should not underestimate the extent to which South Africa looks to this country. As my noble friend Lord Inglewood remarked, she has a million residents of United Kingdom descent. It is significant that she has sought from this country a training mission for her defence forces. I welcome also the aid which we have been giving and plan to give to South Africa. For years we have been developing projects in townships and rural areas, planning for a future after apartheid. British investment in South Africa is greater than in the whole

1241
of the rest of Africa put together. We are South Africa's second largest supplier and her second largest export market.
Our Government are right to be building on these links. They are good for South Africa. They are good for us. If she is to surmount her problems, South Africa needs the help and encouragement of her friends. They in turn will benefit from relations with her. It is not only right that South Africa should return to the Commonwealth. She will be to it an ornament and a strength.
7.21 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in welcoming this Bill and the provisions relating to South Africa's readmission as a member of the Commonwealth. Having recently returned from that country, I should like to take this opportunity to make a few general observations.
I have tabled a Motion for short debate on South Africa and hope that the House will soon have an opportunity to discuss recent developments there at greater length. There is a tendency to believe that, following the successful transition to democracy last year, South Africa is no longer a pressing international issue, but it is important to appreciate the invaluable role which that country can play and is playing, both in its own region and within the Commonwealth, and that it will require constant foreign assistance to realise its full potential. With help, the country will grow and reward goodwill and investment. To paraphrase the words of the former United States President, John F. Kennedy, South Africa won't simply ask what the Commonwealth can do for it; it will ask what it can do for the Commonwealth. As a fast-developing power at the southern tip of Africa, with many first-world strengths— roads, rail and high technology—the country is well placed to give as much as it takes.
The new South Africa is barely nine months old, but the evidence of astounding progress is there for all to see. There have been teething problems and many obstacles, but the fledgling nation has astonished the world by the collective warmth of its reconciliation. As I witnessed myself last month, there is an awe-inspiring determination that the new dispensation should work. Everyone feels involved, and the resolutely positive approach is discernible in every walk of life.
High school students in the townships, who until a few years ago were boycotting exams and joining protest riots, told me how they felt so much more positive about their future, feeling at long last as though they were being given a genuine chance. Then there were the deeply conservative Afrikaners, who had once feared the worst, relating how President Mandela was, after all, really not such a bad guy.
During a one-day cricket international played between South Africa and Pakistan at the Wanderers' stadium in Johannesburg two weeks ago, a streaker dashed across the field carrying the old South African flag. It is a measure of South Africa today that public outrage in the media the following day was directed not
1242
at the man's naked indecency but at the fact that he should have persisted in displaying a flag which is widely regarded as part of the past, not the future.
Of course, there have also been recent setbacks: the death of Joe Slovo robbed the nation of a Minister who was energetically tackling the urgent need for improved housing and then there was the recent controversy over indemnities offered to members of the security forces shortly before last year's general election. ANC Justice Minister Dullah Omah announced that the indemnities would not apply. Deputy President F. W. de Klerk objected in the strongest possible terms. Soon thereafter a meeting with President Mandela was swiftly arranged and last week, in the spirit of national unity, another crisis was narrowly averted.
Against this firmly positive background, the Government in South Africa must perform a balancing act: on the one hand, as my noble friend Lord Thurlow has already mentioned, it must meet the raised expectations of the majority; and on the other, it must constantly reassure the white minority on whom economic and social prosperity depend.
I should have liked to speak further on the South African Government's reconstruction and development programme and their bold initiatives in the key areas of unemployment, education, health care and land reform, but I appreciate that these issues lie beyond the terms of this Second Reading debate. My noble friend Lord Thurlow and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark have eloquently put the case forward for greater assistance in education, housing and unemployment. The South African Government have much to achieve at home, but they are also eager to play a full and active role within the Commonwealth. There is a general realisation that, amid the uncertainties of the post-cold war world, the Commonwealth represents a beacon of stability and is a forceful promoter of dialogue, democracy and human rights.
The visit of Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh to South Africa in March this year is eagerly awaited and will set a final seal on South Africa's readmission to the Commonwealth. While I have not made specific reference to the provisions relating to South Africa in this Bill, they have my enthusiastic support.
7.27 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, this Bill completes the formalities in the United Kingdom of South Africa's readmission as a member of the Commonwealth, and so brings this chapter in history to a close. The main thrust of my contribution has been touched upon in differing ways. If I might be criticised for duplication tonight, I would ask for it to be perceived as emphasis.
It might be appropriate to touch on some of the benefits of membership of the Commonwealth to South Africa, and ask what Britain in particular can contribute towards that nation's programme of national regeneration. I believe that the Commonwealth can now play a pivotal role in facilitating South Africa's consolidation as a post-apartheid democracy. Indeed, the Commonwealth Secretariat's long-standing experience with pluralist societies can help South Africa steer a steady course. Fellow Commonwealth states can help

1243
rebuild burnt bridges as South Africa undertakes its enhanced responsibilities, as an upstanding and important member of the international community. A thriving multi-racial democracy would act as an ideal flagship to all countries in the region looking for hope and leadership. She will stand as a living testimony to the Commonwealth's strength of purpose and the timeless validity of its principles and ideals.
South Africa offers a wealth of economic opportunity. The Commonwealth has every interest in exploring all possibilities and should, at once, examine effective measures for human resource development. Indeed, South Africa's economic expansion will be predetermined by the skill and ingenuity of her workforce. Britain and South Africa enjoy a unique relationship that can ill afford neglect. Britain has invested £56 billion into South Africa and, since apartheid's collapse, we have emerged as her premier trading partner.
We have merely scratched the surface. We must take advantage of our specialist business expertise, and build upon this heightened mood of economic confidence. The recent visit of our Prime Minister has consolidated the basis for co-operation. Trade missions form a vital part of this ongoing economic thrust, as exemplified by the Minister for trade's visit last year and an anticipated 14 missions planned for 1995. I ask the Export Credit Guarantee Department and NCM to constantly address availability and competitiveness of their premiums.
We should commit ourselves to greater levels of inward investment with a view to broadening British commercial interests and strengthening South Africa's economic infrastructure. Indisputably, Britain can occupy a commanding position in the technical field in South Africa as the dexterity of her labour market increases. The ODA must rise to meet such challenges with both innovation and vision, in concert with other governmental organisations such as the DTI.
In return what does the new South Africa offer? In a world where regional strife is commonplace we can rely on a reborn South Africa to act as a bulwark against similar unrest in the region. She has a commitment to conflict resolution illustrated by her intervention, for example, together with two other Commonwealth member states, Zimbabwe and Botswana, in the Lesotho crisis. Indeed, a resurgent South Africa can lend support to the Commonwealth's commitment to global democratisation and effective peacekeeping arbitration.
South Africa's nascent democracy has already displayed remarkable signs of maturity. I would like to reinforce the United Kingdom's dedication to her continued growth and wish this Bill a speedy passage.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I must begin by apologising to the Minister that, owing to a slight technical hitch with one of our television screens, I was not in my place to hear the Minister move the Second Reading of this Bill. But like everyone who has spoken, I welcome the Bill and the fact that under its very brief text it reflects an historic event; namely, the return of a multi-racial South Africa to the family of the Commonwealth.
1244
Like others who have spoken, I pay tribute to the courage and vision of South Africa's two leaders, President Mandela and Mr. F. W. de Klerk. The world owes a very great deal to their remarkable joint leadership. The task is now for the countries of the Commonwealth, both through the Commonwealth Secretariat and bilaterally, to do all they can to help with the immense problems of development in South Africa.
The European Union also has a very important role to play. My noble friend Lady Williams wanted to take part in this debate. She has just returned from India. She tells me, for example, that she found the National Human Rights Commission in India very anxious and keen to share with the new South Africa its experience of reconciling racial communities.
In my very few words in this debate I wish to join with the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the right reverend Prelate in saying a little about the educational situation in South Africa, particularly among the children of the black townships. The challenge is a huge one. About 45 per cent. of the population is under the age of 15. More than a million black children do not attend school at all. Of those who do, I believe that 300,000 reach only standard 2 and another 400,000 leave at the end of their primary schooling. In addition, 20 per cent. of black teachers are unqualified and half of them are too young to have experienced anything other than Bantu education.
Against that background, I very much welcome the Government's support of around £100 million over three years in development aid to South Africa. I hope that a high priority within the bilateral element of that aid will be given to education, particularly to basic primary education and also to adult literacy. More than half the adult population is estimated to be illiterate.
Despite those rather chilling statistics there is much which is positive on the educational front within South Africa. The country has the biggest European minority in sub-Saharan Africa and it is a well-educated minority. That gives South Africa a platform for moving at a more rapid pace than other developing African nations now that racial equality has been achieved. South Africa also has a relatively large black middle class with good professional qualifications and great entrepreneurial skills. It has much material and agricultural wealth and now that sanctions are behind us presumably that can expand at a much faster rate in terms of self-help within the South African economy.
Potentially, in the medium term, I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and, I believe the right reverend Prelate emphasised, South Africa has the prospect, after being a very divisive force in black Africa, of playing a leading constructive role there. In the short term, however, it is the usual problem of people long deprived expecting too much too quickly. That is why the example of President Mandela and Mr. F. W. de Klerk with their great wisdom and very great self-restraint, remains so very important.
In my last few words about South African education, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Government's overseas development office in South Africa. Perhaps I may quote the words of one of its

1245
officials, Myra Harrison, in addressing a recent meeting of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth, in London, with which I am associated. She said:
"It is probably the most exciting and challenging opportunity in education to be in at the beginning of the reconstruction process"
in South Africa. She continued:
"The doors of learning and culture shall be opened—but this time they shall truly be opened to all".
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is a new experience for me to be able wholeheartedly to support a government Bill at Second Reading in this House. It is a great pleasure to be able to do so but a pleasure I do not anticipate having very often between now and the general election.
I welcome the Bill because what it marks is so many things that we have yearned for for so long—the end of apartheid, the establishment of democracy in South Africa, Nelson Mandela's just reward of the presidency of South Africa after one of the longest and most courageous campaigns for political freedom this century, and the re-entry of South Africa into the Commonwealth.
Like other speakers, I do not wish to comment on the nuts and bolts of this short Bill. I want instead to comment briefly on the relevance and significance of South Africa's renewed membership of the Commonwealth. It is now nearly 34 years since Hendrik Verwoerd took South Africa out of the Commonwealth in May 1961—in fact, jumping before he was pushed. By then most members of the Commonwealth no longer wished to belong to a club of which South Africa was also a member. At that time, the Nationalist Party was pursuing Afrikaner nationalism and crude racist policies, championing racist divisions based on the vulgar notions of white superiority, but it was firmly in power. Opposition to it was silenced and many South African liberals were forced into exile; others ending up in prison. But by then it was already well down the road to making South Africa an international pariah.
In the years that followed, the one issue on which the Commonwealth was united was its hatred of apartheid and its determination to see its perpetrators dismissed and replaced by a new leadership that would promote racial harmony in South Africa. It was perhaps a little too slow to introduce a complete ban on sporting contacts. It was not until 1977 at Gleneagles that agreement was reached, and even then, regrettably, elements in the Conservative Party opposed the agreement, wrongly arguing that a ban on such contacts was undesirable. However, the Gleneagles Agreement paved the way for economic sanctions. Few now dispute that the political, economic, cultural and sporting isolation of South Africa brought about by sanctions helped to turn round the political situation there leading to the eventual abandonment of apartheid.
President Mandela's decision to return South Africa to the Commonwealth has been widely welcomed in Britain, in the rest of the Commonwealth, and, of course, in South Africa itself. It provides an opportunity to forge new links and to foster contact between South
1246
Africa and other nations which share some of its history. It will mean that South Africa can once again take part in sporting events such as the Commonwealth Games as well as contributing to Commonwealth programmes for young people and to technical co-operation programmes. South Africa will benefit from Commonwealth schemes which provide education and training. That is something to which other noble Lords have referred. In particular, I hope that it will include training for South African blacks to allow them to break into professions and occupations from which they have been entirely or largely excluded.
When the decision to rejoin was made last year, the Commonwealth secretary general spoke of his "special sense of joy". I believe that that is something which we can all share. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark used similar words. The secretary general also said that South Africa could count on Commonwealth support in the task of reconciliation and reconstruction in South Africa. That is a task in which the UK should take the lead, given our historical role in South Africa. We owe it to the South African people. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the UK Government have any plans to increase the contribution to support reconstruction during the coming years—over and above the £100 million to which other noble Lords have referred—which they promised from the existing aid budget last year. Given the pressures on that budget, might not a little extra be found for the special case of South Africa? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that our contribution should be increased, and with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that education should have a high priority in that spending.
There is still a great deal to be done. The peaceful conclusion to last year's election after the violence that preceded it is little short of miraculous. But the expectations of the black population in the townships are understandably very high. As the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, suggested, everything possible must be done to help the South African Government to meet those expectations —in the short term by aid programmes and in the medium to longer term through investment in the South African economy which will help to promote economic growth. The latest figures allow us to be reasonably optimistic after poor growth levels in the first part of last year, although growth in the last quarter was rather less than the South African Government had forecast and hoped for. However, the South African Government's ambitious economic programme has been welcomed for its realism and discipline by many economic commentators.
That a multi-racial government has been so successfully established and that South Africa's social institutions have been adapted so rapidly to accommodate a democratic and multiracial approach is a credit to all its people, but it is the black population in particular whom we must salute. Downtrodden and oppressed for so many years, they have shown remarkable forgiveness. Their lack of bitterness or wish for vengeance following the example of their great leader, Nelson Mandela, is a lesson to us all. In those circumstances, their contribution to the Commonwealth can only be positive. Some of its members have still not

1247
learned how to promote and maintain pluralistic, democratic systems. The new South Africa can perhaps be an example to such countries of the way in which democratic principles can triumph against the odds. Certainly, it will want to play an important part within a Commonwealth framework in promoting, through preventive diplomacy, the avoidance of internal conflicts which can so easily lead to civil wars elsewhere in the Commonwealth and, particularly, in Africa.
The Labour Party greatly welcomes the return of South Africa to the international community and to the Commonwealth. In doing so, it supports the Bill.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I very much welcome the harmony of the remarks made by all noble Lords who have spoken. I note that we have had contributions from noble Lords who have held various distinguished roles and who have detailed knowledge of South Africa. I should like to return in a moment to some of the specific points that have been raised, but I must confess to having some slight difficulty in the sense that the tune was so similar that it is difficult to draw out individuals from the music that I have heard played. If I have overlooked any noble Lord's contribution, I hope that I shall be forgiven. The Government very much value this exchange and debate—first, so that we can again reiterate our welcome to South Africa on rejoining the Commonwealth; and, secondly, because that is an important event to the Commonwealth as a whole, and to each and all of its individual members.
The themes that ran through the speeches this evening were those of joy, which must be right, and of respect for the leaders in South Africa who have effected a most dramatic and historically significant transformation. I refer not only to President Mandela because it is important to pay tribute to the previous president, Mr. de Klerk, who has played at least as significant a part in the act of transferring power.
Many noble Lords were properly concerned about the need for aid and about what we in this country are doing to help. Reference was made not only to our own country, but also to the European Union and the Commonwealth which also have significant parts to play. As has been mentioned, the Government have targeted £100 million—a very substantial sum—on South Africa. The key aim is to help directly those who have been disadvantaged by apartheid. Particular
1248
emphasis will be placed on health, good governance, education (which has worried a number of noble Lords), enterprise development and land and agricultural development for small farmers.
However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, pointed out, it is not only aid but trade which is important. In the first nine months of last year, this country's trade to South Africa increased by 27 per cent. There we have an enormous engine for help and improvement, if it can be harnessed constructively and effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who, I suspect, has more direct knowledge and experience of things African than other noble Lords present in the Chamber, talked about its history and the part that South Africa has played in southern Africa. That was alluded to by a number of other noble Lords. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, pointed out, we have already seen the role that South Africa played in the recent Lesotho crisis to try to stabilise that part of southern Africa, which is to the advantage and benefit of us all.
We look towards the future. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark pointed out, the Church has played an enormous role in recent events in southern Africa. It is one which was undeniably contentious, but nonetheless historically and politically important.
It is often said that the Commonwealth does not really matter any more. Yet, in this instance, it is rejoining the Commonwealth which is the significant step for South Africa in the eyes of the outside world. The necessary preconditions were vital to the country itself; but as the sub-symbol of the change in its status, it is the rejoining of the Commonwealth which is so symbolically significant. It is for that reason that the British Government continue to value the Commonwealth as the embodiment of the special ties that we and other member states share.
The Commonwealth has a continuing and serious role to play in strengthening good governance, and we shall continue to support that role wherever possible. There will be no lack of challenges for the Commonwealth in the years ahead, but the Commonwealth is, I believe, better placed now than in the recent past to tackle those challenges. The return of South Africa will strengthen the Commonwealth. I look forward to South Africa playing a full role. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eight minutes before eight o'clock.

  UK/US MUTUAL DEFENCE AGREEMENT
  Lord Jenkins of Putney
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many times the Anglo-American Defence Agreement has been renewed since 1958; how often it has been before (a) the US House of Representatives and Senate and (b) either or both of the two Houses of Parliament; and whether they will place copies of the original agreement and any subsequent amendments in the Library of the House, excluding any material classified in both countries.

  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  The 1958 UK/US Mutual Defence Agreement is open-ended and does not require renewal. It was presented to the US Congress and the UK Parliament in 1958. We shall ensure that copies of the agreement and its subsequent amendments are placed in the Library of the House.

  JERUSALEM
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether in their opinion Israel has contravened the status quo, which was internationally accepted and respected from 1856 to 1948, regarding universal access to the Holy Places in and near Jerusalem; and in particular whether there has been full and free access for persons coming from all parts of the West Bank, from Gaza and from all Arab countries.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  From the Declaration of the State onwards, Israel has always promised to respect Muslim and Christian Holy Places in and around Jerusalem, and allow free access to them. Since April 1993, however, access to Jerusalem for Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza, both Muslim and Christian, has often been restricted. Israel has justified these measures on grounds of security.

  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is the present value in international law of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, 194(111) of 11 December 1948 and 303(IV) of 9 December 1949 declaring the city of Jerusalem a corpus separatum under a special international régime; and what means exist, or could be envisaged, by which these resolutions might be brought into force.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  We acknowledge the corpus separatum defined by General Assembly Resolutions 181(II) of 1947, 194(III) of 1948, and 303(IV) of 1949, which includes the city of Jerusalem and its surroundings. These resolutions of the UN General Assembly were not mandatory. According to the Declaration of Principles signed by Israel and the Palestinians, the status of Jerusalem remains to be determined in the permanent status negotiations between
  WA 88
  the parties. The outcome of these negotiations should not be prejudiced by agreements reached for the interim period.

  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether any subsequent government of Israel has repudiated the statement of the then Prime Minister of that country (made on 7 April 1949 and reported in UN General Assembly Document A/838) that his government accepted without reservation an international régime for, or international control of, the Holy Places in the city of Jerusalem, but could not accept the establishment of an international régime for that city.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  We know of no such repudiation by an Israeli government. To the contrary: in 1950, the Knesset declared that Jerusalem was the country's capital, although Israel held only the western sector of the city. Government institutions were progressively transferred there. Following the 1967 war, Israel annexed the old, eastern and former Jordanian sector de facto. In 1980, Israel enacted its "Jerusalem law", formally proclaiming the united city to be its capital.

  The UK is at one with the international community in rejecting all such claims. Our position has been repeatedly expressed in UN resolutions, in national statements and in company with our EU partners. We do not accept that commitments concerning the Holy Places alter, or are relevant to, the fact that Israel's efforts unilaterally to change the status of the city of Jerusalem contravene international law.

  US COUNTERPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the ad hoc group working on a verification régime for the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention is to inform itself of the US Counterproliferation Initiative on the physical elimination of weapons of mass destruction (CPI); and, if the group is not informing itself about this, whether Her Majesty's Government will bring the CPI to the attention of the group.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  The ad hoc group's main aim is to strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention by drawing up measures to verify compliance with it. Since the purpose of the US Counterproliferation Initiative is to consider a defensive response to the threat from proliferation, it is not clear that this needs to be among the substantive issues which the group will address.

  ENTRY CLEARANCE: INDEPENDENT MONITOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they accept the recommendations contained in the first Report by the Independent Monitor, in accordance with Section 10 of the

  WA 89
  Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993; and, if not, why not.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  Dame Elizabeth Anson made four main recommendations in her first report as Independent Monitor of entry clearance refusals which do not have a right of appeal.

  First, that all applications and re-applications should be accepted and applicants should be told that they have a right to proceed, even where warned of likely failure. Instructions have been sent to Posts to implements this recommendation.

  Secondly, that Posts should be more consistent in their requirements for documentation before an entry clearance application is lodged or an applicant is interviewed. We are encouraging greater consistency between Posts.

  Thirdly, that the refusal notice should not refer to confidential matters such as political asylum applications by UK sponsors or others, given that the notice may become a public document with an applicant's consent. Instructions have been sent to Posts to implement this recommendation.

  Finally, that writing should be legible on all documents on an applicant's file. Again, we are encouraging Posts to ensure this; Refusal Notices, especially, should be in typescript where possible.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE
  Lord Brougham and Vaux
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they are yet in a position to respond to consultation on the White Paper, The Civil Service, Continuity and Change and to the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on The Role of the Civil Service.

  The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne)
  The Government are publishing today a Command Paper (Cm 2748), taking forward the policies on the Civil Service set out in last July's White Paper,The Civil Service: Continuity and Change (Cm 2627). The Command Paper incorporates the Government's response to the Fifth Report of the House of Commons Treasury and Civil Service Committee, The Role of the Civil Service, HC(1993–94). It also takes account of other responses to the invitation to comment on the proposals in Continuity and Change. Comments were received from 50 individuals and organisations. Copies of the responses where confidentiality was not requested have been placed in the Library of the House.

  In Continuity and Change, the Government reaffirmed their commitment to the maintenance of a permanent Civil Service, based on the values of integrity, political impartiality, objectivity, selection and promotion on merit and accountability through Ministers to Parliament. This commitment has been widely welcomed—and was equally emphasised by the Select Committee in its report. The Government also welcome the Select Committee's belief that "the commitment of the overwhelming majority of civil
  WA 90
  servants to the principle and practice of a politically impartial Civil Service is undiminished". The Command Paper announces further measures to underpin these values.

  The Government have accepted the Select Committee's recommendation for a new Civil Service code to apply to all civil servants and summarising the constitutional framework within which civil servants work and the values they are expected to uphold. A draft code, suggesting the changes which the Government think necessary to the text proposed by the Select Committee, with an associated commentary, is published in the Command Paper as a basis for further consultation. The proposed code incorporates, as recommended by the Select Committee, a new independent line of appeal to the Civil Service Commissioners in cases of alleged breaches of the code or issues of conscience which cannot be resolved through internal procedures.

  The Government also intend to enhance the role of the Civil Service Commissioners as guardians of the principle of selection on merit. They will be responsible for the interpretation of the principles of fair and open competition on merit for all Civil Service recruitment. The Commissioners will be responsible for approving all appointments from outside the Civil Service to the new Senior Civil Service; and the next First Civil Service Commissioner is to be given a new role in monitoring senior internal appointments. Consequently he or she will not hold the post as a serving civil servant.

  The Command Paper re-emphasises the Government's commitment to maintaining the Civil Service as a good employer, ensuring equality of opportunity, maintaining a predominantly career Civil Service, and to the training and development of all staff. It also confirms the Government's intention to proceed with other approaches set out in Continuity and Change to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Civil Service, including the delegation of pay and grading below senior levels to departments, and the introduction of Efficiency Plans in place of the centrally-driven Competing for Quality programme; to establish the proposed new Senior Civil Service; to carry out senior management reviews in all departments; to introduce new pay arrangements for the Senior Civil Service, including Permanent Secretaries; and to introduce contracts for all senior civil servants.

  The Government are also publishing today detailed responses to the Review of Recruitment Responsibilities and the Review of Fast Stream Training which were published in parallel with Cm 2627. Copies of the responses have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Command Paper charts a clear course for the Civil Service. The Government believe that Parliament, the public and particularly the Civil Service itself should be encouraged by the degree of agreement on the way forward, reflected in the very considerable sharing of views on key issues between the Government and the Select Committee, as well as by those who have given evidence to the Select Committee and have commented on the White Paper. There is a wide recognition of the

  WA 91
  work of the Civil Service, the values it upholds and the progress it has made in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the services it provides. This offers an excellent foundation on which to move ahead.

  EQUAL PAY
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they accept the broad accuracy of the information contained in the EC Commission's Memorandum on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value (COM(94)6 Final) showing that the pay differential between men and women is significantly wider in the United Kingdom than in the great majority of the other member states of the European Union (apart from Ireland and Luxembourg); and if not, why not.

  Lord Inglewood
  Data in respect of the UK in the table on page 5 of the European Commission's Memorandum are misleading because they exclude women's earnings from the relatively more highly paid service sector, in which 50 per cent. of women in manual work and 85 per cent. of women in non-manual work are employed.

  The New Earnings Survey, published by the Employment Department, is the most reliable guide to the pay differential between men and women. In April 1994, the most recent date for which figures are available, women's average hourly earnings, excluding overtime, were 79.5 per cent. of men's. This is the highest ever figure. The pay differential has narrowed in six out of the last seven years. Since 1979, women's earnings have increased faster than men's.

  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What they consider to be the main causes of the continuing and substantial pay differentials between men and women in the United Kingdom, referred to in the EC Commission's Memorandum on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value (COM(94)6 Final).

  Lord Inglewood
  Recent research for the Employment Department suggests that the main cause of the remaining pay differential between men and women is job segregation. Other factors include: levels of skill and experience; job characteristics; family commitments and a residual element of sex discrimination.

  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they intend to introduce any legislative or administrative measures to reduce the continuing and substantial pay differential between men and women in the United Kingdom; and, if not, why not.

  Lord Inglewood
  The pay differential between men and women is reducing, and has done so for six of the last seven years. It now stands at its lowest ever level. The Government believe that this welcome trend has been helped by policies which have created a sound economic framework in which enterprise is encouraged and individual initiative allowed to flourish.
  WA 92
  In addition, the Government have taken and will continue to take a range of measures which should help women's pay and employment prospects. These include: changes to the Equal Pay Act and Sex Discrimination Act; adoption of the National Curriculum; reforms to make the Careers Service more effective; a range of programmes run through Training and Enterprise Councils, and acceptance of recommendations of an independent Committee on Women in Science and Technology, which advised on ways in which the potential, skills and expertise of women could best be secured for the national advantage.

  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, 23 JANUARY
  Lord Brougham and Vaux
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 23 January.

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food represented the UK at this meeting of the Agriculture Council. As he had signalled beforehand, my right honourable friend took the opportunity of this Council to explain the public concern about the transport of farm animals and the conditions in which calves are reared for veal in some member states. My right honourable friend stressed his determination to see that the law requiring freedom of trade is upheld. But my right honourable friend also emphasised the urgent need for the Community as a whole to recognise these concerns, which are being expressed widely, not just in the UK, and to take effective measures as soon as possible to improve the standards for the welfare of farm animals.

  I am glad to say that a considerable number of Council members agreed with British concerns. Five Ministers pointed out that, like the UK, they had already banned the use of veal crates. There was wide support for, and no dissent from, our proposal that the review of the directive, planned for 1997, that allows the use of this method should be brought forward. The Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. Fischler, undertook to produce a report as soon as possible. All also agreed to make a determined effort to adopt rules on transport: this will be on the Council's agenda at its next meeting.

  The only other substantive debate was on the Commission's proposals for adjusting the support system for sugar. My right honourable friend regretted that the Commission had not seized the opportunity to propose more radical changes. My right honourable friend urged that, in so far as sugar quotas might have to be cut to keep within the GATT limits on subsidised exports, these cuts should be targeted on the surplus-producing member states. My right honourable friend also underlined the need to guarantee adequate supplies of raw sugar for the refining industry. The Council will return to these proposals at its next meeting.

  My right honourable friend welcomed the appearance of the Commission's proposal creating a link between

  WA 93
  set-aside and arable land taken out of production for environmental and forestry purposes, and urged its speedy adoption.

  TRIDENT
  Lord Gainford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is their latest estimate of the cost of the Trident programme.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley)
  The current estimate of the total project cost of the Trident programme is £11,682 million, if all expenditure, including payments already made, are brought up to current prices and a common exchange rate of £1-$1.48, as assumed in the long-term costing of the defence programme. If payments already made are expressed at the prices and exchange rates actually incurred, the equivalent estimate is now £9,770 million. Expenditure on the Trident programme to 31 October 1994 represented some 78 per cent. of the overall hybrid estimate.

  After allowing for the effects of inflation and exchange rate variations, the revised estimate of £11,682 million represents a real cost reduction of £211 million compared to that announced last year. The increase in cash terms is £51 million. The reduction in real terms since the original 1982 Trident II estimate, including the savings resulting from the decision to have UK missiles processed in the United States facility at King's Bay, Georgia, now stands at some £3.7 billion. The proportion of the estimate for work undertaken in the United Kingdom has increased from 70 per cent. to 71 per cent., reflecting the effects of the change in exchange rate, price base and volume changes in the year.

  I am pleased to confirm that HMS "Vanguard" entered operational service in December 1994, achieving the in-service date set when the decision to purchase Trident II was taken in 1982, and that the remainder of the Trident programme remains on schedule. As in previous years, we shall be sending to the Chairmen of the Public Accounts Committee and of the Select Committee on Defence a more detailed report on the programme. I am also placing a copy of this report in the Library of the House.

  FORMER UK (ARMED FORCES) OFFICERS: EMPLOYMENT IN DEFENCE FIELD
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What are the grounds on which they consider it appropriate that the Ministry of Defence should keep no records of where its former employees are now employed (Lord Henley's Answers of 15th December 1994 (HL Deb, col. WA 141).

  Lord Henley
  There is no requirement, under either the business appointment rules or any other regulation, for my department to keep records of where its former employees are employed following their departure from Crown service.

  PLANNING APPLICATIONS: CALLING IN BY SECRETARY OF STATE
  Lord Lyell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  If the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to take design considerations into account when deciding whether or not to call in planning applications to be decided under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)
  Our general approach is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. The Secretary of State for the Environment will therefore be very selective about calling applications to determine and will, in general, only take this step if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Each case must be considered on its individual merits. An application for development which raises significant architectural and urban design issues is one example of the type of case which may be of more than local importance. Other examples include cases which, in the opinion of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, could have wide effects beyond their immediate locality, which give rise to substantial regional or national controversy which may conflict with national policy on important matters, and those where the interests of foreign governments may be involved.

  CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSION PERMITS PROPOSAL
  Lord Redesdale
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they endorse the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development's proposal to introduce a worldwide market in carbon dioxide emission permits as the most cost-effective means of tackling global warming.

  Viscount Ullswater
  My department is aware that two papers have recently been published by UNCTAD on this subject and will study these with interest. However, no proposals along these lines have been put to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is the appropriate forum for international agreements on measures to control greenhouse gas emissions.

  MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES REPROVISION: GUIDANCE
  Lord Thurlow
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the Mental Health Task Force has issued an overview report on the way purchasers and providers of mental health services are approaching the replacement of the large mental hospitals, and drawing out good practice, following its visits to health authorities last year; and, if not, when a report may be expected.
  WA 95
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege)
  The Mental Health Task Force has issued a series of reports and guidance on good practice in the reprovision of mental health services. These include Local Systems of Support: A Framework for Purchasing for People with Severe Mental Health Problems (published in October 1994), a handbook on managing fixed costs in reprovision, Transitional Costs: The Case for Better Management (December 1994), and the report of the Task Force London Project, Mental Health in London: Priorities for Action (September 1994), copies of which are available in the Library. A final overview report on the task force's work will be submitted to Ministers shortly."

  STATUTORY SICK PAY: FORM SSP1
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the Benefits Agency is bound to provide assistance to those claiming statutory sick pay who experience difficulty in obtaining Form SSP2 from their employers.
  WA 96
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the noble Earl.

  Letter to Earl Russell from the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Mr. Michael Bichard, dated 26 January 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary Question about the assistance provided to those claiming Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) who experience difficulty in obtaining Form SSP2 from their employers.

  I understand from a further enquiry we made that you in fact refer to the SSP1.

  Form SSP1 is the form which the employer is required to give to their employee if they are not entitled to receive SSP or when their SSP stops and they are still sick.

  This form includes a claim form which the employee can use if they wish to claim Sickness Benefit or Invalidity Benefit from the Benefits Agency.

  The employer is required by law to complete the form, and failure to provide an employee with the prescribed information is an offence. The Contributions Agency are responsible for ensuring that employers comply with the SSP legislation.

  The Benefits Agency should assist the employee to obtain form SSP1 and refer the case to the Contributions Agency on behalf of the employee where it becomes clear that compliance should be enforced.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.