Sitting of 31 January 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BIRMINGHAM ASSAY OFFICE BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.

  QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday next.

  SAINT PAUL'S CHURCHYARD BILL.
  Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Fox Hunting
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on fox hunting for the armed forces.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The demanding standards of horsemanship required in the hunting field help service men of all ranks with mounted ceremonial roles to maintain their high standard of equitation. Provided no additional public expense is incurred and there is no detriment to military or ceremonial commitments, hunting may be undertaken at their commanding officers' discretion.
    Mr. Hutton: Given the widespread public opposition to the hunting of wild animals, what possible justification can there be for allowing members of the armed forces to participate in fox hunts during duty hours? When will the taxpayer stop subsidising that appalling and barbaric sport? Why does not the Minister act now to end the waste of public money?
    Mr. Soames: I hope that my hon. Friends will acknowledge that, when more than 50,000 service men and women are deployed on overseas detachments—7,500 of whom are supporting United Nations operations overseas—the only defence question that the Opposition can ask concerns fox hunting. That shows a fantastic order of priority. No public funds are used to subsidise hunting. Salaries and the cost of the upkeep of the horses would have
    836
    to be met regardless of participation in hunting and all other costs are met privately. The activity is undertaken at the discretion of the commanding officer.
    Mr. Duncan: Does the Minister accept that mob rule and class war should not be allowed to stop the Army doing something that is perfectly legal throughout the country? Does he further accept that the Army is popular in my constituency, that hunting is good exercise for horses and that there is something inherently noble and nothing cruel in the great and glorious death of a fox in the field?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who represents the Elysian fields of fox hunting. I wholly endorse his point. Hunting is a legal and perfectly honourable recreation and there is no reason why members of all ranks of the armed forces, if they have the time and inclination, should not take part in it.

    United Nations Peacekeeping
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British personnel are currently involved in United Nations peacekeeping activities; and what percentage this represents of the United Kingdom's total armed forces.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Some 3,840 personnel are deployed on peacekeeping operations under United Nations command, and some 3,550 more on operations in support of United Nations Security Council resolutions. That represents 3.4 per cent. of the trained strength of the United Kingdom's armed forces.
    Mr. Williams: As we look forward to the next 50 years of the United Nations, does the Secretary of State agree that its peacekeeping role should become ever more important, and that each country, particularly Britain, should assign a growing proportion of its armed forces to the United Nations?
    Mr. Rifkind: Peacekeeping is certainly important, but the capacity to take part in high-intensity combat must remain the prime role of our armed forces. Consistent with that, it is desirable that they should provide a useful contribution to the United Nations and other such international operations, but we should never forget their primary role.
    Mr. Viggers: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that today is the last day on which the 23 members of Partnership for Peace can, if they wish, give information about their peacekeeping activities and availability? Will he further confirm that our armed forces are maintaining a good dialogue with the Partnership for Peace forces that have chosen to register, and that that is a very good way of registering our military co-operation?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is indeed very important. An excellent example of the United Kingdom's contribution is the training that we are giving the Baltic battalion that is being set up by the three Baltic states as their own contribution to United Nations peacekeeping: that will help to increase the status and reputation of the new independent Baltic states.
    Mr. Gapes: Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the attitude taken by the President of Croatia to the continued presence of UN peacekeeping forces on Croatian territory? Is it clear to the right hon. and learned

    837
    Gentleman, as it is to me, that that poses a great threat? The withdrawal of UN forces in March could lead to an increase in the conflict, and put at risk the lives of other British personnel in the area.
    Mr. Rifkind: We are concerned. One of the significant achievements of the United Nations over the past three years has been the containment of fighting in Bosnia. The withdrawal of UN forces from the protected areas in Croatia could lead to a resurgence of the fighting there, with very dangerous implications for the former Yugoslavia as a whole.

    Reserve and Cadet Force Expenditure
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the expenditure during the current year on (a) the reserve forces and (b) the cadet forces.
    Mr. Soames: In the current year, we expect to spend about £140 million and £16 million on personnel costs for the reserve forces and the cadet forces respectively.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is not that money very well spent, particularly as we get seven Territorial Army soldiers for the cost of one regular?
    Is my hon. Friend aware of the disappointment in my area about the reductions affecting the Royal Anglian Territorial battalions? Can he give some good and positive news about proposed legislation to update the role of the reserve forces and to strengthen links with local communities?
    Mr. Soames: I acknowledge the concern felt in East Anglia about the new arrangements for the Royal Anglian regiment and the re-roling of one of its battalions. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on the volunteer forces, which have a strong presence in East Anglia, with units based at more than 40 locations and 292 cadet units or detachments in the area.
    I further thank my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to endorse the new Reserve Forces Bill, which we hope to publish shortly. It is essential for the new role of the Territorial Army, which is extremely relevant and important to our modern armed forces. We plan to consult widely, and I should be glad to hear from my hon. Friend if he has any views on the matter.
    Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister assure me that the cadet forces will be sustained? May I remind him that, as well as providing a source of recruitment to the armed forces, the cadet forces have played a valuable role in educating people in the broadest sense? I speak as one who spent 10 years in the Air Training Corps. I can tell the Minister that, in Northern Ireland, the cadet forces were one of the few youth organisations that were genuinely integrated and, in my time, provided a useful basis for people to meet across the community.
    Mr. Soames: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, whom I have always understood to be an Air Training Corps man. I believe that the cadet forces give excellent value for money; as the hon. Gentleman has said, they offer young people outstanding opportunities for character development, adventure and play, and fulfil an important role in the community. All our activities are under financial
    838
    review, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we acknowledge that the cadet forces give value for money and play a vital role.
    Mr. Couchman: Further to the last question, may I ask my hon. Friend to think again about proposed cuts in the Air Training Corps budget for the coming year? The unit in my constituency is particularly worried about proposed cuts in air experience.
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The costs of the Air Training Corps are clearly not immune from scrutiny, and we shall want to achieve some savings. We intend to achieve them by increasing efficiency, which we believe we shall be able to do, and to minimise the effect on cadet activities. I am a tremendous supporter of the Air Training Corps, and propose to visit two detachments next week. I look forward to hearing what they have to say.
    Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister clarify whether the Reserve Forces Bill, when it is published, will be the Bill or a draft of the Bill? Will further consultation take place? We have already had four years of talking. One of the serious problems is that employers have grave reservations about giving people time off to carry out their duties in our armed forces. That applies particularly to multinational companies based in the far east.
    Mr. Soames: I was not aware that we were intending to recruit a great number of reserves from multinational companies based in the far east, but, plainly, we shall be looking to recruit reserves and looking for co-operation from industry and from the corporate sector, because that is important to us and we value it very much. The Bill will be a draft Bill. We will publish it as soon as possible and it will be subject to the fullest consultation. We can but hope, although possibly in vain, that we shall have the support of the Labour party.
    Mr. Lord: Is the Minister aware of the considerable concern among the Territorial Army and cadet units in East Anglia about the moving of their command headquarters from Colchester to Nottingham? Is he satisfied that those new arrangements will work as well as the old ones?
    Mr. Soames: We certainly would not propose such a move unless we were so satisfied, but I shall be happy to reconsider that matter. If my hon. Friend would care to talk to me about it, I would be happy to explain the arguments to him.

    Chechnya
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next be meeting the Russian Defence Minister to discuss Chechnya.
    Mr. Rifkind: I currently have no firm plans to meet the Russian Defence Minister.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Defence Secretary feel ashamed that the west and the Government have continued to look the other way as the much-discredited Russian President has bombed a small nation into the dark ages? What, if any, humanitarian aid will the right hon. and learned Gentleman offer the tens of thousands of Chechens who are without food, water and the basic essentials?
    Mr. Rifkind: We consider Chechnya to be an internal matter for Russia. We are, however, concerned about the

    839
    way in which the crisis has been handled, and, in particular, about the appalling number of civilian casualties. We have pressed the Russian Government to end the fighting, to allow humanitarian relief and to work towards an agreement that allows the Chechen people to express their identity in the Russian Federation.
    Mr. Elletson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make clear to the Russian Defence Minister and to the Russian Government the utter abhorrence of the British people at the involvement of Russian armed forces in attacks on civilians, both Chechen and Russian, in Chechnya?
    Mr. Rifkind: I think that we have all been appalled, as my hon. Friend rightly says, at what appeared to be the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, and at the way in which, despite various assurances to the contrary, those attacks have continued over a considerable period, leading to many casualties in Grozny.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Secretary of State agree that the extent of Russian use of military force, especially in Grozny, is beyond all that is reasonable? Has he considered any plans to suspend bilateral military activities that we undertake with the Russian Army to show the displeasure of the British people??
    Mr. Rifkind: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, clearly one must wonder whether the current military action will bring an end to the conflict in Chechnya. Many of the Chechen fighters have already retreated to the hills and will continue some form of attacks on Russian forces. Breaking links with Russia would be an unwise decision to take. No western interest would benefit from isolating Russia at the moment. In Russia, a vigorous, public debate has taken place, which has included condemnation of the Russian Government in their Parliament and by their people. That shows that Russia has become a much more open society than would have been conceivable in the days of the old Soviet Union.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I deplore the loss of civilian life in Grozny, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that as Russia, even after the strategic arms reduction talks process has been completed, will have no fewer than 3,500 nuclear warheads, it is not in the interests of either this country or of the west to witness the disintegration of the Russian republic, which might happen if Chechnya is allowed its independence?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a crucial consideration. As long as Russia remains a nuclear power with many thousands of nuclear warheads, it is very much in the interests of the west and of the world as a whole that the Russian Government should have sufficient authority to ensure that those nuclear weapons are kept under proper and effective control.

    Representative Entertaining
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the findings of the review into representative entertaining.
    Mr. Soames: Sir Peter Cazelet is due to submit his report in February; we expect to publish it as soon as possible thereafter.
    Mr. Byers: Will the Minister confirm that 114 serving officers have their own personal cooks, at a cost of £2.5
    840
    million a year, and that the 77 official service residences cost £5 million a year to operate? Is the Minister content that, at a time of defence cuts, there is a regiment of batmen whose duties are to iron and lay out uniforms, make beds, clean shoes and serve drinks? Is that really putting the front line first?
    Mr. Soames: Plainly there is no such thing. A cook is provided for a number of senior officers to enable them to carry out their extensive and important representational duties, which add to the dignity of the United Kingdom and its armed forces. Sir Peter Cazelet is examining the provision of domestic assistants, including cooks, for senior officers. The Army had already begun to consider the matter in the wider context of Army catering. What the hon. Gentleman said is correct but, if there is any practice that we should examine more closely, Sir Peter Cazelet will make proposals. We anxiously await his report and look forward to acting on its recommendations.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that senior military officers, like senior civil servants, senior members of the Government and senior members of industry, are required by the nature of their job to entertain individuals of importance? Senior military officers cannot respond to personal attacks on them, so will the Minister tell The Mail of Sunday and other newspapers that senior military officers cannot and will not respond publicly?
    Mr. Soames: As my hon. Friend says, a number of senior officers, who have important public duties to fulfil, are required to provide representational entertainment. The rank dishonesty of some newspapers' fanciful reporting speaks for itself.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister understand that his weak defence of such extravagance will go down badly with British troops around the world? How can he justify expenditure of £9 million on drinks parties, £500,000 on carpets and £2.5 million on chefs? We are now told that the investigation into this waste will cost a further £100,000. Is not it about time that Ministers took a grip of the waste and extravagance in their own Department? What will it look like to ordinary British troops when they learn of such waste and extravagance and hear that the Minister is happy to justify it?
    Mr. Soames: That is a travesty of a response to what I said. The Government have instigated a report by Sir Peter Cazelet into how the services should entertain and on what basis they should do so. As part of the study, he is looking into the provision of official service residences, entertainment allowances and domestic assistants. The line that the hon. Gentleman takes is not a good one. We acknowledge that there is a problem but we intend to resolve it.

    Rapid Deployment Forces
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for rapid deployment forces arising from the United Kingdom's peacekeeping role within the UN in Bosnia.
    Mr. Rifkind: We arc developing a joint rapid deployment force to strengthen our existing capability to

    841
    intervene speedily and effectively. Our planning will take account of a wide range of contingency operations, including peacekeeping.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the purchase of planned new equipment for the rapid deployment forces has been made possible only by the efficiency savings programme in "Front Line First"? Does he agree that the savings would be seriously jeopardised if the Government were ever to be reduced to falling in with the Labour party's planned programme of £6 billion of cuts in defence spending?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is certainly correct. The Labour party conference proposed a £6 billion cut in defence expenditure and the official Labour policy of promising a review would, if it were to take office, create an aura of instability. Either proposal would be bad for the stability craved by the armed forces at the present time.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that he could guarantee the rapid deployment of men, armour and artillery if he had available the future large aircraft? Is he prepared to say that the Government will purchase and join the project for the future large aircraft? Is he aware that when his Minister of State visited my constituency and the Airbus factory he made a very good impression? A written guarantee from the Government that they will enter the future large aircraft project is now required.
    Madam Speaker: Order. That would have been a perfectly legitimate question if it had been asked at the right point—after Question 15 or 17. The hon. Gentleman is pushing his luck a little, but I am sure that the Minister will want to make some response.
    Mr. Rifkind: The future large aircraft will not come into operation or even be available for at least 10 years. It may be the practice of the Labour party to give promises before knowing the price of what is being purchased or when it will be delivered, but that is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Sir David Steel: Does the Secretary of State agree that much of the recent criticism of the United Nations machinery is misplaced? As one who saw the excellent work done by British engineers in the peacekeeping force in Rwanda, will he accept that the development of rapid deployment forces would mean more timeous intervention by the UN and would prevent the build-up of tragedies such as in Rwanda?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if the United Nations is to be involved in a crisis that either has erupted or could erupt it must be able to respond quickly and effectively. It can thus make a valuable contribution, preventing loss of life and benefiting crisis-torn areas of the world.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Third Reconnaissance Regiment, which is being created at Bovington in my constituency, have a rapid-reaction capability? What progress has been made in that excellent development of our armed forces?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words of welcome. The initial focus of the joint rapid redeployment force will be light airborne and commando brigades, along with associated air and maritime support.

    Land Mines
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of land mines.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): The United Kingdom is concerned at the suffering caused by the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel land mines and is working positively towards strengthening international means to control those problems. The United Kingdom signed the United Nations weaponry convention in 1981 and we want to see the convention improved and signed by more countries.
    Mr. Cohen: Is not the Government's alleged support for the United Nations moratorium flawed by exemptions for self-destructing and self-neutralising mines and other established criteria, whatever that may mean? Do not self-neutralising mines still kill and maim innocent civilians and are not they costly and dangerous to remove? Should not the Government stop the export of all anti-personnel mines, irrespective of whether they are self-neutralising, and sign the 1981 inhumane weapons treaty? Would the Minister tread boldly on a field of self-neutralising mines? I think not.
    Mr. Freeman: I think that the whole House shares the sentiment expressed in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question: that where the indiscriminate use of mines, self-destruct or otherwise, causes danger to civilians it is to be deplored. That is why we shall work with our allies to control the export of all mines, including self-destruct mines. It is important that the British Army retains some capability. The hon. Gentleman is at least consistent. He is a unilateral nuclear disarmer, along with 39 other Opposition Members. He may wish to disarm the British Army of land mines, which are a perfectly justifiable weapon to use in defence of these shores, but he is wrong to sign the early-day motion calling for a ban on nuclear weapons, as did many of his colleagues.
    Mr. Robathan: Yet again, we have the sad spectacle of Opposition Members sniping at the British armed forces and blaming the British Government for everything that goes wrong in the world. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has no evidence of any British anti-personnel mines that are harming civilians? Can he confirm that the Hazardous Areas Life-support Organisation, which is employed to clear mines by the Overseas Development Administration and the United Nations, among others, has never come across one British mine in Afganistan, Cambodia, Angola or Mozambique?
    Mr. Freeman: I am glad to confirm what my hon. Friend says. The House will be interested to know that in the past three years the British Government have spent £7 million helping mine clearance in some of the countries to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Home Robertson: What information does the Minister have about the number of land mines which remain on the former confrontation lines between Bosnian Government forces and Bosnian Croatian forces in the area covered by the British battalion and UNPROFOR? Is the British Army giving assistance or advice on the clearance of minefields?
    Mr. Freeman: Certainly, the British Army and the British Government will do all that they can to advise on clearance. The parties in the conflict in the former

    843
    Yugoslavia have indiscriminately sown anti-personnel land mines. That may be in direct contravention of the United Nations weaponry convention, which we signed in 1981, and which we will ratify next month.
    Mr. Cohen: In view of the Minister's unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Academic Research
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding his Department proposes to provide for academic research in 1995; and what was the figure in each year since 1990.
    Mr. Freeman: Expenditure on military defence research in universities and further educational establishments has averaged approximately £30 million per annum over the past five years, out of a total military defence research budget currently at approximately £600 million per annum.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Does he agree that his recent announcement of a second five-year funding tranche for the London-based Centre for Defence Studies will provide stability and reassurance for the academics who work with that institution in providing some excellent worldwide strategic studies?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I congratulate London university on its work on non-scientific research for the Ministry of Defence. I am grateful also to my hon. Friend for his support for our research effort. One of the Government's main aims this year is to share the benefits of military research with the private sector and with industry to improve the performance of our economy.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister ensure that part of the research budget, particularly that which is available to universities, is used to investigate the environmental effect of burying bombs and possibly chemical bombs at sea, as alleged by the Russians in the conference last week, and indeed in land locations such as in my constituency? Does he accept that there could be potential continuing dangers arising from such disposal methods? Does he understand the need to undertake further research into those dangers?
    Mr. Freeman: I share the hon. Gentleman's view. That is an important aspect of research and effort. We have learnt from the mistakes made by many countries, including our own many decades ago, in the disposal of munitions. We observe the highest possible standards now, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that matter will be one of the aspects of the research.
    Mrs. Gillan: I recognise the need for value for money in defence research, but will my right hon. Friend undertake to look more closely at possible co-operation between the civil and defence space programmes? With the increasing commercialisation of space and the opportunities available, there are more opportunities now for our defence forces to co-operate with civilian space programmes.
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is not just a question of co-operation in our space programme,
    844
    particularly the military communications satellites, between the public and the private sectors, but with France, Germany and the United States. Defence collaboration in procurement is very much the theme that must run through any Government's policies over the coming decades.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does not the Minister understand that the real need is to transfer money from defence research into civilian research? Will he consider making a large contribution to research council funds, so that money can be used in genuine civilian research?
    Mr. Freeman: No, I cannot give the hon. Lady that assurance. We spend £600 million on military research, and it is important that that is directed at the needs of the armed forces. Civilian research—and its funding—is the responsibility of other senior Ministers. I can assure the hon. Lady that the benefits of military research will be shared with the private sector.

    Armed Services
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the purpose and functions of the armed services.
    Mr. Soames: The United Kingdom's armed forces operate in support of British defence policy, which is a key component of our wider security policy, the purpose of which remains to contribute to maintaining the freedom and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and its dependent territories, and its ability to pursue its legitimate interests at home and abroad.
    Mr. Evans: If the lot opposite ever got away with devolution and broke up the United Kingdom, would the Scots and the Welsh be expected to defend themselves with leeks and haggis, or would the Scots ask the English to defend them out of English taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend, as usual, poses a difficult conundrum. The armed forces are, of course, the forces of the Crown, and the Crown is the golden chain which binds and secures the United Kingdom. The service of the Scots and Welsh regiments has been historic and heroic over the ages, and it would be difficult to contemplate any other arrangement.
    Mr. Galloway: Is it a part of the proper purpose of the armed forces to send reserve Army officers, trainers and semi-detached military operatives to dictatorships such as the royal dictatorship of Bahrain so that they can observe people who are demonstrating for the democratic right to elect their own Government and to establish their own Parliament being gunned down or tortured?
    Mr. Soames: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to know that Bahrain, about which he speaks in a such a loose and ignorant manner, is a force for moderation and good sense in the Gulf, and also that I was at Mons officer cadet school with the crown prince.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the recent review, "Front Line First", Scotland—perhaps with the exception of the Rosyth naval base—came out relatively well with respect to the retention of bases? If the Labour party were to attain its wish and establish a tax-raising Assembly which would create additional tax

    845
    burdens, would it influence the Ministry of Defence with regard to the establishment and maintenance of bases in the future?
    Mr. Soames: As my hon. Friend knows better than anyone, the Scots have for generations been the most marvellous providers of service men and women to the Crown. Plainly, Scotland remains an important and integral part of the defence establishment of this country, as it has important naval, air and Army bases. I can see no circumstances under which that could possibly alter. What matters to most of the people in this country is that the United Kingdom remains united.
    Dr. David Clark: Has the Minister had the opportunity to see the recorded television interview with his right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, in which the right hon. Gentleman says openly and honestly that in the future there will be
    "fewer ships and fewer aircraft"?
    How does that square with the solemn pledge by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence that there will be no further defence cuts?
    Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friend certainly said no such thing. The new public expenditure plans—announced, endorsed and warmly welcomed by my right hon. and learned Friend—mark the end of upheaval in defence. We are now able to preserve our front-line capabilities to sustain and enhance our equipment programmes and the armed forces look forward with confidence to a brilliant future.

    Exhibition, Esher
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to visit the covert and operational procurement exhibition in Esher; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeman: Neither I nor my ministerial colleagues at the Ministry of Defence have ever visited, or have any plans to visit, the COPEX exhibitions.
    Mr. Mullin: That is a pity because, if the Minister had been able to get there, he would have found himself rubbing shoulders with representatives of some of the world's most unpleasant regimes, including military attaches from China, to whom I did not think that we were supposed to sell arms, and a delegation from Iran. What on earth was he doing to allow such a delegation to attend arms fairs here? He might also have found equipment capable of use in torture on sale, or available, through that exhibition. Does the Minister think that sponsoring events of that kind is the best use of British taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Freeman: It is a private exhibition. No taxpayers' money is involved. The hon. Gentleman knows that any arms equipment that could be used for torture or violating human rights is not exported under licence from this country. I sometimes wonder whether he and the other 39 unilateral disarmers should not pay a little more attention to the United Kingdom's excellent defence record on exporting the most excellent equipment, including some that is manufactured in his constituency.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Did my right hon. Friend decide not to attend COPEX in part because he believes that it is more important to attend premier exhibitions and shows
    846
    such as the Paris air show? Is it because he wants to view at such occasions British equipment in which the British taxpayer has invested a large amount of money, such as the European fighter aircraft? Is he sanguine that, in view of the German Parliament's decision not to continue funding the development of that aircraft, it is likely to appear in Paris?
    Mr. Freeman: There is no threat to the Eurofighter programme. I very much agree with my hon. Friend that we Conservatives very much admire the efforts of British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, GEC and many others with a magnificent record of defence export sales—£5 billion expected this year. I wish that the Labour Front-Bench team would not be so grudging and would welcome that excellent achievement.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the defence requirements to protect safe areas in Bosnia from violation by Serb forces.
    Mr. Rifkind: The provision of United Nations troops, in regard to safe areas, is a matter for the United Nations Secretary-General and for United Nations protection force commanders.
    Mr. Griffiths: For how long will the Secretary of State wash his hands of that problem and of the responsibilities? Does he not realise that when no-fly zones become free-fire zones for the Serbs and when safe areas become unsafe areas for slaughter, Orwellian language is alive and well and thriving in the Ministry of Defence here?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman might feel better for the use of such language, but it hears no relationship to the excellent work that the United Nations is doing in Bosnia, which has led to a cessation of hostilities and has meant that British forces are able to carry out their responsibilities, throughout the vast majority of Bosnia, without the risks and dangers that they faced there a short time ago.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those people who think that there are simple, surgical and overnight solutions to some of Bosnia's problems would do well to consider the Russian experience in chechnya?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that if one wants to take part in a war, one has to send a war-fighting capability. The United Nations has not gone to Bosnia to fight a war, but it carries out its responsibilities with all the professionalism that we would expect.
    Dr. Reid: The Secretary of State must agree that there must ultimately be a political solution in that tragic theatre of war. Within that context, does he accept that the presence of the United Nations protection force in Krajina is not only a vital prerequisite to a peaceful solution there, but an integral part of our military contribution to peacekeeping? Will he assure us that he and his colleagues in the Cabinet and the Ministry of Defence will

    847
    use their good offices to ensure whatever pressure possible for the continuation of the UNPROFOR presence in Krajina after the present mandate expires?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is, indeed, highly desirable that the United Nations should be permitted to continue its work in Croatia as, otherwise, there could be a recommencement of the fighting in that country, which could have dangerous implications for the whole of the Balkans.

    Trident
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to scrap Trident.
    Mr. Rifkind: We have no plans to scrap Trident, which is the ultimate guarantee of our national security.
    Mr. Streeter: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his reply will greatly reassure all right-thinking people, particularly the 4,000 people in Devon and Cornwall whose jobs rely on the Trident contract? Will he resist calls for a further defence review from the leader of the Labour party and the Labour defence team, all of whom are former members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? Is not a review led by such people unlikely to support Trident?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct because every defence spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench has been a declared opponent of Britain's nuclear deterrent. We would all be grateful to know whether the shadow Defence Secretary is still a member of CND or has left that organisation because, until now, he has declined to inform either Parliament or the country as a whole.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend read the remarks by the chairman of Daimler-Benz in Germany, who has warned that he will move his firm out of Germany if the social chapter continues to pile costs on his business? Does not that show that my right hon. Friend's stand in safeguarding the British opt-out is absolutely right and beneficial to British business? If Daimler-Benz decided to come to this country, would my right hon. Friend welcome it? May I suggest that there are many suitable sites in north-west England?
    The Prime Minister: I did see the remarks by the chairman of Daimler-Benz. I would, of course, be delighted to welcome Daimler-Benz to the United Kingdom, just as we welcomed Honda, Black and Decker, Samsung, Toyota and many others. My hon. Friend may not yet know that a survey today found that job prospects in Britain are better than in any other country in the European Union. Ironically, on this day of all days, socialist Members of the European Parliament, including
    848
    Labour MEPs, have called for an end to our opt-out of the social chapter. I suggest that they speedily seek an audience with the chairman of Daimler-Benz.
    Mr. Blair: On rail privatisation, does the Prime Minister accept that it is a necessary consequence of setting a guaranteed level of service below the existing levels of service that private operators will have the right and the power to cut existing services, and that he will he powerless to stop it?
    The Prime Minister: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, this afternoon, the operators will make it clear that they do not intend to cut services. However, they do intend to exercise their freedom to increase services. Unless one is to sterilise the British rail system in its entirety, they need that flexibility. They will provide additional services and will say so this afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman were serious about improving ihe service, he would not stand in the way of those reforms for his own ideological reasons but would join us in modernising a railway that can and will provide a better service for people in the future.
    Mr. Blair: First, on the point about additional routes that operators are seeking today, will the Prime Minister confirm that those who are making those bids today are wholly owned British Rail subsidiaries, and that that will not bind the private operators? Secondly, if he is so certain that they will keep or increase existing services, why not specify and guarantee that in their contracts?
    The Prime Minister: I made that point in terms of directing the improved services at the times and on the tracks that people want. The right hon. Gentleman might be reassured by what the chairman of Railtrack will also be saying today. He makes it clear that it is on the cards that the operators may want to increase their services still further and want additional track agreements with Railtrack to enable them to do so. It is becoming clear that those interested in running the service are interested, as are the Government, in improving the service and not leaving it in its present inadequate state.
    Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman wants to improve the service, but is not it true that, under privatisation so far, some services have been cut, some are to be removed altogether, through ticketing is to be reduced and, today, he cannot even guarantee the existing level of service? In those circumstances is it any wonder that the public would prefer to keep British Rail as a public service, not break it up and sell it up to satisfy some faction in the Tory party?
    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to continue his political campaign against private ownership of British Rail. But he might make himself a little better informed about the existing situation before he begins to spread such scare stories. Under the present nationalised service arrangements, no service is protected—nor was it under any previous Labour Government—and never has been. The passenger service requirements to he unveiled today will, for the first time, underpin minimum contractual guarantees. The service provided will he in two components: the minimum guarantee to ensure that those services cannot be cut and the additional service that the private sector has already

    849
    indicated that it will run in addition to the minimum guarantee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now look at the reality and stop spreading scare stories.
    Mr. Sims: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the responsibility for both the manner and pace at which the European Union develops lies with the Governments of the member states, individually and collectively, not with the Commission, which is the Union's servant, not its master?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm that to my hon. Friend. I think that there will be a number of members of the European Union at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference who will wish to ensure that the primacy of the European Council itself is enshrined and improved. I do not believe that the United Kingdom will be alone in seeking those particular changes. We all wish to see the European Union develop in a satisfactory way that is compatible with the interests of the people and the nation states across Europe. We have a number of positive proposals to make to that end, and we shall set them out in the weeks ahead.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clarke: Given that the American Congress and Senate have accepted that there is evidence to confirm the existence of Gulf war syndrome and given that 421 former British service personnel have been identified as suffering in a similar way, does the Prime Minister agree that there is an urgent need for an inquiry? Does he accept that, as those people were willing to give their lives when he asked them, he has a moral responsibility to ensure that such an inquiry takes place?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Medical Research Council has thus far found no evidence of Gulf war syndrome. We have told people who believe that they are suffering from any ailment as a result of the Gulf war to come forward and be examined so that we may determine the position for ourselves. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in the way that he refers to the American Government. I do not believe that they have made the statement that he attributes to them.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Hendon school in my constituency was the first school in London to become a grant-maintained school? Since then, it has been transformed and is now heavily oversubscribed. Will my right hon. Friend welcome the increased popularity of grant-maintained schools, particularly among the Opposition? Does he agree that it is disgraceful double standards for those who seek to deny others the freedom of choice to then exercise it themselves?
    The Prime Minister: I think that we all look forward to the day when the Opposition preach what they
    850
    practise—it is self-evident that that has not been the case with education in the past. Of course, all parents want what is best for their children, and they are right to do so. We wish to ensure that the freedoms which are exercised quite correctly by Opposition Members in the interests of their own children are not denied to other people by Opposition policies.
    Mr. Ashdown: Given that the Prime Minister has already said, quite rightly, that education is the key to the country's success, how does he justify cutting—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Just a moment, Mr. Ashdown. Order. I call Mr. Ashdown.
    Mr. Ashdown: Given that education is the key to the country's future, how does the Prime Minister justify cutting the allocation for education to local education authorities by a sum equivalent to £50 less for every primary school pupil and £200 less for every secondary school pupil in the land?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows what the funding increases have been over recent years. I also give the right hon. Gentleman credit for appreciating that, quite apart from the increased resources that have gone into education in recent years, we have improved the quality and standard of education significantly through our reform of the curriculum; the opportunity that we have provided to schools to become grant maintained; the opportunity for testing children and for parents to know what that testing is; and through the publication of the performance tables, which ensures that there is peer pressure on bad schools.
    It would be more gracious for the right hon. Gentleman, who claims to be concerned about education—and I am sure that he is—to acknowledge those reforms which are now accepted in practice even by the official Opposition.
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pawsey: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he has no plans to abolish grammar schools, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, the assisted places scheme or the charitable status of independent schools? Can he further confirm that he has no plans to introduce a graduate tax? All of those ideas are being actively promoted by Opposition Members.
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly pleased to confirm that to my hon. Friend. In recent years we have set out a series of education reforms which have now been accepted by the trade unions and teachers and welcomed by parents and many others. I believe that we can now look forward to a period of improvement and stability in education. The changes proposed by the Labour party will recreate unnecessary chaos. We have stability in education and we must retain it. We do not want the denial of choice that is proposed by the official Opposition.
    Mr. Shore: In view of M. Santer's speech at Davos last weekend calling for early progress toward a single European currency and for reducing the voting power of

    851
    the larger member states, does not the Prime Minister agree that, far from being the right man in the right place at the right time, he is in fact the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time?
    The Prime Minister: It would be extremely difficult to find a Commission President candidate who, on those two points, would not take the same position as the present President. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to plough through the rest of the Commission President's speech perhaps he will welcome the fact that the President said that many people perceive a
    "bureaucratic, byzantine, technocratic Brussels maze."
    The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree with that.
    The President also gave top priority to tackling Europe's declining competitiveness, completing the single market in telecommunications and energy, ensuring the proper performance of single market rules, free trade and a strong common foreign security policy. Each and every one of those are British priorities in the European Union and they have been endorsed by the President of the Commission.
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend find time this afternoon to have a word with Department of Social Security Ministers? They will tell him that since last August, 10,500 non-British residents have been refused income support. That is a great saving to the DSS, despite opposition from Labour and the Social Affairs Commissioner. Does not that vindicate Government policy of concentrating benefits on people who need them
    852
    most, in stark contrast to Labour which, in respect of benefits, is prepared to turn a blind eye to fraud and abuse?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree about the nature of changes introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I do not believe that any British taxpayer is happy subsidising people who have no close ties with the United Kingdom but who have been receiving benefit payments without having made contributions. The changes we made bring the United Kingdom more in line with our European partners, whose safety-net benefits are not normally available to our nationals freshly arrived in their countries.
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Is the Prime Minister aware that as the result of the botched introduction of reduced junior doctors' hours, the accident and emergency unit at Broadgreen hospital in my constituency is being forced to close its doors sooner than planned? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that means patients presenting themselves for emergency treatment will suffer greater anxiety and pain, and that doctors and nurses will face greater stress? Will the Prime Minister accept that nothing less than the resignation of the Secretary of State for Health will satisfy the people whom I represent?
    The Prime Minister: I think that even the hon. Lady's hon. Friends felt that she did not get the last part of her question right. I will not take lectures on health from the hon. Lady. As she is clearly aiming at what is happening in the health service, perhaps she will say whether she agrees with statements by Labour's official health spokesman and other Labour Members as to the level of health spending. There are substantial differences. The Labour party is utterly split on that issue, as on so many others. One day, the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends will concentrate on the remarkable improvements achieved by people in the national health service, not carp and criticise week after week after week, and seek to undermine the service.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Paul Marland: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on what appears to have become a conspiracy to cover up an hon. Member's voting record. The question is whether or not the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), Labour's Front-Bench spokesman on agriculture, voted for the export of live animals in 1975.
Hansard shows that, after the debate on 17 January 1975 following the O'Brien report, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, on a free vote, voted for the restoration of the export of live animals. Furthermore, on 17 April 1975 in an Adjournment debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the point of order?"] The point of order is that it was not just in one free vote that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East demonstrated his support for the export of live animals, but in his subsequent actions. In those circumstances, what can be done by the House to establish the truth and to expose what appears to be a conspiracy?
Madam Speaker: First, I take it that the hon. Gentleman informed the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) that he intended to raise that matter today.
Mr. Marland indicated assent.
Madam Speaker: That is as it should be.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. This is an abuse of the time of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If Conservative Members have any doubt about that, they should read the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who accepted the position. We reached agreement on what actually happened.
I will briefly state the facts. In 1973, I voted to stop the export of live animals, on a Labour motion. The Conservative Government, who opposed that motion, set up the O'Brien committee. By the time that a Labour Government were elected in 1975, of which I was a member, the O'Brien committee had recommended increased safeguards and resumption of the trade. I might add that the trade then was in cattle and pigs, and was small compared with now. I, as a member of the Labour
854
Government, voted with those on the Conservative Front Bench and with the Labour Government for a resumption of the trade.
It is nonsense to make such a meal of this. I have never sought to misrepresent the position. It is the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) who, at Prime Minister's questions a fortnight ago, misrepresented it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I will hear no further points of order on that matter. Points of order on it are becoming far too frequent. It has now been cleared up once and for all.
Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, I tabled a series of questions for written answer regarding incidents of fire, crimes of violence, unannounced station closures and train cancellations on London Underground. Such questions had been answered in some detail in the Official Report in June 1994.
The reply that I received from the Minister for Transport in London on 27 January of this year was that these are operational matters for London Underground. Surely that constitutes an abdication not only of Government responsibility but of accountability to this House and to Londoners. I should be grateful for your advice on how to proceed in this matter.
Madam Speaker: As far as I am aware, there has been no change of policy. Ministers are responsible for the answers that they give. As far as I know, and as the hon. Lady has told the House, these are day-to-day matters of an operational nature. I am sure that she would want to find other ways of pursuing them, possibly with London Underground direct—or she may even try to get an Adjournment debate.

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

SEX DISCRIMINATION (ARMED FORCES)
That the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Application to Armed Forces etc.) Regulations 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3276) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Question agreed to.

Motor Vehicle Insurance Certificate Display
3.36 pm
Mr. Bob Dunn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require all registered owners of motor vehicles to display prominently on each vehicle owned a valid certificate of insurance and for it to be an offence if no certificate is so displayed.
This is a straightforward Bill with a single aim: to reduce and eliminate the problems created by the uninsured motorist for the insured motorist—problems of personal tragedy, financial difficulty and abuse of the law.

As the House knows, the law requires vehicles to be road-taxed, to undergo Ministry of Transport testing when of a certain age, and to be insured. On that last requirement, estimates vary, but it is reckoned that at least 1 million motorists currently drive without insurance. Other estimates whose accuracy I have no reason to doubt place the figure nearer 2 million or over 2 million.

The House will accept that this involves a cost, as all hon. Members will testify, knowing the cases of real hardship and personal anxiety that cross our desks from time to time. There is a cost to the insured, honest motorist, as recognised by the Association of British Insurers in a paper issued last year, which states, among other things:
"The cost of uninsured motoring has risen by an unacceptable extent over the last few years, and continues to rise."
Motorists who do insure are entitled to be protected against this cost. There is no reason why they should pay a surcharge on their premiums to meet the obligations of motorists who are not insured. But the honest motorist is paying a surcharge to pay for claims dealt with by the Motor Insurers Bureau, set up in 1946 by the industry with the aim of meeting judgments in respect of third party personal injury claims—and additionally, since 1989, of third party property damage claims.

In 1988, the Motor Insurance Bureau paid out £26 million in claims. But for 1994, the figure seems likely to be in excess of £100 million. The final figure for that year, including other categories, may well be in excess of £250 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) pointed out, in an excellent trail-blazing speech last year:
"The failure to tackle the problem vigorously is expensive, because uninsured motorists give rise to claims bills of some £250 million a year. Thus, a £250 million subsidy is paid by honest motorists to dishonest motorists. The Motor Insurance Bureau is funded by a 2.5 per cent. levy on motor insurance policies, which is not much different from the insurance premium tax, on which so much objection has been expressed."
856
My hon. Friend later pointed out a parallel with the vehicle excise duty, and said:
"Some important parallels can be drawn with vehicle excise duty, for which the display of valid cover is mandatory. There are 140,000 convictions a year for failing to display a road fund licence. They are not displayed because they have not been bought; but the chances of identifying 140,000 evaders without a requirement to display would be minimal."
He continued:
"So the need to display enhances compliance. I submit that, were not the tax disc required to be displayed, the level of evasion would be much higher. It therefore follows that, if an insurance disc were required to be displayed, the number of uninsured motorists would be likely to decrease or the number of evaders apprehended would increase."—[Official Report, 19 December 1994; Vol. 251. c. 1446–48.]

We have international comparisons to draw on. In 1986, the Government of the Republic of Ireland went over to an insurance disc display system. Prior to that, 20 to 25 per cent. of Irish drivers were uninsured. Yet one year following the introduction of the display disc, the percentage of uninsured motorists fell to less than 10 per cent. Similar systems are in operation in France and the United States.
My interest in the matter first started in the days when my noble Friend the Baroness Chalker was Minister of State, Department of Transport. I raised the issue with her—I was treated kindly—but to no effect. Other colleagues in the House have raised the matter over the years, and it is time that something was done. To have between 1 million and 2 million uninsured motorists driving on our roads is unacceptable.
I believe that this simple measure, which requires the owner of a motor vehicle to display a valid insurance certificate on his or her windscreen or vehicle, in a prominent place, would ease the burden that I have described. There is a cost to the insurance industry and to the Treasury, but more importantly to the motorist and the road user.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bob Dunn, Sir Jim Spicer, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. Douglas French, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. John Marshall and Mr. James Pawsey.

MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE CERTIFICATE DISPLAY
Mr. Bob Dunn accordingly presented a Bill to require all registered owners of motor vehicles to display prominently on each vehicle owned a valid certificate of insurance and for it to be an offence if no certificate is so displayed: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 March, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]
Opposition Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

National Health Service
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.44 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move,
That this House views with alarm the growing evidence of dangerously inadequate patient care and of overstretched staff and facilities in the National Health Service; takes heed of the testimonies of those senior staff who are still free to speak, who say that the very existence of a nationwide service in health care is at risk; rejects the drive to replace it by local health businesses; and calls for a moratorium on bed closures in London, and on the Government to reassess their dogma-driven policy changes and to foster co-operation, not competition, between staff and institutions.
We move the motion today at a time when the Conservative party's "huge national experiment", as the chief executive of the NHS has described it, is turning health care into health chaos. Many of those who work in the health service would view with considerable irony the wording of the Government's amendment, since they think that the Government have already created chaos out of the health service as it is.
We move the motion at a time when those charged with responsibility for the public health of our nation are held in ever-rising contempt by lifelong Conservatives who are also distinguished consultants. The British Medical Association's "News" reported in October 1994 that half of consultants surveyed believed that the standard of care had declined in the last five years and 63 per cent. believed that the NHS as we know it will disintegrate. The Government are held in contempt by staff at every level of the health service, by journalists on newspapers that span the political spectrum, but, above all, by the wider British public.
There is today a threat to the sheer existence of the NHS that the Government and the Prime Minister claimed was safe in their hands. The threat shows in the evidence: in a growing catalogue of difficulties and problems—in the events. Problems can and do arise under any Government, but not on the scale, for the duration or with the consistency with which they are arising under this Government.
The threat shows too in the testimony of staff of the health service—privately, for those in fear of the sack, publicly, for those who feel that they are still free to speak. The threat shows in the stark evidence that, whatever the Prime Minister said last October at his conference, the NHS is being privatised, by stealth, before our eyes and with intent, and the only people who are not supposed to be in on the secret are the people of Britain.
Let us begin with the evidence of decay. This debate is taking place after a week in which the corpse of a patient was found under piping in St. Thomas's hospital, parents in Truro found a hypodermic needle under their baby's skin, a woman in Sheffield's Royal Hallamshire hospital left her bed for five minutes, I believe to go to the loo, and returned to find that it had been taken away for use in another part of the hospital.
858
Nor are those isolated incidents. There is other evidence too of decay and decline in the health service. The latest final figure of 1,071,000 is the highest published total of people on waiting lists since records of in-patients and day cases waiting have been available. When the provisional waiting list was published, Ministers boasted, and have gone on boasting, that their reforms have delivered shorter waiting lists, but when the corrected final figures showed a record high, Ministers were uncharacteristically silent. They did not even issue a press release.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I recognise that the right hon. Lady is relatively new to her job, but the Government have consistently talked about waiting times. Does the right hon. Lady recognise that the average length of time that an individual has been on a waiting list has just about halved since the reforms came in? What is more, does she recognise that the new patients charter, for the first time ever with a standard for out-patients, means that not only has a dramatic improvement in long waiters been achieved, but a limit has been set on out-patient waits?
Mrs. Beckett: The Secretary of State need not disturb herself. I propose to come later to the Government's waiting list figures, and to put them in context.
It is noticeable that on this as on so many other occasions, the right hon. Lady chose not to refer to the point that I made but to raise some other point entirely. That is a characteristic habit of hers, and one which does not contribute to the public's trust in her. As for the length of time that I have been in my post, indeed it has been very short. If I had been in the Secretary of State's post as long as she has, I would be ashamed of myself.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is now a waiting list to get on to a waiting list? As I have pointed out twice before in the House, I waited 14 months to see a specialist before I was placed on a waiting list for treatment—and I needed that treatment. That is the position in the north-west, writ large.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. As I hope to show later, that is widely true in the country as a whole—which is why what the Secretary of State says so often seems irrelevant.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: In fact, there are now three waiting lists. There is a waiting list to get an appointment, followed by a waiting list to get a consultation; then, and only then, are patients put on a waiting list to obtain treatment.
Mrs. Beckett: That is quite true, and highlights what could be described as a question mark. I believe that it was in yesterday's Daily Telegraph that a journalist observed that the Secretary of State gives plenty of statistics, some of which are correct and some of which bear more than one interpretation.
Dr. John Marek: I hate to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), but there are not three but four waiting lists. Having eventually gone through three waiting lists at my local hospital, the daughter of one of my constituents was given an appointment for an operation and was then kept waiting for six hours. She was told to telephone at 7.30 the following day; there was no bed. She was told to

859
telephone again at 8.30, then at 9.30, then at 10.30. At 11.30, she was told again that there was no bed for her. She is going back next March.
Mrs. Beckett: This has been an interesting exchange. The same thing is happening throughout Britain. Ministers, and the Secretary of State in particular, trot out statistics which, although not necessarily inaccurate—they are inaccurate sometimes, however—are relatively meaningless. One hon. Member after another can rise to contradict them from his or her own experience.
I have never regarded The Daily Telegraph as a socialist rag, but, according to yesterday's edition, this is why the Secretary of State is so distrusted and disliked.
Mr. Jerry Hayes rose—
Mr. Gyles Brandreth rose—
Mrs. Beckett: I advise the hon. Gentlemen, both of whom represent very marginal seats, to be wary of associating themselves with such perceived deceit of the country.
Mr. Hayes: Is there not a fifth waiting list—the longest of all? How long have we been waiting to hear the Labour party's health policies?
Mrs. Beckett rose—
Mr. Brandreth: The right hon. Lady spoke of decay. How does she square that with the increase of some 8,000 in the number of doctors and dentists over the past decade, and the fact that there are 3,000 more general practitioners? Most patients in my constituency are now looked after by fundholding GPs, and they seem to like the service they are getting.
Can the right hon. Lady tell us the cost and the implications of her proposals to abandon GP fundholding, which is working well in my constituency? My constituents believe that those proposals would increase bureaucracy and the number of local committees, and would reduce the amount of patient care, which has been improved by the introduction of fundholding. More doctors and better service: that is what we seem to be getting in Chester.
Mrs. Beckett: I am familiar with some of the claims that are made for the advantages of fundholding—[Interruption.] There is no need for the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) to scream at me; I can hear her quite clearly.
Patients are almost always happy with the service they receive from their GPs—and a very good thing, too—whether or not the practice involved is fundholding. Let me, however, say two things to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). First, it is far from proven that the advantages to patients of fundholders are linked with the fundholding system itself. Secondly, let me recommend to the hon. Gentleman—who has talked of costs and bureaucracy—an article published, I believe, last week in the fundholders' own magazine. It suggested that the administrative and knock-on cost of each fundholding practice was some £80,000.
860
I have been in the House, and studied the present Government, rather longer than the hon. Gentleman.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Too long.
Mrs. Beckett: May I remind the hon. Lady that it is I who am making the speech? She says that I am speaking for too long, but I am making a speech and not an intervention.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I said that the right hon. Lady had been in the House for too long.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady has succeeded: I have finally forgotten what I was going to say. I am sure I shall remember shortly.
The main point that I am making to the hon. Member for City of Chester is that the advantages that he claims to exist are not necessarily related to the system of fundholding. Many doctors who have taken it up do not actually support the system as it now exists, but believe that they are wise to take advantage of the money while it is there.
I have now remembered what I was going to say to the hon. Gentleman. Long scrutiny of the Government's policies tells me as clear as day that, once the costs of fundholding become apparent, GPs who hold funds will be squeezed and squeezed and squeezed. They have been bribed into the system, as they are aware, by the use of public money. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will not last. The more of them there are, the less generous the Government will be to them.
I have been diverted from my speech, and I had better return to it.
Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I am sure that he will have an opportunity later. I know that he is one of the Government's avant-garde when it comes to interventions. [Interruption.] I hope that I am not complimenting the hon. Gentleman too much.
A survey of English regional health authorities showed today that more than 10,000 operations were cancelled on the day of or after admission to hospital, and that about 10 per cent. of the people involved were not readmitted within a month. The number of hospital complaints has risen 300 per cent. in the past 10 years. That is a good example of how different interpretations can be put on the evidence.
In The Daily Telegraph yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the 300 per cent. increase in hospital complaints was evidence of how well the system was working, because it was easier for people to make complaints. The Daily Telegraph reporter asked her, if she judged such an increase in complaints as evidence of success, by what measure she would judge failure—a pertinent point, and one that I have yet to hear the Secretary of State deal with. I am sure that she will come to that matter in her speech.
Hospital and ward closures are continuing. The NHS lost more than 10,000 beds in 1993.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There have been increases in day cases.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady is right. The number of hospital beds has decreased partly as a result of day case

861
treatment, and partly because of the advantages of medical technology. Will she explain, however, why, side by side with reductions in the number of beds in the public sector, the number of beds in the private sector has increased? It is clear to us that what is happening is a matter not simply of medical advance, but of changing direction in the provision of health care in Britain. That is especially striking when it comes to psychiatric beds, where the position is even more crystal clear.
A study, which I think was carried out by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, suggests that many units, especially those in London, have a so-called bed occupancy rate of more than 100 per cent. The study states that some units in inner London have a bed occupancy rate of 120 per cent. because of the disappearance of long-stay beds. The number of people needing care far exceeds the number of beds in which to treat them.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: The right hon. Lady referred to anecdotes from her colleagues. She might like to hear the anecdote of a constituent of mine who rang up to say how pleased he was with the treatment that he had received in our local NHS—a treatment that was not available on the NHS only a few years ago, and especially not under the Labour Government. The only reason that he is receiving the treatment is the more than 50 per cent. real terms increase in the Government's spending on the health
service.
Mrs. Beckett: As I said in our previous debate—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was here on that occasion—in all honesty, people in the NHS and the British public find few things more offensive than Conservative Members taking the credit for medical advances, for the work of health service staff, or for anything else that has gone right in the health service, especially when they so patently refuse to take the blame for anything that has gone wrong. I am delighted to hear that his constituent—
Mr. Arnold: That will not wash.
Mrs. Beckett: Public reaction suggests that that is exactly what the British people believe, and they are right to believe it.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: All too often, because of financial restraints and financial considerations, patients are discharged from hospital far too quickly, purely on financial, rather than medical, grounds. Is not that one of the ways in which the Government reduce the number of beds, and one of the factors that lead to complaints? Even worse, on some occasions those patients do not even have the back-up so that they can be looked after when they get home.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. Real concern exists about whether we respond adequately to the changes with discharge procedures, and about whether we arc considering readmissions and other matters. We continually press the Government on that matter.
Mr. Alex Carlile: The right hon. Lady focused on psychiatric care, a subject in which the Secretary of State has some professional expertise. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is not only the shortage of psychiatric beds in London that is a scandal but the
862
fact that some patients are being shunted 100 or 200 miles from their homes although their families are an essential element in their psychiatric treatment?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right. It is especially worrying that this most vulnerable group of people are being treated in that way. No one who knows the position is at all happy or satisfied with the level of care that it implies.
A survey carried out by the Royal College—
Mr. Toby Jessel: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I am sorry, but I had better get on. I have given way a great deal already; I may give way later if I have time.
A survey carried out by the Royal College of Radiologists was cited in a Which? survey of the Government's health care changes—I know that the Government always approve of consumer surveys. The Which? report states:
"A survey carried out by the Royal College of Radiologists in 1993 found that 14 out of 29 cancer units reported waiting times for radiotherapy of four weeks or longer. In some cases the delay is seven or eight weeks"—
which no one can think desirable in terms of health care.
The Evening Standard has done a great deal of work on health care, and it is noticeable—this pattern occurs not only in London but across Britain—that it has more health stories that worry reporters, editors and readers than it can readily print. On 25 January, the Evening Standard stated:
"This winter, there have been several occasions when not a single intensive-care bed has been available anywhere in the capital for either an adult or a child."
Despite that fact, seven of London's 48 intensive care units are said to face closure.
I refer now to the Secretary of State's use of statistics. Which? states:
"It simply isn't true"—
as the Secretary of State said yesterday—
"to say that no one is waiting more than two years. The figures published by the Government under the Patient's Charter"—
which I regard as a cone hot line for the health service—
"reflect"—
they should do so, but they do not—
"the experience of people".
The article draws attention to the fact that the top priority in the NHS since the Government's so-called reforms has been to reduce waiting times and how much money the Government have put into it, but it also states that the targets and proposals represent only half the story. It finishes by saying:
"The only national figures"
for waiting times
"that are currently published are compiled by the independently-funded College of Health. These show that some patients wait well over a year or more to see a specialist, who then decides whether or not to put them on a waiting list."
It goes on to state that some of the longest waits are of three years for general surgery and more than two years for orthopaedic care.
I am struck by the fact that the Secretary of State used to imply—I do not want to misrepresent her, but it may even be that she used to say—that the issue to which my

863
hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) drew attention—that of people waiting to go on waiting lists—was not a problem. Suddenly, however, a standard has been set in the patients charter, which suggests that the Secretary of State was perhaps being less than forthright with us in the past.
The Prime Minister's local hospital is this month turning patients away because of a bed crisis. People are having to be sent 70 miles away, and the hospital has twice closed its doors to all admissions, once for a full 24 hours. A three-year-old girl in urgent need of treatment for asthma was turned away from St. Thomas's before Christmas and eventually had to be taken to Addenbrooke's in Cambridge.
In another incident, a war veteran had to wait at King's. After he had waited several hours in casualty, his family asked whether a private bed was available, and one was found within 50 minutes. There has since been a dispute, as it seems that the family had apparently misunderstood that they might be asked to pay, but of course the hospital did not intend them to pay, at least once the press got on the case.
The Hull Royal infirmary has recently had difficulties with staffing, and asked that patients with minor injuries should, if possible, care for their own injuries rather than go to the accident and emergency department.
A leaked report from the King's Fund draws attention to a range of problems, such as lack of privacy, inadequate early pain relief and the lack of information given to patients waiting for beds. It says that Government policy should have been based on well-researched facts rather than "anecdotal evidence" before accepting the Tomlinson committee's hypothesis about London. It continues:
"It might have been possible to predict the current increase in patients waiting long periods on trolleys in London's A and E departments as the level of hospital resources in the capital continues its ever-downward spiral."
Earlier this week, a report was published by the—
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I really must get on.
A report to the Secretary of State was published by the Clinical Standards Advisory Group about the problems caused by people having to wait for treatment in accident and emergency departments. We discovered that, although that report was published this January, it was sent to the Secretary of State last January. The Secretary of State has been sitting on it for a year, until—presumably—she could come up with some proposal for a trolley standard for her new patients charter.
The report says—[Interruption.] I do not know if Conservative Members think that that is funny. I certainly do not think that it is funny at all. The report says that NHS market changes—the changes that the Government have made to the structure of the health service—are causing hospitals to concentrate on non-urgent work, on which their income depends, at the expense of work to treat accidents and emergencies. The report also says that, in hospitals where people have to wait the longest limes to be treated in accident and emergency units, the highest rates of death in those accident and emergency units occur.
864
My final quote from the press in this section of my speech is of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who said to the Evening Standard:
"Every week I fight to get people into hospital within the year."
Perhaps some of his hon. Friends should have a word with the right hon. Gentleman.
In considering the evidence of problems in the health service and how widespread those problems are, I shall refer to the Casualty Watch results of 30 January. Under that procedure, people go into different casualty departments and ask people what is happening, why they are there and how long they have been waiting.
In Queen Mary's, someone with heart failure was being seen and was to be admitted, but had already been waiting for almost two and a half hours. In Bromley, someone of 81 years of age with pneumonia was awaiting treatment for three and a half hours. In King's hospital, someone who had collapsed with hypothermia was waiting for more than three and a half hours. Also in Bromley, someone of 77 who had had a heart attack was awaiting a bed for almost four hours. In King's again, someone who had diarrhoea and vomiting had to wait for almost four hours for a bed. Also, someone of 95 years old who had infectious diarrhoea was waiting almost four hours for a bed.
There is a whole string of such cases. They are all a snapshot of what is happening in our national health service accident and emergency units in one day. The worst cases included those in Chase Farm, where someone of 78 with diarrhoea and bed sores had been waiting for almost seven hours, and someone with gastritis, who had previously arrived at 4 o'clock in the morning and who reappeared at 10 o'clock in the morning, had been waiting for seven hours.
Someone in Newham of 75 years old had heart failure and had been waiting for eight hours to be admitted. That is the health service in which the Conservative party says its reforms have solved all the problems, and that there is no need for the Secretary of State to continue to address them.
I turn now to the testimony of the staff.
The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): What a sad catalogue.
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, it is a sad catalogue, but it is the state to which the Government have reduced our national health service. The very least that the Government can do, when patients in that service are waiting seven hours to be admitted—elderly patients, people who fought in the war and who were in this country during the war—and the very least that the Minister can do is listen for 40 minutes to what his Government have done.
The chairman of the BMA—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Beckett: I am more interested in the testimony of the staff of the health service at the moment than that of Conservative Members. The chairman of the BMA, Dr. Macara, said:
"There is despair in the air today…despair about the mood of alienation and demoralisation in the NHS."
He talked about the Government's changes being
"to serve a perverse philosophy of winners and losers."

865
There also is the testimony of Dr. Lee-Potter, a self-described lifelong Tory voter, but perhaps not for much longer. He says that the Government's changes in the health service are dogma driven, and that the Government may claim that what they are doing is not privatisation, but it
"is the next best thing."
He hopes that people will recognise that, if someone such as he is saying how disastrous the changes are, matters really must be bad.
Five professors, world-renowned experts in molecular genetics, resigned from the health service in the summer. Four more are considering their positions. They talk about Government policy forcing them
"to engage in a competitive destructive conflict"
and how the Government's changes have
"poisoned the environment between research groups who should be collaborating with one another and instead are being forced into competition."
In a letter to The Guardian on 28 January, the professor of diabetic medicine at the Royal Hallamshire hospital in Sheffield said that people
"should realise that they are sitting on a medico-legal time bomb…The image created is of an improved modern NHS…The reality is stress and dangerous practices relating to the pressures and it has become worse in the past year".
He went on to say:
"Five years ago our wonderful NHS was reasonable but had some problems. Now reason has gone out of the window and problems dominate."
Earlier this week, Charles Clarke, a distinguished neurologist, said:
"As a neurologist I can no longer offer effective emergency care at either hospital in the trust to the district general hospital I serve … in the last six days I have been unable to admit six out of seven patients I regarded as emergencies".
He talks about there being fewer beds available in future.
There is also the testimony of London's leading cancer experts, who are finding it increasingly difficult in the market-based NHS to obtain permission to undertake trials and to become involved in research, because that is not the priority of those who control the purse strings.
I shall finish by quoting an anonymous contribution from a junior hospital doctor who wrote—again—to The Guardian. It is sad, is it not, but people will write to and read that newspaper, much though Ministers dislike it and much though they object? He or she said:
"I work as a junior hospital doctor in a typical district general hospital. Over the last 18 months I have seen the hospital spiral into crisis."
That person talks about patients waiting in casualty for up to 10 hours before being transferred to an outlying ward, and calls the patients charter a sick joke. He or she finishes by saying:
"Patients are already suffering unnecessarily, and some have died…The situation continues to deteriorate and soon the NHS will have sunk altogether."
[Interruption.] One hears just about barely sotto voce comments from Conservative Members about how awful and terrible it is to quote all those newspapers.
In our previous debate, the Minister of State accused me of simply talking from the point of view of what the Labour party thought about the health service. He
866
demanded evidence. He asked for testimony as to whether there were any problems in the health service. I am giving him testimony in spades. I assure the Minister of State and the Secretary of State that there are shovelfuls more where that came from. All of it is the real experience of patients and doctors of the problems in today's health service, under the Government and resulting from the changes that they have made.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: I will give way shortly. [Interruption.] How dare the Under-Secretary of State for Wales? It is not a lazy speech to quote extensively from the experience of patients and doctors. It requires great work, study and collaboration. The hon. Gentleman hates and resents it because I have given him the authentic voice and experience of patients, the authentic voice and experience of the medical profession, of the nursing profession and of everybody else. The Government's stupidity and insensitivity will ultimately bring them down.
Mr. Tracey: The right hon. Lady has read us rather a lot of press cuttings, and I accept that she thinks that those are making her case. Will she comment on the latest edition of "Social Trends", which reports that our population is healthier now than it is has ever been? Presumably that also includes the time of Labour Governments.
Mrs. Beckett: Factually, what the hon. Gentleman says is extremely questionable. There is a sharp disparity in health standards across the population. Those at the bottom of the heap in terms of income, housing and all the other policy factors which impinge upon health care are certainly doing very much worse under the Government; again, there is a great deal of testimony to that.
The Minister will be delighted to hear that I shall now quote from the Government's own document. I presume that he will not object to that. I have given evidence and testimony as to the state of the health service and the opinions of staff, and I want now to turn to the Government's purpose, which I believe is clear.
The Government are intent on ensuring that the NHS will no longer be national. They are intent on fragmenting the service and—through a failure to plan, destructive competition and profound demoralisation within the service—they are intent that the NHS shall no longer play a major role in maintaining the nation's health. Finally, by starving the NHS of resources, the Government are intent on transforming the public service into a private market.
Ministers openly advocate the privatisation and commercialisation of the NHS. The Government's own document—the NHS executive's document called "Managing The New NHS"—states that their capital investment manual
"makes it clear that private finance alternatives should be viewed as a standard option…Approval will not be given to business cases unless there is a clear demonstration that private finance alternatives have been adequately tested."
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): We have waited 32 minutes to hear a single word of policy from the right hon. Lady on behalf of her party. This is the big moment for which

867
we have all been waiting. She mentioned that resources had been starved. Is she confirming the pledge made by her predecessor, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), that Labour would increase spending on the NHS by £6 billion?
Mrs. Beckett: Nobody has ever said that. The Minister is perfectly well aware of that, although the Secretary of State continues to pretend that it has been said. We have always said that, on coming into office, we would examine the state of the NHS, see what money was available, where it was being used and whether it was being used as it should be—
Mr. Bowis rose—
Mrs. Beckett: The Minister need not get up, as I will not give way to him again. We would see whether the money was being used properly for patient care. We would also, of course, have to assess the state of the economy and what could be afforded.
I must say that, in my day—in terms of the years of experience in the House which the Minister has had—it was usually left to Back Benchers to put the kind of point which the Minister has just raised. The Minister is obviously under-worked at the Department. I do not intend to be diverted further, but I might say to the Minister that the length of time which I have taken for my speech has been primarily due to my giving way to interventions from Conservative Members.
Mr. McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: No, as the hon. Gentleman will only make the same point.
Ministers are now openly advocating the privatisation and commercialisation of the NHS. The Government have already fragmented the service into almost 500 individual businesses competing for the profits to be made from sickness and disease.
I am asked frequently—I am sure that the Secretary of State will ask again today—why the NHS, or parts of it, should not be privatised. There is a tendency for those of us who believe in a public health service to think that that question need not even be addressed, as it is too self-evident. However, after the week that we have just had in the NHS, we should spell it out again. I shall do so briefly.
The national health service should not have been privatised, for the same reasons that British Gas should not have privatised—because a privatised service skimps on public service. Privatised services enrich executives with barrowloads of cash, and it is only about a week since we heard the figures for the huge salary increases that some of them are being paid. While such services enrich executives with cash, they threaten to cut services to the elderly and the blind.
Privatised services do less, and their public relations people make it sound like more. In a privatised service, money talks; where money is absent, and in consequence there is silence, the sick, the poor, the frail and the dying wait on trolleys in corridors, in long queues in waiting rooms, or in the frightening isolation of their homes.
At the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister said that, while he lived and breathed, the national health service would not be privatised. He is, I
868
suppose, living and breathing, but yet again he is being, at best, economical with the truth, because the evidence shows that the health service is being privatised.
The National Association of Health Authorities arid Trusts issued an "Update" leaflet headed "Private Finance and the NHS", in which it talks about a "mixed economy" in the health service, and says that that would
"also allow for the increased participation of the private sector through the development of joint ventures."
It concludes that
"control of the joint venture must be in the hands of the private sector partner".
The Secretary of State has said:
"Private finance should be the rule and not the exception."
In a recent survey carried out by the Health and Social Service Journal, health service managers express their concern and say that they are unhappy about the process of market testing being driven by the Government because they fear that it is
"so time consuming that any benefit gained would be offset by the costs … In addition, scarce resources might well be diverted into unprofitable procedures for the sake of quasi-political dogma."
Yet the Government have spent almost £1 million market-testing NHS services. They have tended to talk as if market testing were unimportant—merely for catering, or whatever, although people may have a different view about whether that is important or not.
A recent parliamentary answer to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Health clearly revealed that we have moved way beyond ancillary or support services, and that the Government have market-tested no fewer than 30 clinical and clinical support services in England during that time—services that range from anaesthetics to nuclear medicine, ophthalmology, pharmacy, and radiology, and take in a range of other core NHS clinical services on the way.
The private insurance industry is identifying those opportunities and trying to move into those fields. A conference organised by a string of private insurance companies was held in early December. They say—
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Name them.
Mrs. Beckett: Certainly. They are Norwich Union Healthcare, Friends Provident, Employers Reassurance, Guardian Health, Private Patients Plan and a whole string of other involved and interested parties. In the brochure to encourage people to attend the conference, they highlight a statement that they clearly believe will draw people there:
"As the UK population becomes increasingly receptive to the concept of private healthcare insurance … every player must ensure that their business strategy will increase both profit and market share."
In the lectures listed, someone was to speak on
"which methods are most effective when convincing traditional NHS clients to take private insurance cover".
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), as the shadow Health Minister, was to address the conference, and was supposed to speak on
"how far are the Labour party willing to reverse the privatisation of the healthcare industry"—
a privatisation that the Government say is not taking place.

869
For helpful illumination, let us turn yet again to Mr. Roy Lilley, the chairman of the Homewood trust, in whose opinion the Secretary of State places such value and whom she is so keen to defend. Mr. Lilley wrote a long article about privatisation. He said:
"Could we—or should we—`privatise' the NHS?…The question is more likely to be whether you could get away with it.
Technically, privatising the NHS would be easy. Trusts are tailormade for the job."
He goes on to say:
"So let us not pretend the NHS cannot be privatised, because it can—with a minimum of upheaval."
That is because of the structures which the Government have put in place, and which they keep telling us we may not disturb.
But what does it matter, because, as Mr. Lilley says in his closing paragraph:
"after all, the NHS is only a concept".
The NHS is a concept of such huge value to the British people that the Government have consistently denied the real effect and direction of their policy. But it does not stop there.
BUPA proposes to offer people lifelong disability cover policies in the near future. The reason BUPA is thinking of making that offer and moving into new areas is because it believes that the Government will reduce the disability living allowance next year, making private insurance against disability more attractive.
Whether BUPA's insight into what the Government have in mind is to do with the fact that a past chief executive of the NHS executive is now on its board, I am sure the Secretary of State can tell us. But it is interesting that what it sees as a further cut in the welfare state may be designed to create a market for private insurers.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Along with that creeping, or perhaps galloping, privatisation and greater reliance on companies such as BUPA, has my right hon. Friend noticed the increased reliance on charitable fund-raising? She may have seen in the Nursing Times and Nursing Mirror recently a spirited debate among nurses about whether they should spend their time fund-raising or caring for patients. Surely everyone in the House should want them to care for patients, not rattle tins on the street.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is particularly alarming that they must spend time doing so when staffing levels and service in the NHS are already under so much pressure.
At the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, there is an example of a national health service ward being converted into a luxury private ward. In another case in Epsom, a ward previously closed to NHS patients because the hospital could not afford to run it then reopened to the private sector. All that is an on-going process. We are already seeing it in mainstream health care; we now see it in disability.
I was recently contacted by someone working in medical market research, who told me that insurance companies have undertaken, on the street and no doubt in the home, research to test the market for privatised general practice. People are being invited to comment on various packages of general practice which they might find
870
attractive: a relatively straightforward core general practice service for a monthly fixed fee of £20; a more widesprtad service including physiotherapy and dentistry for a higher fee; paying a further fee for a full range of treatment, including hospital care; and so on. All that would be for a fully privately run and operated general practice service, rather than a public sector service.
The National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts pointed out that the only way to get privately financed primary health care centres built in inner London would be to allow private health providers to both build and operate them. So we are seeing a steady encroachment of the private sector into the national health service, which is why we say that the existence of that service is being put at risk.
I draw a parallel to the attention of the House. In the early 1980s, the Government began to squeeze funds for all the services that local authorities provided, just at a time when demography and changes in national health service care were producing increased demand for residential and nursing care for growing numbers of elderly people. They began to squeeze local authority funding and places. They began to allow—indeed, to encourage—public funds to be used to subsidise the purchase of places in the private sector to fill the gap because the public sector could no longer provide enough places for the perceived and evident need. As the bills began to grow, the Government began to rein in that level of public support, but continued a steady process of attrition—squeezing, cutting and discouraging extra alternative local authority facilities from being provided, even though the need continued to grow.
Now, we have reached the point where those in private sector residential and nursing care receive allowances that are withheld from those in local authority homes—who face a financial penalty. Local authorities are forced to spend by far the greatest bulk of the money that they have available for community care in the private sector. Increasingly, there is little or no availability of community care in the local authority sector. There is simply private sector care—the local authority is restricted to providing inspection of that care. In effect, community care is being and has been privatised.
Ms Ann Coffey: Would my right hon. Friend he interested to know that my local authority of Stockport plans to charge elderly people for community care provided through the public or private sector that comes to more than £350 a week—incidentally, the price of a place in a private home? I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that £350 a week does not provide much community care.
That policy will drive people into private sector residential care, when the object of the Government's policy is to keep them in community care. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is simply a way of local authorities trying to recoup money that they are having to spend on private nursing homes because they cannot provide community care?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is an example of how the process is developing still further.
The end result of the steady process of attrition that has taken place over 12 years is that people are being moved out of the shelter of the welfare state. They no longer have access to public places; they have access to limited public

871
funds—they have no choice but to be in a private sector place. Individuals and their families have to provide the funds to meet the costs of private sector places. It is a process of privatisation by stealth.
The existence of the national health service is being threatened. We are seeing not only a decline in standards and damage being done by Government structural changes, but a steady and deliberate process—a parallel process—of attrition of publicly funded health care.
Ministers are already talking about being neutral in their approach to public and private sector provision, which is exactly what they said about community care. Already, as I told the hon. Member for Lancaster, the number of national health service beds is falling, at the same time as the number of beds in the private sector is increasing. As a result, the number of people treated in the private sector is rising because there is no choice—there is nowhere else for them to be treated.
A conference—"Strategic Market Testing—Clinical and Clinical Support Services"—was held by a range of private sector interests. In the blurb telling people why they should attend the conference, the organisers state:
"New government guidelines on Market Testing of clinical and clinical support services are due to be published next year and there is increasing speculation that it may become a compulsory procedure for pathology services."
We are seeing exactly the same process—a neutral approach to the public or private sector, increased use of the private sector because the public sector is squeezed, then use of the private sector starts to become compulsory. All that is happening despite the fact that, on the waiting list initiatives—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I am sorry, but I have almost finished. I would have given way earlier, but not now.
We are seeing the steady attrition of the public sector and the steady growth of the private sector irrespective of the cost involved. Take the Government's waiting list initiative as an example. There is no question but that, on average, it costs more to treat patients in the private sector than in the public sector, yet the Government continue to insist on private sector treatment.
There is no doubt that private health insurance can cause continuing problems. Lord Lawson, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, refers to private health insurance in his book:
"There are in practice only two ways in which health care can be financed. One is by the taxpayer, and the other through the individual taking out an insurance policy—"
that is the course to which the Government are seeking to drive the British public—
"The latter method, which is the basis of the US system, inevitably results in a massive further escalation in the cost of health care".
It is not a question of value for money; it is dogma-driven policy, which was identified by Dr. Lee Potter and which has so disillusioned people like him. Speaking earlier this year, Dr. Macara said—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is Labour's policy?"] I will tell Government Members what the Labour party's policy is. Our policy is to recreate a public health service which is national in its scope and equal in its access.
872
[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene, or is he simply bellowing from a sitting position in a rather ill-mannered way?
Mr. Peter Butler: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. I did not intend to intervene, but as she insists, I will do so. She has spoken very eloquently for 50 minutes, but she has not even hinted at a Labour policy. All she is giving us now is a description of the Opposition's aims. Do they not have a single policy? It is not too much to ask: just one policy to go on with.
Mrs. Beckett: I can only commend previous debates on the subject to the hon. Gentleman. We have made it very plain that we remain committed, not just in theory but in practice, to the provision of a public health service which is national in scope and which gives access to people across the country on the basis of clinical need and not on the basis of ability to pay. We are concerned that that objective is being put at risk by the Government.
We have also identified three elements in the Government's health reforms which we believe are directed specifically towards privatising the health service. Those elements are: market testing, the use of the internal market and the introduction of competition; the introduction of individual trusts, tailor-made, as Mr. Lilley said, to be moved to the private sector as individual health businesses; and the introduction of general practitioner fundholding, which has created a two-tier system. We have made it clear that those structures must be replaced, and that we are consulting on how that can be best achieved.
I know that Government Members do not like consultation—frankly, I do not think they know what ii means. In a previous debate on the Health Authorities, Bill, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) drew attention to what the Government consider to be consultation. In referring to the consultation process on the changes that the Government are at present pushing through, he said:
"I am not entirely sure who has been consulted … myself and my hon. Friend … had a meeting with the health authority chairman … It was certainly not a consultation … I understand that the chairmen of the health authorities were not consulted. The general managers … were summoned … and told what was to be the case".
He went on:
"What will be the value of so-called consultation if, as I perceive, decisions have already been made and written on tablets of stone"?—[Official Report, 12 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 659.]
I assure the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) that we shall publish some proposals in the early summer. When it comes to a question of detail, I commend to those hon. Members who are not fortunate enough to serve on it the proceedings of the Committee considering the Health Authorities Bill. They will discover that the Government are pushing through legislation to finalise quite sweeping changes in the structure of the national health service without the faintest idea of their impact.
What will happen to the contracts of junior hospital doctors? The Government say that they might be held at regional level, but nobody really knows. The Government have not decided what will happen to nurse education. What will happen to community health councils? The Government say that that is under consideration. The

873
Government are pushing through legislation without settling those details. Why on earth do Government Members expect me to give them details of our proposals which will take effect in two years?
If the hon. Gentleman can tell me today how many hospitals will be in the national health service in two years, he knows more than the Department of Health does today. If he can tell me how many accident and emergency units there will be, he knows more than Ministers do today. They do not know the answers to those questions.
Mr. McLoughlin rose—
Mrs. Beckett: I will not give way, because I am almost at the end of my speech, and have given way frequently.
Recently, Dr. Macara said that he was concerned about the existence of almost a plot—although those were not his words—against the national health service. He stated:
"I am categorical about this. I did not want to believe it for a long time, but I now have every reason to believe it is deliberate policy on the part of a number of senior people".
He believes that there is
"a political agenda to break up the NHS."
I drew parallels with the process of attrition and privatisation by stealth in community care. I quote finally from the document "Managing the NHS", published by the Office of Health Economics and written by William Laing, who is a well-known commentator on the role of the private sector in the NHS:
"The relatively streamlined administrative model for community care may prove to be the model towards which the NHS internal market evolves in the future, if the NHS follows the path of community care, in the sense of contracting out the bulk of services to independent providers, the principal function of the NHS Management Executive, or any successor organisation, may change to one of monitoring quality through inspection and registration."
That is exactly what happened in community care.
Our task today and in the months ahead is to ensure that the British people realise the real threat to the national health service's existence; lead the resistance to privatisation and, as we did with the Post Office, prevent privatisation if we can; and work to restore to the British people that which the Government's folly and incompetence has put at risk—the health service, whose worth the people of Britain know and, knowing it, value. The Government's continued existence places in jeopardy the continued existence of the national health service. They must go if the health service is to survive.
4.41 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"congratulates National Health Service staff in hospitals and in the community for providing ever more and better care for patients with 122 patients being treated for every 100 four years ago; welcomes the health reforms which have provided a coherent structure to enable them to do so; recognises the challenges faced by the National Health Service resulting from medical advance, the ageing of the population and rising public expectations and believes that the new National Health Service is better placed than ever to meet these challenges; welcomes the 68 per cent. real terms increase in National Health Service spending since 1978–79 and the Government's manifesto commitment to further real terms increases; and condemns Her Majesty's Opposition for its ill-thought-out
874
commitment to abolish the reforms, an act which would inflict chaos and confusion on the health service, deprive patients of the benefits of National Health Service Trusts and general practitioner fundholding and prevent the health service from responding to the changing needs of the public."
I am almost at a loss to know where to start. It is clear that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and her colleagues have got rid of their policy groups and instead have taken on a selective cuttings service. The right hon. Lady covered a great number of newspapers, and started to read conference agendas as the substance of her speech. My hon. Friends were waiting to hear anything that resembled policy or approached a practical way forward.
If one is to deliver a comprehensive service available to all, young and old, regardless of ability to pay, in the face of medical advances and rising expectations, great pressure will be placed on the service. That is why it is important to devise a framework of coherent policies that address those issues. I urge the right hon. Lady to consult independent commentators, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the London School of Economics—which I visited last week—about the significance of the changes that we have been putting in hand.
Changes in scrutiny and balance, and in the outcomes that the health service is now delivering, are being followed by health care experts throughout the world. As ever, we heard endless smears and innuendos about privatisation. It is hard to understand whether the right hon. Lady dislikes someone ever paying for something or private sector involvement in any provision. In our party, if the private sector can deliver a service of higher quality and good value, we have no vendetta against it. Of course, we are not sponsored by health unions. We do not have one hand tied behind our back, knowing that whatever we say about patients, it is jobs for the boys and girls that must come first. That is not our problem.
It is well understood that the greatest recruiting sergeant ever for private health care was the industrial dispute in the final days of the last Labour Government. If one wants to drive people into the private sector, the most powerful argument is to have shop stewards on the hospital gate deciding whether someone is an urgent case and volunteers manning the kitchens.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South may be interested to know that there has been a decline in the number of people taking out private health care insurance in recent years. That is an interesting reflection on public confidence that the NHS is delivering a quality of care in which they could never have confidence in the past. That reflects the effectiveness of our reforms.
Mrs. Beckett: Does not it strike the Secretary of State that the recession is having an impact on the ability of people to afford private health insurance premiums—let alone loss of employment?
Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Lady totally fails to address the point that there is growing public confidence in the care that they receive from their health service locally. Nothing that we heard from the right hon. Lady takes the debate forward.
Mr. James Couchman: The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was reluctant to quote from cuttings reflecting the state of the health

875
service in the winter of 1978–79. Does my right hon. Friend remember the years 1974 to 1976, when the then Secretary of State, Mrs. Barbara Castle, was confronted by simultaneous industrial disputes with every staff group in the NHS—a feat never equalled before or since?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend may, like me, have watched last weekend's television programme about Barbara Castle. It provided a reminder that, ironically, the people who always have the greatest problems with health unions are Labour Secretaries of State for Health, because expectations are so high. It is a case of post-dated cheques—"Why are we paying for sponsorship?" As COHSE told the Nolan committee today, why is it giving £5,000 a year to Opposition health team researchers if, at the end of the day, it does not want something for that money?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): It pays £15,000.
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend reminds me that the sum involved is £15,000 a year, not £5,000—and, as far as I know, that is only COHSE's contribution.
Mr. McLoughlin: The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) referred to several press cuttings, many of which related to London. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been a redirection of resources in London, so that facilities in other parts of the country may at long last enjoy a fairer distribution of resources? They include two hospitals in Derby, which have been almost totally rebuilt—the Derby royal infirmary and Derby city hospital, where the right hon. Member for Derby, South opened new facilities just a few weeks ago.
Mrs. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Our health service, like every health service in the world, is undergoing change. That change includes investing in the community and trying to put more into mental health services. That change requires leadership, courage and commitment to health care principles. If on every occasion, on every decision, Labour goes for the short-term headline and populist gesture, it will never again be worthy of the stewardship of the health service. Labour is the party of protest, not of progress or
responsibility. It backs every campaign against closure and
supports every pay dispute, because it can never face the difficult decisions involved in taking responsibility.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I ask the Secretary of State for an honest and straight answer to this question, because I need her reply for my evidence to the Nolan committee, to which the right hon. Lady referred.
Does the right hon. Lady ever meet lobbying companies on matters relating to health? Does she ever meet manufacturers of health products to discuss procurement issues? If she does—these activities may be perfectly legitimate—is she prepared to reveal when those meetings took place and what issues were discussed at them, if I table parliamentary questions? Is she prepared to be open with the House about these matters?
Mrs. Bottomley: As Health Secretary I am overrun by lobbying groups every day of the week. Last week I spent three hours at a dinner at the Royal College of Nursing.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer the question.
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman seeks to draw a distinction between people who produce a product that
876
they wish to sell to the health service and the interests of the people who work in the service. I have also met representatives of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union, of COHSE and of the health unions. Certainly, one aspect of my job is to be involved in promoting some of our most successful industries. I have had lengthy meetings with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, because I was determined that London should win the Medicines Evaluation Agency. The pharmaceutical industry is one of Europe's, and Britain's, most successful industries. The new agency in London will act as a magnet for further inward investment.
As a member of the Government involved in spending an enormous amount of taxpayers' money, I certainly have an interest in being part of a wealth-creating economy which creates jobs for people and wealth for the taxpayer—and delivers ever-higher standards of health care. I am sad that the hon. Gentleman has so little interest: in wealth creation. The Labour party's inability to generate wealth meant that the Labour Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) reminded us, had to cut nurses' and doctors' pay and instigate the first ever real terms cut in the health service.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just had a very long answer to a simple question. Will the right hon. Lady answer my parliamentary questions about meetings?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): First, the hon. Gentleman did not ask a simple question: he asked a long one. Secondly, I am not in the least responsible either for the question or for the answer.
Mrs. Bottomley: I would not dream of giving the hon. Gentleman details of every meeting I have had. I can only say that the holder of my office is continually bombarded by campaigns and initiatives on all fronts. My job is to discriminate between issues and to make sure that patients benefit as a result.
Mr. Alex Carlile: May I throw the right hon. Lady a lifeline? She had reached the point in her speech dealing with mental health, and had just said something about more resources for it. Why, if more resources are being
poured into mental health, do psychiatrists in London
virtually to a person—complain that they do not have enough resources or beds, and that they are having to send dozens of patients out of London, away from their families and communities, for treatment?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that I am extremely sympathetic to his point. London has had a great duplication and concentration of specialty services. We have 14 cardiac centres and 13 cancer services. Because of the fixed overhead cost of all those centres, I do not think that we have given mental health services the priority that we should have given them.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, it is not just a matter of health service contributions. It is also a matter of making sure that local authorities play their full part and collaborate. We have made it clear that we want a greater focus on mental health services in London. The changes involve that greater focus. It is not just a question of resources: it is a question of better organisation and targeting. That is why the Bill that we hope to introduce on supervised discharge is so important,

877
to make sure that we target the most severely mentally ill and that supervision registers are set up to maintain contact.
Mr. Carlile: Come on.
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. and learned Gentleman is letting down a good case. If he reads the report on the Clunis inquiry, he will see that hundreds of professional hours were devoted to Christopher Clunis without proper co-ordination or management. We must adopt a more assertive, pro-active approach—an approach that Louis Blom-Cooper has come round to advancing. I have been taking it for some time.
Sir Michael Grylls: On the general standing of the national health service, for which my right hon. Friend is responsible to the country, is she aware that in a survey of 30,000 homes undertaken in my constituency, asking people who had used the NHS what they thought of it, 87 per cent. said that they were satisfied or very satisfied? Surely that is hard evidence, not just tittle-tattle from bits of newspapers.
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has rightly identified the real issue. Time and again, when patients are asked what they think of the service they have received, that is precisely the degree of support that they give the NHS. Nobody hearing the disgraceful speech by the right hon. Member for Derby, South would think it a fair reflection of how the health service is experienced by our constituents around the country.
If I may, I should like to tell the House a story. Like many right hon. and hon. Friends, I recently spent a week by the seaside at the excellent Conservative party conference in Bournemouth. During my time there it was a pleasure to visit a smart new hospital with a new A and E department, and with a cancer service that has a recently installed linear accelerator. I also toured its new hospice; and learnt that the hospital had introduced the new arrangements for junior doctors' hours and brought down the maximum waiting time for any care to five months.
At my request, I met privately six of the hospital's junior staff—two doctors, two nurses and two managers. I found them in very good spirits: realistic about the tough job that they have to do, and enthusiastic about the tasks ahead. Indeed, the hospital was a model of what the NHS should be—a model followed by hospitals in many of my hon. Friends' constituencies. It was well run and well equipped. There was a good sense of teamwork. The hospital provides high-quality clinical care in comfortable surroundings.
Just before leaving, I remembered that the hospital also employed a well-known consultant who had in the past been critical of the Government's policies. I tracked him down to his lair and put to him the point that there seemed to be a startling difference between how he portrayed the NHS and what I had found and heard in his hospital. "Oh no," he replied,
"when I speak out I'm talking generally. This is an excellent hospital."
I am sure that the House will want to know that the consultant's name was Jeremy Lee-Potter.
My story illustrates an important point about the health debate. Today we heard a great deal from the right hon. Member for Derby, South about how the service is
878
supposed to be on its last legs. That is simply not borne out by the experience of hospitals such as the one in Poole which I have just described. I am sure that my hon. Friends will readily confirm that it is not borne out in their constituencies either.
What the right hon. Lady said is not borne out by the massive expansion of modern family doctor services, new cottage hospitals, as it were, where patients receive locally more and better services than ever before. It is not reflected in the health of the nation either. Life expectancy is increasing for old and young alike. Infant mortality is falling in every region and every social group. Our capacity to prevent disease through immunisation and screening is also better than ever. Only today, I am pleased to say, we have announced our commitment to bone scans for women at high risk of osteoporosis.
Of course, it is against the Labour party's trade union rules—literally, I suppose—to mention any of that. It denigrates the NHS and denies the achievements of staff. Its big idea is to exploit every mishap, every unfortunate incident, for its own short-term political advantage. Constantly, it plays politics with the lives of the vulnerable and the weak. But the public do not like it and will not wear it. It was not such a laughing matter at the previous general election when the Labour party found itself out on its "Jennifer's ear", and it still has not learnt its lesson. The people want progress in the NHS, not protest from the Labour party.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend referred to the family doctor service. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) denigrated trusts and fundholders. She wonders why people want them. In my city, by the end of next year, every doctor will be a fundholder. That would not be the case if the patients did not want it and did not flock to the doctors who are fundholders.
Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, my hon. Friend has the point exactly. I believe that in the right hon. Lady's constituency 75 per cent. of patients are covered by GP fundholders. What is the merit in destroying a system that has so much empowered GPs—a system that has enabled them to get more choice, to pay more attention to detail and give greater care to their patients than any previous system? My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the issue.
We welcome the debate. We welcome the opportunity that it provides for our hon. Friends to reveal the contradictions between the real health service and the twisted picture presented by the Labour party. I welcome the chance to spell out the strong future for the NHS under our stewardship. There is more to do.
I welcome the opportunity to describe some of the challenges ahead and our policies for meeting them. We relish the chance to expose the disastrous and destructive policies threatened by the Opposition and the NHS nightmare that they would bring about. Unlike their motion, our amendment congratulates NHS staff. We recognise their achievements: more patients treated than ever before; falling waiting times; and dramatic cuts in the hours worked by junior doctors. There is massive investment in new technology and research.
Advances are taking place in our NHS, at the leading edge of medicine: in cystic fibrosis; the genetics of breast cancer; the ability now to create an artificial heart; and in many other areas. All that is taking place in the NHS today to serve patients for today and tomorrow. Teams of

879
dedicated doctors, nurses—and managers—are working together to provide the very best that they can. Those achievements command the confidence and the support of those who use the service. The closer people are to the NHS, the more they like it.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State has ever been to Northumberland and to Wansbeck general hospital, which is part of Cheviot and Wansbeck NHS trust, but last year, only one month after becoming a trust, it was nearly £2 million in debt. Later, when cuts were made in the hospital, two mothers lost their babies at birth and are now suing the hospital. That is the state of affairs in Northumberland and I would ask the Minister to come up and visit the hospital.
Mrs. Bottomley: It is disgraceful to suggest that those tragic episodes had anything to do with these issues. [Interruption.] I listened quietly while the hon. Gentleman asked his question. The least that he can do, having worked so hard to get me to address his question, is to listen to the answer.
The hospital to which the hon. Gentleman referred received five stars in 11 categories in the league tables, such is the quality of care that it now delivers to patients. Its financial control, however, has not been of the standard that we would wish.
Today, the holder of my office can speak with confidence about the NHS, because the financial control is better than ever it was. When the Labour party was in power, this was the time of year of sudden closures, of running out of money, and of shambles in the health service as people were unable to meet their financial commitments through the year. [Interruption.] I have already explained that the financial control was riot all that we would have wished it to be, but the point is that it is a hospital that is delivering a quality of care for patients that matters.
I noticed that the Labour party sneered when I described that. It is interesting that it sneers at the league tables, because most people think that the length of time that one waits in out-patients and in accident and emergency departments, and the length of time that one waits for an appointment, matters. Time and again, that is the issue about which patients will complain in our NHS if one asks them. That is why the patients charter has been such a dramatic success.
My hon. Friends will remember when we launched the first patients charter three and a half years ago. They will remember that the best that we could do then was to offer a two-year maximum wait, and that 50,000 people were waiting longer than two years for treatment. Within only three and a half years, the wait has decreased, not to two years, but to 18 months.
Mr. Lewis: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Mrs. Bottomley: It is my intention now to make headway with my speech. I do not intend to give way further, having given way an excessive amount. If I do, I shall be rebuked by my hon. Friends, who feel very strongly about the changes in the health service. [Interruption.] I think that I have made myself clear.
880
The patients charter, which we launched only two and a half weeks ago, shows that not only have we got rid of the two-year waiters, and not only are 18-month guarantees being successfully delivered for hips, knees and cataract operations, but we can now deliver an 18-month guarantee for all care. More than that, we can move into the important area of out-patients. Nine out of 10 are being seen within three months. Nobody is waiting more than six months. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman heard the Secretary of State say that she was not giving way.
Mrs. Bottomley: What is even more disgraceful is the way in which the Labour party, when the health service really has delivered improvements, as it has on the patients charter, says that it does not like the figures and that it is suspicious of the statistics. It must understand that, if one is running one of the largest national services, having authoritative figures is absolutely vital. It will be pleased to know that the Audit Commission helped us to validate the figures on the league tables. We want to measure improvements, to compare and contrast. That is precisely what an internal market is all about. It is interesting that the Labour party sneers and jeers about league tables on the achievements of staff. If Opposition Members visited the hospitals concerned, they would see the sense of achievement among nurses, doctors, managers and others who have delivered a quality of care that matters to their patients.
I am pleased to tell the House that patients are not as cynical as the Labour party. They welcome the charter. They want us to go even further. We listen to them and respond. They want us to do better on the waiting times. I have set that out. They want action on mixed-sex wards. They want more information and more choice. The new charter meets their aspirations and will meet their needs. It will continue our drive to lever up standards in every part of the service.
Once again, the right hon. Member for Derby, South made some rather sneering comments about complaints; certainly the expression that complaints should be "jewels to be treasured" is a phrase used by Brian Edwards, the regional general manager in the west midlands, who has led many of the changes in the patients charter and delivered quite remarkably.
The contrast between the sneering and the public's perception of reality is interesting. Last week, a television programme, "Pulse", made some pretty sharp comments about the health service. It offered a user's guide to the NHS which people could send for. I simply read from the Channel 4 user's guide to the health service—what was said in the book as opposed to the film:
"There has been a lot of effort to encourage hospitals and GPs to raise their standards. Patients are being offered information—once very hard to obtain—about the standards of service they can expect. More than that, they are actually being encouraged to comment and complain if the service does not meet their needs."
That is the new culture that we have been establishing in the NHS. That is the new culture that our constituents and patients appreciate.
The charter makes the NHS more accountable to those whom it serves. The league tables, interestingly much sneered at by the Opposition, provide information so that people can make comparisons and look for further improvements. The Opposition, as we have seen today,

881
attack the charter and the league tables. For them, accountability is something that one talks about at Islington dinner parties, and power is what one gives to the trade unions. We well understand that.
I want to say a little more about primary care, which is, sadly, too often neglected in our debates. Every year, about eight out of 10 people visit their family doctors. General practitioners carry out, on average, nearly three consultations a year' for each patient on their list. Even with list sizes nearly 10 per cent. smaller than a decade ago, that means a lot of patients and a lot of GP time.
Our family doctors deserve recognition and support. The Government are giving them that, not only in the form of improved premises, additional staff and an attack on paperwork, but in what is perhaps the most important area of advance, GP fundholding, so rightly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).
My hon. Friends and, I suspect, in their hearts, many Opposition Members as well, will know of hundreds of examples of how patients have benefited from GP fundholding. News has even reached the BMA which, in a recent document, stated:
"It could be argued that fundholding, because of the size of the population served, is a good model for achieving consumer accountability in the NHS."
GP fundholding has brought about the most decisive shift in power in favour of family doctors and their patients in the history of the health service. It is at the heart of making the NHS more responsive to patients, more respectful of their choices and better at meeting their needs. That is why we are working to extend the benefits of fundholding to all patients.
Nowhere is the true nature of the so-called new Labour party better revealed than in its spiteful pledge to abolish fundholding. That is socialism in action—the envious grudge against success, the distrust of innovation, the ideological urge to reduce everyone and everything to the level of the slowest and the worst.
Mrs. Beckett: Is the Secretary of State aware of a survey conducted by "Pulse" among general practitioners which showed that more than 75 per cent. of general practitioners would like to see fundholding abolished?
Mrs. Bottomley: Fundholding has been commended not only by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the London School of Economics, but even by the National Audit Office as a way of delivering more flexible and better care to patients. GP fundholders throughout the country are proud of their success. I do not believe for one moment that they would welcome the right hon. Lady's commitment to vandalise one of the most exciting and important innovations in primary care. Throughout the country, fundholders are outraged by her stance and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster said, their patients will be outraged when they discover that she plans to rob them of all those advances.
Mr. John Gunnell: If the Secretary of State envisages 100 per cent. fundholding, what will be the purchasing role of her new health authorities?
Mrs. Bottomley: The health authority, much discussed on Second Reading of the Health Authorities Bill and in
882
Committee, will continue to have a strategic role in monitoring, supporting and encouraging. Fundholding is a voluntary initiative. I do not anticipate that we will have 100 per cent. GP fundholders in the foreseeable future. But those GPs who wish to take that step do so in the interests of their patients.
The hon. Gentleman may also not be fully aware of the fact that few fundholders will be purchasing all the services that their patients need. I announced last week a doubling of the number of full fundholder projects and an evaluation scheme to consider carefully how they work. However, doubling the number takes us to only 50, so health authorities will continue to have an important role in the foreseeable future.
One of our great successes in recent years, but rarely debated because there is such agreement about it, is "The Health of the Nation" strategy, the delivery of which is through the local health authority, partly so that it can collaborate with other agencies in order to ensure that they play a direct role in improving the health of the local community.
Throughout the country, change is under way. Change is difficult for the people involved, but it is necessary in order to build a better and more responsive service, to have top-quality centres of excellence and to have accident and emergency departments with 24-hour consultant cover, as at the Royal London hospital, which was the first to have such cover.
The Labour party, by resisting every closure and undermining change, something for which it was attacked only the other day in the much-quoted article in The Guardian, would store up trouble for itself. It would be failing to recognise the success of the changes and the importance of what is being achieved.
Above all, we now hear with growing alarm about all the socialist hangers-on, all the different organisations, beating a path to the right hon. Lady's door to protect the interests of the purchaser-provider divide. The Socialist Health Association and Unison, when the right hon. Lady embarked on her vindictive attack on managers and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) pledged to sack 8,000 health service managers—never have I known such a vindictive attack on a group of health workers—
Mrs. Beckett: I do not know where the right hon. Lady got that from, but there is not a word of truth in it, as I am sure she must know. I know that it was in the Daily Mail, but that is no recommendation.
Mrs. Bottomley: The fact that the Socialist Health Association and Unison have already made urgent representations to the right hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield that such an unprecedented attack on managers is not in their interest shows the extent of their power over the words that are uttered by Opposition Members.
We have heard a huge amount about what a villainous lot NHS managers are. I am pleased that there was an improvement in that regard today and I imagine that that is simply because of the representations made by the Socialist Health Association and others.
The Opposition are totally cynical. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield has pledged to turn hack the clock on the NHS reforms. That brings hack memories to Conservative Members. He has made a cynical deal with the unions. They give him a new clause IV, he gives them

883
the NHS. It is not as if the trade unions do not already have enough power over the Labour party's health policy. The right hon. Lady is their greatest friend in the shadow Cabinet. All her team are sponsored by the unions. We have already talked about the cosy sweeteners to help them on their way.
The chairman of the home policy committee is a union apparatchik, deciding on Labour party health policy and other policies that it would pursue, such as the minimum wage and the abolition of competitive tendering, which we heard about again today. The unions will be pleased. The end of pay beds is proposed—another tick in the box of what has been asked for. That is all for the unions. It will cost patients £1 billion every year simply to pay the paymasters and to keep them quiet. Given Barbara Castle's experience, I am not sure that even that will keep them quiet.
Even The Guardian, much quoted, has told the Labour party that it is talking nonsense and that it would be
"disastrous for the NHS if Labour only looked back".
That is right. The Labour party undermines trusts, described by the right hon. Lady in our previous debate as an abomination, and would rob GPs and their patients of fundholding status. Instead, she promises more power for the unions and less for the patients. The Health Authorities Bill will abolish the regions and sweep away an entire tier of bureaucracy. She proposes an amendment that would place a duty on the Secretary of State
"to establish Strategic Health Planning Authorities".
Oh dear. Strategic health planning authorities? I think we all know what that means. It is clear from his famous memorandum that Leo McKinstry knows what it means. Mr. McKinstry, a former adviser to a Labour health spokesman, wrote:
"That's what Labour is good at: creating bureaucracy. Establishing a new body is one of the few solutions a Labour policy-maker can ever propose when confronted with a problem."
I think that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health remembers that from the Committee stage of the Health Authorities Bill. It is the only thing to emerge from the interminable consultations organised by the right hon. Member for Derby, South.
The right hon. Lady wants to create a new tier of unnecessary interference and a new group of bureaucrats to second-guess the bureaucrats down the line; she wants to give more power to the planners, and take power away from doctors and nurses. Oh dear. But she does not just want to put the bureaucrats back in charge: she and her party want to break up the national health service and hand it over in little pieces to the so-called regional assemblies, described by Mr. McKinstry as
"irrelevant and unwanted talking shops".
I agree with him.
The right hon. Lady wants to take the ability to make decisions away from staff of trusts, who know what patients want, and give it to her friends in local government. Again, the McKinstry memorandum spells out what that means.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, under the present structure, it is virtually impossible to gain access to information? Trusts are failing to respond to local needs and local advice, or to deal with any of the problems that, as Liverpool people know, are damaging their health service. When will the trusts and the Secretary of State listen to the voice of those
884
who use the health service—the consumers'? At present, the trusts are a closed shop from the point of view of the people of Liverpool.
Mrs. Bottomley: I imagine that the people of Liverpool rejoice every day of the week that Sir Donald Wilson rather than Derek Hatton has been leading the health service. If Labour had its way, however, the Derek Hattons of this world would be in the driving seat.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) says that there is a problem with information. I wonder where he has been all these years. What did he ever know about the number of patients treated, about outcomes and about waiting times? The trusts must hold annual meetings and produce annual reports; they must publish their accounts. There is a whole process of scrutiny, evaluation and provision of information. When the Labour party was in power, all that the hon. Gentleman could collect were statistics on deaths and discharges. There was no competitive or comparative information—which was a wonderfully cosy arrangement for those who worked in the health service, because there was no way of keeping them on their toes and ensuring that they all aspired to the level of the best.
I think that we have dealt with Mr. McKinstry and the appalling picture that he paints of Labour's plans. He called Labour councils
"a mean minded cocktail of political correctness, bureaucracy, intervention and abuse of public money…massive procedural delays and rumours of corruption."
As I have said, Mr. McKinstry advised one of the most recent Labour health spokesmen; I am very pleased that he is so well informed.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan rose—
Mrs. Bottomley: That is the nightmare that the Labour party is lining up for us.
Mr. Morgan rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman deaf? He should obey the Chair. The Secretary of State is not giving way, and I hope that he can see that she is not. There should be proper decorum in the Chamber, and we will have it.
Mrs. Bottomley: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have given way to Labour Members an excessive number of times—many more times than the right hon. Member for Derby, South, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will doubtless find when he reads the record.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Secretary of State should get a gold star.
Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that I shall.
The Labour party paints a picture of a fragmented, bureaucratic health service, hobbling from crisis to crisis with neither vision nor direction: a pen-pusher's dream, and a shop steward's idea of Christmas. Labour's policies would result in chaos, upheaval, confusion and waste. They are rejected by the British Medical Association, which describes the "major organisational upheaval" that would result from local authority control of the health service; people do not want that. They are also rejected by the Royal College of Nursing, which believes that the very principle of equity would be lost. They are rejected

885
by the doctors and nurses in trusts and fundholding practices, who are not prepared to see their precious freedoms wrenched away and given to the Labour party's friends; and they are, and will be, rejected by the public and by patients.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South used a phrase that Opposition Members always seem to find irresistible. Referring to scientists leaving the country, she spoke of a "brain drain". She should think again, and recognise the enormous brain gain from which the country benefits. Only the other day, I met a team of scientists who had come from America, Australia, New Zealand and other countries all around the world to work in Britain, because of the advantages of working in this country and with our national health service. Moreover, under the director of research and development we have developed a new strategy, providing extra funds so that we can build on our excellent medical research and ensure that its results are properly considered throughout the service.
What the Labour party calls the market mechanism is actually a process whereby purchasing authorities and GP fundholders can measure outcomes and effectiveness. They want to know whether they are getting value for money; they want to scrutinise and to question. At last we have a knowledge-based, evidence-based national health service, fed by our research strategy and feeding into further and profound improvements in patient care throughout the country.
That is possible because of the changes in the health service. It is possible because, by being more effective and efficient, we have secured additional resources to put into the service. What Labour has offered does nothing to encourage researchers, doctors, nurses and managers, and certainly does nothing to encourage patients. Our policies, by contrast, are creating a coherent and stable framework for a strong and modern service.
The national health service has always embodied the finest values and the strongest ethos; there can be no doubt about that. But in its old rigid, centralised form it was decaying; it was falling behind the pace of change that is necessary for evolving medicine, and demanded by the growing needs of patients. Thanks to our reforms, the service has been invigorated with new, local freedoms. We have established the right balance between central direction and local flexibility. Many of the recommendations of today's Select Committee report can be implemented more effectively because of the new structure that we have put in place.
We have a national health strategy; we have national as well as local accountability; we have ensured that national policies can be, and are, delivered more effectively through local action. What Labour derides as "the market" is, in fact, the power of health authorities and fundholders to challenge the system, to question and scrutinise, and to insist on benefits for patients. That is their aim and aspiration: to demand the answers to questions that would not even have been asked when Labour was in power.
Of course there is more to do. There is more to do for mental health, for junior hospital doctors and for a whole range of services. But by acting as good stewards for the health service, and improving efficiency and the number of patients treated, we have put ourselves in a better position to go even further forward. Let me make it clear that we are proud of the changes that we have set in hand.
886
We are proud of the extra money that we have put into the national health service, and we are proud of the achievements of staff. It is simply not good enough to utter populist gibes from the sidelines: the NHS deserves better.
Conservative Members want to protect trusts and fundholders. We want further progress in primary care, and even more improvements in the health of the nation. We will not stand by while Labour seeks to destroy all that has been achieved to meet the outdated, grasping demands of the unions. We will not let the clock turn back to nods and winks, and post-dated blank cheques. If anyone can speak as the guardian of the national health service, it is the Conservative party, which has run it for twice as long as the Labour party.
The Government need no lessons from the Labour party on our commitment to a comprehensive and coherent health service. We have taken the action necessary to equip it for the future. We have acted while the Labour party has ducked, dithered, plotted and fudged. I suspect that it will be a long time yet before the Labour party has the nerve to come to this place, without a policy to its name, simply to threaten upheaval and turmoil. It is under a Conservative Government, and only under a Conservative Government, that the NHS can look forward to a strong, secure and exciting future.
5.29 pm
Mr. Sam Galbraith: Listening to the Secretary of State for Health and to her exposé on the health service, I had a certain feeling of déjà vu. Once again, she made what a number of hon. Members have come to regard as slightly distasteful comments in claiming responsibility for almost every medical development in the health service. She spoke again of the development of artificial hearts. Such hearts have been developed elsewhere for many years, and it is no thanks to the Government that such developments have taken place.
I recall that when a former Under-Secretary of State for Health wanted to attract lots of publicity she used to make various claims for key-hole surgery, organ transplantation and other treatments, as though she had pioneered them herself. The fact that more patients are treated is due not to the Government but to the nurses and doctors who work in the service. The sooner the Government stop making false claims, the better.
Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman rightly praises the excellence of national health service staff. Does he agree, however, that when things go wrong in the NHS, it is often down to a member of staff?
Mr. Galbraith: That truism has no particular relevance to what we are discussing. I did not understand the point of that intervention.
There is no 10-minute limit on speeches, although I shall definitely try to—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no 10-minute limit, hut hon. Members should not feel that they have to fill the whole time.
Mr. Galbraith: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can be assured of that. I just wondered how many interventions I should take on this matter.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Four.
Mr. Galbraith: That is more than I usually take, so there should be no problem.
I want to concentrate on rationing in the national health service. Debate on .the subject is increasing in health service journals, including in the British Medical Journal. I consider it to be a serious and sinister matter, which we should knock on the head at this stage. The reasons for that debate are secondary to what has been done to the health service under the Government. Their policies have led to the starvation of resources and to a market mechanism in the health service. To camouflage that and to enhance the changes, we get discussions about rationing health care.
It is said that rationing is necessary. We should not accept that argument and that, somehow, we cannot fund the service properly, and that some needs cannot be met. We should object to and resist that argument. We should not agree that the health service must accept rationing.
A definition of the rationing of health care is important. Rationing of health care is the denial of treatment that would benefit the patient, that the patient wishes to have and that the service wishes to give him. That is the correct definition. Within that definition, I do not include unnecessary treatment of patients. Many antibiotics exist for upper respiratory and viral infections. Stopping such problems is good medical care and a proper use of resources, but it is not rationing. We must remember that rationing is the denial of treatment that would benefit patients.
An important criterion of rationing is that no exit from the system is possible. There is only one true form of rationing in this country: transplantation. There is no equilibrium between the need for and provision of transplantation services; need exceeds provision because of limits on the service. The important thing, which is true rationing, is that there is no exit from that system: one cannot have a transplant in the private sector. The problem is that we are talking about rationing not of other provision but of NHS provision.
People who have money immediately exit and are treated in the private sector. The private sector is growing under the creeping, growing, sinister, behind-the-scenes privatisation of the NHS, which has been going on for many years.
Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
Mr. Galbraith: I give way to the hon. Gentleman because I know that there is no 10-minute limit.
Mr. Bottomley: This is almost the same point that the hon. Gentleman is making, and I put it in a non-partisan way. If the number of cataract, hip and heart operations has significantly increased, is that because doctors are more able to carry out such operations, because people could not receive them before or because of some form of rationing? Is there another explanation? It is certainly
888
true that more major treatments, which are of great advantage to elderly people in particular, are being offered. Is that an end to rationing or an increase in it?
Mr. Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman will let me continue, I shall develop my argument and raise a number of other related issues, and I hope that, in doing so, I shall answer the questions.
One of the other justifications for rationing that we must dispense with is that, somehow, health care is a bottomless pit and that, therefore, need will never be met. That is not so. It may be true of a demand-led service, with unnecessary treatments and demand generated by the private sector and popular consent, but not of a needs-based service, which the NHS should be.
We know how many people require hip replacements—not everyone does, so demand is not bottomless. We know how many people require hernia operations, and demand is not bottomless. All we have to do is establish the extent of such need, after which it is a question of having the political will to meet it. Let us hear no more justification for rationing on the basis that need is a bottomless pit. That argument is fallacious and we should dispense with it.
Another argument for rationing that is often advanced is that everyone is doing it so we are no different from them. Again, that is not quite true. Many health care systems are concerned about cutting resources, but that is not necessarily the same as rationing care. The United States of America is not rationing health care; it is trying to stop unnecessary investigation and treatment, which is a different matter. In this country, the culture of medicine and all its ramifications are based on clinical judgment rather than on clinical independence, which is different. We should try to enhance that culture, which is threatened under the market system.
It is said that we already have some rationing in the NHS and that it is achieved through waiting lists. That is not true. Waiting lists are a system not of rationing health care but of delaying it, which is different. It is an unfair, arbitrary system that, again, allows people to exit from it to receive their treatment. It does not ration treatment but delays it.
The other system involves the general practitioner as the gatekeeper: the GP sees bigger waiting lists and,
therefore, does not add to them. Again, that is not true. If
a GP thinks that a patient needs health care, he sends him for it. The system allows the GP to use his or her clinical judgment and it reinforces the need not to get involved in unnecessary investigation and treatment. That is the system here, unlike in the United States. Someone who goes to see his GP with a headache does not need a CT scan or elaborate investigations. Instead, the GP uses his clinical judgment, which is what happens under the gatekeeper system. It is not a rationing system if it is based on clinical judgment.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I support much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. His point shows why GP fundholding is so successful and effective.
Mr. Galbraith: The Secretary of State is completely wrong. That system works only if the patient has a trust relationship with his or her doctor. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What does that mean?"] That question reveals the ignorance of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler), who listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) while

889
laughing and giggling about the health service. The trust relationship between patient and doctor means that they trust one another, which is in the best interests of the patients. The way to destroy that system is to introduce a GP fundholding practice, which will introduce a financial element into the decision-making process, as happens in the United States, where the doctor and his patient wonder whether the financial element will come between them. The Secretary of State is completely wrong and will ruin the trust mechanism. The loss of that trust mechanism leads to secondary defensive mechanisms and increased costs.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) mentioned rationing. There has been, and there still is, a form of rationing in the sense that some sections of the population have low expectations. The rates for operations such as cataract removal, prostatectomy and others vary across the country and across the social classes—there are higher rates in the higher social classes and lower rates in the lower social classes. It might mean that the higher social classes have a few unnecessary operations, but I doubt that. However, it does mean that the lower classes have lower expectations. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's point. That form of rationing has persisted for some time but we should be seeking to eliminate it.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. and caring Gentleman speaks from experience. Most of us would accept that people need to have higher expectations and the royal colleges can help by carrying out studies in their various fields of expertise into what would happen if there were equitable treatment for all. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that a significant increase in the number of heart, cataract or hip operations must be a reflection of extra resources or better organisation, but certainly of meeting higher ambitions, which is something for which we should all be aiming?
Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman has identified rationing as it used to exist. Renal dialysis is a case in point. That treatment was introduced when I was but a lad in medical school. It was limited for quasi-medical reasons but there was a form of rationing. However, there is a difference between that form of rationing and that proposed today. Under the previous systems, rationing of new developments was recognised but the aim was to eliminate it and expand the service. We are now going the other way by reducing and denying treatment.
I conclude by cautioning against two systems that have been suggested for use in this country. The first is the Oregon system, which the Secretary of State said was flawed. For those who may not be aware of it, it is a system used in Oregon to try to ration health care. It involves condition treatment for pairs of patients in a ranking system based on utility and disability. It is not an effective system for rationing care and should not be introduced here. I trust that health managers will not attempt to use it. It is not a true rationing system because it is concerned only with rationing Medicaid, which is only one part of the care available for the indigenous population. There was public consultation but it was a sham because it involved only middle-class people and not those affected. The major flaw is that it does not deal with an individual patient's needs.
890
The second system that is occasionally advocated is "qualys", or the quality adjusted life years system. It is quasi-scientific involving given numbers but its reputation has no basis. I have tried to use qualys from time to time along with other systems of practically no value in dealing with individual patients. Such a system is nothing more than a useful research tool. The main reason why qualys and similar systems are useless is that they do not deal with the individual patient on whom we should be concentrating. The problem is that we often end up talking about categories, as the Government tend to do.
We must deal with the different factors affecting individual patients. Rationing systems have no part to play. Practices may have to be varied because someone wants extra time to see his grandchild, son or daughter graduate but, at the end of the day, someone has to sit on the bed, look the patient straight in the eye and say, "Yes, the treatment would be of benefit to you but because the Government have told me to ration it, I'm afraid you can't have it."

I am in favour of the elegant muddle through, whereby pressures are adjusted according to individuals and patients are consulted under the trust relationship that exists between them and their doctor. That relationship is being threatened by the Government's underfunding and the introduction of market mechanisms into the system.
5.46 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). He is a classic example of how much the House gains by having among its number those who have had an expert career outside—an issue that I hope the Nolan committee is considering.
I express appreciation, too, for the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who, if imitation is flattery, paid me the great compliment of imitating an anecdotal technique that I developed in national health service debates as a novice Back Bencher between 1977 and 1979 when she was a Minister elsewhere. My one salient regret about her speech was that she left her mission statement so late that she did not allow herself adequate opportunity to develop the strategies that would have given that mission statement meaning.
It was a little more than three months ago that a debate on the national health service in London afforded me a maiden recent opportunity to speak about Bart's and its merger with the Royal London and the London chest hospitals. I am grateful to the Opposition for affording me a further opportunity today. I said at the time that Bart's had entered into the merger negotiations with good will and in good faith but that I was disturbed by the spirit in which progress was being made, given the fact that for the merger to bear fruit it was essential that the parts of Bart's that might transfer to the Royal London should feel that what was emerging was an institution greater than the sum of the parts. I choose my words carefully about the shape of the merger because of the current consultation about the trust's proposals.
I should like to be able to tell the House that my anxieties have been allayed by the developments since our previous debate. Since then, the consultation has been initiated, which is as it should he. I am confident that on such a serious issue responses to the consultation document will be comprehensive and well informed. Of course, the consultation period still has some time to go.

891
I am more uneasy, however, with the spirit underlying the merger, which is critical to the process. Since conspiracy theory was already rife at St. Bartholomew's, to which I shall return, it is unfortunate that conspiracy theory should have emerged at the Royal London hospital as well. I refer to the recent press conference on the shape of the future hospital, at which allegations about Bart's and its behaviour leached into the national press. It seems to a bystander careless, on so sensitive a subject, that it was not arranged for anyone to be present to represent Bart's at that press conference, when the participation of Bart's representatives is critical to the future and the future merger.
That is what I mean by saying that the spirit of the merger process seems to have gone unnecessarily sour, when the trust is asking Bart's to make the principal emotional sacrifices. The unfortunate consequence has been an overwhelming vote of no confidence in the trust's management and leadership by the medical council at Bart's, at precisely the moment when maximum confidence would be desirable for the future success of the enterprise.
I implied earlier that conspiracy theory had been present at Bart's. That followed the health authority's decision to recommend the closure of Bart's accident and emergency department, barely days after the consultation period had ended and when there had been a massive numerical majority of representations in favour of its retention. That was followed a year later by the trust adopting a one-site solution with what seemed unexpected speed against the grain of the earlier debate.
One of the consequences—it is a bad consequence—is an imbued conviction among some at Bart's that the current consultation is all over bar the shouting. I have total confidence that the authority and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will measure most judiciously the evidence laid before them. If they were in any doubt previously, I hope that recent events have brought home to them how essential it is that the decisions reached on the consultation's evidence are seen to have been evaluated with exceptional—indeed, preternatural—fairness. They have a delicate and highly frangible vessel in their hands.
I am not seeking to revive the controversy over Bart's A and E unit. I pay tribute to the way in which the national health service elements are working with the City of London corporation to examine plans for an expansion of the minor injuries unit at Bart's, to ensure that residents of the City, south Islington and south Hackney—a cohort of about 30,000 people in all—are not disadvantaged by developments at Smithfield, whatever in future they may precisely be.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have not, however, laid to rest the fears of the wider City about how well prepared they are for an emergency in the City on the scale of the five in recent years involving the railways and terrorism. It is understood that the paramedic provision is a response to individual heart attacks. That is accepted, but very serious evidence was given to the consultation on the Bares A and E unit by the City of London police about traffic patterns in the area—notably after the anti-terrorist traffic restraints were imposed on the perimeter of the City. That evidence has never been properly countered or those fears assuaged in the context of a major emergency.
892
I hope that in his winding-up speech my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on the scale of paramedic provision available against the known statistics of past emergencies. I mean no unkindness to my hon. Friend or others on the Front Bench when I say that it is not enough for them to believe that all will be right on the night. The public and the police have to believe that it will all be right on the night, too.
All that said, there is no reason why good cannot come of change—a proposition that, paradoxically, is more widely recognised by Conservative Members than by Opposition Members. The South Westminster health clinic, which was promised for the aftermath of Westminster hospital, has trodden cautiously, hut, in so doing, has secured and enjoys the increasing confidence of consultants and local residents alike. It is a friendly, welcoming and effective facility. With some tactical differences, the similar new clinic in Soho promises well, after years of my Soho constituents raising their voices to heaven to say, "How long, 0 Lord, how long?"

There is no reason why the national health service cannot meet rising expectations, even in inner-city communities, with élan and efficiency. What is so depressing about the stance of Her Majesty's Opposition is the sterility of their thinking and their motion today in the face of problems that the NHS will face in the next century, and which the Government's reforms were admirably and timeously designed to address. It is no good the Opposition thinking that the problems presented by demography on one hand and the advance of medical science on the other will go away, yet there is no evidence of what their solutions would be.
When the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was health spokesman for the Opposition in the previous Parliament, there were glimmerings of recognition that the national health service's future problems were stark and that neither the status quo nor a suspiciously flexible amount of extra public expenditure in billions of pounds would solve them.
The fatwa of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) against public expenditure commitments has inevitably exposed the bareness, not to say the barrenness, of the intellectual policy cupboard of the right hon. Member for Derby, South. Of course, we understand the defensive mantra that states in response to any problem that it would be inappropriate and imprudent of any Opposition spokesman to say anything at all about their future policies until they take office. There are still some highly specific decisions that I acknowledge could not be taken until one knew the price of eggs on the night, hut that does not apply to strategic thinking about the national health service. A repeal of the reforms of this Government would take one back to the status quo ante and, even among the most atavistic on the Opposition Benches, there cannot be many who think that that would do as an adequate posture.
So we are confronted by a wall of moth-balled, first world war E-boats, with their weaponry masked; a generation of naval architecture on a chronological par with clause IV. Whoever replies for the Opposition will have to do better than the right hon. Member for Derby, South if the Opposition want to claim that what they have initiated today can properly he called a debate.
5.57 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: It is always a pleasure to follow such an exemplary parliamentarian as the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). He treated us to a piece of English at least, which will be well worth re-reading tomorrow. I also agree with much of what he said about Bart's. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would have wished to be here this afternoon to comment on that issue.
During the first hour and three quarters of this debate—it seemed at times a good deal longer—reference was made to a number of surveys. Of course, most of them had been carried out after treatment had been completed and on questions asked of patients. The tribute which those surveys pay is not to the organisation of our national health service but to the doctors, nurses and other staff who serve in that service. The issue in this debate is the conditions in which those servants of the public give their service.
I suspect that many Conservative Members read The Daily Telegraph, so they will know -what I am talking about when I refer to the "Bottomley ward". The "Bottomley ward" was described in an article by Martyn Harris in The Daily Telegraph on Monday. It is that overflow ward, now common, made up of trolleys in the hospital corridor—the place where, literally, patients are allowed to fall off their trolley and are sometimes not noticed until it is too late. That is one of the adversities that staff face, and it makes calls on all their resources of humour and determination; but I suspect that those staff would take a very different view from the complacency offered by the Secretary of State.
Mine is a rather different approach from that of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). She believes that the Government want to wrap up and privatise the national health service. I do not think that that is right at all. In a sense, it is worse than that. The Government do not want to wrap up the national health service, but they are doing so without trying. It is not privatisation by stealth; it is failure by bungling.
The Government's reforms of the NHS have reached crisis point—at least that is what we are told day after day by the people working in it. It is a crisis in which the reality of trolleys in the corridor is but one small, overt sign. The concern of patients and staff has turned to dismay and despair as they feel the brunt of the Government's market-driven policy stick. Indeed, political obsession with the market is coming before health issues, and it is time that the Government realised that that is happening.
Now a new sophistication has been added—one might call it the Bottomley lobotomy. It is a very simple, non-invasive procedure. It involves taking the truth, debriding it, dressing it in healthy-sounding platitudes, and then plastering it with statistics. For example, I refer to waiting list statistics.-Some people are waiting to wait to go on the waiting list. Waiting list statistics that allege that nobody has to wait more than two years are simply not true. It is time that the Government recognised, accepted and confessed that what they say about waiting times, if not waiting lists, is simply untrue.
In an attempt to back the Department's campaign of what must be called deceit about what is happening in the NHS, the NHS trusts have tried to gag those who know
894
best—the staff. I have witnessed that in my constituency. Many right hon. and hon. Members have had NHS staff from senior to junior level sidle up to them and say, "I really shouldn't tell you this because we are told not to talk to our MPs about it, but things are going sadly wrong."
Whereas the Tory party vice-chairman, Mr. Maples, proposed that the best tactic might be merely zero media coverage, the Secretary of State and the health quangos have introduced a new element, the contractual silencing of staff. Surely there could be a need to gag staff only if there were something to hide.
The one reassurance that we can gain from that concealment is that the Government are failing in any event to stop the failed reforms in the NHS from becoming a focal and vocal issue. A 300 per cent. increase in complaints from patients to hospitals tells us all that we need to know.
The mother of my constituent, five-year-old Rhiannon Louise Evans, telephoned me yesterday and gave an example. Rhiannon needs to have her tonsils and adenoids removed—the sort of thing that used to be done routinely, followed by a diet of jelly and ice cream, but these days it is not so common. Three times the mother has prepared that five-year-old child on the basis that the child was to go into hospital shortly, and three times the arrangement has been changed. That cannot be acceptable.
Indeed, hostility to the Government's reforms has even reached Dr. Jeremy Lee-Potter. We have heard the Secretary of State turn from praising Dr. Lee-Potter, which used to be the order of the day, to attacking him today. What did the Prime Minister's office do when Dr. Lee-Potter turned native on the Government and decided to give his real opinion? It telephoned the chief executive of Dr. Lee-Potter's trust to find out what it was going to do about him. The Prime Minister's office was prepared to interfere in the contractual arrangements that Dr. Lee-Potter enjoyed. Of course, there was not much that it could do, as Dr. Lee-Potter was in an advantageous position to leave the trust in any event, and he has announced that he will do so.
I see the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) frowning in surprise, but I challenge the Minister to deny that someone in the Prime Minister's office telephoned the chief executive of that trust to ask what it was going to do about Dr. Lee-Potter.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The reason I looked quizzical is that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that someone telephoned, as though one could do something about someone who has announced his retirement. What is the allegation to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers? What was the Prime Minister's office supposed to have asked the trust to do? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that three quarters of the newspapers that referred to Dr. Jeremy Lee-Potter put his age at 59, whereas he had passed normal retirement age some time before?
Mr. Carlile: I said clearly that the Prime Minister's office was seeking to interfere with Dr. Lee-Potter's contractual arrangements. The Prime Minister, through his staff, has no business to telephone the chief executive of an NHS trust and ask, as though of Thomas a'Becket, "What are you going to do with this unruly priest'?" That is what happened.

895
I was about to refer to the development of a two-tier system. That has become irrefutable, as fundholding GPs have access to speedier provision than non-fundholders. It is a fact. In my constituency, treatment to be obtained in neighbouring districts on reference from non-fundholding GPs is being postponed until the next financial year, whereas fundholders' patients obtain treatment this financial year. What clearer evidence could there be of a two-tier system than that?
The growing number of consultants who, out of utter frustration, are taking early retirement shows the extent of discontent in the service. Dr. Lee-Potter is not the only example by any means. Dr. Sandy Macara, chairman of the council of the British Medical Association, was mentioned. [Interruption.] I hear a few guffaws from Conservative Members at the mention of his name. If the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) knew Dr. Macara well, he would know that Dr. Macara is no radical. He is a man of moderate opinions and great medical distinction. It is with a heavy heart that Dr. Sandy Macara criticises the Government, but he does so on the basis of fact.
The confusion of priorities in the NHS today arises inextricably from the operation of the internal market in a way in which patients are following money rather than resources following patients.
I have referred specifically to problems in psychiatric care. In summary, the situation in London and in some other big towns and cities, but particularly in London, is that patients with psychiatric illnesses are placed in overcrowded wards. In some cases, they are moved out of overcrowded wards as far as 200 miles from London. They are forced to be treated away from their relatives, friends and communities. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South is right; demographic changes must be taken into account. In that context, the provision of psychiatric care must be a major consideration.
The decline in psychiatric provision has happened since the Secretary of State took over at the Department of Health. The problem has become worse. The right hon. Member for Derby, South is not solving the problem; she is exacerbating it. Why are psychiatric patients in London suffering at the hands of the Government? If psychiatric care is to have its proper priority, it will not be dealt with simply by providing supervised release; that is but a footnote on the page. A proper, adequately funded service for psychiatric treatment is needed. It is astonishing that the present Secretary of State, whose professional background is as a psychiatric social worker—a respected one—has not been able to provide the level of funding, beds and community care which her very own profession needs.
I welcome the Labour party's choice of subject for the debate. It provides the House with a much-needed opportunity to challenge the Government's failing policy which threatens the very essence of the health service which provides health care free on the grounds of need, not on income. The debate is also an opportunity to discuss the new Labour party's view of the future of the NHS.
It is easy for Opposition parties to score political points on this issue and, with the record of the Government, it would he harder not to score. A bigger challenge in many ways is to address seriously the reform of our service which is required to ensure quality care for everyone.

896
There are specific problems to be solved, but there is a much bigger issue—the strategy needed for the future, once those problems are resolved.
One of my concerns which is shared by many interested Labour-watchers is that the Labour party might attempt to return the NHS to a centralised, totally provider-driven institution. That the internal market in its present form is failing is not in question; what is in question is how best to provide health care that is sensitive to the needs of patients and their communities, and can balance costs and benefits in terms of value and quality. Labour in opposition may wish to sustain the myth that the NHS can be a fund without end, but that could not be the reality under a Labour Government.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlile: I know that the hon. Gentleman is getting sensitive, but he must hear some more before I give way.
From the speeches we have heard from Labour Members, it seems hard to believe that there would be waiting lists under Labour, as there are with any Government. No amount of Beckett and Brown soundbites—we may be about to receive a dose of the latter—will avoid the reality that decisions must be made which involve choices, and that priorities must be chosen in modern health care.
The Government have failed by putting costs before provision. Inversely, Labour—while speaking in the language of fiscal prudence—has to tell us how it would deal with the problems which arise. I shall now give way.
Mr. Brown: No, I have lost interest.
Mr. Carlile: I shall say a bit more, and perhaps I shall tempt the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
Would Labour destabilise a significant part of our health provision by abolishing all trusts? If so, how much would it cost? Does the party recognise that, although the system is not one with which it would have chosen to start, it does not start with a clean sheet of paper? Would Labour abolish all fundholders, despite the fact that a large number of GPs like the fundholding principle? Would Labour abolish all competition in health care, despite evidence that competition can, in some circumstances, be healthy for the service? If so, what would Labour put in place of those things? What would the structural changes envisaged by the Labour party cost?
I share the Labour party's belief—I hope that it is also the Conservative party's belief—in the NHS. It is a straightforward principle. Those of us who believe in the NHS believe in a service in which health care is available to all, based on need and not on ability to pay. We need to have a rational and factual debate which is not based on soundbites, and which takes place across, as well as along, party lines. Ideological brick walls should not he built to block the development of a better health service.
Mr. Matthew Banks: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he wants facts. Does he still agree with the drift of a consultation paper which the Liberal Democrats issued in the summer of last year which proposed the retention of the division between the commissioner of services and the provider of services? Does he still believe in the retention of trusts and modified GP fundholders? Some of us are concerned at the accuracy—again, the hon. and learned Gentleman asks for

897
facts—of an editorial in the Health Service Journal in September last year which, commenting on the Liberal Democrats' health policy, said that, with luck, someone might be kind enough "to offer some direction". Could we have that from the hon. and learned Gentleman?
Mr. Carlile: The consultation paper was a part of the policy-making process, and I agree with what it says. I became the Liberal Democrat health spokesman in September, and I am seeking to provide the direction which the hon. Gentleman seeks. I hope that he will be more knowledgable about my drift by the time I sit down.
The Labour party should address these questions. If a private provider can provide scanners—as is happening in some parts of the country—on a 24-hour basis more economically to the NHS than could be provided by a district general hospital, does the Labour party exclude that provision from the private sector? If it does, it would seem to be asking for serious trouble, as it would be going back to an old-fashioned view of the service. Would Labour drive the private sector out of the market? Would it renationalise cooking and cleaning services, scanners and all elective surgery?
My party and I share many of the aspirations of the right hon. Member for Derby, South for the NHS, but, just as the Liberal Democrats are asking how and why a changing NHS can be sustained, so, too, must the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has led the Labour party for only a few months, but it is now becoming time for those of us who watch the Labour party with considerable interest to see whether we will continue to have from it only the sound and fury born of 15 years of opposition, or whether that sound and fury will signify something for the health service, which certainly needs something new.
The service needs a fresh sense of direction and a commitment that will convince staff that it will survive and that it will enable them to continue what they do very well—serving the public whom they have to treat. The Government have failed the national health service, but the Labour party has still to give us a sign that it has something viable to offer. The NHS will remain positive only if the policies for it and the structure envisaged for it are also positive.
6.18 pm
Mrs. Marion Roe: There is no doubt in my mind that the Government's record regarding their health reforms shows clearly that there has been an increase in the quantity and quality of patient care, and also better value for money. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already given the details, and even independent surveys have demonstrated patients' growing satisfaction with the NHS. I am referring to the "British Social Attitude Survey" last November and a survey that the National Association of Health Authority Trusts carried out in June 1994.
The "British Social Attitude Survey" shows that the trend in falling public satisfaction with the national health service during the late 1980s has been reversed—1993 was the first year since 1986 when more people were satisfied than dissatisfied with the way in which the NHS is run. As we have had plenty of quotes from newspapers,
898
I shall quote The Guardian, which reported that the survey suggested that the NHS reforms have achieved "considerable success" in helping to restore confidence in the NHS.
The other survey by NAHAT showed that nine out of 10 patients who had attended hospital in the previous year found the service very good, good or average, and three out of four found it very good or good.
We have a more accountable NHS because the Government have considerably strengthened the mechanisms of the service's independent audit, especially by extending the remit of the Audit Commission, and have also set out standards and rights in the patients charter. More information and more patient involvement in the decision-making process, especially through GP fundholders, are required. All those factors add up to putting the patient first—a sound philosophy.
To that end, the all-party Select Committee on Health, of which I am the Chairman, has also been playing its part in monitoring and scrutinising the performance of the NHS, as our contribution to identifying the challenges and improving the service.
A common theme in several of the Committee's inquiries during the present Parliament has been priority setting in the national health service. Last July, we published a report that concentrated on the implications of a continued increase in the cost of drugs to the NHS for priority setting. The report presented a package of radical recommendations on the drugs budget.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to draw the attention of the House and of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) to the fact that we published a report today on the wider issue of priority setting in relation to the purchase of health care within the NHS. I am pleased to be able to say that that report was agreed unanimously. In addition to thanking all my colleagues on the Committee for their help in producing that report—I see one, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) in her place—I thank our five specialist advisers and our secretariat.
The report deals with issues of major importance to the future of health care. In our opening paragraph we state:
"As medical developments open up new opportunities for treatment, it is widely believed that pressure upon resources will continue to increase. Coupled with an aging population and changing patient expectations, these issues are likely to become ever more important. The way in which priorities are set within the NHS affects everyone. This report reviews how NHS purchasers have decided priorities in the midst of competing demands upon resources."
The principal conclusions and recommendations of the report are, as usual, set out in an annex. I will not attempt to recite all of them, but will concentrate on a brief summary of the report. It begins by considering how other countries are grappling with setting explicit priorities. We discussed the radical experiment in health rationing that is under way in the American state of Oregon, which the Committee visited as part of its inquiry. We also explain the systematic approach to priority setting that is being attempted in two other countries—New Zealand and the Netherlands.
Next, we studied some of the factors that might influence future demand for health services in the United Kingdom. For reasons that we explain, we do not make

899
judgments on future demand, nor do we enter the debate about current or future funding levels—they reached an all-time high of £37 billion in 1993–94.
As part of our inquiry, we commissioned a research paper from the Office of Science and Technology on "Factors Affecting Pressure on Health Care Resources". That forms the basis for our discussion and the paper is printed within the report as annex A, which we hope will help hon. Members and those outside.
We considered the potential impact on health costs of demographic changes, changing patterns of disease, advances in medical technology and changing patient expectations. Of those factors, demographic change is the most certain source of upward pressure on costs—in particular, the aging population, although the short-term impact of that change during the next 10 years is projected to be relatively limited. The Office of Science and Technology report makes clear the extent to which all such projects are subject to considerable uncertainty.
Of course, not all choices regarding the provision of services involve balancing competing demands in the light of increasing demand and restricted resources. Choices can often involve using resources more effectively. Against that background, we examined the process of making choices in the NHS—at national level, by individual purchasers and finally by individual doctors, nurses and other professionals.
At national level, we began by asking the basic question, "What is the NHS for?" We set out previous attempts to answer that question and formulated our own set of fundamental principles for the NHS, based on the principles of equity, public choice and the effective use of resources. We expressed our view that an honest and realistic set of explicit and well-understood ethical principles is needed at national level to guide the NHS into the next century.
We considered the way that Ministers and the Department of Health communicate their priorities to the service and we shared the concerns of witnesses who complained about "priority overload". The Committee urged greater clarity when deciding which items are of crucial importance—those that should be regarded as priorities, while others, however urgent or desirable, should be regarded simply as initiatives. We called for a reduction in the total number of national priorities and initiatives.
In a helpful spirit, we recommended how the Government could improve the communication of priorities. We called on the Government to issue an explicit statement every year of how they expected the service to develop during, for example, a three to five-year period.
At the local level, we contrasted the decentralised approach adopted in the United Kingdom with methods used in other countries. Here, districts have had to develop their role almost from scratch. While that approach has encouraged innovation among the most able purchasing teams, we were struck by the seemingly enormous variation throughout the country. Some purchasers know exactly where they are going—others have yet to find the map and are drifting. Our conclusions on local decision making are based on detailed research. We received submissions in response to a questionnaire from all regions and from nearly half of all districts.
900
We set out the criteria that the districts should adopt when decision taking and reviewed the development of local health strategies. We recommended that the NHS executive should take steps to ensure that, at minimum, epidemiological profiles, including variances from national averages, analyses of need and details of current provision, were open and accessible to public scrutiny and that the statutory requirements governing consultation over community care plans should be extended to cover consultation over health plans.
The Committee also stressed the importance of input from providers to good purchasing and called for GP fundholders to be required to sign up to an agreed set of local priorities each year prior to gaining access to their budgets. We examined the extent to which shifts in purchasing have occurred since the introduction of the internal market in 1992 and concluded that, to date, no major shifts have occurred. Districts have concentrated on setting priorities only at the margins. We believe that health authorities must develop the analytic tools to enable them to review existing services in depth and to redeploy resources from services of uneconomic or low health gain to services of real benefit.
We also reviewed how the NHS at district level has traditionally restricted access to non-emergency services through waiting lists and cost shifting and by giving particular services a low priority. We discussed the extent to which services have been excluded and concluded that, in terms of the impact on overall NHS resources, the absolute exclusion of services to date has been of marginal significance and is not appropriate.
We therefore recommend that the Department refines the operation of waiting time targets to increase flexibility and sets out clearly the framework within which purchasers will be expected to define the local package of services. We recommend that it sets out criteria by which decisions may be scrutinised, debated and, if necessary, challenged by individuals. We state that there should be no absolute exclusion of services from NHS provision. Whether a specific service should remain available must depend solely on whether there is a clinical need for that service and whether the service will demonstrably improve the health status of an individual.
Some of our witnesses argued that, instead of exclusions, greater emphasis should be placed on better value for money by making more efficient and appropriate use of existing resources. We draw attention to the large variations in the use of routine services across the country. There is a pressing need for greater information on those to be made available to purchasers and the public. The variations suggest that some routine treatments may be largely ineffective and a waste of resources, and even the most conservative estimates suggest that, by tackling that problem, there is greater potential to release resources for other services.
We warmly welcome the recent attempts to take effectiveness more seriously through research at Oxford and York, and by means of effectiveness bulletins. Feedback from our witnesses suggests a long untapped demand for greater information on effectiveness, and we make specific recommendations on how that information could be better disseminated. However much information is available, it is of no use if clinical behaviour does not change appropriately. We are convinced that persuasion rather than coercion must be used. We therefore make urgent recommendations on how that might he done.

901
Our evidence suggests that previously implicit criteria are now becoming more explicit. Clinical guidelines and protocols are bringing those criteria out into the open. We see a need for greater explicitness also in the scrutiny of those criteria. Patients must be involved more fully in the choices regarding their own treatment. It is clear from our evidence that health authorities are making greater efforts than hitherto to involve the public in priority setting, but performance remains patchy. While some consultation exercises have led to welcome changes in local services, others are perceived to have had little impact on services. That has led to disappointment and alienation. Variation between districts is worrying. There are difficulties in gaining genuinely representative public views on priorities but we recommend that the Department sets minimum standards for involving the public in the development of services.
I have now covered the report's main points but urge hon. Members to read the whole document. It is fair to say that, unlike last year's report on the drugs budget, this report does not contain a package of radical proposals because the issues involved are complex. They are taxing every Government in the developed world and, in many cases, as hon. Members will have gathered from my remarks, there are no easy nostrums or straightforward solutions; it would be dishonest for us to pretend that there were.
We hope that our report will be taken as a systematic attempt to review those difficult matters, take a snapshot of the current state of decision making in the health service, and contribute to a debate that will undoubtedly continue for years to come. We await with interest the Government's response to our report and recommendations in due course.
6.36 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: When I went to St. Bartholomew's hospital this morning, an official sign in big red letters outside said:
"There is no accident and emergency unit at this hospital".
The notice signalled, and was intended to signal, that everything about St. Bartholomew's hospital is to be destroyed. There were flowers and wreaths under the notice. A card on one of the bunches of flowers said:
"Sadly missed, from Whitecross street traders".
A card on a large wreath said:
"For all those who may become the victims of Bottomley's stupidity".
It was signed, "Local Residents".
Last week, a moving, beautiful, poetic candlelight procession moved off from St. Bartholomew's hospital to St. Paul's cathedral to pray that some good might come of the evil that was being done. The bells pealed out across the City. Heads were bowed, but people's faces shone with a sombre pride. Some cried openly and unashamedly in the street. We were witnessing a tragedy that should never have happened.
What a sad epitaph for the Secretary of State that she should go down in history as the person who hired a pathetic, second-rate, professional mafia—Sir Timothy Chessells; Admiral Staveley; Sir Derek Boorman; Gerry Green; and Francis Heidesohn—to destroy the world's
902
oldest and possibly greatest hospital. If ever a Secretary of State failed to understand the true principle of conservatism—that of conserving excellence—it is this Secretary of State.
Today, the Royal London hospitals trust, which was born of the merger between the Royal London hospital, St. Bartholomew's and the London chest hospital, is an institution at war with itself—torn and driven by strife, caused, ironically, by the chairman and chief executive of the trust. That war and strife exemplify what is wrong with the NHS today.
On 11 January this year, Mr. David Maclean, chairman of the Royal London hospital medical council, told the St. Bartholomew's hospital medical council that a recent press conference, at which a gang of five consultants from the Royal London hospital had slagged off consultants from St. Bartholomew's to the Daily Express newspaper, had been orchestrated and initiated by the trust's chief executive, Mr. Gerry Green.
If anyone doubts the truth of that, I have the minutes of the meeting with me. Can anyone imagine the chief executive of a trust organising a press conference to destroy his own institution and to encourage one group of consultants to destroy the reputation of another group of consultants?
At the press conference, the gang of five—Wilson, Cunningham, Wright, Swash and David Maclean himself—lied, lied and lied again about their colleagues at Bart's, and did so at the behest of the trust's chief executive. They defamed Mr. Steven Miles, who ran the Bart's accident and emergency unit. In an even more bizarre twist, they defamed Professor Mike Besser, one of the world's top doctors, the former acting chief executive of St. Bartholomew's hospital and currently the deputy president of the Royal College of Physicians. If that is not bizarre, what is?
On 25 January, 86 consultants from the medical council of St. Bartholomew's hospital passed the following motion:
"That the actions of Mr. G. N. V. Green"—
the chief executive—
"and Sir Derek Boorman"—
the chairman of the trust—
"in respect of recent press allegations impugning the integrity of senior members of this Institution and their subsequent responses to them are unsatisfactory, have led to unnecessary divisions between consultants on the three Trust sites and are not seen as providing an even-handed approach to management of the Trust. Medical Council sees this as part of a wider inability to pursue, as initially promised, such an even-handed approach. Medical Council therefore resolves that it has no confidence in the Chief Executive and Trust Board Chairman and that each should resign forthwith."
That motion was carried nem. con., which means that 80 consultants voted for it and a few abstained.
The minutes of that meeting stated:
"It was further resolved that the Acting Chairman should write to each of the five consultants involved, expressing:

(1) Dissatisfaction with their actions and failure either to justify their allegations or to withdraw and adequately to apologise for them.

(2) To request those of them holding positions of authority such as Clinical Director and Ethical Committee Chairman, to consider whether they can continue to enjoy the confidence of their colleagues on this site in these positions."

903
It is extraordinary that the clinical director and ethical committee chairman should act without ethics and morality, and five consultants may be suspended pending a full inquiry into their actions. What is going on at the Royal London hospitals trust?
The Daily Telegraph subsequently carried an article in which it was alleged that the consultants at Bart's had misused funds from the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. That allegation was equally untrue. The Imperial Cancer Research Fund is about to write to The Daily Telegraph to say that it was untrue. We are witnessing a dirty tricks campaign—political and military games carried out on behalf of the Secretary of State by the chairman of the trust, who happens to have been a former joint chief of the intelligence staff. It is extraordinary.
The turmoil at the trust has continued with the appointment of the warden to the merged medical colleges. Sir Colin Berry, a pathologist, was appointed, even though he is subject to investigations on two serious cases of medical negligence involving two women who have had their breasts cut off as a result of his misdiagnosis. The general view is that Sir Colin should not have allowed his name to go forward while those allegations are being investigated. We need a full statement from Sir Derek Boorman, the chairman of the trust, to explain.
Mr. Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I seek your guidance. Are the hon. Gentleman's accusations against a distinguished doctor's clinical judgment in order, in view of the fact that the matters are currently being investigated?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The sub judice rule applies only to court action. I am assuming that there is no question of court action in this case. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) can elucidate on that.
Mr. Sedgemore: I am not aware of any court action, but I am aware of investigations currently taking place. I believe that it is appropriate, in the House, for me to say that it is my contention that Sir Colin Berry should not have put himself forward to he the warden of the joint medical colleges, given the nature of the allegations. One must be seen to be cleaner than clean and show qualities of leadership. I do not see how that can be done in such circumstances.
It is also unfortunate that Sir Colin was appointed when there was an infinitely superior candidate called Professor Lesley Rees, who is generally regarded in medical spheres as perhaps the best dean that this country has ever seen. I am convinced that she was not appointed partly because she is a woman—the male chauvinism of the Royal London college is legendary—and partly because, although she fought to make the merger of the Royal London and the St. Bartholomew's medical schools work, she also fought to preserve activity at Charterhouse square for the medical college and at the Smithfield site for the hospital.
Sir Derek Boorman has meanwhile shown himself to be paranoid and has set up an extremely expensive inquiry into the leaking of a document at the time the warden was being appointed. That seems bizarre. During the course of that inquiry, there was an extraordinary homophobic
904
outburst, in which Sir Derek made it clear that he regards being gay as a human weakness. That seems to be beyond the pale for someone who is chairman of a hospital trust.
Recently, there have been more general allegations about Sir Colin Berry, and an investigation is taking place. We should be told the nature of those allegations, the evidence that was given and the results of the investigation. The right course would be for Sir Colin to stand down and for the post to be readvertised.
I was talking about war and contrition at the hospitals trust. No fewer than four consultants independently told me—wrongly, I am sure—that they believed that their telephones were tapped. Many people have a paranoia about the tapping of telephones, but is it not odd and undesirable that four senior clinicians should separately report to their local Member of Parliament that they think that that has happened? It seems to suggest that there is something radically wrong at the Royal London hospitals trust.
The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) mentioned the role of the East London and Hackney health authority. It is clear that the purchaser, in the form of Frances Heidesohn, has for the past year been working behind closed doors with the provider, Sir Derek Boorman, to close St. Bartholomew's hospital.
I went to see her for an hour and a half recently. The Evening Standard stated simply that such treachery would never be forgiven. I do not want to use such emotive language, but it seems that claims that there is competition—and that the purchaser-provider split has brought about that competition—cannot be upheld when the consultative document produced by the purchaser is identical to documents that were leaked to me earlier this year and were prepared by the provider. That is not competition, but collusion. Not only were the figures and the language the same, but so was every comma and colon.
The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South said—I am sure that he meant it—that he hoped that the Secretary of State would give serious consideration to the consultation process, where the purchaser and the provider jointly propose that the site of St. Bartholomew's hospital at Smithfield should he completely closed down.
No such examination of the proposals will be prepared. Within the past 24 hours, the acting chairman of the medical council at St Bartholomew's hospital, Larry Baker, has been to see the trust chairman Sir Derek Boorman, the chief executive Gerry Green and Dr. Duncan Empey. When Larry Baker said that the Bart's people were insisting that serious medical activity should continue at the Smithfield site, Sir Derek told him that the Government had made enough U-turns on medical affairs, and they were not going to make another one.
The chairman of the medical trust has said that he knows what the Secretary of State will do. Clearly, he is acting on the orders of the Secretary of State. I am confident about that because, before he took up his post—before he had viewed any evidence or even entered his office—Sir Derek Boorman told me that he intended to close the St Bartholomew's site. They were his political instructions, and that was what he intended to do.
I trust implicitly the sincerity, honesty and integrity of the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South, but he has to start asking a few hard

905
questions about some of the people around him. I believe that the plight of St Bartholomew's hospital could end in tragedy, and I will fight against that.
At the meeting between the acting chairman and the chairman of the trust, the question was raised as to what would happen if a Labour Government were elected in two years. The acting chairman was told that those who board the train now will prosper, and those who do not will not prosper. That has nothing to do with medicine; it is dreadful politics, and it is an insult to this country.
The motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) clearly states that there should be a moratorium on hospital closures in London while the decisions are viewed rationally. There is no reason for the actions of the Royal London hospitals trust; it is gut and nasty politics, from which the House should disassociate itself completely.
6.52 pm
Mr. James Couchman: I do not wish to follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) or that of my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) with regard to St Bartholomew's hospital. I do not know the arguments between St Bartholomew's hospital and the Royal London hospital, and I do not understand the circumstances. However, I do know that hon. Members as far afield as myself in my mid-Kent constituency have been lobbied by both sides of the argument.
As long ago as 1908, it was realised that there were too many large hospitals in a three-mile ring based around the central point of Harley street. Ever since that time, the rationalisation of the facilities in London has been a troublesome and contentious issue.
A dozen years ago, I was the chairman of an outer London health district which was deprived of resources because so many resources were allocated to the inner-London ring. My constituency in mid-Kent and the Medway towns have been a most deprived district, vis-a-vis population size, for a long time. We are very pleased that we are to see a £45 million extension to our district general hospital in Gillingham. That will provide services to a population of 300,000 people which we expected a long time ago but which we were deprived of because of the over-resourcing of inner London.
I shall devote most of my speech to examining the pursuit of value for money in the health service, particularly with regard to primary health care. The debate has been very interesting so far. The spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), rubbished the Government's policy on the health service. He then asked the Opposition spokesman whether a Labour Government would abolish trusts and fundholding, as well as a number of other questions which I thought would be asked by those on my own Front Bench.
However, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not tell us what the Liberal party would do for the health service—although it is unlikely ever to have responsibility for the national health service. As I said by way of intervention during the Secretary of State's speech, running the health service is somewhat different from
906
sniping from the Opposition Benches. The Opposition do not have to seek best value for money from this year's £33 billion budget for England and Wales, and they do not understand the responsibility involved.
Ten years ago, the pursuit of value for money from any part of the national health service was somewhat less than fashionable. The suggestion to doctors at that time that it was a laudable aim to derive best value for every pound that was spent on health care was likely to bring forth the lofty response, "You worry about the cost while I get on with the healing."

The resources debate then was about the absolute level of the money voted to the national health service rather than the deployment of that budget, whether at a national or a local level. Much has changed since that time and, politics notwithstanding, the change has been in the interest of the patient. While my speech is mainly about value for money in primary care, many improvements in the deployment of resources have occurred throughout the hospital and community services sector as well.
Awareness of the need for the NHS to provide value for money is growing, and will continue to develop. In 1992–93, the national health service budget for England and Wales was more than £30 billion, of which approximately one quarter—£7.3 billion, which was the entire health service budget in 1978–79 when the Labour party was last responsible for the national health service—was spent on primary health services. The four main service areas were ophthalmic, pharmaceutical, dental and general medical services.
The cost of pharmaceutical services, at more than half £7.3 billion, dwarfs even the cost of 27,000 registered general practitioners' salaries and their practice allowances. About 10 per cent. of national health service expenditure is spent on drugs prescribed by GPs, who typically write 1.5 million prescriptions daily. It is little wonder that such emphasis has been put on rational prescribing in the search for value for money in primary care. I must declare an interest in the subject, which is on the Register of Members' Interests, as I advise a pharmaceutical company, Pfizer Ltd., in Kent.
Three major initiatives have motivated improvements in the services provided by GPs: the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the general practice contract and the patients charter. The recent reforms have flowed from the NHS and Community Care Act, including GP fundholding, which is now in its fourth year and will undergo major extensions from April.
As my right hon. Friend reminded us, in November 1994, the National Audit Office published a report on the first two years of fundholding. The report concluded that fundholders reported that they had achieved a wide range of benefits for their patients, including reduced waiting times for non-urgent hospital admissions and first out-patient appointments, a more responsive service in diagnostic test results and discharges from hospitals, and the provision of additional services in their practice premises such as advanced equipment and consultant out-patient clinics.
Fundholders have become more aware of the need for rational prescribing, and they have curbed the growth of their drugs expenditure compared with non-fundholders. Although initial budget setting was hampered by lack of good historic data, from 1993–94 the NHS executive has required regions to develop benchmarks based on average

907
treatment and prescribing levels, to help set budgets. That should prevent the sizeable underspends and overspends of the first two years.
Early experience showed that GP fundholders were three times more likely to underspend than to overspend their budgets. Although some large windfall underspends were repaid to regions for distribution, in 1992–93, underspend of £28.3 million was retained to be spent by fundholders, to the benefit of their patients. Fundholders have drawn up objectives, and some consulted not only health authority purchasers but their patients on how their practices might be improved. I wonder whether anyone can remember that happening before the 1990 Act was implemented.
All general practitioners are independent contractors to the NHS. Fundholders are accountable to regional health authorities for how they use their funds. It follows that regions and family health service authorities must monitor fundholder performance, not just for financial competence and probity—I will say more about that later—but for the quality of service offered.
The National Audit Office report made a number of recommendations, which I will summarise. The NHS management executive should extend the benefits of GP purchasing involvement to all patients. It should use benchmarks rather than historic figures to set budgets and consider introducing fund management plans for all fundholders, to provide a basis for agreeing objectives and monitoring performance. Regional health authorities are urged to manage underspend by fundholders more effectively, and, where windfall underspends occur, to negotiate voluntary return.
District health authorities are urged to set indicative budgets for non-fundholders on a comparable basis to budgets set for fundholders, and fundholders must be able to demonstrate the likely cost and benefit for patients of their plans to utilise fund savings.
It is clear that the NAO report is broadly favourable to the fundholding concept, and applauds the value for money achieved during the scheme's first two years. That is just as well, for the Government propose dramatically to extend the scheme from April this year, when there will be a three-layer fundholding scheme.
Small practices will have community fundholding that will not involve the purchase of acute hospital treatment. Standard fundholding will be extended and available to practices with just 5,000 patients, compared with 7,000 now. A total purchasing pilot scheme will allow GPs in a locality to purchase all hospital and community health services for their patients, including accident. and emergency services.
The NAO report called for the extension of the benefits of GP purchasing involvement to all patients. The 1995 extension should enable progress to be made towards that goal. It will be even more important that fundholders keep and submit proper accounts of their activities and that the new health authorities will need to monitor those accounts carefully on a value-for-money basis as well as for strictly accounting purposes. Expertise in auditing that sizeable operation must be developed speedily, and any malpractices rooted out. I will return to that point.
The patients charter, in conjunction with the new GP contract, has given patients the right to expect a number of services not previously available. They include check-ups
908
when a patient is first registered, a regular check-up for the elderly every year at the surgery or at home, and check-ups every three years for other patients.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in parts of Strathclyde, a printed sticky label is used to say, "Sorry—we can't meet the nine-week target in the patients charter"? Some folks wait 19, 20 or 25 weeks to meet consultants and surgeons. The patients charter is certainly not working in Scotland.
Mr. Couchman: With respect, I was talking about the expectations from the patients charter in respect of GP services rather than hospital services. I must allow my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health to answer the hon. Gentleman's question when he winds up.
Mr. Graham: I was trying to make the point that GPs are having to apologise to their patients because they cannot arrange appointments with consultants and others for long periods.
Mr. Couchman: I am sorry that I gave way again, because I do not think that added to the hon. Gentleman's first intervention. My hon. Friend the Minister will answer for the patients charter in the round, in Scotland as well.
As a result of the GP contract and patients' expectations, many practices have extended their provision for immunisation, well person clinics, specialist clinics for chronic diseases such as diabetes and asthma, and minor surgery—as well as for alcohol and drug misuse. The best practices now offer substantially better value for money than before the new contract, and are being rewarded appropriately.
I mentioned that the pharmaceutical bill accounts for half the primary care bill of £7.3 billion, and it would be impossible to refer to value for money in primary care without expanding on that aspect. There has been a tendency to rely on driving down the cost of each prescription to contain the burgeoning NHS drugs bill. It is a cliché to say that cheap is not always best, but to emphasise that maxim, I will quote the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in Committee on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, speaking then as Minister of State:
"Sometimes the best prescribing is restrained prescribing high-cost items. Low-cost prescribing is not necessarily the right way. There are some new drugs which, if applied at the right time, can achieve the best results. It is simplistic to think that prescribing is anything other than a subtle, complex and frequently changing subject."—[Official Report. Standing Committee E, 1 February 1990; c. 641.]

Those wise words prompt a number of questions, but I do not want to overstay my welcome. The Audit Commission report "Prescription for Improvement", published last year, offers a comprehensive analysis of factors that make the case for rational prescribing, and thereby counters the pressures that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) mentioned, of demographic change, treatment in the community, continuing pharmaceutical development and the impact of GP contracts in spurring screening—which identifies more disease in more patients, who obviously then demand treatment.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was one of her least impressive offerings at the Dispatch Box. It was a litany of newspaper cuttings, and I was at pains to discern much of Labour's policy.

909
The right hon. Lady mentioned waiting lists, and I declare an interest. I and my family are national health service patients and always have been. We do not pay private health insurance. The only treatment for which we pay is dentistry, because NHS dentists are difficult to come by in my part of the world. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on many occasions about the provision of NHS dental treatment, because I am as unhappy as hon. Members in other parts of the House about that matter.
I would defend to the limit people who have private health insurance. Having paid their taxes and national insurance, they have a right to contribute to such insurance. They do so in the expectation that, if they need a non-urgent procedure performed, they will be able to have that done more quickly than if they were to rely on the NHS.
Mr. Graham: That is terrible.
Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman says that that is terrible, but I am quite prepared to defend the right to do that, even though I do not choose that option. People who do save the NHS a great deal of money. What I am less happy about is the apparent manipulation of waiting lists by some consultants, to their own advantage.
I went home from here last Thursday evening and watched the video of a Channel 4 programme in the "Dispatches" series, called "Serving Two Masters". It related the findings of Dr. John Yates, a senior manager in the health service until two or three years ago, when he became a full-time academic researcher. His project on health service waiting lists left me profoundly disturbed. He says that 96 per cent. of private patients see a consultant within a month, but only 9 per cent. of NHS patients do. That is worrying. He also asked a number of pertinent questions: was it just coincidence that consultants working in specialties with the longest waiting lists have the highest private sector earnings? He asked whether private sector operating concentrates on conditions which, in the NHS, have the longest waiting times for treatment.
Dr. Yates gave some disturbing facts about cardiac surgery in London, and about orthopaedic and ophthalmic consultants throughout the country, particularly in Birmingham, where he was doing most of his work.
I think that Ministers need to pay some attention to Dr. Yates's findings. The time has come to take the Duncan Nicol line of one private practice session a week being the right amount for any consultant who is full time, or the part-time equivalent of ten elevenths. I know that that will not be popular with some consultants, but it is right to keep them to their contracts with the NHS.
Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend therefore agree with the Minister of State, who has suggested that the way round some of these undoubted abuses is to begin more local pay bargaining?
Mr. Couchman: I am not sure that that is as effective a mechanism as where the contract is placed. Most consultants' contracts are still with the regional health authorities. That has been a problem since I was chairman of a district health authority; for it is very difficult for a DHA, now a trust, to call to order consultants who appear
910
to be kicking over the traces. There have always been consultants with split responsibilities—three sessions here, four there, two in another district. They were always in the other place.
The time has come for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to grasp the nettle and to place contracts at the point where consultants are employed—with the trusts, if they serve trust hospitals.
My right hon. Friend must deal with the problem of waiting lists, because she must give confidence to national health service patients that they are not losing out to abuses by consultants whose probity and integrity, I fear, are falling short of the highest standards expected under their contracts with the NHS.
7.13 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I am pleased to have been called to speak. It is worth repeating what the debate is about: the threat to the existence of the national health service resulting from Government policies.
I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made a brilliant speech in which she analysed the Government's intentions with devastating accuracy. The sedentary insults that were hurled at her—there have been more since—only went to prove that her speech hit home.
I shall use my time to allow the patients who have written to me to speak to the House through me about their recent complaints. Under this Government and Secretary of State for Health there is always a yawning gap between the slick image of an improved modern health service and the real world.
The reality for patients can be very different from the Secretary of State's version. The description of a Bottomley ward in The Daily Telegraph—trolleys in the corridors with patients lying on them—says a lot more about the NHS than anything the Secretary of State said today.
In my constituency trust's area, as with every other trust in the country, we are inundated with glossy brochures full of propaganda, but I tend to read more closely the letters that I receive from patients and former patients. In October, for instance, I had a letter from a patient who was attending the oncology clinic at the Royal Halifax infirmary. Hers is a very different story from the one in the glossy brochures. I will not give the House her name, but it has gone to the Secretary of State. She writes:
"Words are inadequate to try and attempt to praise the care and commitment of Dr. Howard Close",
the consultant in charge of the cancer unit.
"My own experience has shown that on Thursdays in Halifax he attends to in-patients, new patients and out-patients from late morning until who knows what time in the early evening…He is a man of tremendous warmth and gives each patient the time and individual attention each one so badly needs. As a cancer patient one feels at one with Dr. Close in a trusting relationship … The nurses too are equally committed, working in archaic conditions, supporting Dr. Close in this busy, demanding clinic."
Whenever we bring patients' complaints to the attention of the Secretary of State, she sounds off about how we criticise staff and doctors. But I share this patient's admiration for the team working in that clinic.
The patient goes on to describe her concerns about the clinic:
"The clinic and its surroundings are small, cramped and cheerless. It is far too small to cater for the number attending at any one time. At a rough count there may be seating for 25 to 30 people. The seats

911
are the plastic bucket type, very uncomfortable especially for sick people … The seats are placed close together so that it is impossible to read because of sheer space. We just sit. It is a silent clinic, broken only by the nurses calling out the names of people to be weighed; whilst we just sit and listen. At times very sick people are brought into the clinic in wheel chairs to wait. It is a very pathetic sight for ill people to wait at this clinic with little or no privacy for anyone. There is nowhere for a patient to have a drink and the waiting time can be anything from two and a half to four hours…I have been an in-patient at the Cookridge hospital when undergoing chemotherapy for 10 months last year and have never experienced the sadness and desolation in the atmosphere one feels in the Halifax out-patient clinic."

I took up this emotional complaint with the chief executive of the trust. I will not bore the House with the reply, except to say that she agreed that Dr. Close and his staff were excellent, caring employees, and agreed about the condition of the clinic, but went on to say:
"Unfortunately, I am not able at this point to guarantee that we will be able to make this funding available."
She was of course referring to funding for improvements to the clinic. This same hospital has £500,000 in trust in the form of donations and bequests from grateful patients' relatives and fund raisers—yet nothing has been done about the clinic. It really is a desolate and desperate place. Calderdale health trust is behaving in exactly the same hard-hearted way as many other trusts all over the country. It especially behaves in that way on early discharge. Primary care and community care in Calderdale is the same as in many other places; it simply means passing the buck, and Calderdale health trust is doing that as well.
I attended recently a forum for Halifax and Calder Valley pensioners, to discuss with the trust one of the so-called "consultation exercises" that it carries out from time to time to put into yet another glossy brochure—some more propaganda. Elderly people gave their testaments and the trust gave a written report afterwards of the answers. I shall read out a couple of questions on early discharge, because it is symptomatic of what is happening in the country.
One relative of an 84-year-old widower spoke of the widower being discharged from hospital, only to be readmitted shortly afterwards owing to a lack of nutrition. When discharged again, he was provided—to make it easier for him—with a chemical toilet, hut no chemicals to enable him to use it. Although he was readmitted with nutrition problems—malnutrition, no doubt—he was told that he was not eligible for "meals on wheels". There was no answer to that complaint for the Halifax pensioners who raised the matter on his behalf.
When patients brought up the issue of what will happen when the purpose-built Northowram hospital, for elderly and psychiatric patients, closes, which it will—it is a new hospital, not an outdated Victorian unit—they were told, "If we have all the services on one site, it will save on running costs." I could go on about some of the thoughtless responses—heart-breaking in some cases—when the pensioners asked genuine questions about what would happen to them in the future.
In Halifax, hospital wards are closed almost monthly. Yet patients are crammed like battery hens in old, outdated wards, and men and women are nursed side by side in some of those wards. No matter what the objection to mixed wards, the trust—the people who are giving us all the choice—simply tells us that mixed wards will continue to be the norm in Calderdale. On a recent visit
912
to see a patient, I witnessed a severely brain-damaged lady expose herself to a very embarrassed male patient, and some loving and caring patients walked in and caught her doing that. That simply is not good enough today.
Other women, who had suffered strokes or heart attacks, were mixed in with all kinds of patients, cramped together like battery hens. Some of those people were waiting to go into the hospital for rehabilitation. The hospital is about to be closed. It is a disgrace. We are told that we can lose 300 beds without it harming patient care. It is already harming patient care, very badly.
Mrs. Wise: It occurs to me that my hon Friend's points have some relevance to the statement that was made by the Secretary of State—that more patients are being cared for. I am thinking particularly of a friend of mine in the north-east whose mother was discharged, in the circumstances that my hon. Friend described, although clearly extremely ill. She had to be readmitted within a day and died two days later. That, of course, would count in the statistics as two hospital episodes. It would show up as patients. No wonder more people appear to be treated. It is directly linked with premature discharge.
Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend makes a very clear and telling point, and what she says is the truth.
Mixed wards are not generally liked. I received a letter only yesterday from the Townswomen's Guilds, which has been complaining against mixed wards for more than 10 years. It told me:
"Our members are very concerned about many health issues and have recently expressed their dismay and dislike of mixed sex wards in British hospitals…
Townswomen have personal experience of staying in mixed wards and have written to me with their stories detailing their discomfort and upset when they found themselves in this situation. Many of those writing to me expressed concern that the extra stress of mixed wards could hinder rather than help the healing process."
It goes on to talk about the lack of dignity and the embarrassment experienced by many in such wards. That is the experience that I get as a Member of Parliament, but my trust does not listen to me. I simply get brushed off with, "Oh, well, we only seem to get complaints from you." That is simply not true.
I know that the Secretary of State said that, in future, she will ensure that people are told whether they are to go on to a mixed ward, before they are admitted to hospital. But will they have to wait longer if they object? It is serious, indeed.
Mr. Bowis: The hon. Lady makes an important point about mixed wards. It is something that we take seriously and I hope, therefore, that she will welcome what has been incorporated in the new and updated patients charter. It puts the pressure on—not just her pressure but that of the NHS as a whole—calling for people to be given that option where available and to be given information so that if no place is available on a single-sex ward, there may be an option to wait a week or two until one is available. We are with her on that.
Mrs. Mahon: Or six months, perhaps. The Calderdale trust is taking no notice of that advice. It is advice and the very nature of the advice means that trusts can ignore it if they want. I shall wait to see whether any more teeth is given to the suggestion that the Minister makes.

913
I deal now with the excellent document "Serving Two Masters" by Dr. John Yates, an eminent health service manager, as has been said. He exposes not only what is happening with some of the consultants but the Government's claims on waiting lists. He says:
"There is now a queue of over one million people waiting for an operation. For years, the length of this queue has been used as a measure of waiting time. Although the length of the waiting list does not necessarily predict the length of wait, most people see a relationship between the two. The NHS, politicians and the press watch the statistics of waiting lists quite carefully, but rarely admit that they have only examined half of the problem: there is another, sometimes longer, wait just to get on the waiting list. The waiting time for an out-patient appointment to see the surgeon is not information that the NHS gathers systematically, nor does it publish national statistics about it."
As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, there are not three waiting lists but four. We should investigate that further. Also on waiting lists, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) made the point very well about counting twice, and the radical statistics group makes the same point. That is relevant, because at the moment, it is meaningless jargon at best and at its worst it is simply lies. It bears no relationship to the reality and to people's everyday experiences. There really is an image-reality gap.
The reality is that of Lewis Braun, an 18-year-old teenager from Wilmslow, about whom we all read a couple of weeks ago, who suffered horrific burns but was driven 60 miles, in agony, after being turned away from the Christie hospital—his nearest hospital—because there was no intensive care bed. Then there is the reality of Roberta Gierardo, who died of a brain haemorrhage on new year's eve after an eight-hour wait in casualty at the North Middlesex hospital while staff spent the night scouring London and the home counties for an intensive care bed. I wrote to the Secretary of State shortly after that incident was reported because someone in London had contacted me, but she has still not replied to my letter.
I want to talk about the reality of the NHS today where the elderly, sick and psychiatrically ill are denied a bed simply because they have grown too old or because it has been decided that they can be cared for in the community when, in reality, there is often no community to care. The new draft guidance on long-term care, which clearly departs from the founding principles of the NHS of care from the cradle to the grave, will not solve any of the problems put to me by my constituents or provide an answer when they ask me whether they will have a bed when they become sick and old.
As I shall continue to say in the House at every opportunity, the elderly and the long-term sick are being betrayed daily by the Government. Elderly people are not animals to be dumped by a system that they brought into being and for which they paid. The members of the Halifax Pensioners Association, which has complained to me of that betrayal, are the best in the world and most of them are the product of two world wars in the span of a single lifetime. They deserve better. Too often, their reality is that of an 84-year-old constituent of mine whose
914
case is detailed in a letter written to me by his son, which I received just this week, and which I intend to read again. It says:
"Last Wednesday my 84 year old father"—
the letter gives his name, but I shall not repeat it—
"entered the 'Calderdale Health Care', I still prefer the Royal Halifax Infirmary, for an operation on Thursday. He was told that he would be in until Monday"—
23 January—
"yesterday"—
three days earlier than the date on which he had been told he would be discharged—
"when I rang to find out his condition I was told he was being discharged. I rang my parents to find out how he felt, my father is one of the countless millions who never complains and feels grateful for any help he receives, said he felt 'wobbly' and that while he had been waiting for my severely arthritic mother to find someone to give her a lift to the hospital to pick my father up, he had urinated into three pairs of pyjamas…Is this another example of Virginia Bottomley's brave new world? If so, I am thoroughly disgusted. All his working life my father has worked and paid his tax for treatment like this. I cannot let the British public know of this disgusting example of the new NHS but you can and I hope this will help you to do so."
I have also forwarded that sad letter to the Secretary of State. We hear all the statistics being churned out, but we should look at the reality for elderly people. I wonder if the Secretary of State would describe that letter as a "jewel to be treasured". It is a sad indictment of the Government and how they have let down the NHS.
As I said earlier, people are not animals who must be corralled into the private sector where they are means-tested down to the last pound by smart accountants acting as zoo keepers. They are the people who gave us the NHS and they should not be left to the mercy of community care that scarcely exists because councils have been squeezed and squeezed since 1979. When the Government talk about community care, they mean secondary care where people are dumped out of the NHS.
Mr. Simon Burns: Rubbish.
Mrs. Mahon: Elderly people are increasingly dumped out of the NHS. It is the Government who are rubbish, not the elderly people who complain to me.
The Secretary of State refused to give way to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) about psychiatric beds in London because she has been grilled by the Select Committee and knows well that she has no answers for every expert and professional who told her that there were not enough acute beds for psychiatric patients in London. Yet she refused to stop closing them.
The fight is on to save the NHS and to end the market fascism that seeks to destroy it. That is a well-chosen description of what is happening. I want the Government to go and go quickly, but for the sake of the NHS I should like the Secretary of State to go a lot faster.
7.34 pm
Mr. David Evans: I am proud of our NHS. It has developed and flourished under successive Conservative Governments who have invested additional funds in real terms in the service each and every year since 1979. That commitment has resulted in an even greater proportion of gross national product being directed towards health—from 4.7 per cent. in 1979, the legacy left us by the Labour party, to 6.1 per cent. currently.

915
The Secretary of State has already announced a further large injection of funds for the forthcoming year. For the year 1993–94, a massive £37,000 million was invested to provide a comprehensive and efficient health service which is still the envy of the world and which is available to every man, woman and child in Britain irrespective of age, race, colour or creed.
Why is the NHS the envy of the world? Why do health professionals visit from Europe and America to find out how we provide such good value for money in health care? The answer is simple. It is because of the health service reforms introduced by the Government in 1991. As a result of those reforms, the country now benefits from more health facilities and ever-increasing quality. But that cannot be taken for granted, nor would it continue under a Labour Government.
I am sorry to say that I have heard a load of rubbish being spoken about the NHS this afternoon by the lot opposite—scare stories, slurs, misrepresentations and stretching the truth to the limit. That has been a deliberate ploy, instigated by that lot over there in a feeble attempt to obscure what most people see as a clear-cut issue.
The health service is a perfect reflection of the state of the two main political parties in Britain. On the Conservative Benches, we have a party which sees the need to alter and adapt policies and institutions to the needs of a changing environment. The Conservative party is the true party of change and has been rewarded for its progressive approach with four successive election victories.
The Labour party, however, is politically and financially handcuffed to the policies of the past arid, as a result, has stagnated. The Labour party fears change and thus, following the principle of Darwin's theory recorded in "On the Origin of Species", is doomed to extinction.
It might be useful if I put a couple of things into perspective. The NHS became operational on 5 July 1948. At that time, electricity generation was the task of the British electricity authority, the forerunner of the now defunct central electricity generating board. British Rail, established only a year earlier, was investigating technologies to replace the steam locomotive.
In the 1990s, 50 years later, the electricity industry hasbeen privatised and British Rail is in the process of restructuring and reorganising. In 1991, the Government introduced their NHS reforms. Demographic changes, new social aspirations and advances in medical science all contributed to the need for a new service culture.
Conservative reforms centred on a set of simple and sensible principles. First, we believe that the national health service should put patients first. Our reforms transformed the NHS, ending the boom-bust mentality of the old provider-led system. In those days, hospitals worked flat out; all their beds were available for the first two thirds of each year, but they then had to cope with bed closures because the money had run out. That resulted in the indiscriminate cancellation of urgent as well as routine operations.
We have now created a purchaser-led system, in which the purchaser identifies needs and responds to the requirements of the local population. Purchasers arrange contracts to ensure that hospitals and community units know what services, and how many services, will be required of them, so that they can plan the delivery of those services with optimum staff and bed numbers. The process
916
encompasses the principles of local decision making, partnership and efficiency. Efficient hospitals will receive more funds to cope with the increased number of patients whom they serve: the funds follow the patient.
The success of those reforms speaks for itself. First, the number of patients treated in hospital has increased from 7 million in 1991–92 to 8 million in 1993–94. Secondly, more than 800 hospital building schemes, each worth more than £1 million, have been completed since 1980, and nearly 300 are in the pipeline. Thirdly, waiting times have decreased dramatically: 50 per cent. of patients are seen immediately, 30 per cent. of the rest are seen within two weeks, 75 per cent. of patients are seen within three months and 98 per cent. are seen within a year.
Fourthly, spending on the NHS has increased by 66 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Over 1995–96, the Government will again increase their NHS spending—to £37,000 million, an increase of £1,300 million on the year before. Fifthly, between 1979 and 1992 the number of nurses and midwives increased by 25,000, and the number of medical and dental staff by nearly 10,000. Sixthly, since 1979 nurses' average earnings have increased by 65 per cent. in real terms, and doctors' pay by 35 per cent.
Seventhly, for the first time we have published hospital performance targets. Eighthly, we have established the patients charter, which has had an enormous impact in raising standards and improving efficiency. Ninthly, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: following the Government's 1991 reforms, 419 NHS trusts are now in operation. There are also 8,000 fundholding GPs, accounting for more than 50 per cent. of all eligible practices and more than 35 per cent. of the population.
The success of the Government's reforms is reflected in the excellent Queen Elizabeth II hospital in my constituency. Since the hospital was given trust status in 1991, the number of in-patient and day-case operations has increased by 28 per cent. The average waiting time has dropped to just three months, which is well below the national average, and the trust has introduced a number of new developments and schemes amounting to £13 million in total capital expenditure.
That lot over there are a cynical mob. I have watched them shake their heads while I have merely presented the facts. If they cannot accept the truth from me, perhaps they will listen to the people. In a survey conducted in June 1994, nine out of 10 patients who had attended hospital during the previous year found the service very good, good or average. That hardly tallies with the tales of gloom and disaster that we hear from Opposition Members.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to take a trip down memory lane and remind ourselves exactly what happened under the last Labour Government—as opposed to what has been said in more recent statements. Labour's political interference in the Government's health reforms can be traced back to 1990, when the poisoned dwarf, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was then Labour's health spokesman—
Mr. Nicholas Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to describe an hon. Member as a poisoned dwarf?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I did not catch what the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield

917
(Mr. Evans) actually said, but if he used the phrase "poisoned dwarf" I invite him to think again, and withdraw it.
Mr. Evans: I withdraw it unreservedly.
The hon. Member for Livingston, who at that time was Labour's health spokesman, threatened NHS managers who were working on the implementation of the Government's health reforms. Issuing a blatant threat, the hon. Member for Livingston told them to "go slow", because all the reforms would be reversed by the next Labour Government. The Health Service Journal condemned the outrageous interference of the hon. Member for Livingston, saying:
"The threat was barely veiled: everyone judged to have appeared to be enthusiastic about the White Paper need not expect to have their contract renewed by a Labour Health Secretary."
The journal went on to describe the hon. Gentleman's actions as
"outrageous interference in NHS management and flagrant intimidation of NHS managers."
So much for democracy.
The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—balding Bambi—
Mr. Nicholas Brown rose—
Mr. Deputy speaker:Order Again, I appeal to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, who has been in the House for a long time and is an experienced campaigner. I invite him to withdraw his remark.
Mr. Evans: I withdraw it.
The right hon. Member for Sedgefield, with his £60 haircuts and his £500 suits—sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union—has indicated that, under a Labour Government, he will be prepared to see the clock turned back on the NHS reforms. That means that the management of the health service will be taken away from the health professionals, and returned to the claws of the unions. It is hardly surprising, given that 156 Labour Members are sponsored by unions—including all Opposition Front Benchers.
The 1978–79 winter of discontent is indelibly printed on the minds of the public—so much so that that lot over there received four red cards in the last four elections. They lost in 1979; they lost in 1983; they lost in 1987; they lost in 1992; and they will lose again in 1997. How could the British public put the health service into the hands of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)? He cannot even remember where he parked his car, let alone cast his memory back to the appalling way in which the Labour Government bungled the health service in the 1970s.
In 1974 the Labour party manifesto promised:
"A Labour Government will ‖ expand the National Health Service".
Three years later Mr. David Ennals, Labour's Secretary of State for Health, was forced to concede:
"In the present economic climate, the Government could do little more than provide for the increasing number of old, leaving a small margin for improvements in methods of treatment".
In 1978, the health budget was cut by 3 per cent. in real terms. Capital spending was cut by one third in real terms—the largest cut ever inflicted on the NHS capital
918
programme. Aneurin Bevan, eat your heart out. Between 1974 and 1979, in real terms, nurses' pay fell by 21 per cent., doctors' pay fell by 16 per cent. and surgeons' pay fell by 25 per cent. Waiting lists rose by 48 per cent.
Dr. James Cameron, chairman of the British Medical Association, described in 1978 how
"the national health service is sick in Britain, it is inadequate and impersonal and is losing the confidence of the medical profession and the public".
The Royal College of Nursing congress at Harrogate in 1978 talked of
"a crisis of manpower, finance and morale in the service".
In 1978–79, the national health service went on strike, led by the Confederation of Health Service Employees and by the National Union of Public Employees. Telephonists were on strike and clinical staff were manning public call boxes to get calls into hospitals. Clean linen was not allowed though picket lines. Foul linen was destroyed because the unions would not even let it out of the hospital. Meals were provided by volunteers and cleaning was non-existent.
Let us cast our minds back to the news stories of the time. They did not reveal a health service nurtured by a caring, sharing Labour Government—quite the opposite. An article in The Times in 1978 with the headline
"Hospital is to turn away patients with cancer"
states that
"patients with breast, lung and other cancers, and abortion cases are to be turned away from the Kingston hospital, Surrey, because of industrial action by health service workers and supervisors, the hospital said yesterday. From midnight next Tuesday, even known cancer cases will be denied admission and lives immediately threatened. Investigative surgery, even where there is a strong suspicion of a life threatening condition, will not take place."
That was the national health service under that lot. That is what it was like—a total nightmare. If loved ones died, one could not even bury them because the picket line would not let the grave-diggers through to dig the grave to put them in. That is what it was like.
Mr. Nicholas Brown rose—
Mr. Evans: No, I will not give way.
Finally, we come to the confessions of the former Secretary of State for Health, Barbara Castle. During the winter of discontent, she described her attack on pay beds as an "essential political sweetener" for the trade unions. The Labour party is still committed to tossing political sweeteners to unions. In return, the unions toss financial sweeteners to the Labour party. As the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union said last year, "No say, no pay."
So Bambi intends to turn the clock hack to those had old days of the "savage seventies". As if that were not bad enough, he intends to strip power from the health professionals—the doctors and general practitioners—and to put it in the hands of his new regional assemblies. What a recipe for disaster. Yet again, the Labour party refuses to listen to the views of the profession. Instead, it wants to play politics with the health service. Just who does the right hon. Member for Sedgefield think he is—the Milky Bar kid?
If Labour had its way, the NHS as we know it would he destroyed. Decision making would be stripped from health care professionals and given to shop stewards, who would ultimately tear it apart as a result of regional and industrial political battles.

919
Labour should listen to its friends at The Guardian. In an article on 4 January this year, The Guardian argued that
"the problem with trying to restore the NHS is twofold: first, the disruption which yet another organisational change would make and, second, the danger of re-introducing the old inequalities and inefficiencies."
Perhaps the lot opposite should turn the clock right back to go back and truly to understand Nye Bevan's intentions' for the NHS. Back in 1946, he said:
"I believe that democracy exists in the active participation in administration and policy. Therefore, I believe that it is a wise thing to give the doctors full participation in the administration of their own professions."
Going by that statement, if Nye Bevan were still an hon. Member today, and if he reflected on the Conservative reforms and Labour plans, I am pretty sure that he would vote for the Government's amendment at the end of today's debate.
7.54 pm
Mr. Kevin Hughes: There we have it from the historical and intellectual wing of the Tory party. The lack of understanding of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on this issue is surpassed only by his lack of understanding on every other issue that he speaks about in the Chamber.
The national health service is the most important of our public services, but we know that the Government's reforms have created a two-tier system, with treatment decided by ability to pay, by whoever one's doctor happens to be, or by the performance of a contract. The service, as we know it, has been split into small, competing health businesses—the internal market. It implies competition between those businesses, purchasing on the basis of cost, and making local hospitals work against each other rather than together. One unit poaches patients from another in a war that is fought and won primarily on the basis of cost. Patients are the losers on that commercial battlefield.
The trend is towards not localisation but a health service where people are shipped around for the cheapest treatment. That is the logic of the Government's reforms. Some hospitals, of course, will always have to buy specialty services that they cannot provide and have never been able to provide, but it goes beyond that. The results are only just beginning to be shown, but I know from my discussions with health managers in my region that that is the way in which trust managers think.
Doncaster Royal infirmary is being forced to develop plans to treat patients from other areas. Although that might be good news for the hospital's staff, it is not such good news for facilities elsewhere. They will be run down as they lose patients, who will be forced to travel for treatment.
The Government's sleight of hand, to put it mildly, with statistics on the NHS is evidence of how far they are prepared to go to cover up their failures. Patients are no longer people. They have become episodes, to be counted not once, not twice, but sometimes even three times by administrators. It is convenient for the Government that they have decided on finished consultant episodes as the best means of measuring the amount of work undertaken in our hospitals. The Government can con their Back Benchers, but they cannot con the people, who know how long they have been waiting for treatment.
920
The Government claim that waiting times are improving, but the people who are waiting know that that is not true. More and more people—more than 1 million—are waiting for treatment in today's NHS. Patients are waiting for an appointment to be granted, waiting once an appointment has been given, and waiting for treatment after their initial consultation—three waiting lists for the price of one.
The market makes it expedient for trusts to cook the books and it is politically convenient for the Secretary of State for Health to sit idly by while they do so, and then to quote the distorted figures. That distorted picture makes it hard to determine what is happening in the NHS.
My constituents have been made to wait for months for an appointment, or they have had to pay to jump the queue for a consultation, because if they do not receive the treatment, they could lose their job. It is becoming a pay-as-you-go health service.
The Government have not given an adequate reply on the concerns expressed about the extent of the work done privately by consultants. An extension of private work can only mean a retraction in national health services and longer waits for patients who do not have the means to pay. The two-tier system is emphasised by GP fundholding, which gives some patients a fast track to hospital care while others lose out. Again, that can mean only that clinical need has gone out the window as a basis on which to decide who gets treatment.
Finally, there is a problem of contracts being completed while there are patients still needing treatment. These people have to wait for treatment because the year's money has run out. Health care is being turned into a lottery, and everywhere we look we see the same signs.
The Government have managed to upset dentists so much that many are refusing to treat NHS patients. A dentist in my constituency has stopped treating them and is instead asking patients to take out Denplan insurance. In response to a letter to me, he wrote:
"To remain wholly within the Health Service is like having a'I your eggs in one basket … with the person holding the basket intent on emptying it".
The Government have turned dentists away from the NHS and have, in the process, fragmented and commercialised the services that they provide.
Less than two months ago, the Secretary of State claimed that the reforms had
"effected a fundamental and irreversible shift in favour of the patient."—[Official Report, 12 December 1994: Vol. 251, c. 632.]
The evidence says not; the evidence says that it is the insurance companies and private sector that stand to gain the most and the patient who has gained the least.
The Government's claims for patients do not fit very well with the facts. The Government's aim is to privatise our health service by taking away its truly national meaning, introducing inappropriate competition and making patients pay for more of what they get. The inevitable conclusion is that the NHS is not, and never has been, safe in their hands.
The Government have systematically excluded the voice of professionals and that of local people and replaced them with the voice of business, with more than half the chairs of family and district health authorities appointed by the Secretary of State having a business background. We can see where the Government's priorities lie—with the commercialisation and

921
Privatisation of health care rather than democratic decision making about the allocation of resources within the NHS.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does the hon. Gentleman think that there was a better state of affairs when Greenwich local authority placed on its health authority three prospective Labour parliamentary candidates, or when Lambeth health authority had placed on it someone who was not fit to serve on the local authority and who was a disqualified councillor? We are in a very much better position now that we have people committed to the delivery of health care to which they bring a range of skills. They are not politically motivated and making ludicrous points and undermining the institutions that they should be protecting.
Mr. Hughes: Through the Secretary of State, the Government have systematically replaced local people with business people, usually those who have connections with the Tory party or those who, if they are not members of the party, undoubtedly make donations. Often, such people do not live in the areas on whose boards they serve. The Government are reducing democracy in the health service at the local level.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I hesitate to interrupt this English exchange, but may I point out that we in Scotland have experienced the same thing? Literally hundreds of Tory placemen and women, including failed candidates, have been put on NHS trusts the length and breadth of Scotland and its islands.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. The people of Scotland are undoubtedly facing the same problems that we are facing in England.
The inescapable conclusion is that the Government are edging towards privatisation of the health service by a process of fragmentation and commercialisation. They are filtering more public funds into the private sector and their ultimate aim is a small public sector element dealing with residual purchasing and strategic planning. It is privatisation by the back door, but with denials issued every step along the way; but that is the logic and the effect of the Government's reforms, which is why we shall continue to oppose them.
8.5 pm
Mr. Jerry Hayes: I must first declare an interest in that I am an adviser to the Western Provident Association which, as everyone who knows anything about health is aware, is a non-profit-making organisation.
I read the motion most carefully and I was amazed because I had thought that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was turning—or trying to turn—the Labour party into the acceptable face of Channel 4. He is clearly failing, because, to judge from the motion, this is the same old Labour party. The motion could have been drafted by Dave and Deirdre Spart; it is full of spite and envy and, of course, full of jobs for the boys.
The Labour party has drifted to the left. [Interruption.] I was going to congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on a swash-buckling speech, but it contained more buckle than swash. He
922
asked what evidence there was for the reforms' success, so I shall tell him. He should read what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said about the Government's reforms. Its July 1994 report criticised the command and control system—the Labour party should know about that as it almost invented it—inherent in the pre-reform national health service. It said that the pre-reform NHS lacked
"flexibility, incentives for efficiency, financial information (and hence accountability) and choice of providers of secondary care".
It went on to highlight the "possibilities" opened by the reforms and the improvements introduced by national health service trusts and GP fundholders who
"seem to have done a better job of purchasing than district health authorities".
Mr. Nicholas Brown rose—
Mr. Hayes: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's policies—I found a few last night. The report that I have quoted is not from some Tory think tank or Conservative central office but from the OECD.
Mr. Brown: The National Audit Office, to test the efficiency of the exercise, did its best to ascertain what resources had gone to GP fundholders and what was therefore left for non-fundholders. However, it was unable to draw any conclusions because, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, not a single region could provide it with statistics for non-fundholders. How does the hon. Gentleman arrive at the conclusions to which he is treating the House?
Mr. Hayes: If the hon. Gentleman had read the report, he would know that it commended the purchaser and fundholder. He should remember that it was the Conservative Government who created the Audit Commission, thus leading to the financial profiles of every single health authority being given for the first time.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission. He has not answered my point.
Mr. Hayes: I have done my best to answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that the reforms were commended by the OECD and the National Audit Office. I was drawing his attention to the fact that, for the first time, the Audit Commission has given a financial profile of every health authority. That is a very good thing and I hope that the Labour party will accept it as such.
The hon. Member for Doncaster, North asked what the people thought. We know from the survey of attitudes that the overwhelming majority of people are satisfied with the service that they receive from the NHS.
Mr. Kevin Hughes rose—
Mr. Hayes: I shall give way in just a moment if the hon Gentleman is patient. I am giving way a little too much.
Why are the majority of people satisfied? Because far more money is put into the health service than ever before—66 per cent. more than the rate of inflation since 1979. There is far more choice than ever before. Waiting lists have gone down way beyond anybody's dreams and are continuing to go down. As well, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there are patients charters that deal with referrals from consultants to hospitals, which was a major bone of contention.

923
I am not suggesting for one moment that everything is perfect in the health service. It never will be. But a few years ago, before the reforms, no one knew the cost of anything in the health service. If people do not know their unit costs, they cannot plan for the future. That is the essence of the reforms.
Mr. Hughes: I agree that people are generally satisfied with the service that they receive from the national health service. The point is that they are satisfied only when they eventually get it.
Mr. Hayes: They are getting it far more quickly than they ever did under a Labour Government. It is all very well for Labour Members to sit there as if polyunsaturated butter would not melt in their mouths, but they were responsible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) said, for the largest cut in revenue in real terms in the history of the health service. They cut capital expenditure by 27 per cent. Do Labour Members live in the real world? Do they understand that, every eight days, there is a multi-million pound capital project in the health service? Oh, no. All they talk about is the closure of hospitals. They do not say that, for every closure, a new day surgery opens.
Mr. Nicholas Brown rose—
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman should not get too excited. He should come to Harlow, where we have just had a £10 million extension of our accident and emergency facility. He would be more than welcome to come to Harlow to see our two new trusts, which are very popular.
Mr. Brown rose—
Mr. Hayes: I shall give way in a moment because I am building up for the hon. Gentleman's state tour of Harlow. He ought to see our new computer-aided tomography scanner. He ought to see our new magnetic resonance imaging scanner. He ought to know, before he suggests that we are stuffing the trusts full of Tory placemen, that I proposed two candidates. Guess what, they were not Conservatives, they have never voted Conservative in their life and they probably never will.
The fact is that those people believe in the policy and they are competent. That is what the appointment system is all about. That is why those who sit on trusts include people such as Helene Hayman, a former Labour Member of Parliament. She runs a trust. She is a socialist. She does not vote Conservative, but she believes in the policy because she believes in patients. Rabbi Julia Neuberger is not a Conservative. She probably never will be. Why was she appointed? Because she is competent and believes in the best possible care for patients.
Mr. Brown: I intervene briefly to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation. I look forward to taking him up on it very soon.
Mr. Hayes: Harlow holds its breath.
Last night, we had a little time to spare because of the Liberal Democrats, as often happens, so I went into the Library. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] Looking, I suspect, for policies. I found some policies last night. I had the misfortune of looking through every single policy and consultation document that Labour has published in the past two years. It was not an edifying experience,
924
because every other document had a glossy picture of the Front-Bench team smiling like snake-oil salesmen. There is a picture of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). I shall show it to him later, as he probably does not want it to be shown on the television here.
Labour Members are pretending that they are consulting, because they do have the nerve to put their policies to the British public. They do not want to upset the beautiful luvvie view of the Labour party. We all know that it is a mirage.
"Health 2000" is well worth a look. What will Labour Members do about compulsory competitive tendering? They say:
"We are already committed to ending CCT for hospital services. This, plus the maintenance of a national framework for bargaining including a minimum wage, the retention of Pay Review Bodies and a full acceptance of T.U.P.E."—
I suppose that should be NUPE—
"will do much to raise morale and develop increasing commitment to the service."
That is absolute codswallop. The minimum wage will cost at least £500 million, according to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). He is on record as saying that. We know that ending CCT will probably cost patient care more than £100 million.
What about the internal market? I would love to give Labour Members an opportunity to explain their next proposal. "Health 2000" says:
"We propose"—
I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East is paying attention, because I shall test him on this in a second. It says:
"We propose an alternative to the 'internal market' which would allow funding for agreed minimum programmes of work within a given period of time (service-level agreements). These programmes could be continually updated so that long-term planning of hospital and community services would be possible. This would also avoid treatment being cancelled because the workload had been under-estimated and the budget contract"—
oh, dear—
"had been exhausted."
What on earth does that mean? The hon. Gentleman does not know, and it is his policy.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: He is consulting and trying to find out.
Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
What about general practitioners? The consultation document says:
"We will"—
this is very important, this is a real debate—
"abolish fundholding and replace it with a system which brings GPs and their local health authority together to provide the best possible care for their patients and the community they serve. Easing the burden of running a business will allow GPs to spend more time with their patients and less time on paper-work."
The very fact that we give them a grant for doing that and the fact that doctors' lists are going down—
Mrs. Bottomley: Ten per cent. down.
Mr. Hayes:—10 per cent. down, as my right hon. Friend says—is of no consequence. By the next general election, more than 50 per cent. of GPs will be

925
fundholders. What are Labour Members going to do? Will there be a massive upheaval of a policy which is popular at the moment, as all the opinion polls show?
Let us move on to the trusts. "Health 2000" says:
"As a priority we would remove the unaccountable self-governing and self-perpetuating Trusts which run hospitals and community health services. The non-executive members of trusts are currently Tory Government appointees—this is unacceptable. Drawing together those with a commitment to the NHS would offer a forum for the involvement of local people in their hospitals and community facilities as set out in Health 2000."
The fact that 96 per cent. of hospitals are national health service trusts and that at least 99 per cent. of them will shortly be trusts would mean another massive upheaval for the people who are working so hard on behalf of patients in the health service. The very fact that trusts are far more efficient than directly managed unions ever were is totally ignored by the Labour party.
Probably the most important proposal of all concerns accountability, about which "Health 2000" says:
"There are a number of ways of achieving this. Possible options include some form of nomination"—
now there is a surprise—
"direct elections,"—
there is a surprise—
"or integration with local government."
There is no surprise there at all. It goes on:
"We will consult closely with patients and health service workers to establish real democracy and accountability."
We all know what this means—jobs for the boys. It means trade unions and health authorities, which are more interested in politics than in patients, and it means regional authorities dealing with health.
Mr. Nicholas Brown indicated dissent.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman must accept that. That is part of the policy. It is here in the document.
One or two people are not terribly happy with that. The British Medical Association is not very happy. Of course, the Labour party always ignores the BMA, except when it needs it. The Royal College of Nursing—again, not exactly a branch office of Conservative central office—does not think that it would go well.
There is probably someone more important than that. Some time ago, in the House of Commons, someone said:
"It is quite impossible … to hand over the voluntary hospitals to the local authorities."
He said:
"People appointed to the regional hospital boards will not be there merely as representatives of local authority interests, but will be selected for their knowledge of hospital needs and hospital problems and will, therefore, be interested in hospital development, and not retarded, all the time, by considerations of a local character, particularly the incidence of local taxation."—[Official Report, 30 April 1946; Vol. 422, c. 49.]
That was Nye Bevan, the founder of the health service, an icon to the Labour party. Even he said, in those pioneering days, that it could not possibly work, so why do Opposition Members put forward policies that they know cannot possibly work?
I now refer to efficiency. [Interruption.] I am sorry if the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) is disappointed. I hoped that he was listening and learning. Obviously, I have failed. At the moment, £1.5 million is
926
being cumulatively saved to the health service—not to go to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor but to go back into patient care. By abolishing regional health authorities, which is happening at the moment, we will save £150 million to go into patient care. In that great policy document we hear what Labour Members would do. They would set up an efficiency unit at the Department of Health. What a good idea. I wonder who would be on that committee. All the hon. Gentleman's chums, of course.
Let us explode once and for all the myth about an overmanaged health service. It has 2.6 per cent. of the work force and 3 per cent. of the wages bill. There is one manager for every 26 front-line staff. Opposition Members should know the disastrous realities of their policies.
The limited list of restricted drugs saves a lot of money to the health service. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the health service spends about 10 per cent. of its £32 billion budget on its drugs. What would the Labour party do'? Labour Members say:
"The government has been engaged in an exercise aimed at decreasing the choice of prescribable drugs. Choice is important to patients and health professionals who prescribe and this will he respected by a Labour government."
Is it the intention to scrap the limited list, or are those just weasel words from the Labour party?
The real Disneyland of Labour proposals, such as they are, is to be found in paragraph 9.27 of the document, which states:
"Labour will therefore examine the contribution which might be made by the establishment of a panel, including those working professionally in the field and representatives of patients, in order to develop national guidelines for the allocation of scarce resources. Advice might also be offered where difficult or ethical judgments have to be made."
Surely the history of government is that Departments cannot run anything from the centre. Centralisation and bureaucracy—[Interruption] My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given power to the national health service and community trusts. She has given power to the local people. Opposition Members want to give power to their friends and bureaucrats. That would do a grave disservice to the patient.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are 57 minutes available before the winding-up speeches, and five hon. Members, who have been in the Chamber for most of the day, hope to catch my eye. The Chair hopes that they will be able to do so.
8.23 pm
Mr. Eddie Loyden: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I wish to reflect on some comments of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) about the origins of the national health service. He failed to say that the creation of the national health service was opposed by the then Tory Opposition. The national health service is probably the greatest leap forward in social progress that the country has seen this century.
People are rightly emotive about the health service, especially those who, like me, lived in the days when there was no health service. We appreciate all the efforts of the post-war Labour Government in establishing a

927
national health service that was free at the point of need and available to all. Our health service was the envy of the world. Sadly, there has been a deterioration in it; the Government cannot sit hack and pretend that the Opposition want to do nothing other than be critical of the Conservative Government.
The facts are available for everyone to see. Why are a growing number of people organising action committees to save their hospitals? Why are hospitals such as St Paul's in Liverpool, an excellent, long-standing eye hospital, being closed under the Conservative Government? Why did the Royal hospital want to extend its activities and develop a hotel in the hospital grounds? Theoretically, it was to move patients rapidly from beds into the hotel. The hotel would have had no medical staff, only telephones, television and a meals service. I asked what would happen if a person who was being moved from an acute ward into the hotel had a haemorrhage during the early hours of the morning. I asked where the hospital staff would be to deal with it. No answer was given. I fear that that is the direction in which the national health service is going.
That same hospital applied to extend its incineration facilities, not to incinerate its own medical waste but to enter into a sub-contract commercial deal to take waste from as far away as the Republic of Ireland and even further. That hospital would have endangered the lives of people who live in the centre of the city of Liverpool. The plan was withdrawn only after a successful campaign was organised not by the Labour party or trade unions but by the community. That forced the trust to drop its proposals. The national health service is being run by people whose first interest is the long-term commercialisation of it and of some hospital services.
Broadgreen has been an issue almost since the York report was published. Whenever we question the Secretary of State about the future of Broadgreen, there is a stony silence. Broadgreen hospital catered for a large community, including my constituency. There is no hospital in my constituency. My constituents depend on Broadgreen hospital, which is at least eight miles away. Its accident and emergency unit is being closed. We asked why it is being closed, and we were told that it was a decision of the trusts. We now find that the two independent trusts are merging into a single trust.
There is no doubt in the minds of the people of the Broadgreen action committee that the hospital will wither on the vine. The hospital responsible for almost all the area will be the Royal University hospital in the centre of Liverpool, which now takes patients from the former eye hospital and is also responsible for accident and emergency patients from Broadgreen.
That is what is happening in the NHS. People quite rightly feel afraid that the NHS is not safe in the Government's hands. Conservatives opposed the creation of the NHS in 1948 and never had to depend on it. The majority of Tories at that time enjoyed private health insurance, and one of the things that concerns some of us now is the apparent link between private insurance companies and the chairmen and members of trusts.
I fully support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) in relation to the chairman of the local trust, Sir Donald Wilson. He is a medal-hunter—no more than that—and he has as much interest in the NHS as the man on the
928
moon. People in Broadgreen are maintaining their support for the retention of important hospitals and accident and emergency units.
Is it any wonder that people are beginning to see that the Government have gone only part of the way in reforming the NHS? I have no crystal ball, but I read the hooks and that is better than gazing into a crystal hail. I see either a two-tier system, with a first and second grade of care within the NHS, or the eventual privatisation of the NHS. The latter will he hotly denied by the Government, but nevertheless all the signs at this stage are that that is their intention.
To the Tory Government, public expenditure is the work of the devil. Analysis of Government policy on the NHS shows that they believe the NHS to be a burden on the taxpayer. We know where the Government stand in relation to the NHS.
The service will retain its excellence only by having the necessary funding. We must recognise that changes have been made, and Labour's mistake was not to identify the changes that were taking place not only in the hospital service but in the health service generally. We should have found out what new methods were being proposed to treat various illnesses.
In the pre-war period, the hearse was a constant visitor to the street where I lived. Almost every house contained three or four families, which was why ill-health prevailed. Tory Governments did nothing to remedy the problems. Mothers lost children—sometimes three or four out of a family. My own mother lost a baby because we lived in poor conditions, along with the other people who lived in the slums of Liverpool. The slums were the cause of that. .[Interruption.] Conservative Members may smile about those people living in slums. They were prone to illnesses that Conservative Members would not even know about.
Death was imminent in every family who lived in such impoverished conditions. The action of the post-war Labour Government ended that. The NHS contributed so much to the health of nation. Post-war babies were six inches taller than babies born 30 years previously. Babies and their mothers were healthier, and mothers were able to give birth in decent hospitals rather than in slum homes.
There has been a massive change since those days, and the NHS means something to the working class of this country. Working-class people will defend the NHS. They will not be motivated by political activists, but they know that the NHS is a treasure that they must defend. Whatever the Government are saying at the moment, we know their intention. They say—as they always do—that money for the NHS must come from taxation. They should be taxing their rich friends to maintain a decent NHS for those who need it.
The Government should be condemned for the way in which they have dealt with the health service. One reads in the papers every day—the right-wing press, the left-wing press or the middle-of-the-road press—more and more complaints about the NHS. People are saying that the NHS is not being run in the interests of patients and patient care. That should be a lesson for the Government.
People are saying loud and clear: hands off our NHS. It is not the Government's health service. It was brought into being by the post-war electors who came back from the war, determined not to go hack to the slums and unemployment of the 1920s and 1930s. People used to stand on street corners, waiting for something to turn up.

929
We must not go back to that. The people of this country recognise what the Government are doing to the NHS. I will be out fighting for the retention of the NHS, and I hope that the next Labour Government will clear away all the legislation that this Government have introduced.
No longer can one get answers from people in authority in the NHS; they are unaccountable in every sense of the word. The Secretary of State has lost control, and she and her Ministers believe what the trusts tell them. Hon. Members in my area have to write to the trusts to ask what is going on at Broadgreen. The Secretary of State, her Ministers and the Department of Health are not simply out of touch, they are out of control. They no longer control the NHS, which is now free-running, with the trusts doing all the management.
The Government's propaganda was referred to earlier. Propaganda is one of things at which the Government excel, and I give them full credit for that. They send an unbelievable amount of stuff saying that everything is fine, along with other misinformation or irrelevant information. They send almost nothing about how long patients have to wait for treatment, about the closure of accident and emergency units at Broadgreen or about the fact that the NHS cannot recruit junior doctors because of their conditions.
All those things show that the NHS is not safe in the Government's hands. The Secretary of State had better get control of the situation, and start acting as a Secretary of State. She must find out what is going on in the trusts, which often are making decisions when they have not even considered the effects of those decisions on the hospitals concerned. In other words, the Government are completely out of touch with people's needs.
Recently, a man—I do not know the guy—told an interviewer on a radio phone-in programme in Liverpool that he had been waiting two and a half years for a hospital appointment, and he duly turned up at the hospital when he was summoned with nine other patients. The patients were told to stay in the corridors and to get a cup of tea if they wanted. They were there about eight hours. Staff were trying to find out how many people would he discharged that day—beds would still be warm when the new patients got in. In the end, he was sent home, along with other patients, because there were no discharges that day. Is that any way to run a national health service? What justification can there be for that?
This debate has made it clear that the people have an emotive regard for the national health service. They cherish it and recognise that it will he safe only when a Labour Government are back in power.
8.40 pm
Mr. Matthew Banks: I mean the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) no discourtesy, as he is an honest man and he represents a constituency that I know well as it is not far from mine. I know that he will understand if I robustly, but genuinely, disagree with some of his arguments. In the few minutes that I have to make my speech, I shall touch on several of the issues that he mentioned and relate them to the area that I represent in the north-west, which in recent years has witnessed one of the greatest reductions in waiting times in the United Kingdom and the greatest increase in the number of patients treated.
930
The picture is entirely different from that painted by the hon. Member for Garston. He said that the national health service was one of the greatest leaps forward in social policy and I do not disagree, but, heavens, that was decades ago: things have moved on. Old hospitals have to close—they become clinically unviable. The Government have built new, bigger and better, clinically more viable hospitals and nowhere is that more evident than in north Merseyside, central Liverpool and the north-west of England.
I am concerned that we heard too much scaremongering from Opposition Members. My hon. Friends have done their best to put the record straight and, in the time available, it would not be right for me to trot out yet more statistics. My hon. Friends have more than adequately drawn our attention to the improvements that have been made in recent years as a result of the reforms that Ministers have pioneered.
In my constituency, which is in northern Merseyside, there is growing satisfaction with the way in which the NHS operates. I referred to the reductions in waiting times and the increase in the number of patients treated. It is pertinent that national health service trusts now treat 3,000 more patients per day than the same hospitals three years ago. Waiting times have reduced dramatically. Half the patients who need treatment are seen immediately and half of the remainder are seen within five weeks.
One striking aspect of this debate is that, if the Labour party had the opportunity to introduce its plans for devolution and breaking up the United Kingdom, it would also have the opportunity of handing many of the powers that have been devolved locally, nearer to the patient, away from clinicians to the politicians, with the setting up of regional assemblies. I am very mindful of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about moving to "irrelevant and unwanted" talking shops.
We have not seen new Labour this evening. We listened intently to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) trotting out many news cuttings from The Guardian, but we did not hear anything of policy. My hon. Friends said that it was little wonder that the patient did not always come first as the union interest came first because the Opposition receive so much money from unions and from the Confederation of Health Service Employees in particular.
I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) will have the opportunity to reply shortly—I see him shuffling in his place—and that he will at least have something positive to say about what the Government have done in recent years. It is not all doom and gloom, but I did not hear the right hon. Member for Derby, South make one positive point, despite the statistics to which my hon. Friends rightly referred.
In my constituency and the north-west of England tremendous improvements have been made. I very much regret the remarks of the hon. Member for Garston about Sir Donald Wilson, as he has done more than the hon. Gentleman in this place or at home in Liverpool to improve the service to NHS patients in Merseyside. The hon. Gentleman should he ashamed of his remarks.
We have heard the politics of envy about salaries. I regularly meet people who work in the health service in north Merseyside and in Southport and Formby district and the well-paid staff and administrators provide the public with a very good service.

931
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) proposed some of his former political opponents to serve on trusts. Some of my political opponents sit easily on the board of the Southport and Formby Community Health Services trust. They work well and are committed to the Government's reforms.
Those reforms are paying dividends and I speak as someone who has been an in-patient at Broadgreen hospital and Southport and Formby district general hospital. One cannot compare the two, however. Much good work goes on at Broadgreen and I pay tribute to its staff, but we need to move forward, especially with the private finance initiatives that have been pioneered so well in north Merseyside—with imaginative proposals for new building—and in partnership with the private sector. We need to move forward and to improve hospital infrastructure. Sadly, if that means closing older hospitals, that is what we must do if it is in the patient's interest.
We heard that the average waiting time for operations has been cut by half, but we heard no mention of that fact from the right hon. Member for Derby, South. She did not pay any tributes. I recall only the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) paying tribute to those who work in the health service. Perhaps I did not hear the tributes, but I do not think that they were paid, and that is regrettable.
This Opposition Day debate started at 3.45 pm, but the Opposition Front-Bench spokeswoman—in a speech that lasted nearly an hour—said nothing about what a Labour Government would do, if there ever were one. She said nothing of their plans for the future, let alone giving us serious costings of how those plans might be paid for.
I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East will set the record straight. It is time to stop consulting and to let the public know what the Opposition would do, if they ever had the opportunity to implement their plans.
I cannot let the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) pass. I challenged him and gave him an opportunity to answer when I referred to his consultation document. In a mealy-mouthed response, he said that he was appointed to his present post after the consultation paper was published. Is it not about time that we heard where the Liberal Democrats stand? Instead, as the editorial cif the Health and Social Service Journal of September 1994 stated, we have to hope that
"With luck, someone might be kind enough to offer some directions."
I gave the hon. and learned Gentleman the opportunity to tell the House and the people where his party stood. He promised to do so and to give us a sense of the direction in which he and his colleagues are going—I wrote it down—but, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, by the time that the hon. and learned Gentleman had sat down he had given us no sense of direction.
Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
Mr. Banks: I gave the hon. and learned Gentleman the opportunity to answer and he did not take it, but I will give way again briefly.
Mr. Carlile: I shall be very brief. Which question that he claims I have not answered is the hon. Gentleman asking me to answer? I would be delighted to help him further.
Mr. Banks: Unfortunately, the hon. and learned Gentleman will not have time to answer my questions in this debate but we shall certainly look for a fuller explanation later. My question will be in the Official Report tomorrow for all to see and it will be clear that I received no answer. I asked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman believed in retaining the division between commissioner of services and provider of services, and the retention of NHS trusts and GP fundholding. His party changes its policy from one day to the next. It is up to the hon. and learned Gentleman in his own time to put the British public and the House straight on where he stands. Like other Liberal Democrats, he says one thing in this place and another back in his constituency. Moreover, he says one thing at one end of his constituency and another at the other end, depending on who he talks to. The whole House knows that I tell the truth on that.
I draw my remarks to a more premature conclusion than I would wish by returning to my concern about the scare stories put about in my constituency and the north-west. My constituency had to wait for the election of a Conservative Government before funds were found to build a brand new hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow referred to the cut in the hospital building programme because the Labour Government had got the British economy into such a mess. The hospital to which I referred, where I have been an in-patient, should have been built years ago but we had to wait for the election of a Conservative Government in 1979. I pay tribute Lo the clinical staff and administrators at the Southport arid Formby NHS trust.
I make no apology for expressing my concern tonight on a parochial point. My predecessor, who was a Liberal Democrat, had little knowledge of health matters despite the fact that he was national spokesman on health. When health became an important issue, he had to he moved sharpish because he was so hopeless. He has been saying publicly that the current local health service review will close the maternity services that cover the Southport and Formby area. So concerned is the trust—it is not concern on the part of the health authority conducting the review—at what that gentleman has been saying that it has had to call him in for a private briefing because he has been going off the rails.
There will be no loss of maternity services in my constituency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister will continue to listen carefully to representations that I have made privately, and now publicly, to ensure that there will he a proper capital allocation so that when the Christiana Hartley maternity hospital closes because of a lack of clinical viability, and when the private finance initiative, to which I referred, allows for new and further building at our new hospital in Southport, maternity services will he transferred within the town to the main hospital site at Kew.
I hope that we shall now hear something positive from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, because we heard nothing positive from the right hon. Member for Derby, South earlier.
8.52 pm
Mr. Thomas Graham: I have listened to the entire debate and am surprised that the Government have not recognised the fact that they have packed the trusts and boards to the gullet with Tory supporters. They have wiped out any democratic opinion from other sources—from people who are neutral, people from other political parties and people with opposing opinions but who nevertheless wish to see a successful health service. In my area, all the trusts and quangos are packed stupid with Tory placemen.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the same conditions apply in Northern Ireland, where every quango has been packed with individuals who have no Ulster Unionist credentials?
Mr. Graham: I am grateful for that information. If we travelled the length and breadth of Britain, we would find no balance of opinion on how the national health service should be run in either the trusts or the boards.
I place on record my absolute praise for health service staff: consultants, doctors, and our wonderful nurses who look after people magnificently. I also praise those who back them up—auxiliary nurses, porters and those who make our hospitals function. Ultimately, it is they, not the Government, who make our health service function. The Government do not deliver the service; they simply cripple it and they continue to cripple it. I express my great appreciation to all those who work in the industry and deliver the services.
Since the Tory party introduced its great reforms, we have seen a huge escalation in staff. Instead of patients receiving better treatment, the service is creating more and more paperwork. I and my whole family have been treated as patients at the Paisley Royal Alexandra hospital. Indeed, some members of my family are grateful for being alive today because of the treatment that they received from people trained in our educational establishments and the national health service, not in trusts.
Now that the hospital has become a trust, things have changed. A friend of mine had an operation in the hospital, was sent home too early and had to return to the hospital. On waking up in his bed, he found a man sitting at the end of it. When he asked, "Who are you?" the man replied that he was waiting for his bed because he would be leaving. My friend then had to consult the doctor about whether he would be leaving. What an incredible scene.
In another case, a father in my constituency phoned the emergency doctor, who said that he would need to get the man's daughter into hospital immediately. But the local hospital had no beds and, having phoned around other hospitals, the doctor eventually found a bed in a hospital well into the Glasgow area. When they reached the Glasgow area, they were told that that had been happening all the time. I hope that the Minister is listening because folk in my constituency rely on the Government listening to their pleas.
The Royal Alexandra hospital is a big, brand new hospital that epitomises the best on offer, yet the other week it had no bed for a constituent of mine who needed one in an emergency. In the same hospital, an elderly woman with a broken bone had to wait more than 48 hours before seeing a surgeon. Eventually, she saw a surgeon because her family phoned me and I asked what the blazes was going on and why my constituent had not
934
been treated. I was then sent a lovely letter explaining what had happened. What the letter did not tell me, however, was that a woman in the next bed should have been seen before my constituent and was therefore broken-hearted. Although that woman was ready to go in for treatment, my constituent went in front of her because I, as a politician, had argued my constituent's case. I did not know that at the time, but it is an indictment on a trust hospital.
We heard tonight about hospital closures. In my constituency and some other parts of the country, mentally ill and mentally handicapped people who are in desperate need of care and attention can be seen walking the streets at night. I saw them last night in London and the other week in Glasgow. Those people should be receiving the best of care. Are they receiving care? They are in cardboard cities, lying under the bridges and arches. They cannot receive treatment. If we check up, we find that those folk were put into institutions and released without the necessary back-up.
What do the Government propose in my area? They set up a quango and appointed Tory clones who are recommending that Ravenscraig, Bridge of Weir, Merchiston and Dykebar hospitals should close. The Tory clones say that they must quickly meet the Government targets. They are not interested in meeting the target of looking after patients.
Mr. Beggs: We in Northern Ireland share the problems that the hon. Gentleman has in his constituency. Does he agree that inadequate provision is made for young people aged between 14 and 18 with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia? There should be separate and special provision for those young people throughout the United Kingdom. They should not be lumped in with adults.
Mr. Graham rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said earlier that it does not help if hon. Members make long interventions.
Mr. Graham: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), with whom I entirely agree.
Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend mentioned Ravenscraig hospital in my constituency. Scores of constituents have contacted me regarding the threatened closure of that hospital. I sincerely hope that we can conduct a campaign to keep it open.
Mr. Graham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
The Minister should he aware of our constituents' feelings. The Government arc running the health service badly. To rescue the health service we probably need a general election. We need to go in a different direction with a different political party—we need people who are committed to running the health service and want to see it grow, develop, be innovative and deliver the best services.
I shall speak for another two minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and finish when I have spoken for exactly 10 minutes.
I remember raising in the House the problem of one of my constituents, Mr. Kennedy, who could not see a urologist or get an appointment. He was eventually given an appointment after I had continually harassed the Government to ensure that he was looked after. Mr. Kennedy was eventually looked after and had his operation. What is he like now? He is a brand new man,

935
enjoying the full fruits of life. He is an elderly, retired gentleman of over 70. I met him at Christmas, when he was dancing, singing and enjoying a drink—a new man. This country needs a health service that puts people back on their feet.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: My hon. Friend must understand that the Tories have a hidden agenda. They want to privatise the health service, and are beginning to do so with trusts. The health board in my district this week signed a contract with a private American company that will lead to profits going across the pond. What does my hon. Friend think of that?
Mr. Graham: I do not have time to answer my hon. Friend's question as I have just one minute left.
The people of Britain no longer have any trust in the Tory's trusts. No one has any faith in the Government's ability to ensure that our health service is the best in the world. The Government no longer treat our young doctors as humans. They make them work like slavesߞ80 hours a week with hardly any pay. They treat nurses as cannon fodder and do not recognise their skills with proper wages. I have questioned Ministers a million times, but they hang their heads and say that they will never do what is needed. The only thing that we can hope for is a speedy general election. I hope that the Prime Minister is daft enough to call an election next week.
I have been delighted to take part in tonight's debate to argue the case for my constituents. The Minister should give us some heart and give up now.
9.3 pm
Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution. There have been distinguished contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) and from my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke).
There have not been many cross-currents during the debate, but one came across the House from the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who talked of the need for everyone, including those in low-income groups, to have high expectations for health. That struck a note on both sides of the House. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is particularly interested in maintaining high expectations in health and her policies for improving the health of the nation have gone a long way towards achieving that aim.
My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South hit the nail on the head when he said that the speech by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) became interesting only at the very end when she began to talk about her views, her vision and the Labour party's policies. She said precious little in the rest of her speech and simply trailed before the House every press cutting from Labour's press file.
The right hon. Lady answered most of her own questions when she said that in any large organisation things can go wrong. She began by relating some admittedly serious-sounding incidents, but she then moved on to some rather mundane ones, including the examples of a bed being moved and Hull Royal infirmary asking people with minor injuries not to go to the accident and emergency department.
936
The right hon. Lady's speech was not really worthy of an Opposition day debate about the national health service. It suffered from two principal defects: first, there was a lack of detail about Labour party policy; and, secondly, she went over very old ground. Any Opposition Member could have made the same speech at any stage in the past 15 years. That sort of sensationalism and trivialising of individual stories does the right hon. Lady no credit at all—indeed, her credibility is threadbare.
The Opposition's big revelation is that the Government are trying to privatise the health service. Opposition Members have been saying that for the past 15 years and it has not happened. Indeed, there is evidence to confound it utterly. During that time an increasing volume of resources—measured in real terms, set against health service inflation or viewed as a proportion of gross domestic product—have been allocated to the health service. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) said, the Government are committed to the national health service through public expenditure.
The health service suffered real cuts and was constrained and driven down by the last Labour Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield spoke eloquently about that and I do not want to go over the same sad story. We heard also about Baroness Castle, who seems to be rather a ghost in our proceedings. She recorded in her diaries what took place under that Labour Government and she recalls a verse which was penned by one of her Labour colleagues about the activities of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Lord Healey. It went like this:
"All things bright and beautiful, all projects great and small, all things wise and wonderful, the Chancellor cuts them all.
He cuts the old age pension, although he cuts by stealth, and while he looks for savings, he cuts the national health."
That is the record of the last Labour Government as revealed by one of their distinguished former Cabinet Ministers.
We have made a great deal of progress since then, not just through increased funding, but through improvements in efficiency and management—managers have been much maligned by Labour Members—and through the Government's health reforms. When the right hon. Lady talked about the reasons for improvements in the health service I could hear the goal posts being moved—in fact, I could hear them being sawn down and taken to a different stadium.
I will remind hon. Members of what one of the right hon. Lady's predecessors, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), said when he set out the acid test of the success of the Government's reforms. I advise Opposition Members never to set targets which might be a hostage to fortune: if the targets are surpassed they will be made to look foolish. In the House in April 1991, the hon. Gentleman said:
"Is the Secretary of State prepared to measure the success of those trusts that opted out by the simple test of whether they do more or less work on NHS patients?"—[Official Report, 17 April 1991; Vol. 206, c. 457.]
According to the hon. Gentleman's own test, the Government's reforms have succeeded. More patients are being treated now under the reformed national health service than ever before—3,000 more per day for the whole country and a rise of 20 per cent. in the health authority which covers my constituency. By any measure,

937
that is a substantial increase. The Labour party, confronted with indisputable evidence of the success of the reforms, moves the goal posts. On Second Reading of the Health Authorities Bill, the right hon. Member for Derby, South told the House that her party's supporters resented the Government
"claiming credit for those improvements, as though they all flow from the Government's reforms and changes. In fact, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Government's reforms and changes. Indeed, in many cases those changes have seriously impeded the development of better health care".—[Official Report, 12 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 649.]
Mr. Eric Illsley: Yes.
Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman said yes. It is a fairly safe bet that if there had been a fall in the number of patients treated since the introduction of reforms, members of Labour's Front Bench would not be saying that that had little to do with Government reforms but would blame it on those reforms. We cannot win. However many more patients are treated, it is said that has nothing to do with Government reforms—even when the rate of increase in NHS activity has improved. We have seen a move from Cook's law to Beckett's law. One could almost say that the move is to Beckett's fork, because I am most reminded of Morton's fork of Henry VII fame. We cannot win, whichever way we go.
Health service reforms are working. For all the sensational stories from Labour, the proof is there in the greater number of patients being treated and shorter waiting lists. The maximum waiting time for my constituents has been reduced not only to the 18 months in the charter but to 12 months, because of the target that the health authority set itself. The average waiting time has reduced from seven months to three months.
I welcome the Government's introduction of a new measure of waiting time in respect of out-patients wishing to see consultants. That is another step forward and further evidence that the patients charter is working. New targets are set all the time and the health service is being driven forward for the benefit of patients.
The challenge for Opposition Members is not to search every hospital for every bed that has been moved or mistake made, but to declare how they would do things better and achieve more. We heard precious little about that in the debate, and nothing about the future of trusts. There was vague talk about accountability. Does that mean that trusts will be left the same but that they will be joined by a few Labour councillors as the magic, miracle ingredient for success? We have already heard the views of the people of Merseyside, and they might have something to say about that. Would they have one of the most successful health authorities in the country if they had the benefit and wisdom of certain Liverpool city councillors, or of the regional councils being imposed on England as a quid pro quo for Labour's mess over Scottish devolution?
Labour Members make it up as they go along. They said nothing about policy. At least the right hon. Member for Derby, South did not fall into the same trap as her predecessor, who had outbursts of frankness and candour—for example, when he said that the status quo was not an option in respect of London health reforms. For his pains, he was banished from Labour's Front Bench when that subject was debated.
938
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to drive forward reforms and to aim at ever-higher standards, to show the commitment of the Conservative party to the national health service.
9.13 pm
Dr. Tony Wright: Time is short, so I will be brief. The most interesting and alarming part of the Secretary of State's speech was her assertion that if one wanted to know what is happening in the national health service today, one should go to the London School of Economics—and if one is not satisfied, to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That was meant to trump the evidence of people who work in and use the health service. It is a rather strange kind of evidence.
I cite three experiences from my area. The first concerns complaints. Like all Members of Parliament, I am visited from time to time by people who tell me that they want to complain, or they have complained, and they are usually dissatisfied with the outcome. They usually receive a letter from someone with a title such as assistant customer services manager—telling them nothing but reassuring them that everything is basically all right.
Complaints do matter, however. As the Minister said earlier, they should be the jewels in the crown. They are actually more like a kind of buried treasure. We have had an inquiry into the NHS complaints system. Since the Wilson inquiry, we have been given endless promises about the implications of the report and of the Government's proposals. We have it on the authority of the Secretary of State that the present complaints system is
"fragmented, confusing, cumbersome and slow".
Back in May, a report in the British Medical Journal said that
"the Health Secretary, Virginia Bottomley, said that she accepts the broad thrust of the report Being Heard; she has begun a three month consultation period before introducing legislation".
The least we expected today in this health debate was that the Government would announce that they had clear plans to reform the unsatisfactory NHS complaints system.
When asked when they intend to take action, the Government always tell us that it is imminent. I happened to discover a document issued just before Christmas by the health service in Scotland. Entitled "The Patients Charter: What Users Think", it says:
"The committee chaired by Professor Wilson to look at NHS complaints procedures has also recently reported its findings and the Government will be making a response to the recommendations in January."
Fortunately for us, this is the last day of January; so I presume that when the Minister rises to reply, he will give us a dramatic announcement—no doubt the cause of muted cheers behind him—about a new start for the jewels in the crown, the complaints about which the Minister spoke earlier. Nothing less will be satisfactory; anything less will be a breach of promise.
A few weeks ago I had occasion to visit the mental health trust in my constituency in Staffordshire. I met the chairman of the trust, a decent gentleman, and asked him how he had become chairman. He said that he had been a timber merchant but had wanted to hand over to the next generation. I said that that was interesting, but asked what it had to do with running an NHS trust. He said,

939
"Well, I had a friend who was a consultant. I phoned him up and asked him whether it would be a good idea for me to take the job on. He said it would."
I happened to discover later that this same gentleman is chairman of the local Conservative association. And this is a trust whose consultants have just passed a vote of no confidence in the chief executive, and, by extension, in the board. The health service is being run as a kind of occupational therapy for retired timber merchants with Conservative connections. No wonder it has lost all legitimacy in the community.
Cannot the Government understand that they are eroding the foundations of respect inside the service? This is not our argument: listen to Simon Jenkins, no friend of my party, writing in The Times last week:
"As for the 15,000 health authority posts that had to be filled in 1991, it was the most undignified case of catch-as-catch-can in the history of public patronage. On seeing his list, one health administrator paraphrased Wellington and hoped they would 'terrify the consultants as much as they terrify me '"
This is a scandalous story; little wonder that people have lost faith in the system.
Every so often a piece of paper will come under my constituency office door. One came recently from a nurse—whether a he or a she I do not know. The nurse felt unable to come and speak to me about what was going on in the health service, but nevertheless wanted to communicate with me. What a situation we have reached. Health service employees feel that they have to come covertly in the middle of the night and put pieces of paper under the doors of Members of Parliament to let people know what is going on. Revealingly, when the Government recently issued a document on how NHS staff can take up complaints with the media, they were told to approach their Members of Parliament—in the first instance through their line managers. No wonder the Government were told off by the Select Committee for saying such things. They have since had to back-track.
I do not want to return to how the world was before 1979. There was always an agenda of health service reform. It was about efficiency, quality and accountability. The tragedy is that we have gone down a false road, a cul-de-sac. The Government have managed to grow 10 accountants when there was one before. They have grown 20 managers when there was one before, and have recruited graduates from the Eric Cantona school of public sector management to do it. It is that which is eroding the health service. The agenda remains—of quality, efficiency and accountability. That is the agenda that will have to be taken up by the next Government.
9.20 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on his vigorous contribution to the debate. Indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House concentrated their fire on right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Benches. As I understand it, the charge against us from Conservative Members is that we have no policies. I will have something to say about that in a moment.
Our charge against the Government is that they have the wrong policies, and I have something to say about that now. Before doing so, however, I pay tribute to Britain's health care workers, to the medical staff and to the non-medical staff, including the management. The
940
workers in the health service are not responsible for Government policy. Indeed, their recent protests have in part inspired today's debate.
The charges against the Government on secondary care are well known and have been well rehearsed in the debate. Since 1979, one in five hospitals have closed; one in three general hospital beds have gone; and one in four acute beds have gone. Since 1987, a third of all NHS psychiatric beds have gone. More than 1 million of our fellow citizens are on hospital waiting lists. Between July and September of last year, more than 10,000 operations were cancelled, either on the day or the day after admission to hospital, and 10 per cent. of those were not readmitted within one month.
In primary health care, GP fundholding has created a divisive two-tier service—patients are fast-tracked from fundholders' practices, disadvantaging the patients of non-fundholders. It has cost more than £100 million in management allowances to put that unfair system into place. Budgetary concerns have been put before the needs of patients. It has undermined, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) said, the necessary trust that must exist between a GP and the patient. Worst of all, although the Secretary of State likes to boast about the National Audit Office report as an endorsement, no region has been able to supply it with hard information on the reliable costs of fundholding versus non-fundholding.
The reforms, of which the Government are so proud, have almost ended national health service dentistry. Prescription charges have risen tenfold in real terms since 1979. The provision of community care is disfigured by demarcation disputes between health authorities and social service departments. They are mostly about money as well as responsibilities. The Department of Social Security's rules are rigged against the public sector provision of community care facilities, such as council-owned care facilities. Indeed, the distinction that it draws between the purchaser and provider is wholly consistent with the Conservative party's general approach to the issues.
The Secretary of State and the Minister claim that fundholding is popular, at least with the profession. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) pointed out that GP fundholding is not popular. Indeed, "Pulse", a professional magazine, conducted a survey of GPs to find out how popular the idea was. The survey shows us that more than 75 per cent. of GPs want fundholding abolished. What is the Government's response to that? General practitioners are saying that they want the fundholding structure abolished. Indeed, just under half of fundholders want it abolished. That is not a ringing endorsement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) spoke about the special problems of London. He is right.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) quoted examples not from the previous Labour Government—that was fashionable with Conservative Members—but from last night. I also have the list with me, but time is short, so I shall not read my examples from it, although there are enough of them. Instead, I make the following points.
In London, there is a high prevalence of social deprivation. People there have higher than average levels of ill-health; there is a large transient population and

941
higher ground rents and labour costs than in the country as a whole; and it is a centre of excellence for secondary medical care, something of which we should be proud rather than undermine. Yet the Government will not establish a London-wide health authority or a London health care planning strategy. The Government use London-wide arrangements for their internal planning, but they will not put the structure in the public domain.
There is no London-wide review of accident and emergency services, although we have heard of the enormous tensions that there are in the capital. There has been long-term underfunding of London health care and, although it is the nation's capital, London has some of the country's lowest rates of general practitioner registration, putting further strain on the hospital services. Therefore, there is a particular crisis in London which is not being met by the Government.
The Secretary of State claimed that under the previous Labour Government when the financial year came to an end there was fear and terror throughout the NHS as people tried to get the budgets to balance for the year. I can tell her that that has not changed but is still going on now. I have an example from my own region, or regions as we think of them—the north and Yorkshire.
My regional health authority has a financial monitoring report which sets out the position as at 30 November 1994 which David Florry, the director of finance, has sent me. I do not know whether he knows that he has sent it to me, but I have it now and I am sure that he would not mind me sharing it with the House of Commons. At least, in the interests of open government, I shall share it with all the Members of the House of Commons and the public when they read Hansard tomorrow. He says:
"the overall regional forecast is an underdraw against cash limit of some £34m."
That is just for our region. He draws the following conclusion:
"Contracting and other pressures are now clearly showing across a number of Authorities with reserves of some £6.0m having been deployed to meet these costs and continuing pressures may lead to deficits being forecast which will need to be funded from non-recurrent sources or working balances. Particular attention will need to be given during the remainder of the year to managing the overall regional resource to that agreed within the NHSE."
That is exactly what the Secretary of State complained had happened under the previous Labour Government. We have not moved on far there.
Another issue that has been raised in the debate quite forcefully is the question of the democratic deficit in the NHS—how appointments are made to non-executive posts. Mr. Roy Lilley, a mentor to Ministers on such issues, says:
"Non-executives are like bidets—stylish to have, but no one knows how to use them."
Those words were spoken by a man who clearly from his other actions, misuses his bidet.
The Secretary of State says that politics play no part in appointments to office within the NHS and the Minister of State said the same thing in a written answer to me. However, I have a letter from a retired health care professional who applied to be a non-executive trust
942
member having seen the advertisement in the paper. Writing to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South, she says:
"In 1993 I applied for a post advertised locally as a 'non-executive Trust Member' of the new Haywards Heath Hospital. On the application form was an actual request for me to supply one's political affiliation. Needless to say, I was not appointed".
My hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), are right to believe that the Government's protestations of not taking politics into account are not to be taken at face value. It would be remarkably coincidental, if they were able, at random selection, to appoint their own relatives, friends and former supporters to those boards without reference to the rest of the population. What do Conservatives, those who have a responsibility for party management, as opposed to the conduct of ministerial office, think about that? They say this. Mr. Maples—whom I remember from my time in Labour's Treasury team—says:
"We can never win on this issue".
I can almost see him shaking his head sadly as he says:
"People perceive the reforms as clumsy and believe what doctors and nurses say about them, which is almost universally hostile".
Wide-eyed and innocent!No doubt that was received with a certain amount of pain in the Secretary of State's office.
What is the Government's response? Since 1989, they have spent some £1.1 billion on their market-led reforms; over the same period, the managers' pay bill has increased by 206 per cent., the number of managers has risen dramatically and the number of nurses has fallen almost as dramatically. Sixty per cent. of hospital staff budgets are now spent on non-medical activities. Public-private partnerships for capital projects, which have predominated this year, have been entered into on an uneven basis: profit and certainty of outcome are transferred to the private sector, while the risk is transferred to the public sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North pointed out that when the Government boast about the number of patients treated, it is important to remember that, when considered for statistical purposes, patients are episodes and not people. The same accounting device is used when the Government boast about waiting lists. In fact, more than 1 million of our fellow citizens are still awaiting hospital care as we speak, and not receiving the treatment that they ought to receive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden spoke of our values and the Government's values. I said that I wanted to set out the Labour party's approach to the national health service, and compare and contrast it as fairly as I could with that of the Government. We in the Labour party believe in a unified service; the Conservative party believes in a fragmented service, and, indeed, takes pride in that. We believe in a public service; the Conservatives praise privatisation. We believe in achieving efficiency within the public sector; the Conservatives believe in a market mechanism, which they argue will achieve economic efficiencies.
We believe in professionals taking responsibility for the service that they provide. The Conservative party believes in management checks, sometimes—in one instance, at least—pursued to the absurdity of hiring private detectives to follow consultants. We believe in a co-operative model of health care for different professionals to share; the Conservative party believes in, and indeed boasts of, a competitive model. We believe that public representatives

943
should represent the public interest, and that if the public interest is to be represented in the laity of health service structures it is best for the public to choose their representatives. The Conservative party believes—if it is to be judged by its actions—that those representatives should be chosen by the Secretary of State, or on her behalf, from the relatives and friends of her ministerial and other parliamentary colleagues.
We believe that hospital services should be in the public sector, and that other provider services should be public sector responsibilities. The Conservative view—I have heard the Secretary of State express it on the radio, and I have heard the Parliamentary Under-Secretary express it in Committee—is that it does not matter whether the provider of the service is in the public or the private sector. I draw a clear distinction there between provider and purchaser.
That is clearly a green light, at least ideologically, for the privatisation of the providers, including trust hospitals. As we have heard today, the trust hospital structure has been set up for privatisation purposes. We believe that general practitioners' first duty is to the patient; Mr. Roy Lilley has said, presumably from a Conservative perspective, that their first duty is to the paymaster and the service. We believe in setting national pay and conditions for a national service, on grounds of fairness and economic efficiency; the Government believe in local pay bargaining, presumably on grounds of unfairness and economic inefficiency.
Clear distinctions exist, therefore, between the point of view of the Labour party and that of the governing party. I hope that, in setting out those distinctions, I have given the Conservative Members who asked for it an idea of where the Labour party is going in the consultations and policy review that it is conducting, is drawing to a conclusion, and will have drawn to a conclusion by the time of its conference this year. There will, therefore, be plenty to debate in the run-up to the general election, which, as was helpfully announced from the Conservative Benches, will be in 1997.
Where are the Government going? Back in 1988, Dr. David Green, director of the grandly titled Institute of Economic Affairs health unit, proposed health vouchers as a way of getting around the difficulty with the status of general practitioners—are they purchasers or providers? His idea is to have an age-weighted cash payment to purchase private health care insurance and thus private medical care. In his model, everything except regulation would be run as a private sector function.
For people who think that the voucher idea is a long way off, let me point out that vouchers are already in place to pay for spectacles. Dr. Green was echoed by Mark Bassett from the European Policy Forum. His argument is that every individual should receive a weighted insurance entitlement. It is a similar argument to Dr. Green's. He calls it a "health cheque". For the avoidance of any doubt, he meant cheques, in case people thought that he meant regular medical checks. The purpose of that payment would be to insure for comprehensive ordinary health and social care. He argues that it would create
"an individual cost-awareness that is currently absent.
The commissioners of health services would include private insurers and would be subject to public licensing and oversight. These roles"—
and I think he means those roles alone—
944
"would be assigned to the health authorities."
Madsen Pirie of the Adam Smith Institute argues for the creation of health maintenance organisations for the entire population. He argues for competition between different producers of health care, and for subscription-based health care from private or public sources. One final ideologue has a contribution to make—Dr. Ann Robinson, head of the influential Institute of Directors policy unit.
It is important to know that those people play an important part in the thinking of the Conservative party. What they say today, Conservative Ministers say from the Dispatch Box tomorrow, probably because they are paid to do so, which is the allegation that they always make about Labour Members and the unions, so why not throw it back at them?
The head of that influential policy unit says in criticising the Government's trusts:
"They cannot make profits, establish subsidiary companies to trade, nor go to the money markets to borrow money. And they cannot become bankrupt no matter how poorly managed they are."
She is right. We argue that, because of those things, a real market does not exist, and that it would be better to have a unified, publicly owned health service.
Dr. Robinson goes on to argue, and no doubt this is the Conservative party's point of view:
"Running a hospital should be subject to the same disciplines as business. If it becomes insolvent, it should go into receivership or administration and a new management with tighter financial control installed".
That is where the ideologues, who drive the Conservative party and who create its dogma, are trying to take that party.
There are two visions. Ours is of a national public service and the Conservative vision is of a fragmented private health care market. In urging my hon. Friends to vote for the motion standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I should like to give the last word to Dr. Lee-Potter, an inspiration for the debate, and a man who is frequently chaired—[Interruption.] I mean cheered. If he had stayed on, he would have been chaired. He is frequently cheered from the Conservative Benches. He says:
"I am sorry to say it but I have given up on this Government.Surely they cannot believe what they are doing is good. If they believe it, then that is another reason not to talk to them …if the election were tomorrow I would not like the Conservatives to win."
I agree with him on that. I think that he was speaking for doctors everywhere when he said—[Interruption.] I am sure that he is. Very well, I shall correct that—he is speaking for doctors everywhere but not for Members on the Tory Benches. He said:
"We are valued less than the managers, boards and authorities put over us, but lions led by donkeys have a habit of eating the donkeys in the end and John Major would do well to remember this."
The problem for the Prime Minister is that if things carry on as they are he will he eaten not by the lions but by the donkeys.
9.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Having listened to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), think that we heard a rather better effort from the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), aided by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr.

945
Loyden), in terms of summing up the Labour party's point of view. I suppose that Renfrewshire meeting Welwyn is as good a summing up of the debate as any.
By and large, it has been a good-humoured and sometimes thoughtful debate. We heard a song of pride from the Tory Benches, and occasionally from the Labour Benches—pride in the achievements of our new national health service and in. what the men and women who work in it have done. We heard calls for further progress, and rightly so. We have been pressed to remove the occasional example of poor and even bad practice, and that is right, too. However, the calls from the Tory Benches are made in the knowledge that more is achievable because so much has already been achieved.
I shall deal briefly with some of the points that have been raised. We heard a great deal about political appointments, but I must tell the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East that I have here pages of appointees, starting with Audrey Callaghan and including Helene Hayman, Baroness Jay, Brian Stoten, Roy Widdowson and Brian Hanson—I wonder whether they would claim to be card-carrying members of the Conservative party.
In their contributions, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and others showed that they did not understand the difference between waiting lists and waiting times. What is important is how long one has to wait for treatment, but we are very much aware of the need to do more, which is why we introduced the patients charter, extending a patient's rights to out-patient appointments. Of course, there was no patients charter of any sort when Labour and the Confederation of Health Service Employees were in power. Then, patients waited longer on every list.
Much has been said about beds which are, of course, important—not just the number but the type, the appropriateness of their use, the management of and advances in beds. I recently opened the first London hospital-at-home scheme and I realised how the bed argument should move forward. The Labour party should examine its record on beds.
Reference was made to mental health. Let us look back to Labour's record on medium secure beds. The Glancy report which called for medium secure beds was published in 1974, but how many were there by 1979? The answer is not one. We now have 1,300 secure and interim secure beds and we shall increase the number this year and next.
We also heard about the supposed privatisation of the health service. Patients want services commissioned by the NHS, but they do not especially mind the status of the provider as long as the provision is good. That is, after all, what they have been used to all their lives. They have been used to receiving such service from their general practitioners because every GP is an independent contractor to the NHS, and the voluntary sector and private nursing homes have long been doing contract work for the NHS, bringing a great quality of service to people in need. The Labour party's ideological slip is showing across the Chamber, perhaps even as a threat to the independence of GPs.
946
If Opposition Members do not want to listen to me, let them listen to Labour's health spokesman in another place, Baroness Jay, who endorsed the market approach to meeting patients' needs and wishes. She said:
"If patients can be persuaded to treat the health service like a service industry they will naturally expect and insist on high standards of personal care in all things, ranging from good food to single-sex accommodation."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 18 January 1995; Vol. 560, c. 739.]
She went on to applaud the contract culture of the national health service, and I applaud her for doing so and hope that the right hon. Member for Derby, South will have a word with her, too.
We have heard a lot about community care. Again, the ideology of hostility to the independent sector, of not listening to the Audit Commission's message that much better use could be made of the independent sector for the benefit of patients, shines through. It is a partnership that we look for in providing community care. That is why we are proud of the partnership between our health service and our social services. That is why we have committed our support, through specific grants for acquired immune deficiency syndrome, drugs and alcohol and for mental illness, and why we have taken that partnership with the voluntary sector through with section 64 funds. I am pleased tonight to be able to announce that we are extending that support by taking section 64 money over £20 million for the first time.
A good and thoughtful speech was made by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). It was thoughtfully answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on behalf of the Select Committee on Health. In many ways, her response answered the hon. Gentleman, and it would not he right for me to pre-empt our careful consideration of her Committee's report. We shall certainly consider it well. What she says is entirely in tune with what we believe.
My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) referred to St. Bartholomew's. As my right hon. Friend said, the consultation is in process. He asked for special care to be taken over the results of that consultation and, of course, we agree to do that. He asked for the preparedness for emergencies in the City to be looked at carefully. That, too, we will do. He paid tribute to the co-operation since the decision on accident and emergency units. I am grateful for his acknowledgement that good can come from change.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) raised a number of issues, including trolleys. Of course, the patients charter goes some way down that line. He referred also to waiting times for out-patients. I have already referred to the patients charter in that role. He referred to whistle-blowing. I hope that he has read carefully the guidance which we have issued to ensure that staff have a route to use.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to psychiatric care. Of course he is right that it should not only he supervised discharge. We never suggested that it was. Sir Louis Blom-Cooper said in his report that that was the missing element in our provision and that is why we have come to the House with that measure. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right and I hope that he will acknowledge that we are right in saying that the care programme approach is central to the care of people in

947
the community. Our clinical discharge guidance is central to ensuring that those who need hospital care receive it for as long as they need it and until care in the community is provided.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked the Labour party questions. I did not hear them being answered, but no doubt he will pursue that mini-duet of a debate at another time. He did not mention much about Liberal Democrat policy, as my hon. Friends have said. I understand that. The one Liberal Democrat policy of which I am aware is the proposal to merge health and local government. As the hon. Member who represents a borough right next to the London borough of Lambeth, the thought that my neighbouring friends in Lambeth may have their hospitals run by Lambeth council is a little startling to me. I suspect that that could be copied around the capital.
Mr. Morgan: Lambeth is the hon. Gentleman's local authority.
Mr. Bowis: It is not my local authority. Mine is Wandsworth—a good authority and a good health authority. Authorities are doing their own jobs in their own ways and working and co-operating together. That is not Liberal Democrat policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) made good points about good management of budgets and the need to monitor the fundholding world and to monitor consultants fulfilling their contracts.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) mentioned mixed wards and I replied to her during the debate. She did not like the draft continuing care guidelines. I hope that she likes what she sees in the full guidelines that we shall issue before long.
I shall return to the comments made from the Opposition Front Bench, especially those made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South. We can say tonight, as did Dorothy Parker, that the right hon. Lady ran the whole gamut of her emotions from A to B.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have paid tribute to the NHS and to its year-on-year, day-on-day progress, and their tribute rings true. Why cannot the Opposition bring themselves to salute that progress, too? I do not mean the lip service that they pay to the health service or the genuflection that they make to their Unison bosses; I mean full, whole-hearted, public recognition of the light years of progress that have made since their stewardship of the NHS ended in striking hospital workers, broken promises, broken morale among doctors and nurses, cuts in pay, cuts in health spending and cuts in health investment.
I do not expect Opposition Members to say sorry for their failures in the past. I do not expect them to pay tribute to the Government, who have steered that great service into the waters of success. I want them, just once, to praise the NHS, instead of trying to bury it. If they did that, we would accept their strictures on those rare occasions when someone, somewhere, in one of the biggest enterprises in the world gets something wrong.
When I hear a justified complaint or report, I take it seriously, but I also recall that, each year, there are more than 8 million in-patient treatments, 34 million people receiving out-patient treatments, and 256 million people visiting their GPs. In a year, there are nearly 300 million treatments and visits. That is the context in which the
948
small number of errors takes place. Each and every error is one that we try to put right. Each and every single error is portrayed by the Opposition as typical of the NHS. That attitude does more than anything else to undermine the morale of staff who, all over the country, are dedicated to their patients and to the NHS, and it undermines public confidence, too.
We have heard quotations from the Transport house press cuttings service from the right hon. Member for Derby, South. We had many press cuttings and readings from her, but we do not seem to have heard yet from the letter that she received from a man in Manchester. He wrote:
"Dear Mrs. Beckett,
In any large organisation like the National Health Service there are bound to be one or two mistakes … When you blow those few mistakes out of all proportion, splash them all over the media you can actually change the perception of the Health Service in the minds of the public. That may be very good for your party and for you personally but what does it do for the morale of the people who actually work in the NHS and the people who have to receive the treatment?"
He went on to give the example of his own excellent treatment in hospital, with the care and attention of people in the service. He said:
"This kind of service does not happen in an organisation that is falling to pieces or where the staff are totally de-motivated, it can only happen where it is well managed, well funded and well run…
I don't expect to hear this matter raised on the floor of the House because it happens thousands and thousands of times every day and you are not interested in what is working well, only in the very few mistakes people make."
Mrs. Beckett: That gentleman might have sent a copy of his letter to the Minister, but he has not sent one to me—and, by the way, I do read all my letters.
Mr. Bowis: Perhaps that explains why the right hon. Lady has not responded to that man—why he has not had the courtesy of a reply. I am sure that the letter is somewhere in the right hon. Lady's postbag. If she gets her office to work on it, she will have to decide whether to raise that man's testimony on the Floor of the House. I suspect that she will not.
Everything that we have heard from the Labour party today shows that it seeks only to knock the NHS. Knock, knock, who's there? It is the Labour party saying its prayers, longing for disasters and praying for delays.
Let me return to Labour's policies. That is a little difficult to do. We have waited courteously and patiently for the right hon. Lady to master her new brief. We have looked forward to debates and Question Times in which we might see a glimmer of policy emerging from her lips, or even a glint of policy from her eyes. I even combed the right hon. Lady's article today in the Evening Standard looking for policies.
Perhaps the Newcastle minder imposed on her by the Labour leader has not allowed her to come out. Can I persuade her tonight to be brave, and to loosen those apron strings? Will she just say a word about her policies'? Will she tell us a little—not a lot? Will she give us a soupcon, an appetiser, a tantalising and titillating taste of things to come under a Labour Government? Let me tempt her, if such a phrase is not unparliamentary, to give us the Labour policy tune.
We remember a penetrating response from the former Labour leader, who said that where you stand depends on where you sit. So let the right hon. Lady tell it to us from

949
where she sits. Let her perm any two from four. Is the Labour party in favour of NHS trusts? It used not to be, but then it nearly was and now it does not know. Will it keep GP fundholding? It said that it would not, then said it would and now thinks that it will not.
Will the Labour party stick by the pledge of the right hon. Lady's predecessor as health spokesman to raise NHS spending by £6 billion? Is it now £10 billion or £12 billion, or has the computer broken down? If it is any of those figures, how will the Opposition pay for it? The right hon. Lady suggested that no such pledge has been made. I refer her to the pledge of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) to spend 7 per cent. of gross domestic product on the NHS—an extra £6 billion.
What about bureaucracy? How many layers are the Opposition planning? There will be Government Departments, regional assemblies, regional health authorities, district health authorities and hospital authorities. If one puts on that many blankets, one will smother the patient. The Opposition policies certainly will not do the NHS much good.
I am not asking for much. If two answers out of four are too much, I shall go for one. Surely to goodness, Alastair Campbell will let the right hon. Lady come out with one policy. Is not the truth that health is the sop to the left? Has not health been given a spokesman of the left, and will not health have policies of the left? We must never forget an early Beckett line:
"I have my faults, but changing my tune is not one of them."
The words are those of Samuel Beckett, but that is the theme song of his namesake who seeks to lead her health troops to the left, left and left again, back to days when the Confederation of Health Service Employees, and not patients, felt comfortable in the NHS.
The record of our health service is the envy of the world. During our stewardship, the facts speak for themselves. The facts are sometimes the statistics of improvements—for example, the fact that, under the new NHS since 1990, the average waiting time for hospital treatment has fallen from nine months to under five months; the fact that the number of those waiting for more than one year for hospital treatment has fallen from more than 200,000 to under 65,000; the fact that NHS hospitals see and treat over 3,000 more patients every day than they did three years ago.
Those are facts, but facts are not just statistics. They are the reality that I see as I go around the country—the children cured of diseases which would have cut short or wrecked their young lives only a few years ago, the young adults helped slowly and painfully back to normal life by drug and alcohol rehabilitation units and the independent living awards which are helping to advance the horizons of technology for people with disabilities. They are the elderly living in a nursing home environment of comfort, care and dignity, instead of a geriatric ward, or those who are able to live in their own homes with a package of care from the health and social services. They are the former residents of antediluvian institutions who are now able to live in sheltered homes in the community.
950
One must talk to families to hear how similar moves have transformed the life of their son or daughter, and how a light in the eyes of someone without articulate speech shows new awareness of the surroundings. The new light shows the happiness within.
That is the health service of which I am proud, the health service to which I feel proud to be able to contribute, as a Minister and the health service on whose behalf I feel angry that all I hear from the Labour party is sniping and carping and not a single word of support. The NHS deserves better than that and better than this negative and nasty Labour motion—it deserves the support of the House and the House's overwhelming support for the amendment.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 300.

Division No. 59]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Adams, Mrs Irene

Coffey, Ann

Ainger, Nick

Cohen, Harry

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'ty NE)

Connarty, Michael

Allen, Graham

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Alton, David

Corbett, Robin

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Corston, Jean

Armstrong, Hilary

Cousins, Jim

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Ashton, Joe

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Austin-Walker, John

Dalyell, Tam

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Darling, Alistair

Barnes, Harry

Davidson, Ian

Barron, Kevin

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Battle, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bayley, Hugh

Denham, John

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Dewar, Donald

Beggs, Roy

Dixon, Don

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Dobson, Frank

Bell, Stuart

Donohoe, Brian H

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dowd, Jim

Bennett, Andrew F

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bermingham, Gerald

Eagle, Ms Angela

Berry, Roger

Eastham, Ken

Betts, Clive

Enright, Derek

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Etherington, Bill

Blunkett, David

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Boateng, Paul

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Boyes, Roland

Fatchett, Derek

Bradley, Keith

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Fisher, Mark

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

Flynn, Paul

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Burden, Richard

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Byers, Stephen

Foster, Don (Bath)

Caborn, Richard

Foulkes, George

Callaghan, Jim

Fraser, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Fyfe, Maria

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Galbraith, Sam

Campbell-Savours, D N

Galloway, George

Canavan, Dennis

Gapes, Mike

Cann, Jamie

George, Bruce

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Gerrard, Neil

Chidgey, David

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Chisholm, Malcolm

Godman, Dr Norman A

Church, Judith

Godsiff, Roger

Clapham, Michael

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Gordon, Mildred

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Graham, Thomas

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Clelland, David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

951

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Morgan, Rhodri

Grocott, Bruce

Morley, Elliot

Gunnell, John

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Hall, Mike

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hanson, David

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Mowlam, Marjorie

Harvey, Nick

Mudie, George

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Mullin, Chris

Henderson, Doug

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Heppell, John

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hinchliffe, David

O'Hara, Edward

Hodge, Margaret

Olner, Bill

Hoey, Kate

O'Neill, Martin

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Home Robertson, John

Hood, Jimmy

Parry, Robert

Hoon, Geoffrey

Patchett, Terry

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Pearson, Ian

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Pendry, Tom

Hoyle, Doug

Pickthall, Colin

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pike, Peter L

Hughes, Robert G (Aberdeen)

Pope, Greg

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hutton, John

Prentice, Bridget (Lewisham East)

Illsley, Eric

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Ingram, Adam

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Purchase, Ken

Jamieson, David

Raynsford, Nick

Janner, Greville

Reid, Dr John

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Rendel, David

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Jowell, Tessa

Rogers, Allan

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rooker, Jeff

Keen, Alan

Rooney, Terry

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Khabra, Piara S

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Rowlands, Ted

Kirkwood, Archy

Ruddock, Joan

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Sedgemore, Brian

Lewis, Terry

Sheerman, Barry

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Livingstone, Ken

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Short, Clare

Llwyd, Elfyn

Skinner, Dennis

Loyden, Eddie

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Lynne, Ms Liz

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

McAllion, John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McAvoy, Thomas

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

McCartney, Ian

Snape, Peter

Macdonald, Calum

Soley, Clive

McFall, John

Spearing, Nigel

McKervey, William

McNamara, Kevin

Spellar, John

MacShane, Denis

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Madden, Max

Steinberg, Gerry

Maddock, Diana

Stevenson, George

Mahon, Alice

Stott, Roger

Mandelson, Peter

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Marek, Dr John

Straw, Jack

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Marttew, Eric

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

Maxton, John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Meacher, Michael

Timms, Stephen

Meale, Alan

Tipping, Paddy

Michael, Alun

Turner, Dennis

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Tyler, Paul

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Vaz, Keith

Milburn, Alan

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Miller, Andrew

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Wareing, Robert N

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Watson, Mike

952

Wicks, Malcolm

Worthington, Tony

Wigley, Dafydd

Wright, Dr Tony

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wilson, Brian

Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

Wise, Audrey

Mr. Joe Benton.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Delvin, Tim

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Dicks, Terry

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Amess, David

Dover, Den

Arbuthnot, James

Duncan, Alan

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Dunn, Bob

Ashby, David

Dykes, Hugh

Aspinwall, Jack

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Atkins, Robert

Elletson, Harold

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Baldy, Tony

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Evennett, David

Bates, Michael

Faber, David

Batiste, Spencer

Fabricant, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bendall, Vivian

Fishburn, Dudley

Beresford, Sir Paul

Forman, Nigel

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Booth, Hartley

Forth, Eric

Boswell, Tim

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Bowis, John

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

French, Douglas

Brandreth, Gyles

Gale, Roger

Brazier, Julian

Gallie, Phil

Bright, Sir Graham

Gardiner, Sir George

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gare-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Garnier, Edward

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gill, Christopher

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Gillan, Cheryl

Budgen, Nicholas

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Burns, Simon

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Burt, Alistair

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Butcher, John

Gorst, Sir John

Butler, Peter

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Butterfill, John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Carrington, Matthew

Grylls, Sir Michael

Carttiss, Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Cash, William

Hague, William

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Churchill, Mr

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Clappison, James

Hampson, Dr Keith

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Hannam, Sir John

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hargreaves, Andrew

Coe, Sebastian

Harris, David

Colvin, Michael

Haselhurst, Alan

Congdon, David

Hawkins, Nick

Conway, Derek

Hawksley, Warren

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hayes, Jerry

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Heald, Oliver

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Couchman, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cran, James

Hendry, Charles

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

Hicks, Robert

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Day, Stephen

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Horam, John

953

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Patten, Rt Hon John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

Pawsey, James

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Pickles, Eric

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hunter, Andrew

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Jack, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Jenkin, Bernard

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jessel, Toby

Richards, Rod

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Riddck, Graham

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Robathan, Andrew

Key, Robert

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

King, Rt Hon Tom

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Knapman, Roger

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Knox, Sir David

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sackville, Tom

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shaw, David (Dover)

Legg, Barry

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Leigh, Edward

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shepard, Richard (Aldrige)

Lidington, David

Shersby, Michael

Lightbown, David

Sims, Roger

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lord, Michael

Soames, Nicholas

Luff, Peter

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

MacKay, Andrew

Spink, Dr Robert

Maclean, David

Spring, Richard

McLoughlin, Patrick

Sproat, Iain

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Madel, Sir David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Maitland, Lady Olga

Steen, Anthony

Major, Rt Hon John

Stephen, Michael

Malone, Gerald

Stern, Michael

Mans, Keith

Stewart, Allan

Marland, Paul

Streeter, Gary

Marlow, Tony

Sumberg, David

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Sweeney, Walter

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Sykes, John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mates, Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Merchant, Piers

Thomason, Roy

Mills, Iain

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Thurnham, Peter

Moate, Sir Roger

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Monro, Sir Hector

Tracey, Richard

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Tredinnick, David

Moss, Malcolm

Trend, Michael

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Trotter, Neville

Nelson, Anthony

Twinn, Dr Ian

Neubert, Sir Michael

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Viggers, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Walden, George

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Norris, Steve

Waller, Gary

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Ward, John

Opoenheim, Phillip

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Page, Richard

Waterson, Nigel

Paice, James

Watts, John

954

Wells, Bowen

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Whitney, Ray

Wolfson, Mark

Whttingdale, John

Wood, Timothy

Widdecombe, Ann

Yeo, Tim

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Wilkinson, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Willetts, David

Mr. Sidney Chapman and

Wilshire, David

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

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.
Question accordingly agreed to.
MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to
Resolved,
That this House congratulates National Health Service staff in hospitals and in the community for providing ever more and better care for patients with 122 patients being treated for every 100 four years ago; welcomes the health reforms which have provided a coherent structure to enable them to do so; recognises the challenges faced by the National Health Service resulting from medical advance, the ageing of the population and rising public expectations and believes that the new National Health Service is better placed than ever to meet these challenges; welcomes the 68 per cent. real terms increase in National Health Service spending since 1978–79 and the Government's manifesto commitment to further real terms increases; and condemns Her Majesty's Opposition for its ill-thought-out commitment to abolish the reforms, an act which would inflict chaos and confusion on the health service, deprive patients of the benefits of National Health Service Trusts and general practitioner fundholding and prevent the health service from responding to the changing needs of the public.

Orders of the Day

  Police Grant
  Madam Speaker: I have limited Back-Bench speeches in the debate to 10 minutes. I have no authority to limit Front-Bench speakers, but I hope that they will note what I have said and will restrict the length of their speeches accordingly.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that what we are doing under your guidance is procedurally correct, but the report that we are about to debate was laid before Parliament only yesterday and has not been before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Is that procedurally helpful?
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, as hon. Members will see from the Order Paper. However, the report was put before the Joint Committee today, so everything is in order.
  10.15 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move,
  That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 164), which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
  The motion relates to the Police Grant Report for 1995–96, which was laid before the House on Monday in accordance with the provisions of the Police Act 1964, as amended by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, and on which the House may vote tonight. This is the report which was placed in the Library in draft when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced details of the police settlement in December 1994. I should like to explain to the House the basis on which my right hon. and learned Friend has made his decisions about the allocation of funding to individual police authorities.
  This year's settlement for the police is, I believe, a very fair one. At a time when, as the House knows, we are anxious to keep public spending under control, the police will receive an extra 3 per cent. or nearly £200 million. That is a clear demonstration of our continuing commitment to the police service in England and Wales.
  In addition, there will be a special grant amounting to £95 million for certain forces to help those authorities whose entitlement to regional support grant and police grant have been most affected by the change to the new distribution system. The grant will assist in reducing the level of precept, which affects council tax levels.
  This means that, overall, the funds available for the police are going up by more than 4 per cent. That is much more than the net increase of 2.5 per cent, in police pay from September 1994, which is the largest element by far in police budgets. With the provisional capping criteria, it means that all forces will he able to increase their budget requirement in 1995–96, and more than two thirds of forces will get more than 3 per cent.
  956
  In addition, all forces will benefit from the fact that they will not, as in past years, have to pay further for common police services in 1995–96. These are services such as the national criminal intelligence service, which is organised centrally and provided to all forces.
  It cost police forces £43 million to provide common police services in 1994–95 and that money was recouped from police authorities through charges. Now that police grant is cash-limited, we have taken that cost into account before determining the total amount of police grant to be distributed. For each force, that represents about 0.8 per cent. of their budget.
  Mr. John Greenway: Does not my hon. Friend agree that what he has just told the House gives the lie to the Labour party's accusations during the proceedings of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act that the provisions it contained would mean that the police would be short-changed? That has clearly not happened, and if there are fewer police officers on the street after April this year it will be because of the decisions of chief constables, not because of Government funding.
  Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I shall turn to that point now.
  The figures obviously speak for themselves. The largest element in costs to police is pay, which has increased by 2.5 per cent. All told, police resources will increase this year by more than 4 per cent. There is clearly more than enough money in the settlement for the police force to maintain police numbers if it wishes to do so.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister, who represents a neighbouring constituency, knows that there is deep concern throughout Cumbria over cuts in policing, particularly in village areas. In so far as there will be a £3 million shortfall, will that money ever be made up? How can the Minister assure the House that money is being made available for proper policing, when Cumbria constabulary and Conservative councillors are complaining about the settlement?
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman must be careful when he bandies about the word "cuts". Cumbria can increase police expenditure by 2.5 per cent. next year if it wishes, up to its capping level. The largest element of police expenditure is pay, and that is rising 2.5 per cent. Merely because the police authority can increase its expenditure by half the amount it wants, that is not a cut. Cumbria is getting more money next year.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Liberal Democrats won control of Dorset county council on the basis that they would spend more money on policing? In fact, they have taken from the police the £2 million that exceeds the amount suggested by the Government and are spending it elsewhere, without telling council tax payers. Can my hon. Friend provide a county-by-county table showing where money is being taken away from policing by county authorities—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This is a short debate, in which many hon. Members want to participate. Long interventions do not help.
  Mr. Maclean: I might not be able to provide such a table, but my hon. Friend's facts speak for themselves.

  957
  Liberal or Labour authorities will be unable to underspend on the standard spending assessment next year, because the money will go straight to the police authority.
  Mr. William O'Brien: West Yorkshire, and my constituency in particular, is suffering a shortage of police officers on the beat. When will there be a sufficiency to meet community demand?
  Mr. Maclean: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise that, from 1 April, we will no longer control the number of officers deployed by chief constables. I believe that West Yorkshire gains 3.7 per cent. or 3.9 per cent.— I will confirm the exact figure. It is certainly higher than the increase in police pay. There are more than ample resources for West Yorkshire, if the force there wants to use them to buy more constables. It may want to spend those resources on other things.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that Derbyshire is pleased that formula funding for police recruitment has changed? Derbyshire county council ignored for years the police authority's pleas for increased spending. We welcome my hon. Friend's moves, and hope that he will go further.
  Mr. Maclean: There is no doubt that the problems in Derbyshire built up in the 1980s because of action by the then county council. It is unreasonable to expect me or my right hon. and learned Friend to solve all Derbyshire's problems overnight. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will save the police service in Derbyshire, and we have made a start with an allocation of 5.9 per cent.
  If Derbyshire wishes, it can spend up to its cap of 7.9 per cent. That is beginning to redress the problems that accumulated in Derbyshire because of the way it was run in the 1980s.
  Mr. Barnes: Will the formula be such as to allow Derbyshire to regain its certificate of efficiency? Will the Government's policy—[Interruption.] May I continue?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already told the House that this is a very short debate, and long interventions do not help—nor does harassment from the opposite side of the Chamber.
  Mr. Barnes: My point is that Derbyshire has been hit by the Government formula. The policy of civilianisation, now encouraged by the Home Office, means that the number of officers on which future grants will be based has been restrictedߞ
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Obviously my words are going unheeded tonight. I must insist in short debates of this kind that interventions be brief—the more so since many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Maclean: Derbyshire has not been hit by the Government formula; it was hit by its lunatic council which, in the 1980s, effectively damaged its police service so much that it failed to get certificates of efficiency. Derbyshire has now been saved by a Government formula which, instead of allocating a flat rate of 3 per cent. around the country, is giving Derbyshire 5.9 per cent. this year. If the police authority there wants to, it can spend up to almost 8 per cent.
  958
  A good look at the arithmetic shows that we have secured enough extra money for chief constables throughout England and Wales to maintain the same numbers of police officers in 1995–96 as they did last year, if they choose to do so. The fact is that some forces will be able to increase numbers if they choose to do so. Others may hold recruitment.
  In any new formula, there is inevitably a redistribution of resources across the country, but there is no reason why the total number of police officers throughout England and Wales should drop, unless chief constables think it right to reduce manpower spending in favour of capital investment or equipment.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The money is being redirected to Tory areas.
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman should remember that he represents an authority that is gaining 10 per cent. It will be news to many of my colleagues to learn that Northumberland and the hon. Gentleman's constituency are Tory areas.
  Turning from the overall cake to how we arc to divide it among police forces this year brings us to the new funding system introduced by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. The House will recall that this year two major changes are being made to the way in which the police in England and Wales are financed. First, police specific grant is being changed from an open-ended grant based on actual expenditure to a cash-limited grant. Secondly, the Home Secretary will, from 1 April this year, have no control over the establishment of each police force, which formed the basis of the police standard spending assessment in England.
  The great advantage of the new system is that it ensures that all the money provided by the Government for the police goes into policing. That, as my hon. Friends will know and have pointed out, is not the case now. Local authorities have made their own assessment of policing needs. The practical result is that some forces have a history of being funded well below their police SSAsߞincluding Derbyshire, by £500,000 in the current year.
  Funding for the police will in future go straight to police authorities. In addition, police authorities will have far greater flexibility in how they determine their spending priorities. Detailed controls on manpower and all but major capital expenditure will he removed. That means that taxpayers can be protected while decisions about the best use of resources are made locally by police authorities and chief constables.
  Mr. William Cash: How will the money required to fund police pensions be dealt with? In Staffordshire, we have a critical problem, of which I think my hon. Friend is aware. I hope to be able to discuss it with him, as he kindly agreed to come soon to my constituency to do just that.
  Mr. Maclean: I had hoped that my hon. Friend would not announce to the House that I had agreed to come to his constituency. It was perhaps many months ago when I did so.
  There is no doubt that, throughout all police forces, pensions are a cause for concern, because of the large amount of resources that they take up. The allocation for pensions is not hypothecated to each individual force, but is set on a national average. Of course we are willing to

  959
  look at whether the figure has been set at the correct level. We are willing to look in the next year as we discuss the formula with the Association of Chief Police Officers, with police authorities and other Government Departments how the allocation for pensions can be refined even further, but we must bear in mind closely the police view, which was not to hypothecate the amount of pensions. They preferred the present structure.
  Mr. Michael Lord: There is great concern in Suffolk about the funding of the police next year. Indeed, there will be a debate in the House on that subject tomorrow. Following on from the point just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), will the Minister comment on the fact that the chief constable of Suffolk seems concerned, because he is not sure just how many of his police officers will decide to retire next year and require handouts as a result? How is a chief constable supposed to manage his force from year to year if he has no idea how many of his officers will want to retire in that year?
  Mr. Maclean: Nothing has changed with regard to that problem. It is a management difficulty that the police have encountered for many years. Nevertheless, a chief officer can estimate the number of officers coming up to retirement. He knows their ages. There will be certain parameters—the minimum and the maximum number who may retire. If it helps, I can tell my hon. Friend that the settlement for Suffolk is an increase of 4.7 per cent. With police pay rising by 2.5 per cent., there should be ample flexibility within that fairly generous settlement to deal with the problems that my hon. Friend raised.
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: In his review, will the Minister undertake to look at police officers who retire facing disciplinary action and ill health, which seems to be a major problem that is not predictable?
  Mr. Maclean: That is a related but separate matter, which we are looking at. It does not directly affect the allocation that we are discussing tonight, but we are keen to look at that measure.
  On the formula, the changes that we have had in the structure of police authorities in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 meant that we needed a different method—a more equitable system—for distributing the extra resources that we have given the police this year. We chose to do that by means of a formula for distributing both police grant and standard spending assessment. The approach is similar to that used in assessing local government spending needs. Broadly speaking, it means that police authorities will be funded according to the population and area characteristics that create the most work for the police service.
  Using a formula to distribute funding brings the police service into line with other local government agencies, such as social services, highway maintenance and all other services with a local authority component. The formula provides an objective way of assessing relative need as a basis for distributing the resources available.
  Devising the formula was complex. In essence, it means that policing needs have been identified as falling into six main areas: maintaining a stable presence in the community; responding to calls for assistance; dealing with crimes; traffic management; maintaining public order; and community relations. Some 50 per cent. of the
  960
  formula is based on existing establishment levels. That will assist in providing stability and continuity of policing by limiting the extent of change next year.
  The formula has been used to determine provision for the Metropolitan police as well as to allocate funding to provincial forces. But of course, a formula to be applied across the country cannot reflect the unique demands on the Metropolitan police, arising from the fact that London is the capital city, the permanent seat of government and the primary residence of the royal family. Special provision of £130 million over and above the figure indicated by the formula will therefore be made available to the Metropolitan police in 1995–96, in recognition of its national and capital city functions.
  Anyone who has experience of devising formulae like these knows that, when one grafts them on to a funding system—everyone acknowledges that the present system is based on a less objective basis—one can expect some pretty large swings. That is what would have happened had we not taken steps to limit the change.
  First, we included an element for establishment levels, and 50 per cent. of this year's formula is based on existing establishment levels. Secondly, the special grant that I have already mentioned will also help forces which would otherwise have been adversely affected by the introduction of the new formula.
  During the consultation period, we had the chance to consider the figures and revise the formula where appropriate. The pensions element of the formula is one of the issues which we have considered and on which I have asked officials to work in the year ahead, because we recognise the stresses that pensions put on the police budget in every police force in Britain. More work will be done on that.
  Work will also be done on other areas, such as the special policing problems of inner cities and how and why we might be able to take into account criminals who travel from one area to commit their crimes in another.
  I know that a number of my hon. Friends from rural constituencies believe that the formula has been too generous to cities. I can assure them that that is far from being true, but it is true that we have as yet found no statistically valid basis to support an element for rural sparsity. If that statistically valid basis can be found, I assure the House that we shall consider it for inclusion in 1996–97, and no one will he happier than I will he to do so.
  My officials are already discussing with the police the way in whichߞ
  Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Maclean: I must push on, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak and I have taken several interventions.
  My officials are already discussing with the police the way in which the work should be handled. I am very keen that, whatever basis of distribution we use, it should be accepted as valid both by the police and by the police authorities.
  The formula is there for the benefit of the police service. It is not there for the benefit of the Home Office or the Treasury. This year, we are allocating more than 4 per cent. The formula is an attempt to deliver and distribute the extra resources in the fairest possible way.

  961
  All hon. Members, and those in the police service and in the police authorities have a deep and abiding interest in making the formula as fair and as accurate as possible, and I look forward to that work progressing next year.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I recognise that, unlike the old system, the formula introduces an element of objectivity, but does my hon. Friend agree that areas such as West Mercia feel disadvantaged to the extent that they have areas of quite high population density in areas of rural sparsity? Therefore, it is felt that, unless the formula is based on an enumeration district basis, which is the basis for only the call management rather than the crime management formula, it is likely to miss out. To that extent, West Mercia will have an increase of only 2.7 per cent. this year, against 3 per cent. on average. Will the Minister agree to review the formula in the light ofߞ
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are having mini-speeches disguised as interventions in a debate that lasts for only one and a half hours.
  Mr. Maclean: We shall be delighted to do that. There may be other areas largely regarded as rural, with towns or small cities with populations of less than 100,000, of which the present formula does not take account. Of course we are willing to consider that as well. I had a good discussion with colleagues from West Mercia and the authority there.
  If we can obtain good evidence on rural sparsity, we shall take it into account. We shall also consider road lengths and motorways, and any other factors which police authorities consider should be taken into account because there is a specific policing cost.
  Sir Anthony Grant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Maclean: I do not need to give way to my hon. Friend, because I know that he is going to mention travelling. Of course we shall look at the travelling element and the possible additional cost, but I cannot make that change based on my political instinct that there might be a cost. I have to do it on an objective formula and for objective reasons, and rightly so.
  Mr. Ainger: Can the Minister assure the good people of Dyfed-Powys that the extra £2 million coming into Dyfed-Powys announced by the Secretary of State on Monday will be a permanent change to the formula, not a one-off sum this year to get the Minister and his colleagues off a difficult hook in Wales, particularly in north Wales and Dyfed-Powys?
  Mr. Maclean: Of all the interventions that I have taken, that is possibly the silliest. The hon. Member knows fine that no one can make a commitment to the level of public expenditure next year. I can certainly say that the Dyfed-Powys police service has done exceptionally well under the Government. It has a good police service, with a very effective clear-up rate. I might add that Dyfed-Powys asked me for about £2 million, and received slightly more than that. It is an excellent settlement for Dyfed-Powys, and for the other Welsh authorities.
  962
  We consider the allocation of police grant to be an important part of police reforms. In attempting to identify the factors that dictate police work load and fund accordingly in the formula, we have been breaking new ground with the help of the police, local authorities and Her Majesty's inspectorate. In the first year of the new funding systems, many authorities will benefit, and we have taken care to protect those which benefit less.
  It appears that the House is to divide on the motion. That seems rather extraordinary to me, and it must put some Opposition Members in a difficult position. How will the shadow Home Secretary explain to Lancashire police authority that he has voted against a 5.6 per cent. settlement—over 6 per cent. if Lancashire spends up to cap? I hope that the Opposition have slipped, or paired, their leader tonight: with Durham receiving 10 per cent. extra, it must be rather embarrassing for him to vote against the increase.
  Other Opposition Members have also benefited exceptionally from the redistribution formula. I shall be interested to hear what excuse the Labour party uses for voting against a settlement amounting, overall, to more than 4 per cent. If Labour Members are saying that it is not enough money, I think that we need to hear from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) whether he has been consulted about whether Labour has been given permission for all the extra police spending on top of what the Government have done.
  The police settlement for 1995–96 is fair. It fully reflects the priority that the Government give to tackling crime and giving our police service the means to do it. It puts into effect the Government's real commitment to a properly resourced police service in England and Wales.
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: This is the first police funding order to be made under the new arrangements introduced by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. We shall be voting against it, for four reasons. First, it is inconsistent with the Government's own clear manifesto promises on police numbers. Secondly, some police services say that they will have to cut police numbers. Thirdly, we do not believe that the new funding formula meets the Home Office's own criteria. Fourthly, the new system lacks the flexibility that is needed when relatively small local police forces in places such as Sussex must meet the cost of wholly unanticipated spending to deal with public order crises relating to national political circumstances—in the current instance, animal welfare.
  Let me deal with those reasons briefly in turn. Page 22 of the 1992 Conservative manifesto states:
  "We are continuing to increase police numbers. There will be 1,000 extra police officers this year."
  That was the promise, but in fact the number of officers available for ordinary duty fell by 401 between April 1992 and April 1993.
  What is more, according to Mr. John Hoddinott, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the settlement is likely to lead to the loss of 900 police officers in the forthcoming year. In a press briefing that he gave a week ago, Mr. Hoddinott said that
  "the effect of all the funding problems to the average man or woman in the street would be a reduction in the level of service to the tune of 900 officers."

  963
  The Minister asked on what basis we would vote against the order. One of the functions of the House is to judge Governments by what they promise at elections. On that test, they have palpably failed the House—and, more important, the police and the public.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: The hon. Gentleman referred to my county police force of Sussex. Will he confirm that last year it spent £4 million less than it would have been able to on standard spending assessment, and by doing so did not attract the pound-for-pound grant from the Home Office? It was therefore £8 million down, by choice. Will he confirm that, in the forthcoming year, it will be able to spend an additional £18 million, which more than covers the cost of policing at Shoreham?
  Mr. Straw: If that is the best that the hon. Gentleman can do to explain the financial predicament of his constituents as a result of their having to bear the cost of nearly £2 million for policing at Shoreham, I am not surprised that he is running scared about his prospects at the next election. That cost was not anticipated by the Sussex police authority in its budget. On his weasel words about the £4 million and £8 million, when I was shadow Environment Secretary this time last year, I do not recall the hon. Gentleman at any stage coming into the House and demanding that East Sussex or West Sussex county councils should spend another £8 million on the police. Did he come into the House and tell us that? Come on.
  Mr. Stephen: If the hon. Gentleman believes in local democracy, he will understand that the decision on what to spend on the police is a matter for the police authority and the county councils concerned. It is not for this House.
  Mr. Straw: There are words for that which would be unparliamentary, but the hon. Gentleman's constituents will take note of the fact that, this time last year, he supported cuts in the budget of Sussex county council. He did not call for an extra £8 million. Now, when it is too late, he is calling for it. He will be judged by what he said.
  Mr. John Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I must get on. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  One of the reasons why there is a discrepancy between what the Minister is saying about the settlement and what the Association of Chief Police Officers is saying about it is that part of the famous 4 per cent. that the Minister mentioned will not, and cannot, be used to finance front-line services. The 4 per cent. needs to be set against a gross domestic product deflator of 3.4 per cent. Mr. Hoddinott has spelt out that, because of the new arrangements, police authorities, for the first time, will have to build up their own reserves of 2 per cent. of their budgets. As the hon. Members for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash) have pointed out, police authorities also face significant increases in pension contributions, which I understand are to rise this year by 9 per cent. They question whether full account has been taken of that in the formula that the Minister spoke about.
  Our second point is that some forces are likely to suffer absolute reductions in police numbers. According to the information that I have read, which is based on estimates
  964
  from police authorities, those forces include Derbyshire, Dyfed-Powys, Lincolnshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Thames Valley. According to ACPO figures, of the 41 forces in the country, four have said that they will be able to improve their services, 17 will be in a standstill position, and 22 will have to make economies.
  I gather that, in an intervention, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) talked about the Minister putting money in the way of Tory areas. It is rare for me to have to correct him. [Interruption.] It was my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) who made the point. I apologise for pulling him up on this matter, but one of the historic events of 1993 was that, for the first time in 20th century history, not a single area of the country had a Conservative-controlled police authority. Such is the lack of confidence that the British people have in the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: The Metropolitan police.
  Mr. Straw: If the people of London had a say, the Metropolitan police too would be run by a police authority that was not controlled by the Conservatives.
  Our third objection to the order is that the funding formula does not meet the Home Office's own criteria: it should be objective, based on the best available data, stable from year to year, command a wide measure of support and be free from perverse incentives. A chapter of accidents, about which the Minister was silent, have hit the development of the formula and £30 million was lost in the system, and chief constables, at a late date, received further information about changes in the formula. They may have involved only £1 million or £2 million in budgets of £150 million, but, as one chief constable said, when pay accounts for 85 per cent. of police costs, variations of £1 million or £2 million can make a huge difference to whether a particular service can be developed or has to be cut.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is proving that he is a master of his brief and I compliment him on that. Given that he is a master of his brief, will he tell us how much more the Labour party thinks that we should he spending on the police? Will he spell Out the Labour party's commitment?
  Mr. Straw: The debate is about judging the order against the criteria that the Home Office and the Conservative party set in 1992 and this year. I share the hon. Gentleman's confidence that the Labour party will win the next election. If he retains his seat, I invite him to sit on this side of the House and listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) announcing in his first Budget the details of our spending plans.
  Our fourth objection is that the system lacks the flexibility to enable relatively small local forces to deal with what, to them, can be the huge extra costs arising from unexpected public order situations, such as the demonstrations at Shoreham in Sussex. I have here a letter from Councillor Steve Bassam, the leader of Brighton council, in which he complains about the costs which, at that stage, were running at almost£1 million a week. He said:
  "This is not a cost which the authority can sustain for very long without affecting other front line policing priorities."

  965
  He wonders whether
  "one off events of the sort currently occurring at Shoreham … have a distorting and long term effect on policing in the County."
  He continues:
  "Crime is a major issue here in Brighton with high levels of burglary and auto-thefts, anything which diverts police time and finance away from tackling these issues is not popular".
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is not only small forces that are affected by such incidents? Even the Lancashire force, which is quite large, has to deal every other year with an incident which adds considerably to its policing costs. I refer, of course, to the Conservative party conference. In that one week, my hon. Friend's constituency, like mine, provides extra police to Blackpool and we in Lancashire have to pay the costs.
  Mr. Straw: I agree and the matter has been the subject of continual representations to successive Home Secretaries. Some change has been made in the formula set out in the police grant report, but the Home Secretary and his colleague need to examine much more carefully what happens when police authorities have to bear the cost of what amount to national incidents or occasions. Can the costs better be pooled? It would certainly be better for unanticipated events such as the demonstration in Shoreham, which meant the local police force bringing in assistance from other areas. I accept that there is no perfect solution, but I think that a pooling arrangement would be an improvement.
  Mr. John Greenway: I think that all hon. Members have some sympathy with his argument, but the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not prepared to state what the Labour party's total spend on the police would be, even though it would be a finite sum of money. He criticises the Government's position for its lack of flexibility, but he would cream off money from other forces to pay for a problem in one particular area.
  Mr. Straw: There are some functions—pre-eminently those carried out by the Metropolitan police—which are national police functions. That is reflected in the formula as the additional £130 million takes account of the Metropolitan police's national police functions. There are occasions elsewhere around the country—party conferences or unanticipated incidents—that take on national dimensions. Depending on the size of the local police authority, the cost of dealing with those national incidents may be too much for it to bear. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I am not saying for one moment that there is an easy answer, but I am not certain that this motion is the answer.
  Mr. Lord: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: This is the last intervention that I shall allow because we are under instructions to be brief.
  Mr. Lord: One of the concerns of Suffolk police is the size of its contingency fund. As I understand it, it is anxious to build it up over the years in case it encounters events such as those at Shoreham, Brightlingsea or wherever. That could result, if we are not careful, in police forces all over the country building up contingency
  966
  funds that they may never need. Perhaps we should rethink the whole business, dispense with contingency funds and allow police forces, when something strange happens, to apply to central Government.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. My understanding is that the police forces are this year required to build up balances of 2 per cent. One of the benefits of the old system—it was not always beneficial—was that forces could use the balances of their much larger parent county council or metropolitan council. If there were the kind of pooling arrangement about which I have been talking, the hon. Gentleman would be exactly right to say that there would be less need for those balances.
  The most that the Secretary of State could say about the settlement in evidence that he gave to the Select Committee on Home Affairs was that across the country as a whole, it would enable the police service at least to maintain the existing number of police officers. I invite my hon. Friends to weigh those words with care, for the Secretary of State is admitting that some forces will suffer real cuts. That is light years away from the bullish claims which the Secretary of State and his right hon. and hon. Friends made before the last election.
  It is no wonder that Mr. John Maples, the Conservative deputy chairman, had to admit in his now famous memorandum that crime is worse under the Conservatives. This settlement will do little to make crime better.
  10.56 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: As an hon. Member who represents a constituency in the Metropolitan police area, I welcome the increase in grant of 3 per cent. of resources for the police service for 1995–96. That represents a budget of £1.619 billion compared with £1.6 billion in 1994–95. In addition, the £7 million cost of escort duties, which is no longer the Metropolitan police's responsibility, remains in its budget. I am especially glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has agreed that up to 2 per cent. underspending on the Metropolitan budget can be rolled forward in future. That will be worth £35 million and is a sensible way in which to handle any underspend that may result from the difficulty of hitting a precise budget of £1.6 billion.
  My constituents, on whose behalf I speak in the debate, have good cause to be pleased with the excellent service that they are receiving. Only this week, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Paul Condon, advised me and other Members who represent London constituencies of the success of the service over the past year and of his hopes for the future. There is good news for the people of the Metropolitan police area, resulting in no small measure from the financial resources that have been provided.
  The anti-burglary campaign, Operation Bumblebee, has achieved a 17 per cent. reduction in residential burglary. There has been a 37 per cent. reduction in armed robbery at business premises and a reduction of 17 per cent. in car crime. In addition, the Metropolitan police is meeting its ambitious targets of responding to urgent calls in under 12 minutes in 90 per cent. of cases. As the Commissioner has pointed out, many of the successes that the Metropolitan police is achieving are due in large part to the communities with which it works. So Londoners are getting excellent policing.

  967
  However, I have one concern. The Metropolitan police appears to have lost some 270 posts from the establishment level. No new officers have gone on to operational duties as a result of the change in responsibility for the escort service, despite the fact that, as I have said, for 1995–96, it was able to retain the £7 million cost of those services in the budget.
  As the House knows, with the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. I shall comment briefly on the allocation of resources as the federation sees it. In doing so, I emphasise that my role is to advise the federation on what Parliament is thinking and to inform the House what the federated ranks are thinking about this year's settlement. I am not a spokesman for the federated ranks—that is to say, those who hold the rank of constable, sergeant or inspector. I speak only to tell the House what they are thinking and to ask from my hon. Friend the Minister of State frank views in return.
  The federation welcomes the 3 per cent. increase in the allocation for the police for the coming financial year. However, it points out that when account is taken of the prevailing rate of inflation, low though it is, 3 per cent. or, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out, about 4 per cent. represents what is virtually a standstill for police spending overall. It will mean that when chief constables take responsibility for force expenditure in April, there will be no really significant extra money to meet constantly rising demands on the service, with some exceptions. In other words, the federation sees the settlement as a standstill. It also means that the cost of policing will be 32p a day per head of the population.
  The federation believes that the public might be willing to pay a little more to secure the extra policing that many people talk about, especially more officers on the beat. However, I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has fought his corner hard with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in securing this year's increase, and that must be taken into account in any mature consideration of the matter.
  As the House knows, the new funding formula for police forces will come into effect on 1 April. It is the federation's view that, despite the 3 per cent. increase, the majority of forces in England and Wales will face some financial difficulties. There is concern that nearly half the forces will have to reduce their police officer and civilian establishment rates. There is a fear that about 1,500 police officers and civilians will be lost. Can my hon. Friend the Minister of State comment on those fears of the largest police staff association?
  As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, there has been a major change in the way in which funding is calculated. Unfortunately, it appears to the federation that a number of forces have been severely affected by the way in which the new formula works. We have already heard this evening about Cumbria, Derbyshire, Dyfed-Powys, Lincolnshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Thames Valley, which is next to my constituency of Uxbridge. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will have seen representatives of all those forces. They recognise that some forces have received considerably more money than they received last year. They are concerned that, because of the operation of the
  968
  new formula, they have not received the resources that are necessary and that they may not be able to meet their local policing needs.
  Cumbria, I am told—perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm or deny it—will lose 77 officers and 34 civilians. Derbyshire will lose 30 officers, and Dorset will lose 40. Dyfed-Powys will be particularly badly affected and, I am told, will lose 100 officers. Greater Manchester and Thames Valley will lose 350.
  There is another serious problem to which I should like an answer this evening, and it is the inability of forces to pay commutation to officers who have been obliged to retire on ill-health grounds. Those officers, I am told, are being retained on full pay, although they are unable to work. Surely, when the Government have pressed the police service to get rid of officers who are unable to work and to retire them on sickness grounds, the service should be able to pay them their commutation rather than having to retain them on full pay.
  There is continuing concern in the federation about the manning levels during the 1995–96 financial year. As it sees it, there will be a significant reduction in the overall establishment of police forces in England and Wales. If that proves to be correct, it is worrying, in view of the duties imposed on the police, not least by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, which the chairman of the Police Federation described as "music in our ears".
  If the Conservative party is to maintain its reputation—I know it will—as the party of law and order, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure the House that the number of police officers on force establishments will not be allowed to drop and there will be further consideration of the problems that I have mentioned.
  I turn now to the role of special constables. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, the federation accepts that the role of specials is very important as an adjunct to the regular trained force. But they cannot be a replacement for the regular police officer. Why is it, then, that the special constabulary development course was introduced with the objective of ensuring that specials achieve the same professional standards as fully attested officers?
  Both the specials and the new parish constables will, I understand, be part of the force structure under the command of the chief constable. My hon. Friend the Minister will therefore understand that the increasing number of specials and the new parish constables couldߞI emphasise that word—be seen by regular officers as a cheap alternative to alleviate the manning shortfall. Can my hon. Friend assure me and the federation that that is not the Government's intention, and that they will maintain full support for the concept of forces which are properly manned by regular officers and supported by specials and parish constables where appropriate?
  I shall make one final point. Can my hon. Friend the Minister assure me and the federated ranks that transfer of powers to local authorities to deal with parking offences and the ability of local authorities to provide off-street parking facilities with the money they receive from fines will not reduce the funding of police budgets? After all, the proceeds of those fines previously went to the Exchequer. Can he assure the House thatߞ
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: When people from a large number of force areas compare the Minister's comments tonight and the Home Secretary's earlier promise that it will be possible for police establishments and numbers to remain the same with their chief constables' statements that they are being forced to reduce police officer numbers by a combination of the effect of this settlement and other pressures, who are they likely to believe? I think that they are more likely to believe the chief constables, whom they recognise as holding a non-partisan point of view and as simply seeking to carry out the good policing of their areas.
  Chief constables in a number of areas are having to say that because of many inherent problems in the settlement that cannot be solved without the necessary funding being provided. In the latter part of his speech, the Minister began to make clear what some of those problems are. If he had not done so, interventions by several of his hon. Friends and the remarks made on behalf of the Police Federation by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) would have demonstrated the problems vividly. I know that a succession of Members have been to see Ministers, along with deputations from various local authorities, to explain the problems that many of them will face following the settlement.
  There are a number of common threads to the situation. A number of forces are already making savings to meet earlier budget pressures or capping limits, and they are having to squeeze hard to keep within existing budgets. Some forces—including mine in Northumbria—are working hard to thin out their higher ranks to put more officers in the front line. That is a valuable but difficult change to manage, and it has other consequences. It involves retiring senior officers, and therefore putting additional pressures on pension provisions. I shall return to that point.
  Mr. Maclean: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that it would be perfectly valid and appropriate if a force such as his local constabulary made an overall reduction in the number of police officers but increased the number of bobbies on the beat?
  Mr. Beith: It is possible to achieve greater use of current manpower, but most chief officers have told the Home Office in the past year that they believe that, even with such efforts, they need additional total manpower. Not one of them was granted additional establishment manpower by the Home Office in the past year.
  There is a dispute between most of the chief constables and the Home Office over precisely how much can be achieved and how many more additional officers are needed. Other factors create problems. The way in which rural areas are dealt with has been referred to, and that affects the force in the Minister's area of Cumbria. It also affects Dyfed-Powys, and other rural forces throughout the country.
  There are no reserves for the new police authorities. Funds cannot be transferred from local authorities, as under the previous system. Reserves will have to be set aside, will build up only after some years and already represent a claim on funds for the first year.
  Special factors affect certain forces, some of which have been mentioned, such as the huge cost of policing party conferences. The Conservative party conference in
  970
  Bournemouth, which is far more expensive to police than any of the others, will probably affect Dorset every two years and will impose an extremely heavy burden on the police budget.
  The Cromwell street investigation imposes a huge cost on the Gloucestershire force and the effect of the Shoreham case on Sussex has also been mentioned. Those are all large items in police force budgets.
  Mr. Nigel Jones: My right hon. Friend mentioned Gloucestershire police force. During the past four years, Gloucestershire county council has spent above its standard spending assessment on the police. Can he think of any reason why the Home Secretary has turned down the special request for a grant to help with the Cromwell street investigation, which has cost £1.4 million so far?
  Mr. Beith: No, and I refer the Minister to his own words about the position of the Metropolitan police force and its special responsibilities. From time to time, other forces have to carry especially heavy responsibilities and we need some mechanism by which we can provide for them if we are to budget sensibly. Otherwise, as has been pointed out, there will have to be much higher provision for contingencies, which will make sensible day-to-day police operations more difficult to manage.
  Pensions are another important common thread of most of the complaints. The Home Office estimated that pensions would cost police forces 9 per cent. of their budgets, but in most forces the cost seems to be between 10 and 14 per cent.—certainly, in many of the cases that have been referred to me. The reasons include the Sheehy report, the retiring of senior ranks, people serving an extra term and getting the lump sum commutation and the fact that officers recruited during the 1964 recruiting bulge are retiring. Those pensions have to be paid and they represent a higher burden on authorities than that for which the Home Office seems to have provided.
  Those problems are compounded by the miscalculations, some of which have been corrected during the second round of the settlement, although others have not. The errors in the revenue support grant settlement showed that the departments were not getting it right. It thus becomes easier to understand how the mess has arisen.
  Let us consider the size of the shortfall that some of the forces face. Suffolk has a £2 million shortfall on the cost of pensions and is threatened with the loss of 86 officers. Thames Valley has a total shortfall of £7.5 million and might lose more than 300 officers. Dorset is one of only three forces to have received a cut in funding. Even by spending to the capping limit, Dorset is allowed only 2.2 per cent., as against 2.5 per cent. Greater Manchester has been talking of the possible loss of more than 300 officers. Dyfed-Powys has a £2 million shortfall. Cumbria has been mentioned and, in Devon and Cornwall, the cost of pensions is estimated to be 14 per cent. The Metropolitan police force wanted 150 more officers, but it will not get them.
  When we look at all those examples—as our constituents will—we cannot be satisfied with the settlement. There are two ways to resolve the problems. The first will require a reworking of the formula, which will lead to resources being taken from some forces to assist others—any resettlement has some element of that, but this problem will not he solved by that means alone.

  971
  Inevitably, additional resources are necessary to make a fundamental reorganisation feasible without producing huge changes or unfairly limiting the forces that would otherwise be expected to contribute.
  Mr. Stephen rose ߞ
  Mr. Beith: I will not give way as we are all under a time constraint and I want to bring my remarks to a close.
  In our costed budget proposals, in the autumn, we included a proposal to increase the number of police officers to the extent that chief constables then requestedߞ2,675 officers, at a cost of £80 million. The Home Secretary granted no increase in officers in 1994 and is now telling police authorities that if chief constables choose to do so collectively—I assume he means collectively—they will be able to keep forces at their present level. He is not assuming an increase in the number of officers and a significant number of chief constables will ultimately have to tell him that it is not a matter of their choosing—unless by "choosing" he means that, having kept the same number of officers, he stops them using vehicles, denies them essential equipment, allows no overtime even when it is essential and in various other ways negates the value of appointing those officers, so extensive will be the cuts in other services in order to maintain them.
  Under this settlement, the Home Secretary's promise will not be kept throughout the country. The task of fighting crime will be immensely more difficult because, even with the best will in the world and the most effective reorganisation, many forces will be unable to keep even the same number of officers in the front line, and some may have fewer. The Minister's remarks showed a glimmer of recognition that the formula is not right, that it has had some bad consequences and that it needs to be changed. But additional resources will be required to solve that problem and give our communities the policing that they need to ensure that they have not only a sense of security but effective crime fighting.
  Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Liberal Democrat spokesman to complain about the increased cost of policing when his party hasߞ
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me, and it is not in order to waste the House's time in such a short debate.
  11.16 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I have no doubt that the settlement is a good deal for the country as a whole and a genuine manifestation of the priority which the Government set on good policing and law and order. After all, a settlement of more than 4 per cent. for the coming financial year is generous, given that inflation is barely half that.
  Opposition Members seem to dislike my introductory remarks. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who attempted to make a number of strictures, sounded hollow and unconvincing because he notably declined every opportunity that was given to him to say how the Labour party would do any better. I do not intend to dwell on the Labour party any longer.
  I listened to the speech by my hon. Friend the Minister of State with admiration for the general settlement that he has achieved for the country as a whole, but with a
  972
  growing and intense sense of painful envy because my county of Lincolnshire has not shared in the general bonanza which other police forces seem to have enjoyed. Unlike Derbyshire, we have not been given an opportunity next year to spend up to 8 per cent. more. We learnt a few moments ago that Sussex is relishing the prospect of spending £18 million more next year. We have not been given that opportunity. Next year, Lincolnshire's police budget will be capped to within £150,000 of this year's budget—the 1994–95 actual spend—so a real reduction will be imposed on us. My constituents regard that as an invidious, undeserved and grievous blow.
  Unlike the areas represented by Opposition Members, Lincolnshire has not suffered from a lunatic council. We have heard all about Derbyshire's lunatic council, for which that county now appears to have been rewarded. Until last year when we lost control of it, for 20 years Lincolnshire had a Conservative council which set an exemplary record of good, responsible and prudent local government, so it is incomprehensible that we should have been treated in that way.
  My hon. Friend the Minister is aware of Lincolnshire's profound reaction to his proposals. When one makes a national settlement that is as generally well conceived as this one, it is inevitable that some anomalies, difficulties and unfairness will arise, particularly when a new formula is introduced.
  May I make a strong two-fold plea to my hon. Friend the Minister? First, he said that he will seek to find a way to ensure that the sparsity factor is included in the formula in future. That is of obvious significance to Lincolnshire because sparsity is a major factor in a large county such as Lincolnshire. It takes a lot longer to get a police car to an incident; more resources are needed to achieve the response time that is more easily achieved in densely populated districts. As I understand it, the purpose of the standard spending assessment formula is to put everyone on the same basis. I cannot believe that it is beyond the range of human ingenuity to devise a way in which sparsity can be included in the formula.
  Secondly, whatever my hon. Friend the Minister does to the formula will not help us in the coming year. If, as I suspect will inevitably occur, Lincolnshire police committee decides that the only right, responsible and possible course for it to take in the circumstances is to set a budget which is, at least, at the same level in real terms—and therefore above the capping limit—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not reject it out of hand. I hope that he will give it careful consideration, listen fairly to all the arguments that are put to him and give Lincolnshire police committee a chance to convince him of the case, even if my words have failed to do so.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), is the Paul Daniels of the Government Front Bench—whether he does it by mirrors or by prestidigitation. I read with amazement the figures for Merseyside police that accompanied the Home Secretary's letter. It is pointed out that the puny increase of 0.8 per cent. in the budget becomes 2.5 per cent. if the full capping limit is exploited, but it is not pointed out that the chief constable needs the courage to increase his precept by 20 per cent.—on Merseyside, that is no small challenge.

  973
  The Minister said that there were representations from the Merseyside police authority, as result of which the formula was changed. But let us consider the way in which it changed. The interim police grant went up from £105.8 million to £106.7 million. The revenue support grant increased from £62.3 million to £63.3 million. But, by a process of mirrors, the special damping grant was reduced from £1.5 million to nought, so the net increase was simply £400,000.
  Furthermore, because of the way in which the police grant has been calculated, the Home Secretary takes credit for the fact that £1.774 million will not have to be found by the Merseyside police authority for common police services such as the computer. But everyone knows that that was a mistake and the position is guaranteed only for 1995–96. No one feels secure about that element of funding for the next year. According to the Home Secretary's figures, the pensions allocation for Merseyside has been increased by £1.81 million. But that is by no means adequate compensation for the £2.5 million increase in the recurrent costs and the £3.5 million increase in lump sum payment in the past year.
  The formula penalises Merseyside. The Minister made great play of the formula's objectivity. We know from bitter experience of the Government that there is no such thing as an objective formula. Formulae contain selected factors which are weighted. In this case, the selection and the weighting are utterly wrong for Merseyside. As the establishment element is phased out, Merseyside will face a £13 million budget deficit. The number of personnel—both police and civilian—will have to be reduced by 100, and there will be more cuts as the situation worsens. Unless the Government radically rethink the formula and look carefully at pensions—preferably more carefully than the Minister suggested in his opening remarks—the prospects for Merseyside are catastrophic.
  11.25 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I will make a brief contribution to the debate because the House wants to move to a Division and I think that my hon. Friend the Minister intends to say a few more words.
  It is clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like an increase in police spending. No issue concerns our constituents more than law and order and the lack of police presence on our streets—particularly in rural areas. This is the first occasion since the enactment of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill that we have had a chance to consider the effect of the new funding arrangements for the police service.
  Viewed in the context of the total public spending round and the settlement for local authorities, which the House will consider tomorrow evening, the police settlement is very helpful and generous. I would like every police authority in England, Wales and Scotland to receive more money, but the fact remains that it is not easy to allocate public funds at present.
  The Government's achievement in this police grant settlement is far more helpful to police authorities than many hon. Members feared it would be when the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill was introduced. I remember telling the House on that occasion that it is all very well giving chief constables the flexibility to decide how many
  974
  police officers to recruit, or to decide to spend more money on technology and new equipment such as computers or new police cars—many of them will take those decisions—but we must ensure that there will be at least an inflation-linked increase in total police spending or, better still, a real terms increase. We now have a national real terms increase.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out that the single factor which undermines police spending power most is the vexed problem of police pensions. The formula cannot address adequately the fact that more and more police forces are having to contribute significantly to officer retirement—mostly on the ground of ill-health. We must find a better solution to that problem.
  I conclude by admonishing the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who said that a worst estimate under the new formula and this settlement might mean that there will be 900 fewer police officers. That scenario has also been suggested by the Association of Chief Police Officers. Chief constables will have to decide their spending priorities.
  Has the hon. Gentleman come to the House in the past 15 years and congratulated the Government on the fact that there are 16,000 more police and civilian officers and that more money has been spent on the police service than on any other part of the public sector? He has never done that and he never will. The settlement demonstrates that support for the police service is a Government priority and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State on securing such a good deal for the police service.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) showed remarkable cheek in attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and trying to defend the Government's record. Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that he, like all Conservative Members, fought the last general election promising an increase of 1,000 police officers that year but that the Government delivered a cut of 401? The hon. Gentleman and Ministers should apologise to the House, rather than criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.
  The House should bear in mind the background to the report. The Conservatives have been deeply damaged by their failure to combat crime. Recorded crime has more than doubled and crimes of violence continue to soar. Specific victims and whole communities feel neglected. The British crime survey shows that actual crime has been rising two and a half times as fast as recorded crime since 1991. The best that the Home Secretary can offer is to walk with a purpose and to cut compensation for victims of the most horrific and violent attacks, including police officers injured on duty.
  The last two Home Secretaries have sought to attack everyone in a blatant attempt to escape the blame that is rightly put at the Government's door. Those at the front line in our prisons and probation officers—who are at the front line in communities—are among the regular targets in this long-running farce. Above all, the police have been under constant attack on a variety of fronts, from the ill-judged Sheehy review to the attempt to take central

  975
  control over the police enshrined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. There has been continued insecurity.
  The Government have broken their promises, and the report before the House shows their failure to produce a fair, transparent formula for setting police grant in the coming year.
  There are some positive, welcome points. The publication of standard spending assessments for police authorities in Wales flushed out both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales. We pleaded with them to end the secrecy surrounding the Welsh figures and demanded that they got their act together. In recent years neither the police grant nor cash to local authorities has been adequate, and the increase in cash for South Wales police this year—the first of transparency—shows just how right we were.
  Our communities have been condemned to two years of turmoil and fear, while police officers have felt neglected and undervalued. Transparency has at last forced those Secretaries of State to accept that Welsh Labour Members and councillors were right and the cash levels inadequate, and to put right that iniquity.
  Even this week came a curious change, as those same Ministers had to admit that they got it wrong in Dyfed-Powys and north Wales. I am glad that the Government have listened since last November and increased the cash for those forces, but where is the money to be found? The overall police grant is to be redistributed, and the Welsh Office sum will go direct to police authorities—but the figure precepted on local authorities will have to come from their already stretched budgets at a time when we need our councils to increase and extend their work on crime prevention, protecting the youth service and partnership with the police on crime-cutting initiatives.
  Given that only one crime in 50 ends up being punished in court, and only one in 750 or more ends in a custodial sentence, the capacity for developing local partnerships cannot he underestimated. I do not believe that the welcome increase in cash for the police has been compensated by the cash given to local authorities. That last-minute change tells us that the formula is not dependable and transparent.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is aware of the concerns of the Police Federation of England and Wales, to which the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) referred. The federation says that up to 1,500 police officer and civilian posts could he lost by the new formula. If chief constables and the federation are not assured by the formula, how can we be assured?
  Mr. Michael: I acknowledge the strength of the case made by my hon. Friend, of which the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) is clearly aware—although the hon. Gentleman almost apologised for making the points that he did. I understand his embarrassment. The hon. Gentleman referred to a 3 per cent. increase, which is shown by the figures to be more accurate than 4 per cent. Given a 3.4 per cent. gross domestic product deflator, the need to construct a reserve fund, the burden of unfunded pensions and the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), a 3 per cent. settlement is hardly generous.
  976
  The proportion of budgets taken by pensions in 1990–91 was 6.8 per cent. of the total. By 1994–95 they are expected to take more than 9 per cent.; and the actuarial studies show that that trend will continue well into the next century.
  When the draft formula was seen in the autumn and there was an outcry over the figures, we were told that they were for exemplification only. "You don't like the figures," said the Home Secretary. "Okay, here are some different ones." If the formula is satisfactory, should not it produce a dependable outcome, and not be subject to major fluctuations as the Home Office wrestles with it and tries to squeeze out of it a result that makes sense? It is not good enough to have uncertainty for the future and the likelihood of large fluctuations from year to year. The Minister even acknowledged that they were likely.
  Trained and experienced police officers cannot he turned on one year and off the next like a tap. The formula should not be open to distortion; it should not need major intervention by the Home Secretary each year; and it should allow sensible planning by chief constables and police authorities.
  Mr. Lord rose—
  Mr. Michael: Today's report fails to provide us with a formula that is dependable, transparent and stable from year to year. That is what the police and the community want. The problem is not new. We have pressed successive Home Secretaries to treat the matter with the seriousness and urgency that it deserves. This report should be marked: "Could do better—must do better—try again." That is the signal that we will give the Home Secretary through our votes tonight, in the best interests of the police and the public.
  11.36 pm
  Mr. Maclean: It is perhaps not surprising that tonight we have heard more from those who believe that their local police force will be disadvantaged than from those who are about to see the benefits of the application of a new objective system of funding the police. We have also seen the Labour party wriggling, trying to justify voting against an increase for the police service of more than 4 per cent., and using as an excuse its concern about police numbers. Labour was the party that left office with the force 8,000 bobbies under establishment. Police officers were leaving the force in disgust, at the rate of 5,000 a year, because the Labour Government refused to pay them a decent living wage.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that we need some mechanism for dealing with exceptional circumstances. He mentioned some. I must tell him that we have such a mechanism. Any police service can approach the Government, and if the criteria are met, it will get 100 per cent. funding for any exceptional circumstances. That was last used in the right hon. Gentleman's county; following the Newcastle riots, Northumberland benefited from its special approach to the Home Office.
  The right hon. Gentleman also bandied around the word "cuts". Comparing a settlement of as much as 10 per cent. with the budgets that police chiefs or authorities would really like for next year—if money were no object—arid calling the difference a cut is just not sustainable. All police services in England and Wales have had an increase in their

  977
  resources next year. Some have had considerably more. Even those which are gaining a lot would have liked more. The difference, I repeat, is not a cut.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), in a considerate speech, pointed out the difficulties that he believes Lincolnshire will face. I have met delegations from there, as well as from many other authorities. The formula is based on need. It attempts to distribute resources to forces on that basis. I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that we will look carefully at sparsity factors. I am heartened by the evidence supplied by various rural forces, which have sought to identify a special police funding element based on rural sparsity. If that is statistically valid, I will be happy to build it into the formula.
  My hon. Friend also asked me about the capping limit. If the police authority sets a budget above the cap, the Government do not reject it out of hand. We are bound to examine the argument made: it has made every effort to live within the cap but cannot reasonably do so. In those circumstances, the Government must decide whether to invite the House to confirm the cap, to accept the budget level established by the authority or to propose a new capping limit between the two. That is the official and legal position.
  Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend recall that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), in the course of his speech, misled the House by suggesting that last year I supported a cut in my local county council's SSA? Is my hon. Friend aware that, in fact, that county council received a substantial increase in its SSA last year?
  Mr. Maclean: Of course I am aware of that. My hon. Friend is right to point it out.
  I reject the argument made by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara)—that the effect of the fund on Merseyside will be catastrophic. Everyone knows that Merseyside is a well-funded force and is highly successful against crime. We believe that its element of funding this year is adequate and consistent with the need for policing in Merseyside.
  I welcome the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who pointed out that the Labour party failed to take account of the 16,000 extra police officers in Britain today—it is more than when the Labour Government left office.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) made some interesting points. I welcome the fact that the Police Federation welcomes the 3 per cent. extra—taking into account the damping grant, the 4 per cent. extra. I understand the concern about manning levels, but I must point out that we shall no longer be fixing police establishments. I cannot give categorical guarantees about the numbers that any police force will have. That will depend entirely on the decisions taken by chief officers. My hon. Friends must treat all the figures cautiously.
  I perfectly well understand—it is not a criticism—that some police forces have prepared a menu of the changes that they might make, whether they might freeze some establishment levels or close some stations. I have seen some of them touted around as a collective list of all the things that will happen. That is not the case, and my hon. Friends should study the lists carefully to get at the facts.
  Mr. Lord: Like many Conservative Members, I understand the great difficulty in being precise and totally fair about the matter, and I very much welcome my hon. Friend's words when he says that he is prepared to look at the sparsity factor again. Will he please look, if not this year, at least in subsequent years, at the huge distorting effect that has become apparent in the debate of the funding of police pensions?
  Mr. Maclean: The funding of police pensions is a key area for us to examine, both to try to find a solution to a fully funded pension scheme perhaps 30 or 40 years hence, and to look at the formula for next year and subsequent years.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that we shall look at sick retirements in the police service. The Government's campaign to increase the number of specials from 20,000 to 30,000 was established long before the present funding settlement, and we intend to pursue that campaign, irrespective of the number of regular police officers that we have.
  I now deal with the hon. Member for Blackburn. It is extraordinary—my hon. Friends will be quite surprised to hear this—that one of the official excuses that the Labour party is using tonight to vote against the motion is that it is worried about a possible drop of 400 in the number of police officers between two carefully selected months last year. The months were carefully selected to show that when police officers go to training schools, the number in the service, obviously, increases. If one picks a month before the training schools have an intake, one will see that the service is short by a higher number of officers. To hear the Labour party complaining about 400 police officers when the service was short by 8,000 when it was in power really sticks in the craw. The Conservative party will be judged not by a selective period of four months last year but on our law and order record over the past I5 years. Those were 15 years of increasing the number of police officers in Britain; there are 16,000 more regular officers and 16,000 more civilian staff, with the net result that we have more constables than we had last year.
  The Labour party likes to try to get hooked on the overall number of police officers. It seems to ignore the fact that because of the restructuring that has taken place in police services resulting in fewer senior ranks, in the first 10 months of last year we had 600 more constables than ever before. That is the Government's record on law and order.
  It is just not believable for the Opposition to go into the Lobby tonight to vote against a settlement for the police service of more than 4 per cent.—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of the debate, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order 119 December]:—
  The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 248.

  Division No. 60]

  [11.45 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Ashby, David

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Atkins, Robert

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Amess, David

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Baldry, Tony

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  979

  Bates, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gallie, Phil

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bendall, Vivian

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Booth, Hartley

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hague, William

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, Sir John

  Burt, Alistair

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butcher, John

  Harris, David

  Butler, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heald, Oliver

  Cash, William

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hendry, Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Robert

  Clappison, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Congdon, David

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

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Delvin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dicks, Terry

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knapman, Roger

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Duncan, Alan

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Knox, Sir David

  Dunn, Bob

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Elletson, Harold

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evennett, David

  Lidington, David

  Faber, David

  Lightbown, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lord, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Madel, Sir David

  980

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sims, Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mans, Keith

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Martand, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Marlow, Tony

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mates, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Sproat, Iain

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Merchant Piers

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mills, Iain

  Steen, Anthony

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gadling)

  Stephen, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Stern, Michael

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Stewart, Allan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Streeter, Gary

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Sumberg, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Sweeney, Walter

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Sykes, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thomason, Roy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Norris, Steve

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Thumham, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Page, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Paice, James

  Tredinnick, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Trotter, Neville

  Pawsey, James

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pickles Eric

  Viggers, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Walden, George

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Waller, Gary

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Ward, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Richards, Rod

  Watts, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wells, Bowen

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Whitney, Ray

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Whittingdale, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Willetts, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wilshire, David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sackville, Tom

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Wolfson, Mark

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barron, Kevin

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Battle, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Allen, Graham

  Beggs, Roy

  Alton, David

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bell, Stuart

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Austin-Walker, John

  Benton, Joe

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Barnes, Harry

  Berry, Roger

  981

  Betts, Clive

  Hall, Mike

  Blunkett, David

  Hanson, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bradley, Keith

  Harvey, Nick

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Henderson, Doug

  Burden, Richard

  Heppell, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hood, Jimmy

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Chidgey, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Church, Judith

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hutton, John

  Clelland, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ingram, Adam

  Coffey, Ann

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jamieson, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Keen, Alan

  Darling, Alistair

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Davidson, Ian

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Denham, John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lewis, Terry

  Dixon, Don

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dobson, Frank

  Livingstone, Ken

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dowd, Jim

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAllion, John

  Eastham, Ken

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Enright, Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Etherington, Bill

  Macdonald, Calum

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McFall, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  McNamara, Kevin

  Flynn, Paul

  MacShane, Denis

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Madden, Max

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Maddock, Diana

  Foulkes, George

  Mahon, Alice

  Fraser, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Galloway, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Gapes, Mike

  Maxton, John

  George, Bruce

  Meacher, Michael

  Gerrard, Neil

  Meale, Alan

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michael, Alun

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Milburn, Alan

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Miller, Andrew

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Graham, Thomas

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morley, Elliot

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gunnel, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  982

  Mudie, George

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  O'Brien, Wiliam (Normanton)

  Snape, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Soley, Clive

  Olner, Bill

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Neill, Martin

  Spellar, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Parry, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Patchett, Terry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pearson, Ian

  Stevenson, George

  Pendry, Tom

  Stott, Roger

  Pickthall, Colin

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Pike, Peter L

  Straw, Jack

  Pope, Greg

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Powel, Ray (Ogmore)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Timms, Stephen

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dennis

  Purchase, Ken

  Tyler, Paul

  Raynsford, Nick

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Reid, Dr John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rendel, David

  Wareing, Robert N

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Watson, Mike

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wilson, Brian

  Rooney, Terry

  Wise, Audrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr. Stephen Byers and

  Short, Clare

  Mr. Peter Mandelson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 164), which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.

  HOME AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Edward Garnier be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. Walter Sweeney be added to the Committee. — [Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  ADMINISTRATION
  Ordered,
  That Sir David Madel be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr. Derek Conway be added to the Committee. — [Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Newbury Bypass
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willeas.]
  11.57 pm
  Sir David Mitchell: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for the opportunity to raise in this Adjournment debate the matter of the Newbury bypass and the delay in its start. In doing so, I am supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), and by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who I see in his place across the Chamber.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads will reply to the debate. I should like to take him briefly through crucial aspects of the matter. I shall give, first, what I would call a geographical description of the position of Newbury; secondly, the history of events; thirdly, the economic case for an early start; and, fourthly, the environmental aspects as they affect my constituents. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Newbury will talk about the effects on his constituency.
  The town occupies a pivotal position on the A34, a road that is designated as Euro-route E05 and that has, as its southern approach, thre and a half miles of single carriageway from Tothill. It is the only single carriageway section of the route between Madrid and Glasgow. We are talking about a Euro-route, yet there are at this point three and a half miles of 7 metre-wide single track.
  The average daily flow of traffic is 26,000 vehicles on what is known as the new town strait, the bit south of Newbury. On the dual carriageway part in Newbury itself, the daily average flow is some 50,600 vehicles. That figure almost meets the Treasury requirements for an M road. One should bear it in mind that they are average figures and that within those figures there are peaks and troughs. Although, during the troughs, not many people are trying to get through Newbury in a reasonable time, the delay is intolerable in peak hours. I am talking about five-mile traffic jams to the south of Newbury and five-mile traffic jams to the north.
  The history of the bypass is that there have been two public inquires, one in 1980 and one in 1988. The Department's consultants examined no fewer than 39 possible routes. There was widespread consultation, and the second inquiry took no less than five months and involved 2,000 hours of examination and 150 witnesses. All possible opinions were trawled, and all alternative routes were examined. The inquiry recommended the western bypass.
  Inevitably, there was—and still is—a small vocal minority opposed to having the bypass at all, and especially on the western route. Of course I respect the desire to preserve the environment but—I say this as an aside—it is interesting to note that, on his arrival, the inspector was at first against the western route on environmental grounds but, as the inquiry proceeded, he found that the Department's case got stronger and more convincing. That is why he finally found in favour of it. Also as an aside, 6,000 petitioners expressed their approval.
  At the 1988 inquiry, the Department of Transport estimated that there would he 21,000 vehicles on the single carriageway south of the town by the year 2000. The reality is that there are 25,000 vehicles now, so the
  984
  expectations of traffic going through the town and the need for the bypass were substantially understated at the time of the public inquiry, which found in favour of the western route.
  I deal now with the economic aspects of the case. The A34 is an arterial link between Birmingham and the country's manufacturing base there and the ports of Southampton, Portsmouth and Poole. North of Newbury, there is often a five-mile traffic jam involving vehicles heading to the coast, and 19.5 per cent. of them are lorries, because of the road's strategic importance as a route to the ports. The five-mile traffic jam heading north to the midlands comprises vehicles carrying raw materials and semi-finished goods needed by industry, and cannot represent anything other than a substantial and unnecessary burden on industry.
  I have stood in the Minister's shoes, and I am aware of the Department of Transport's problems with the Treasury when it comes to securing the resources that one would like for many desirable forms of expenditure. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can use the economic cost as a strong argument so that the Treasury accedes to the resources needed.
  I have been talking to the Confederation of British Industry about the matter, and it thinks that it is reasonable to argue that
  "congestion on the A34 adds millions of pounds every year to the costs to businesses who use the road, not only in the South but also in the Midlands and the North."
  That, too, is part of the economic cost.
  I turn from that to the environmental case. I accept that there is an environmental cost to a bypass. Any route inevitably incurs that. But there is also an environmental plus for Newbury, because of the reduction of congestion, pollution, vibration, damage to buildings and accidents involving people as well as vehicles. There is an environmental advantage for my constituents, because at present, they cannot get in and out of Newbury at the times when they want to travel. It is all right when nobody is commuting to work or hack. At the slack time, there is no great difficulty. But when people want to travel, there is considerable delay.
  Many of my constituents live on roads immediately adjacent to the A34 south of Newbury. Because of the traffic jam, they are virtually sealed into the roads on which they live and cannot get out to get into the traffic to move either north or south. That is a considerable complication for people trapped there.
  For all the reasons—the strategic block on a Euro-route, the history of the public inquiries, and the economic and environmental cases—it is essential that that bypass should proceed, and proceed shortly. The Secretary of State has referred the matter to the Highways Agency and told me that he wishes to he quite sure the proposed bypass is the right solution, and he has asked the Highways Agency to review all practical options.
  I recognise that we have a new Secretary of State for Transport, who cares deeply about the environment. I can well understand his wanting to ensure that such a major scheme involving a substantial bypass has been totally and thoroughly investigated. But the bypass has been through two public inquiries, as I said. It has been examined critically, and every alternative route has been examined critically. So it is difficult to discern what can

  985
  be discovered at this late hour as an alternative route. That is the heart of the problem which I draw to the attention of the House and the Minister.
  If the Secretary of State had said that his budget was so constrained, that it was part of a national effort to get a balanced budget so that we did not get inflation again and did not enter a Lawson boom and bust cycle, that he did not have the money, and that the bypass must be postponed for a year, we would grumble, but we would accept it as not unreasonable. However, we face the prospect of an alternative route.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the position that the road is to be moved only a couple of yards. Even if that is so, we need to hold a fresh public inquiry. That means a five-year delay, which would be totally intolerable against the background of figures which I have given to the House.
  I plead with the Minister: if he cannot give us an answer, will he at least take the problem away? Will he recognise that it is very important on commercial, economic, and environmental grounds and because of the undertakings given in the past that we know the time scale for a decision and where we stand on the future of the road? I now hope that the hon. Member for Newbury may be able to join the debate.
  An extraordinary letter has reached my hand. It was sent from the Highways Agency to the director of development services of Newbury district council, and it states:
  "If even minor changes are made to the route new legal Orders may be needed. These could take some years to go through the statutory processes, so for the purposes of development control I recommend that we now work on the basis that there will be no additional capacity through Newbury before 2003."
  That may be in the totally different context of a rather conservative approach to advice on planning and development, but it is a frightening suggestion from the Highways Agency. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to clarify the position and the status of that document.
  12.10 am
  Mr. David Rended: I thank the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) for inviting me to join him in supporting the idea that the Newbury bypass should be constructed with the minimum possible delay. I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to take part in this Adjournment debate, having already had the opportunity to take part in an Adjournment debate on the subject on the very afternoon that the infamous decision was announced to postpone yet again the start of the construction of that road.
  The hon. Gentleman has already made many of the arguments in favour of the Newbury bypass on a general ground, and I wish to concentrate particularly, as he suggested I should, on the effects on the town of Newbury itself—that lovely old market town which lies right at the heart of my constituency. I shall start by talking about the effects on business in the town, because they are very important.
  Businesses in Newbury are, without question, suffering badly from the effects of the current hold-ups in the town. Clients and customers are unwilling to risk coming into
  986
  Newbury town to visit businesses because they are aware of the huge delays and hold-ups which happen all too often in and around the town.
  Even more important, I want to talk about the environment in Newbury and the effects on the people of Newbury—the people who are suffering day after day from the pollution that is spewed out by the cars and lorries moving all too slowly straight through the centre of our lovely town. Those people are, perhaps, children in school playgrounds. They might be people going shopping, or people going about their business, visiting banks and building societies or whatever, in Newbury. Those people are suffering from the noxious fumes and the pollution that is being spewed out at present all over our town.
  Let me quote a letter which I received recently from a young girl who tells me that, for the past two years, she has been an asthmatic. Until last summer, she had been able to come off her medication for two months. She told me that it took her one and a half hours to travel the seven miles through Newbury. She said:
  "My breathing got very bad and by the time I got to my destination I was having a full blown asthma attack, needing to double up medications and start taking the steroids again … I cannot be the only one who suffers in this way due to traffic fumes … So why are the Government enforcing a growing number of the local and passing population of Newbury to suffer in this way?"
  That is not a politician trying to get a bypass for the town: it is a young girl just at the start of her life, looking for some way to overcome the health problems she meets as a result of the dreadful traffic in our town.
  Let me remind the Minister what he himself said in a letter written on 27 October last year:
  "I recently visited Newbury and saw for myself the pressing need for a bypass. A bypass is needed to remove the noisy smelly traffic from the town."
  The Secretary of State says that he has to review all the options, but all the options have been reviewed time and again. As the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West has said, inspectors' reports have shown that all possible options have been reviewed. We cannot simply go back to square one yet again.
  The route that has been chosen is the least environmentally damaging route possible. The bypass will bring huge environmental benefits to the town of Newbury. How many more inquiries must we have? How many Secretaries of State do we have to persuade that this really is the right route?
  At present, Secretaries of State are changed every year and a half. Every new Secretary of State demands a new inquiry, which takes a year. We then have a year to set up the new tenders to get the work done, but the next Secretary of State will be in place before the tender can be signed again. It could go on for ever. Each new Secretary of State makes a new decision. That is not good enough.
  How many more Secretaries of State will do this? How long will it last? Will it really take until the millennium and beyond before we achieve our bypass for Newbury? Newbury needs its bypass, and it needs it now.
  12.15 am
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) on securing a

  987
  debate on this important subject which has invoked much interest in the House and outside. Over the years, my hon. Friend has taken a close personal interest in the A34 Newbury bypass, as his speech to the House today has shown. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the points which he and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made.
  As I live in Berkshire and represent a constituency at the other end of the county, the congestion problems in Newbury are well known to me, as my letter of 27 October, from which the hon. Member for Newbury quoted, indicates. I believe that there is an urgent need to find a solution to the problems of congestion in Newbury and the surrounding area to which my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman referred in graphic terms.
  It may be helpful if I say a little about the background to the scheme and the decision to review it. As my hon. Friend said, this scheme has been the subject of full public consultation and two public inquiries held by independent inspectors. The decision to proceed with the western bypass route was therefore not arrived at quickly or easily.
  The environmental sensitivity of the area around Newbury has rightly been an important issue in considering the route options for the scheme. Indeed, most of the 1988 public inquiry was concerned with the environmental effects of the western bypass proposals, which were considered very carefully and taken into account before the decision to proceed was taken.
  Despite this very thorough environmental assessment of the proposals, there has been some criticism that a formal environmental statement under EC directive 85/337/EEC was not published for this scheme. However, the Government have long held the view that the directive, which is essentially concerned with procedural requirements relating to the granting of development consent, does not apply to cases in which the application for development consent was made before the date of entry into force of the directive, as indeed was the case with the A34 Newbury bypass.
  The Government disagree with the European Commission's interpretation of the law on this matter, and have explained their position fully to the Commission. It has also been argued that, since the decision to proceed with the scheme was taken in July 1990, there have been a number of new factors which are of such significance that the western bypass route should be looked at again. These include the proposed designation by English Nature of new sites of special scientific interest in the Kennet and Lamborn valleys across which the proposed western bypass route would pass.
  In a position statement published by English Nature on 9 September last year, it said that it had not defined a boundary for the proposed sites, although an "area of search" had been identified within which it is likely that the final boundaries of the designated sites will fall. Nevertheless, English Nature has made it clear that the rivers were being proposed for notification as SSSIs in the full knowledge that the Newbury bypass could be constructed through the "area of search".
  It has also been suggested that the proposals are in breach of the European Commission's habitat and species directive. To date, no designations under this directive have been made.
  Notwithstanding this, we are conscious of our obligations and, in the context of the western bypass route, we have been taking appropriate action to ensure
  988
  that any endangered species are protected by approved means. In this connection, we have been working closely with English Nature to ensure that the requirements of all relevant legislation are met.
  Some concern has also been expressed about the effects of the proposed western bypass route on the battle of Newbury sites. I fully understand that concern, although both those sites have suffered serious encroachment from the urban expansion of Newbury in the recent past. Nevertheless, the proposed route would cross only the western extremities of the battlefields and, contrary to some people's assertions, would not destroy them.
  The channel tunnel has also been cited as a new development, since the 1990 decision on the bypass, which should be taken into account before we proceed with the scheme. I assure the House that we have carefully considered the effect of the channel tunnel on the use of the A34. We have concluded that the tunnel would have no significant effect on the needs of heavy goods traffic using that trunk route.
  Finally, it has been suggested that concerns raised by the National Rivers Authority have not been adequately addressed. Since it was established under the Water Act 1989, the NRA has been involved in discussions on the design of the scheme. Among other things, the discussions focused on the disposal of surface water and the proposed structures for the new road.
  The NRA has expressed its concern about the risk of flooding and the effect on the ecology of the River Kennet and Lamborn corridors. Having considered those representations and commissioned further studies, we have been satisfied that further changes to the geometric criteria of the bridges over the rivers are unnecessary.
  The House may be assured, therefore, that all the legitimate concerns that have been raised have been properly addressed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants to be sure that we have the right solution before proceeding. I understand the frustration of the hen. Member for Newbury, who asked what would happen if every succeeding Secretary of State reached the same point and wanted another review.
  It is not unreasonable, however, that my right hon Friend should be satisfied that the scheme that he is authorising is the best possible solution before he takes decisions that will have a long-term effect on the area and will commit substantial sums of money. For that reason, he asked the Highways Agency to look again at the plans for the bypass, review the options for relieving congestion in Newbury and report hack to him as soon as possible.
  The review is being undertaken by an independent team within the Highways Agency, comprising staff not previously associated with the project. They will reconsider the published route and other practical alternative options. All factors relevant to the choice of route will be considered.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West said, a great deal of time and resources have been spent in public consultation and public inquiries to find a satisfactory solution to the problems of congestion on the A34 through Newbury. It has been suggested that the decision to put the scheme on hold renders all that abortive. That is not the case. The scheme has not been abandoned, or cancelled, and the statutory orders for the western bypass route remain in force. The scheme is en hold.

  989
  I fully recognise the importance of the A34 route, however, and the problems of congestion in Newbury. I also understand the concern that has been expressed by local businesses and residents of Newbury and by a number of right hon. and hon. Members of this House, both in the Chamber and outside, about the delay that the review is causing.
  That is why we have asked the Highways Agency to carry out the further review as a matter of urgency. I assure the House that another announcement will be made as soon as possible after my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has considered the further report. I cannot put a precise date on that, but I assure the House and my hon. Friend that there will be no undue delay in completing the review, or in putting matters before my right hon. Friend for a decision.
  There has been much speculation about the reasons for putting the scheme on hold. I assure the House that there is nothing sinister in this. It is my practice and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to visit the sites of proposed rail or road developments, so that we can see them for ourselves and make our assessment in addition to the professional advice that we are given. There is nothing sinister about that.
  The decision to put the scheme on hold was not taken in response to the royal commission report on environmental pollution or the report by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment on induced traffic, although the Government welcomed both reports and are responding to them. All the schemes within the roads programme will be the subject of assessment under the new modelling techniques, which we have adapted in the light of the advice from SACTRA. The relevance of the SACTRA analysis will be considered case by case.
  I reject the idea that the decision to review the scheme is "a victory for the green lobby". We mounted a strong and successful defence against the recent application to the High Court for judicial review to establish the fact that we were legally entitled to implement the scheme, which had completed all statutory procedures, and the court's decision fully vindicated our action. That is an important point of principle.
  990
  My hon. Friend mentioned a letter from the Highways Agency to Newbury district council planning department, and asked about the implications of reviewing the scheme for planning applications. Clearly, any planning application for development which depends on the provision of the bypass must be considered premature until the review is completed and my right hon. Friend makes a decision.
  However, it is not helpful for me or the Highways Agency to speculate about alternative schemes—particularly not alternatives that might involve a mere tweaking of a route, which could lead to consequential and substantial delays—or to speculate about the time scale.
  The scheme is on hold pending the outcome of the review. It has not been abandoned, and it should he understood that it is just as probable that the outcome will be that the western bypass scheme will proceed as that my right hon. Friend will prefer another option. I hope that that clarifies the position.
  I hope that my hon. Friend and the hon Member for Newbury will conclude from my remarks that we are fully seized of the concerns of their constituents and others, and that we shall take forward the review process with all due speed and without undue delay.
  Sir David Mitchell: The Minister said that all relevant factors will be considered. Will he assure me that "relevant factors" include the potential delay factor of changing the route?
  Mr. Watts: Yes, because one of the major elements of assessing the cost benefit of all road schemes is the cost of traffic congestion, particularly its effects on business. A delay that adds to the date on which a scheme can be implemented is clearly an important part of that process.
  So there will be no undue delay. We arc not simply seeking ways of gaining time to no good effect. The reasons for my right hon. Friend's decision are as stated. There is no sinister motive or hidden agenda. He wants to ensure that, before we go ahead with a major scheme that will set the pattern of road traffic through and around Newbury for many years ahead, we have the right solution.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve midnight.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judicial Powers
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many times judges have used their power of arrest in cases of contempt of court in each of the last three years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department does not collect data about arrests which are made under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Such information for the last three years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and its accuracy could not be guaranteed.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is no record that N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. has been involved in any privatisation programmes for the Lord Chancellor's Department.

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

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As far as I am able to ascertain, no officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department met representatives of Ian Greer Associates on 26 January, either formally or informally, to discuss matters relating to their clients' interests.

TREASURY

  Nirex
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor to the Exchequer what will be the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement of the expenditure on the Nirex rock characterisation facility.

  Mr. Aitken
  Nirex's estimate of the cost of constructing the rock characterisation facility is approximately £120 million at 1992 prices. This will be 552
  funded by Nirex's public sector shareholders, whose external financing requirements are included within the PSBR.

  N.M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Sir George Young
  The table lists the sales conducted by the Treasury in which N. M. Rothschild was appointed and the roles to which it was appointed. The fees paid to firms appointed within the privatisation programme are commercially confidential.

  Privatisation by Her Majesty's Treasury involving N. M. Rothschild

  Company

  Year

  N. M. Rothschild's role(s)

  Britoil

  1985

  Underwriter

  BP

  1987

  Financial adviser Underwriter

  BT

  1991

  French syndicate member

  BT

  1993

  Global syndicate member

  Public Expenditure Round
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the(a) exchange of letters between spending Departments and the Treasury, (b) official level bilateral meetings, (c) ministerial level bilateral meeting and (d) the EDX process—the Ministerial Committee on Public Expenditure—will take place during 1995 as part of the public expenditure round; and what part the representatives of local government will play in this public expenditure round.

  Mr. Aitken
  The detailed timetable for the 1995 public expenditure survey has not yet been set. The process starts in the spring, but Treasury and spending Departments are in regular contact throughout. Most of EDX's meetings take place in September and October.

  Ministers from Departments with an interest in local government and their officials have regular discussions on service and expenditure issues with the local authority associations and individual authorities, and consider written representations from them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and other interested Ministers meet the chairs of the local authority associations at the Central Council on Local Government Finance in July and October. Ministers take account of the views expressed by these means, along with those of other groups, in making public expenditure decisions.

HOMEDEPARTMENT

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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
  553
  staff they have required which were not required when their operations were within his Department; how many of them publish 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. Howard
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers employed in the Metropolitan police area have been sacked for sexual or racial discrimination in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Sexual discrimination is not a specific disciplinary offence. One officer was dismissed in 1992 for discreditable conduct, following a series of allegations of sexual discrimination; there were no comparable cases in 1993 or 1994.

  Racially discriminatory behaviour is an offence under paragraph 9 of schedule 1 to the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985. No officers were dismissed on this ground in 1992, 1993 or 1994. From the information that has been collected, it is not possible to say whether an allegation of racially discriminatory behaviour may have been a contributory factor in some cases of dismissal on other grounds, such as discreditable conduct, misconduct towards a member of a police force, or abuse of authority.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the months of(a) October, (b) November and (c) December 1994 officers of the Metropolitan police have been unable to attend magistrates courts in order to give evidence against those charged with offences due to budget limitations of the force; and on how many occasions in each month the persons concerned were discharged and no further proceedings taken.

  Mr. Maclean
  None, in each case.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints of sexual or racial discrimination have been made against(a) policemen and (b) policewomen employed in the Metropolitan police area in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following figures refer to complaints for which investigations were completed. It is not possible to provide the information in the form requested during the year in question.

  In 1992, 205 complaints of racially discriminating behaviour against Metropolitan police officers were investigated, and in 1993, 198 complaints. In some cases, the complaint may have involved more than one officer. It is not possible to identify the numbers of male and female officers involved.

  In 1994, the latest figures available indicate that a total of 287 complaints of racially discriminating behaviour were the subject of completed investigations. These related to 315 officers, of whom 259 were male and 43 female. The sex of the remaining 13 officers has not been recorded.

  Figures for complaints of sexually discriminating behaviour are not collected centrally.

  Policing of Protests (Costs)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation is available from EEC funds for the policing costs of enforcing EEC regulations against the protests in the United Kingdom; and if he will request support from EEC funds for police action at British ports in respect of(a) live calf exports and (b) fishermen's protests.

  Mr. Maclean
  Law enforcement is an area where the Community rightly has no competence and there is therefore no provision in the Community budget for such expenditure.

  Policing, Shoreham
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra funds he will be making available to the West Sussex police authority for the extra policing required at Shoreham port; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) on 19 January,Official Report, column 672.

  Prison Sentences
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prison sentences given by the courts are of the statutory maximum.

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

  Compensation Orders, Newcastle and Gateshead
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many compensation orders were made by(a) Gateshead magistrates court in 1993, (b) the Gateshead magistrates court in 1994, (c) the Central Newcastle magistrates court in 1993, (d) the Central Newcastle magistrates court in 1994, (e) the Newcastle Crown court in 1993 and (f) the Newcastle Crown court in 1994;

  (2) what is the total value of compensation orders which remain unpaid made by (a) the Gateshead magistrates court in 1993, (b) the Gateshead magistrates court in 1994, (c) the Central Newcastle magistrates court in 1993, (d) the Central Newcastle magistrates court in 1994, (e) the Newcastle Crown court in 1993 and (f) the Newcastle Crown court in 1994;

  (3) what was the total value of compensation orders made by (a) the Gateshead magistrates court in 1993, (b) the Gateshead magistrates court in 1994, (c) the Central Newcastle magistrates court in 1993, (d) the Central Newcastle magistrates court in 1994, (e) the Newcastle Crown court in 1993 and (f) the Newcastle Crown court in 1994;

  (4) how many compensation orders remain unpaid made by (a) the Gateshead magistrates court in 1993, (b) the Gateshead magistrates court in 1994, (c) the Central Newcastle magistrates court in 1993, (d) the Central Newcastle magistrates court in 1994, (e) the Newcastle Crown court in 1993 and (f) the Newcastle Crown court in 1994.
  555
  Mr. Mclean
  Information held centrally, which is given in the table, shows the number of compensation orders issued and the value of the amounts made for 1992 and 1993—the latest available figures. 1994 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Information is not collected centrally on the number and amounts of compensation orders that remain unpaid. However, for further information I would refer the hon. Member to the footnotes of the table given in my reply on 17 January, column 377.

  Compensation order data for Gateshead and Newcastle magistrates courts and Newcastle Crown court 1992 and 1993

  Court/Year

  Number of compensation orders

  Amount issues £

  Gateshead Magistrates court

  1992

  512

  65,400

  1993

  467

  63,600

  Newcastle Magistrates court

  1992

  1,094

  125,600

  1993

  1,078

  124,000

  Newcastle Crown court

  1992

  196

  90,000

  1993

  136

  99,700

  Source: Home office.

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

  Mr. Howard
  On 25 January 1995, 229 members of staff in the Home Office and its agencies were registered disabled, representing 0.5 per cent. of all staff; a further 146–0.13 per cent. of staff—have declared themselves as disabled, but have not registered as such. There are likely to be others who have not responded to the Department's voluntary surveys.

  Mr. Daya Pal Singh
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision is going to be made on the asylum application first lodged in October 1986 by Mr. Daya Pal Singh, ref: IMG/94 330/972/1(5); when Mr. Singh was last interviewed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Mr. Singh was last interviewed on 19 October 1994 and produced a number of additional documents which required translation before the application could be fully and properly considered. We expect to make a decision shortly. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as Mr. Singh has been notified.

  National Missing Persons Bureau
  Mr. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children under the age of 16 years have been registered with the National Missing Persons Bureau since its opening.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not held in the form requested. From the opening of the bureau on 18 March 556
  1994 to 31 December 1994, a total of 2,363 persons under the age of 18 years were reported missing. Of these, 115 were still missing at 31 December.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Mr. Howard
  No work on a privatisation programme has been undertaken for the Home Office by N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.

  Mr. Mahwood Hussein Mettan
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column, 695, relating to the papers relating to Mahmood Mettan's execution at Cardiff gaol in 1952, if he will give further consideration to the explanation given for the routine destruction of the relevant papers in 1986, having regard to the discovery of the papers in the Public Record Office; and if he will place a copy of those papers in the Library;

  (2) if he will supply a copy of all or part of the papers relating to the trial and execution of Mahmood Mattan in 1952 to solicitors acting on the family's behalf in pursuit of their request for a posthumous pardon.

  Mr. Howard
  No. Further inquiries within my Department and the Public Record Office have confirmed the destruction of Home Office records of this case.

  I understand that copies of documents from the Lord Chancellor's Department file at the Public Record Office were sent to the solicitors acting for Mr. Mattan's widow in September 1994.

  Betting
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to amend the law on betting licensing.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have today issued a consultation document on possible changes to the law on betting permits and licences and track betting licences in Great Britain.

  Subject to the consultation, the Government intend to make an order under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to implement these changes. It is hoped to bring the draft order before Parliament in spring 1995.

  The purpose of the consultation document is to give details of the proposed changes and to seek the views of interested parties. Briefly, it is proposed to:
  extend the duration of bookmakers permits and betting office licences from one year to three years,
  simplify the procedure for renewal applications, and introduce a renewal procedure for the licensing of betting tracks.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library.

  Electro-shock Equipment
  Mr. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply of 24 January,
  557
  Official Report, column 152, when a company was last granted authority specifically to possess electric shock weapons; if he will name the company or companies involved; and for how long that permission was given.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: No company has been granted authority specifically to possess electric shock weapons in the last three years. Information about the granting of authority for that purpose in earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Welsh
  To aks the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what further steps he is taking to review the operation of guidelines relating to the manufacture, marketing and supply of(a) electro-shock weapons and (b) weapons of torture; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made that guidelines relating to the manufacture, marketing and supply of (a) electro-shock weapons and (b) instruments of torture are being fully complied with; and if he will make a statement.

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

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

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

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

  Mr. Newton
  None.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Ian Henderson
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the capacities in which Mr. Ian Henderson, currently head of Bahrain's security and intelligence services, has been employed by Her Majesty's Government.

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Ian Henderson served in the colonial police service in Kenya from 1948 until Kenyan independence in 1963. In that capacity, he was an employee of Her Majesty's overseas civil service.

  Standard Chartered Bank
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the chairman of the Standard Chartered bank; and if he will make a statement.
  558
  The Prime Minister
  The chairman of the Standard Chartered bank was present at a lunch given in honour of the Indian Prime Minister on 14 March 1994.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the Prime Minister of India; and if he discussed the position of the Standard Chartered bank.

  The Prime Minister
  I last met the Prime Minister of India when he visited the United Kingdom from 13 to 16 March 1994. We did not discuss the Standard Chartered bank.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

  The Prime Minister
  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.

  Parliamentary Salaries (Deductions)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will support a proposal that all remuneration received by hon. Members for parliamentary duties from outside sources should be deducted from parliamentary salary in the same way that deductions are made from income support.

  The Prime Minister
  Hon. Members are entitled to the parliamentary salary as the remuneration payable to them as Members of this House. There are well-established procedures for determining this.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 25 January, whether in order to honour Her Majesty's Government's commitment in the letter to obtain justice for all the victims of the Lockerbie crime, he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl the possibility of the Scottish police interviewing Hafey Dalkamoni before such time as he is released.

  The Prime Minister
  There is no need for me to have such a discussion with Chancellor Kohl. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has repeatedly stated that he cannot make public details of what inquiries, including interviews, have been or may be carried out in this case. It would be a matter for him to request legal assistance from the competent German authorities, if the Scottish police and Crown Office did indeed consider it necessary for any one in Germany to be interviewed or re-interviewed.

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

  The Prime Minister
  None.

DEFENCE

  Bosnia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the present position in respect of the deployment of UN forces in and around Tuzla in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The headquarters of UNPROFOR's sector north-east is located in Tuzla and a mechanised infantry battalion of some 1,200 Swedish and Danish soldiers, together with a Jordanian mortar-locating unit, are based in and around the town.

  Future Large Aircraft
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the development of the future large aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have discussed the future large aircraft with both British Aerospace and my French and German counterparts. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 16 December,Official Report, column 823, we will rejoin the FLA programme at the end of the feasibility phase provided that it is managed on a commercial basis under the umbrella of the Airbus consortium. Resources will need to be available and our requirements on price and performance must also be met. A programme of work with our partners is in progress.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the prospect of his Department purchasing the future large aircraft consequent upon his decision to purchase Lockheed Hercules aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 16 December,Official Report, column 823, we will rejoin the FLA programme at the end of the feasibility phase provided that it is managed on a commercial basis under the umbrella of the Airbus consortium. Resources will need to be available and our requirements on price and performance must also be met. A programme of work with our partners is in progress.

  Married Quarters Housing Stock
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department's budget has been affected by the lack of sales of married quarters housing stock.

  Mr. Soames
  The defence budget continues to assume a substantial receipt from the sale of married quarters in Great Britain. Although the original plans for a housing trust have been dropped, other options are being pursued.

  Inhumane Weapons Convention
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new proposals he has to add new weapons to the inhumane weapons convention.

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom has not proposed to add any weapons to the scope of the UN weaponry convention, but we are considering carefully those proposals made by others. Our main aim remains to strengthen restrictions on the use of anti-personnel land mines.

  Attack Helicopters
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision on the purchase of attack helicopters for the RAF.

  Mr. Freeman
  Evaluation of the bids received under the attack helicopter competition is in progress and we expect to make a decision on the purchase of this equipment for use by the Army Air Corps later in the year. I am, of course, conscious of the importance to industry of an early decision.

  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will define the threat which he expects a new attack helicopter to meet or match.

  Mr. Freeman
  British defence policy, in common with that of our allies, is no longer based upon defending against a single specific threat or threats. Instead, we aim to provide forces with a flexible capability to undertake a range of operations, from general war to peace support operations, and to respond to the changing demands which may be placed upon them in the future. However, a fundamental part of our defence policy remains the ability of our armed forces to defend themselves against tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles.

  We plan to procure an attack helicopter to replace Lynx in the anti-tank role for the early part of the next century. Its primary requirement will be to defeat any present and envisaged main battle tank which may be deployed against our armed forces. It will also be required to have a self-defence capability against enemy helicopters and ground to air threats.

  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review of capability requirements in respect of a new attack helicopter he has carried out to underpin the purchase together with what review of alternative investments he has made.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have a continuing requirement for a capability to engage in high-intensity conflict, including operations against armoured forces. A series of studies has been conducted to examine the relative cost and effectiveness of various weapon systems with an anti-tank capability. These included multiple-launched rocket systems, ground-launched missile systems, tanks, mines, fixed-wing aircraft and attack helicopters. The studies have shown that the most cost-effective mix of weapons to meet our anti-tank requirement entails the procurement of an attack helicopter.

  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to decide which attack helicopter to purchase; from which aircraft he intends to choose; what will be the relevant factors in order of importance which will guide his choice; how many he intends to purchase together with the estimated total cost; whether the alternatives have flown or expect to fly; and if he will
  561
  make it his policy that the choice of machine will not be dominated by considerations of domestic employment.

  Mr. Freeman
  We expect to make a decision on the purchase of an attack helicopter later in the year. Bids were received from: Agusta—Al29; Atlas AviationRooi valk; Boeing-Sikorsky—Comanche; BAe/Eurocopter—Tiger; GEC/Bell-Textron—Cobra Venom; and Westland/McDonnell Douglas—Apache AH64/D. Tender assessment is based on four main parameters: operational effectiveness; life cycle costs; risk; and proposals for United Kingdom industrial participation. The precise number of helicopters to be procured will depend on affordability and on the solution chosen and, therefore, has yet to be determined. The estimated total cost of the programme is over £2 billion. Current versions of all the aircraft except Comanche have flown. It is our intention to equip the Army with the most cost-effective solution which fully meets its requirements. To that end, each bid will be considered on its merits.

  Armed Forces (Injuries)
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have been disabled as a result of injury in the armed forces in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Soames
  There are varying degrees of disablement, not all of which are serious enough to cause the service man or woman to be medically discharged. Statistics are not maintained centrally of disabilities which do not result in discharge.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence of the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Soames
  The British Government are committed to defending the right of the Falkland Islanders to determine their own future. As long as Argentina maintains its claim to the Falkland Islands, the United Kingdom will keep forces there to deter, and if necessary counter, any possible aggression. Force levels are kept under review and, if the need arises, can be reinforced at very short notice using the airfield at Mount Pleasant.

  Rescue Co-ordination
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of rescue co-ordination facilities.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 18 January,Official Report, column 547.

  European Army
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for a European army.

  Mr. Soames
  We have no plans for the creation of a European army.

  Former Service Personnel
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to make it his policy 562
  to make a single Minister responsible for all ex-serviice men's affairs.

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence is usually responsible for those issues relating to former service personnel with which the Department deals directly. The Government do not, however, propose to appoint a single Minister to co-ordinate matters concerning the ex-service community across the range of Government; I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 22 November 1994,Official Report, columns 461–62.

  Bombs, Llandwrog Airfield
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in the investigation being undertaken by his Department into potentially dangerous German chemical bombs which were buried at Llandwrog airfield, near Dinas Dinlle in Gwynedd after the second world war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Member on 24 January.

  Fishery Protection
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the adequacy of naval forces to carry out fishery protection duties.

  Mr. Soames
  The Royal Navy's Fishery Protection Squadron comprises nine vessels. The requirements for the provision of fishery protection services are reviewed annually with the fisheries Department. During this financial year, 1994–95, the squadron is contracted to provide these Departments with some 1,380 patrol days dedicated to fisheries work.

  Aircraft Safety
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he had made of the current arrangements governing the separation of civilian helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft from low-flying military jets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has a wide range of measures in place to minimise the risk of confliction between civil and military aircraft. These are kept under continuous review in consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority and civilian aircraft operators as part of an on-going programme of work to enhance flight safety.

  Training Links
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to develop links between trainees in the armed services and other training initiatives outside the forces.

  Mr. Soames
  Whenever it is cost-effective and beneficial to do so, my Department is seeking to extend the close links which it already has with external training and education bodies and institutions. Unless there are operational reasons for retaining the work in-house, it is our aim to put as much of our training out to the private sector as is possible and draw on the considerable expertise which is available.

  Fuel Servicing Trucks
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number, manufacturer, capacity and year of production of fuel servicing trucks currently held by (i) the RAF, (ii) the Royal Marines, (iii) the Army Air Corps and (iv) the Fleet Air Arm; what consideration he

  Service

  Quantity

  Capacity

  Year of Manufacture

  Manufacturer

  Royal Air Force

  176

  18000 ltr

  1987–1993

  AEC,

  166

  13000 ltr

  1970–1982

  Leyland/DAF,

  54

  4500 ltr (Tactical)

  1980–1989

  Bedford,

  83

  4500 ltr

  1981–1991

  Scammell

  Royal Marines

  12

  9000 ltr

  1987

  Bedford

  Army Air Corps

  122

  4500 ltr

  1965–1985

  Bedford

  6

  4500 ltr

  1987–1988

  Leyland

  Fleet Air Arm

  33

  9000 ltr

  1988–1993

  Leyland

  20

  18000 ltr

  1990

  Leyland

  The majority of fuel servicing vehicles in service will be considered for refurbishment or replacement—either by purchase of lease—over the next 10 years. The leasing of equipment is routinely considered as part of the replacement decision. In general, however, there is no commercial equipment which meets the specific requirements for military aircraft refuellers, and the leasing of purpose-built refuellers has been shown to be uneconomic.

  The operational requirements for 12 fuel servicing trucks for the Royal Marines commando operations and support cell dictates that vehicles must be of a specialised type, particularly in respect of their ability to operate in such extremes of climate as the Arctic and the Gulf. Furthermore, the operational requirement includes provision of a high degree of corrosion protection. The specialist nature of these vehicles ruled out leasing of commercially available types, and the high cost of refurbishment of existing vehicles precluded that option. Purchase was assessed to be the most economic means of meeting this operational requirement.

  Training (Sudanese Students)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) of 29 November 1994,Official Report, column 618, how many foreign students from Sudan who have visited the United Kingdom for military training, were sponsored (a) by the Sudanese Government or (b) by the rebel forces in that country.

  Mr. Soames
  The details of training provided for overseas military personnel, including numbers, are not normally disclosed as they are' confidential between Governments. The inclusion of Sudan in the answer I gave the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 29 November 1994,Official Report, column 618, referred to two civilians who attended aviation medicine courses. Both students were sponsored by the Government of Sudan.
  564
  has given to (a) replacement of these vehicles and (b) leasing of commercial equipment; what factors led to the proposal to issue tenders for 12 fuel servicing trucks for the Royal Marines under tender No. SMC 31ARAF U15; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Tornado
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Tornado mid-life update will be complete.

  Mr. Freeman
  Delivery of the last aircraft to the upgraded standard is expected about the end of 2002.

  Employees, Salisbury
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by establishment, including agencies, the numbers of(a) military and (b) civilian employees of his Department in the Salisbury constituency in (i) 1990, (ii) 1994 and (iii) an estimate for 1998.

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our normal policy to divulge the number of employees at individual Ministry of Defence establishments. Although my Department keeps no record of military and civilian employees by parliamentary constituency, we are able to provide the numbers of service and civilian personnel within the Salisbury local authority area. At 1 July 1990, there were 5,187 service and 3,765 full-time equivalent civilian personnel employed in the local authority area. The corresponding figures for 1 July 1994 were 4,923 service and 3,920 civilian personnel. It is too early to make accurate estimates of the corresponding figures for 1998.

  Mess Costs
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the estimated cost of messing for United Kingdom armed forces during the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  During the financial year 1993–94, some £142 million, inclusive of VAT, was spent feeding regular and reserve armed forces personnel in the United Kingdom and overseas. As well as food served in messes, this figure also includes operational ration packs and allowances paid to personnel who were not able to eat in messes owing to the nature of their duties.

  Personnel (Civil Rights)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether service men and women and their families enjoy the same rights as other citizens to make representations during public consultations and public inquiries kind to make complaints under the citizens charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The families of service personnel enjoy the same rights as other citizens to make representations during public consultations and public inquiries and to make complaints under the citizens charter. The same rights apply to service personnel provided that the impartiality of the armed forces is not compromised, and that such representations do not involve the disclosure, without permission, of information obtained in the course of their official duties.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vehicles are owned by his Department for use by(a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Army and (c) the Royal Air Force and issued with (i) civil vehicle registration marks and (ii) service vehicle registration marks by the Directorate General (Supplies and Transport (Naval)) for the Royal Navy and by the Directorate of Supply Management (Army) for the Army and for the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department owns 6,225 vehicles for use by the Royal Navy, 87,238 for use by the Army and 151,816 for use by the Royal Air Force. These figures include both operational and administrative vehicle types.

  Both service and civilian vehicle registration marks are issued by the Army on behalf of all three services. Of the 19,279 vehicles owned, 11,365 show civilian registration markings; the remainder, service.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Cardiff
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantities of defence nuclear material are stored in south Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The only nuclear material stored in south Wales is depleted uranium at the atomic weapons establishment, Cardiff.

  Although it has not been the practice of this or previous Governments to reveal quantities of nuclear material stored at the AWE sites, in accordance with our policy of greater openness, my Department is seeking to revoke this restriction in respect of depleted uranium.

  Details of the depleted uranium wastes arising at and discharged from AWE Cardiff are already in the public domain.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 January, to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr Butler),Official Report, column 751, what are the principal details of the decision-making process relating to the decommissioning and subsequent 'disposal of the site of the atomic weapons establishment, Llanishen, Cardiff; what consultations he has had with the management of the Atomic Weapons Establishment in relation to this decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are prepared to consider any proposal for the future use of the AWE Cardiff site. If no 566
  such acceptable proposal is received, and if there is no alternative defence use which arises in the period before then, the site will close in 1997 as soon as work on Trident components is completed. These proposals have been developed in close consultation between Hunting-BRAE Ltd. and the MOD.

  The Ministry of Defence will then be responsible for the immediate decommissioning of the site and it will be disposed of in the normal way.

  There is no statutory requirement fully to restore land offered for sale, but it is my Department's policy to seek to identify instances of contamination on sites allocated for disposal. This information is made available to prospective purchasers and taken into account in agreeing the sale price. Decontamination work is generally limited to the removal of ordnance and other contaminants such as explosives, radioactive and microbiological materials.

  Sea King Helicopters
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Sea King helicopters will be in the search and rescue fleet in September 1996.

  Mr. Soames
  On present plans, there will be 25 RAF Sea King helicopters in the search and rescue role in September 1996. This includes two RAF Sea Kings based in the Falkland Islands. No Royal Navy Sea Kings are dedicated to search and rescue.

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

  Mr. Freeman
  To the best of my knowledge, no officials from my Department met representatives of Ian Greer Associates on 26 January 1995 to discuss matters relating to their clients' interests, either formally or informally.

  European Integration
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Britain's involvement in greater European defence integration.

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom is fully involved in efforts to develop the Western European Union as the means to strengthen the European pillar of NATO and as the defence component of the European Union.

  Army Base Repair Organisation
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he can report on the outcome of the consultation process for the Army Base Repair Organisation, Old Dalby.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following my 27 October 1994 announcement,Official Report, column 732, of plans to withdraw MOD activity from the Army Base Repair Organisation workshop at Old Dalby and to change the agency's market-testing programme to include tests for base and district workshops only after such reorganisation, I have received a wide range of comments from a number of MPs and local authorities. In addition, the trade union representatives of staff at the workshop have submitted detailed comments on the plans and

  567
  provided counter-proposals with a view to continuing operations at the site.

  The formal consultation period ended on 23 December. Since then, a detailed evaluation of the comments received and, in particular, the proposals from the workshop has been undertaken. In parallel, I have taken the opportunity to visit the workshop to understand better the local impact. I have also had discussions with representatives from the Donnington workshop, which would import the bulk of the work from Old Dalby.

  As a result of the consultation period, changes have been made to assumptions used in the analysis of various options for the future of Old Dalby.

  Having now considered all of the proposals, counter-proposals and their implications, I am convinced that the only viable option is to proceed with the withdrawal of MOD activity from the workshop and to implement the restructured market-testing programme which I announced on 27 October. None of the suggestions or counter-proposals resulting from the consultation process can deliver the necessary restructuring or offer of an equivalent level of savings to the taxpayer while preserving service to the Army. Any attempt to maintain MOD activity at the Old Dalby workshop would result in the Army continuing to have excess capacity beyond all foreseeable requirements. The resultant inefficiencies would inevitably be reflected in the costs passed on to the Army and ultimately to the taxpayer. Excess capacity would also disadvantage the agency teams in their attempts to prepare for the forthcoming market-testing process and could undermine their chances of making most cost-effective use of the facilities.

  The final version of the analysis undertaken changed the net benefit of withdrawal from Old Dalby rather than Donnington, but did not change the preference for withdrawing from the former. I am accordingly instructing the agency to proceed with planning for the withdrawal of MOD work from the Old Dalby workshop. I must emphasise, however, that I recognise the skill and success of the Old Dalby work force and their interest in continuing to undertake ABRO work. Prior to the implementation of the planned move of MOD work later this year, I have asked that, for each discrete package of work at the Old Dalby workshop, an evaluation be undertaken to ascertain whether these should be placed with the private sector, using either their own facilities or by taking over the workshop facilities at Old Dalby, or with other MOD units. Any decision to place work with such facilities must, however, show an improvement over the savings which would be achieved by placing such work at ABRO Donnington. No irrevocable action will be taken by ABRO until at least July 1995 which would prevent the successful placement of such packages of work elsewhere than Donnington.

  Representations made have clearly identified the potential effects of these changes on the local community and economy. Given that my Department is no longer able to make effective use of the modern, high-technology facilities at the site, every effort will be made to encourage the private sector to put forward innovative proposals for alternative uses which can capitalise on the skills and expertise of the work force. My Department intends to work closely on this with the local authorities and other employers in the area. An early start will be made to obtain appropriate advice within and outside the
  568
  MOD to market the skills of the work force and the existing facilities for alternative private sector usage in parallel with the cost evaluation of the individual work packages referred to.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by them on privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Mr. Freeman
  N. M. Rothschild and Sons provided advice to my Department in respect of the privatisation of Royal Ordnance, which was achieved in 1986 and 1987. The fees paid to firms appointed within the privatisation programme are commercially confidential.

ENVIRONMENT

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps he is taking in the current review of pay and grading in the Planning Inspectorate executive agency to ensure that he meets the requirement set out in the first report to him of the advisory panel on standards for the Planning Inspectorate executive agency in respect of the need for planning inspectors to be of the highest quality and drawn from a variety of appropriate professional backgrounds; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many person-days of work were, or are planned to be carried out by (a) contract inspectors and (b) all consultant inspectors in the Planning Inspectorate executive agency in each year from 1993 to 1996; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many staff in the Planning Inspectorate executive agency he expects will be given early retirement (a) in 1995 and (b) in 1996; from what professional planning inspector or other grades they will be drawn; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have delegated responsibility for all these matters to the Planning Inspectorate executive agency. I have therefore asked Mr. Chris Shepley, the agency's chief executive, to reply.

  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 26 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to provide the replies to your Parliamentary Questions about:
  the Planning Inspectorate's pay and grading review (PQ/903/94/95);
  work carried out by the Inspectorate's contract and consultant Inspectors (PQ/904/94/95);
  the number of staff expected to take early retirement in 1995 and 1996 (PQ/907/94/95); as these are all matters which have been delegated to the Executive Agency.
  (903)
  The purpose of our pay and grading review is to ensure that all staff are properly rewarded for their skills and their contributions to the work of the Agency. It is my intention to ensure the Agency

  569
  will continue to employ Planning Inspectors of the highest quality and of appropriate backgrounds to meet its needs.
  (904)
  On the question of work carried out by contract and consultant Inspectors, records are not kept in a form that allows us to find the information in the precise form you request. The figures given below are estimates based on our financial records and include not only days employed on casework but also attendance at the office for training, etc.

  Contract Inspector days

  Consultant Inspector days

  1993–94

  12,800

  11,200

  1994–95 (forecast)

  11,100

  8,750

  The use we make of these resources in 1995–96 will depend on the financial allocation we receive and the targets we are set for the coming year.
  (907)
  We expect two Inspectors to leave the Agency in 1995 following approval of their applications under our 1994 Voluntary Early Retirement scheme. There may also be departures following applications for early retirement on medical grounds. Currently we have no plans to run any further early retirement schemes. No staff have been asked to leave the Agency.

  Council Houses
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a league table of councils' efficiency in letting council houses.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  On 11 January, I said, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie),Official Report, column 134, that I was placing in the Library a list of local authorities ranked on the basis of numbers of management vacants as at 1 April 1994.

  The Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales requires local authorities to publish information annually about the number and percentage of dwellings that are empty and the average time taken to relet dwellings available for letting or awaiting minor repairs. The commission will publish comparative data for 1993–1994 at the end of March this year.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against business rates increases are outstanding at valuation offices in(a) Lancashire and (b) England.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Appeals may be made against the entries in the non-domestic rating list for a variety of reasons. As at 31 December 1994, there were 8,788 appeals outstanding in the offices which cover Lancashire and 293,644 in total in England. Only a small proportion of these will have resulted from an increase in the rateable value of a particular hereditament, and these figures are not collected separately.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will detail in the form of a table similar to that provided on 1 November 1994 to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West, (Mr. Butcher)Official Report, columns 1005–6, showing the estimated increase or decrease in business rate bills for properties in each region in England between 1994–95 and 1995–96 as a result of the 1995 revaluation, in the absence of transitional relief.
  570
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I am placing this information in the Library of the House.

  Common Land
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent consultations he has undertaken concerning common land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Over the last 18 months, officials of the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office have held informal discussions with the major bodies concerned with common land. Those discussions confirmed the Government's view that there was a need to investigate practical ways in which improvements in both the registration process and the management of common land might be achieved. Officials have since been looking at what needs to be done to achieve those objectives, and I hope to report our conclusions to the House shortly.

  Footpaths
  Mr. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent or grant aided, in each of the last three years for which figures are available, on the repair of eroded footpaths by the Countryside Commission for England.

  Mr. Atkins
  Repair of the surface of footpaths is the legal responsibility of the highway authority, the landowner or the occupier, depending on the cause of the damage to the path surface. The Countryside Commission does not contribute grant aid towards this statutory duty, except in the case of national trails.

  In the last three years, the commission has spent the following on the surface restoration of trails:

  Year

  £

  1991–92

  700,000

  1992–93

  1,000,000

  1993–94

  850,000

  These sums were spent mainly on restoring paths crossing peat in upland area, particularly the Cleveland and Pennine ways.

  Mr. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the areas in Great Britain most affected by the erosion of footpaths.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1993–94, the Countryside Commission conducted a sample public rights of way condition survey in England. Walkers found that only 14 out of 11,847 links—a section of path between two junctions—surveyed were "impassable/unusable" on account of erosion. Some 103 links were "impassable/unusable" because they were muddy, boggy or flooded, but the causes for this will be varied. The full results of the survey are due to be published in the summer.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful bids for moneys from the single regeneration budget that exceeded in their submissions the recommended number of pages set out in the

  571
  Department's bidding guidance; and if he will specify (i) the numbers of pages and (ii) the length of any appendices.

  Mr. Curry
  Guidance on the preparation of bids for single regeneration budget funding was contained in annexe B of the SRB bidding guidance issued in April 1994, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Access to the 469 individual bids, plus supporting material, is available from the relevant Government office for the region. Copies of individual bids are available at a charge. Information about the numbers of pages and length of appendices of bids is not held centrally, and could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to require local authorities and other bodies submitting second round bids for moneys from the single regeneration budget to indicate the cost or preparing the submission, the number of staff allocated to its preparation and the number of person hours involved.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful bids for moneys from the single regeneration budget were (i) thematic in nature covering the entire area of the local authority and (ii) for a small area covering a discrete part of the local authority.

  Mr. Curry
  Guidance on the area coverage of bids for single regeneration budget resources was set out in paragraphs 15 to 25, annexe A and annexe B of the SRB bidding guidance issued in April 1994, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Information on the thematic coverage of bids by reference to geographical area is not held centrally. Of the 201 successful bids under the first bidding round, about 35 per cent. related to a small area—under 25,000 population—about 29 per cent. related to a local authority district, about 19 per cent. related to an area greater than a local authority district, about 10 per cent were county-wide and about 7 per cent. were region-wide. These figures are subject to the final agreement of delivery plans between the individual SRB partnerships and the Government offices for the regions.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 25 January,Official Report, column 206, if he will list the five local authorities which made unsuccessful bids for single regeneration budget moneys and the relevant regional offices.

  Mr. Curry
  The five local authorities are Cleethorpes, Great Grimsby, Halton, Nottingham and Pendle.

  Local Authorities (Internal Markets)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Government policy with regard to internal markets for local authorities.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Government welcome the focus on the efficient delivery of, cost-effective services which stems from the creation of an internal market for local authority services. From 1995–96, local authorities will be required to prepare and publish a statement of support service costs, setting out the full cost of support services. Making costs transparent through the framework of this statement will further stimulate the development of internal markets.

  Local Government, London
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the non-collection of service charges on ex-local authority properties in Westminster.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Representations have been received from Councillor Andrew Dismore, the leader of the opposition, Westminster city council.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the future of local government in London; and what plans he has for a London-wide elected authority.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Londoners' responses to the consultation paper "London: Making the Best Better", published in November 1993, showed little support for a London-wide elected authority. I am unaware of any formal representations made since then. The Government have no plans for an additional elected authority for London.

  Cabinet Sub-Committee for London
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will now make it his practice to give details of the agenda of meetings of the Cabinet Sub-Committee for London;

  (2) if he will now make it his practice to give dates of the meetings of the Cabinet Sub-Committee.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I do not propose to give details of the timing of meetings or the topics discussed by the Cabinet Sub-Committee for London. The Government will continue to make their decisions known to Parliament and the public in the usual ways.

  Licensed Premises
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of licensed premises have smoking free areas; and what studies his Department is conducting into the benefits of such areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has no information on the numbers of licensed premises with smoking free areas. The benefits of smoking-free areas in public places, including licensed premises, are outlined in the Government's code of practice on smoking in public places.

  Local Authorities (Social Index)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in rank order all English local authorities according to where they fall in the social index.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The requested information has been placed in the Library.

  Nirex
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the appointment of an inspector for the public inquiry into the proposed Nirex rock characterisation facility in Cumbria; and what the terms of reference will be for the public inquiry.
  573
  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to make an announcement about these matters within the next two weeks.

  Rates, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each property type in Nottinghamshire the percentage increase in rateable values as a result of the 1995 revaluation compared with the 1990 list.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Draft rateable values in Nottinghamshire have increased by 28 per cent. overall. The rateable value for shops has increased by 32 per cent.,

  Estimated increases or decrease in rate bills in England between 1994–95 and 1995–96 as a result of the 1995 revaluation in the absence of transitional relief—Nottinghamshire

  1995–96 bill as a percentage of 1994–95 bill

  Small properties

  Large properties

  All

  Number (000s)

  Change £ millions

  Number (000s)

  Change £ millions

  Number (000s)

  Change £ millions

  <50 per cent.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50 per cent.–80 per cent.

  —

  —

  —

  -1

  —

  -1

  80 per cent.—120 per cent.

  6

  +1

  1

  +2

  7

  +3

  120 per cent—200 per cent.

  16

  +16

  5

  +28

  21

  +43

  200 per cent.—500 per cent

  2

  +3

  -1

  +3

  2

  +6

  >500 per cent.

  -1

  -1

  -1

  +1

  -1

  +1

  All

  24

  +20

  6

  +33

  30

  +52

  All (after transitional relief)

  24

  +5

  6

  +10

  30

  +15

  Source: Inland Revenue.

  Notes:

  1. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  2. Small properties have a 1 April 1990 rateable value less than £10,000.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  Commission for the New Towns
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the pension he has determined for the retiring chairman of the Commission for the New Towns.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In accordance with the provisions of schedule 9 to the New Towns Act 1981, I am today placing a statement in the Library of the House.

  Waterborne Viruses
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many coastal or estuarial sewage discharges under construction or planned include treatment to reduce or eliminate viral content;

  (2) how many sewage discharges receive treatment to reduce or eliminate viruses; and what percentage that represents of the total coastal discharges.
  574
  offices by 40 per cent., warehouses by 37 per cent., factories by 27 per cent., and other properties by 21 per cent.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will produce a table in the same form as provided to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) on 1 November 1994,Official Report, columns 1005–6, showing the increase in rate bills for properties in Nottinghamshire between 1994–95 and 1995–96 as a result of the 1995 revaluation, in the absence of transitional relief.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Estimates for Nottinghamshire based on the draft 1995 rating lists are shown in the table. I have also given the change in bills once transitional relief has been taken into account.

  Mr. Atkins
  Sewage treatment which is at primary level or above will reduce the levels of viruses in discharges. The current and planned levels of treatment for sewage discharges into coastal and estuarial discharges under the urban waste water treatment directive are set out in the United Kingdom's report under article 17 A copy of this is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been carried out by his Department into the health impacts of viruses in sea and river water.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government funded an extensive four year research programme into the health effects of sea-bathing, which was published in January 1994.

  Copies of the full report have been placed in the Library.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial effect the inclusion of homelessness as an indicator has had on the grant settlement this year for(a) Coventry, (b) Wandsworth and (c) Westminster councils.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  There is no specific amount for homelessness within standard spending assessments. However, homelessness is one of a large number of general indicators that are included within composite
  575
  indices in the personal social services and all other services service blocks. They serve as an adjustment to increase or reduce the SSA, depending on the position of the authority relative to the average for all authorities. For the specified authorities, these homelessness indicators contribute the following adjustment:

  £ million

  Coventry City Council

  -1,790

  London Borough of Wandsworth

  +1,684

  Westminster City Council

  +3,519

  It is the overall value of an index which is important in determining an authority's SSA and not the value of an individual indicator within an index.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which 10 councils gained most in this year's grant distribution as a result of homelessness being a factor in the standard spending assessment system.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  There is no specific amount for homelessness within standard spending assessments. However, homelessness is one of a large number of general indicators that are included within composite indices in the personal social services and all other services service blocks. The 10 authorities which have the highest contribution from homelessness indicators are:

  Birmingham City Council

  Manchester City Council

  London Borough of Lambeth

  London Borough of Hackney

  London Borough of Southwark

  London Borough of Islington

  London Borough of Walsall

  Bradford City Council

  London Borough of Haringey

  London Borough of Westminster

  It is the overall value of an index which is important in determining an authority's SSA and not the value of an individual indicator within an index.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those authorities which have made oral representations to Ministers as part of the consultation on his proposals for local government finance for 1995–96, showing in each case the Minister seen by the authority, the duration of the meeting and the main topics raised.

  Mr. Gummer
  The table lists authorities which made oral representations to myself and other Ministers in my Department on the proposed locál government finance settlement for England for 1995–96. In addition, Home Office Ministers met a number of police authorities. The main topics raised in meetings with DOE Ministers are listed in the table. No note was made of the duration of meetings, but I and other Ministers have sought to make time available for the fullest consultation.
  576

  Class of Authority

  Minister

  Main topics

  Shire Districts

  Barrow in Furness

  Robert B. Jones

  Benefits, Remoteness

  Blackpool

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Data, rent allowances, credit approvals, capping

  Bristol

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Regional status, SSA methodology

  Burnley

  David Curry

  Data, capping, superannuation

  Castle Point

  Robert B. Jones

  Capping, Other Services

  Dartford

  Robert B. Jones

  Growth pressures

  Halton

  Robert B. Jones

  Benefit case load

  Harlow

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Other Services Block, debt, SSA Reduction Grant, capping

  Havant

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Population data, commuters

  Hyndburn

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Capital financing, capping, housing benefit. Other Services

  Ipswich

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Debt, data, capping

  Leicester

  Robert B. Jones

  Capping, SSA Reduction Grant

  Milton Keynes

  Robert B. Jones

  Growth factors

  Norwich

  Viscount Ullswater

  Capping, regional status

  Nottingham City

  Sir Paul Beresford

  SSA Reduction Grant, external support, data, SSA methodology, housing benefits

  Pendle

  Robert B. Jones

  Capping, housing benefits

  Ribble Valley

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Other Services Block

  Rushmoor

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Area Cost Adjustment, population

  South Norfolk

  Robert B. Jones

  Other Services Block

  Stevenage

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Area Cost Adjustment, New Town status

  Thanet

  David Curry

  Housing benefit

  Thurrock

  Viscount Ullswater

  Debt, Area Cost Adjustment

  Wear Valley

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Capital financing, capping

  Welwyn Hatfield

  Robert B. Jones

  Capping, benefits, other services

  York

  Robert B. Jones

  SSA Reduction Grant, sparsity, unemployment, homelessness

  Shire counties

  Cumbria

  David Curry

  National parks, SSA methodology, Area Cost Adjustment, fire

  Derbyshire

  David Curry

  Resource levels, capping limits

  Devon

  Robert B. Jones

  Area Cost Adjustment, community care education

  East Midlands Counties

  David Curry

  Area Cost Adjustment, capping, credit controls

  Gloucestershire

  David Curry

  Education, capping, Area Cost Adjustment

  577

  Class of Authority

  Minister

  Main topics

  Hampshire

  Robert B. Jones

  Fire, Education, Other Services, Fire, Area Cost Adjustment.

  Hereford and Worcester

  David Curry

  Capping, SSA methodology, data, community care

  Lancashire

  David Curry

  Area Cost Adjustment, SSA methodology

  Lincolnshire

  David Curry

  Capping, education, Area Cost Adjustment, sparsity, fire

  Norfolk County Council

  David Curry

  Fire, Area Cost Adjustment, community care, education, capping

  Northamptonshire

  Secretary of State

  Area Cost Adjustment, education, capping

  Northumberland

  Viscount Ullswater

  Sparsity, National Parks, Area Cost Adjustment, capping

  Nottinghamshire

  David Curry

  Area Cost Adjustment, fire capital financing

  Oxfordshire

  Robert B. Jones

  Area Cost Adjustment, Education, Fire, new burdens

  Shropshire

  David Curry

  Area Cost Adjustment, SSA methodology, balances

  South West Counties

  David Curry

  Data, community care, teachers pay, Area Cost Adjustment

  Warwickshire

  Robert B. Jones

  Area Cost Adjustment, Fire, capping

  Metropolitan Districts

  Barnsley

  Viscount Ullswater

  Capping, education, highways

  Birmingham

  Secretary of State

  Data, capping, Area Cost Adjustment, debt, credit approvals

  Bolton

  David Curry

  Education, capping, youth custody

  Bradford

  David Curry

  Education, capping

  Core Metropolitan Cities

  David Curry

  Area Cost Adjustment, Capital Financing, SSA methodology, capping

  Coventry

  David Curry

  Capping, community care, capital financing, Area Cost Adjustment

  Kirklees

  David Curry

  Area Cost Adjustment, education

  Knowsley

  Robert B. Jones

  Population, SSA methodology, Area Cost Adjustment

  Liverpool

  David Curry

  Capping, deprivation, debt. Area Cost Adjustment

  578

  Class of Authority

  Minister

  Main topics

  Manchester

  Secretary of State

  SSA methodology, capital financing

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  David Curry

  Education, social services, Area Cost adjustment, capital finance

  Rotherham

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Capping, deprivation

  Salford

  Robert B. Jones

  Data, education

  Sandwell

  Robert B. Jones

  Deprivation, capping, SSA Education Grant

  Sheffield

  Robert B. Jones

  Area Cost Adjustment, debt, highways

  Solihull

  Secretary of State

  Recoupment in education, levies, capping

  South Tyneside

  Robert B. Jones

  Deprivation, Area Cost Adjustment, capping

  South Yorkshire Districts

  Viscount Ullswater

  Supertram

  St. Helens

  Robert B. Jones

  Capital financing, area cost adjustment, education, community care

  Tameside

  Robert B. Jones

  Area Cost Adjustment, capping, levies

  Wigan

  David Curry

  Capping

  Wirral

  David Curry

  Capping

  Wolverhampton

  David Curry

  SSA methodology, SSA Reduction Grant

  London Boroughs

  Bexley

  Robert B. Jones

  Education, community care, pay, housing benefit, Area Cost Adjustment

  Brent

  David Curry

  SSA Reduction Grant, education. Area Cost Adjustment

  Croydon

  Robert B. Jones

  Education, community care., benefit case load

  Enfield

  David Curry

  Deprivation

  Greenwich

  Robert B. Jones

  Pensions, highways, social services, other services

  Hackney

  Robert B. Jones

  SSA Reduction Grant, data, community charge grant

  Harrow

  Viscount Ullswater

  Capping, capital financing, refugees, Area Cost Adjustment

  Havering

  Robert B. Jones

  Capping, capital receipts

  Hillingdon

  Robert B. Jones

  Education, refugees, Area Cost Adjustment

  Hounslow

  David Curry

  Education, refugees

  Kingston upon Thames

  Robert B. Jones

  Area cost adjustment, personal social services, notional amount

  Lambeth

  David Curry

  Capping, SSA Reduction Grant

  579

  Class of Authority

  Minister

  Main topics

  Merton

  David Curry

  Education, SSA methodology, Area Cost Adjustment

  Newham

  Secretary of State

  Resource levels, capping

  Sutton

  Robert B. Jones

  Education, Social Services, Area Cost Adjustment.

  Fire Authorities

  Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence

  David Curry

  Fire

  South Yorkshire Fire and CD Authority

  David Curry

  Fire, pensions

  Tyne and Wear Fire and Civil Defence

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Fire

  West Midlands Fire Authority

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Fire, Capping

  West Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence

  David Curry

  Fire

  Police Authorities

  Lancashire Police Authority

  David Curry

  Pensions, Police Funding Formula

  Greater Manchester Police

  Robert B. Jones

  Pensions, Police Funding Formula

  Northants Police Authority

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Pensions, capping

  Suffolk Police

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Police Funding Formula

  West Mercia Police Authority

  David Curry

  Police Funding Formula, pensions, data, capping

  Unitary Authority

  Isle of Wight

  David Curry

  Reorganisation, Fire, Area Cost Adjustment

  Local Authority Associations

  Consultative Council on Local Government Finance

  Secretary of State David Curry

  SSA Reduction Grant, Capping, level of Settlement, capital financing

  90 Meetings in total with local authority delegations

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions Departmental officials met representatives of Ian Greer Associates(a) formally and (b) informally on 26 January to discuss matters relating to their client's interests.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Central records are not kept of meetings between departmental officials and external organisations, and the information requested could not be collected without disproportionate cost.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 5 December, reference G/BE/P50/27077/94.
  580
  Sir Paul Beresford
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 27 January.

  Planning Application Fees
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decision he has reached on proposals to allow local planning authorities to set their own planning application fees; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Last summer, we issued a consultation paper, "Planning Application Fees", which proposed giving local planning authorities the power to set their own fees for determining planning applications. Our intention was to enable authorities to recover the costs they incur in processing planning applications. We envisaged that fee increases would be subject to authorities meeting qualifying criteria—in relation to development plans and development control performance—and establishing, by 1996, an accounting system for identifying costs.

  We received over 300 responses, all of which have been carefully considered. We have concluded that the particular package of proposals we put forward did not attract sufficient support to justify legislating now for the devolution of fee-setting responsibilities within the proposed time scale.

  For the present, therefore, planning application fees will continue to be set centrally. However, we shall be giving further thought to refining the fees regime to see whether a better match can be achieved between the costs and price of the service provided by local planning authorities.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in settling initial appeals against bandings for council tax in England; when he expects the remainder to be settled; and how quickly new appeals will be dealt with.

  Mr. Curry
  A year ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) announced that we expected the Valuation Office agency and the valuation tribunals to have settled four out of five of the initial council tax appeals in England by the end of 1994,Official Report, column 154.

  By 31 December last, 704,888 appeals had been settled—81.5 per cent. of those received during the initial period. The great majority of cases were resolved through discussion between the agency and the taxpayer.

  Progress was commendably consistent across the country. The settlement rate had reached or exceeded 80 per cent. in over three quarters of all billing authority areas; only in 16 areas was the rate less than 75 per cent. I have today placed in the Library a list showing the numbers and proportions of initial appeals resolved in each billing authority area.

  This has been an impressive achievement on the part of the agency, which has had other major tasks to carry out at the same time, including a rating revaluation of all non-domestic properties. The valuation tribunals have also had an important part to play. In the event, relatively few appeals have needed a tribunal hearing to resolve, but the readiness of tribunals to list cases for timely hearings has been invaluable in keeping up the pace of settlements. Tribunal members receive no payment for their services,

  581
  and I am extremely grateful to them and, above all, to their chairmen and presidents for their preparedness to give up so much of their time to help deal with this exceptional case load.

  Future progress is harder to predict, since the proportion of cases still outstanding that are likely to be resolved in discussion is lower than before. However, I very much hope that around 90 per cent. of initial appeals will have been settled by the end of March, and the remainder, or all but a handful, by the summer.

  Appeals can still be made in certain circumstances, for example following a change of taxpayer or a material reduction in the value of the dwelling. Once the bulk of the initial appeals have been disposed of, we expect that any such new appeals will generally be settled within 12 months from the date of the taxpayer's proposal.

  Waste Strategy
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been with the plans for a waste strategy for England and Wales which he announced in July 1994 in response to the Royal Commission on environmental pollution report on incineration of waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are today issuing for public consultation a draft waste strategy for England and Wales. The strategy aims to use the principles of sustainable development to provide a coherent framework for waste management policy and practice throughout England and Wales. Copies of the document have been placed in the Library of the House.

  However well managed, waste always has the potential to cause harm to the environment. We must give priority to reducing the amount we produce, and to adopting better waste management practices. Much can be done harnessing the power of the market to encourage more environmentally friendly waste management. The Chancellor's announcement in his Budget statement of the introduction of a landfill tax is one, very important, development in this direction.

  Industry can do a great deal, and has a good incentive to do so because, as a number of demonstration projects have shown, better waste management frequently results in reduced operating costs. Good waste management practice is a competitiveness opportunity. Householders also have a major role to play by choosing not to buy over-packaged goods, by reusing goods and materials within the household, and by using the recycling facilities provided by their local councils.

  We hope that this draft strategy will start a wide debate about future aims and direction of waste management policy, and the role of industry, the public sector, consumers and householders in achieving those objectives. We are allowing an extended consultation period until 28 April 1995 to enable proper consideration of the many significant issues which the strategy raises.

  Property Holdings
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the establishment of the agency to be derived from Property Holdings when Departments take responsibility in 1996.

  Mr. Gummer
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced on 26 May 1994,582
  Property Holdings is to be replaced by a new next steps agency, Official Report, column 225. The agency to be established from 1 April 1996, will be known as Property Advisers to the Civil Estate—PACE. It will be responsible for co-ordinating the Government's market activity on the civil estate; for promoting its rationalisation; and for providing Departments with advice and support in the management of their estates. It will be organised in accordance with the principles set out in the civil service White Paper—Cm 2627—with a flexible and non-hierarchical management structure, and with responsibility devolved to the lowest possible level. Its chief executive will be Mr. Neil Borrett, who has been director of Property Holdings since 1990. It will have a complement of about 200 staff, spread between six regional offices in London, Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Bristol, through which it will help keep in close touch with developments in local property markets.

  Police Budgets
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the police authorities' base budgets for 1995–96.

  Mr. Curry
  The basis of comparison used for police authorities' 1995–96 budget requirements is the sum of their budget requirements and police specific grants for 1994–95. These figures are set out in the table.

  £

  Avon and Somerset police authority

  137,801,214

  Bedfordshire police authority

  50,079,634

  Cambridgeshire police authority

  57,721,920

  Cheshire police authority

  84,377,320

  Cleveland police authority

  66,568,912

  Cumbria police authority

  53,672,404

  Derbyshire police authority

  81,857,892

  Devon and Cornwall police authority

  137,955,135

  Dorset police authority

  63,943,960

  Durham police authority

  59,299,640

  Essex police authority

  144,223,316

  Gloucestershire police authority

  53,473,574

  Greater Manchester police authority

  314,507,.793

  Hampshire police authority

  153,138,739

  Hertfordshire police authority

  78,575,516

  Humberside police authority

  90,113,658

  Kent police authority

  150,058,300

  Lancashire police authority

  145,649,262

  Leicestershire police authority

  78,315,062

  Lincolnshire police authority

  57,710,930

  Merseyside police authority

  213,231,625

  Norfolk police authority

  63,868,603

  Northamptonshire police authority

  58,313,439

  Northumbria police authority

  163,141,000

  North Yorkshire police authority

  61,631,113

  Nottinghamshire police authority

  99,867,903

  South Yorkshire police authority

  136,870,700

  Staffordshire police authority

  99,688,454

  Suffolk police authority

  55,866,441

  Surrey police authority

  82,052,000

  Sussex police authority

  125,569,887

  Thames Valley police authority

  189,675,443

  Warwickshire police authority

  45,252,617

  West Mercia police authority

  93,750,746

  West Midlands police authority

  315,741,174

  West Yorkshire police authority

  240,888,893

  Wiltshire police authority

  57,848,723

  National Parks
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to make available the national parks circular which he has undertaken to issue in connection with the national parks provisions In the Environment Bill.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has today issued for consultation a national parks circular which contains guidance on matters which have arisen in the context of the Government's proposals for the future of the national parks. Copies of the draft circular have been placed in the Library.

  Step-up Programme
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if new moneys will be found to ensure the step-up programme is available to people in the London borough of Lewisham from January 1995.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer Friday 27 January 1995]: The step-up programme in South Thames training and enterprise council was funded from the business start-up scheme which has been incorporated into the single regeneration budget from 1 April 1994. All forward commitments arising from BSUS will be met, but funds for new start ups will depend on the implementation of successful SRB bids.
  584
  In preparation for these new arrangements, some TECs in London, including South Thames, have ceased recruitment to BSUS-funded schemes because allocated funds had been fully committed.

  Arrangements to support future enterprise activity in the South Thames TEC area are currently under consideration.

  Coventry Airport
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 98, what assessment he has made of whether the arrangements for airports to consult nearby local authorities about matters relating to noise and nuisance are operating satisfactorily; and what representations he has received asking for the arrangements to be strengthened.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  The power to require local consultation at aerodromes designated for the purposes of section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 was included in the review of powers to control aircraft noise in 1991. It was found to be working well and, after consultation, no changes were proposed when the Government announced their conclusions from the review in March 1993. We do not believe the position to have changed since then.

TRANSPORT

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Transport what was the absenteeism rate for(a) his Department, (b) HM Coastguard, (c) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, (d) the Driving Standards Authority, (e) the Highways Agency, (f) the Marine Safety Agency, (g) the Transport Research Laboratory, (h) the Vehicle Certification Agency and (i) the Vehicle Inspectorate in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Norris
  The table shows for each year the number of days lost through sick absence per member of staff and the percentage of the working days in the year which the days of absence represent.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Central Transport Group

  Average days lost

  7.1

  6.6

  7.5

  5.5

  Percentage of days lost

  3.2

  3.0

  3.3

  2.5

  Coastguard Agency

  Average days lost

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  4.7

  Percentage of days lost

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  2.1

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Average days lost

  10.7

  10.4

  12.7

  11.1

  Percentage of days lost

  4.7

  4.6

  5.6

  4.9

  Driving Standards Agency

  Average days lost

  8.9

  9.0

  12.1

  9.7

  Percentage of days lost

  3.9

  4.0

  5.4

  4.3

  Highways Agency

  Average days lost

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  6.2

  Percentage days lost

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  2.8

  Marine Safety Agency

  Average days lost

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  3.9

  Percentage days lost

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  1.7

  Transport Research Laboratory

  Average days lost

  (1)

  4.2

  4.5

  3.8

  Percentage days lost

  (1)

  1.9

  2

  1.7

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Average days lost

  3.9

  5.1

  5.0

  3.8

  Percentage days lost

  1.7

  2.3

  2.2

  1.6

  Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency

  Average days lost

  7.0

  6.1

  8.1

  6.7

  Percentage days lost

  3.1

  2.7

  3.6

  3.0

  Department of Transport

  Average days lost

  8.5

  8.1

  9.7

  7.9

  Percentage days lost

  3.8

  3.6

  4.3

  3.5

  Notes:

  (1) = Not an agency at this time. Figures included within Central Transport Group.

  The figures are based upon data available to the Department's personnel information system at 26 January 1995 and relate only to staff currently employed by the Department. Information for staff who have left the Department during the period is not readily available.

  Lifeguards
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual public expenditure for coastal lifeguards in the United Kingdom; what certification and training qualification are required by coastal lifeguards; and how many bathing beaches in the United Kingdom(a) possess and (b) do not possess trained lifeguards.

  Mr. Norris
  This is not a matter for the Department of Transport. The Royal Life Saving Society (UK), a registered charity, is responsible for the training of lifeguards.

  Stagecoach
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the operations of Stagecoach in east London.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now state the conclusions of the Transport Research Laboratory study into additional injuries in accidents to pedestrians and cyclists caused by bull and roo bars on motor vehicles referred to in his answer of 26 May 1993,Official Report, column 568; and what action he intends to take in response to the conclusions of the study.

  Mr. Norris
  The Transport Research Laboratory study was a general study of pedestrian accidents, the sample for which contained insufficient data for any firm conclusions to be drawn about bull bars. However, impact tests using an instrumented child-size headform on a bull bar have shown that the severity of an impact on a bull bar appears significantly greater than on a flexible bonnet.

  Pedestrian injury accidents involving bull bars are currently being identified by the police for investigation by the Transport Research Laboratory. We will have a fuller picture when the reports of these accidents have been analysed.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of state for Transport what current proposals he has to restrict the use of bull bars; and what reports he has received of fatal accidents attributed to bull bars.

  Mr. Norris
  Pedestrian injury accidents involving bull bars are currently being identified by the police for investigation by the Transport Research Laboratory. We will have a fuller picture when the reports of these accidents have been analysed.

  Drivers (Eyesight)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the British Medical Association about driving, glaucoma and the law; what response he has given; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to review the effectiveness of the number plate test in the context of implementing the second driving licence directive of the European Union.
  587
  Mr. Norris
  We will shortly be proposing regulations to implement the second driving licence directive, including the provisions on eyesight standards. These are unlikely to affect the number plate test.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what survey his Department has conducted of research which indicates poor vision as a causative factor or road accidents.

  Mr. Norris
  We know of no survey where research has established poor driver vision as a systematic causative factor in accidents.

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

  Mr. Norris
  There is no practical distinction between publicity described as being issued by a single Minister or Her Majesty's Government.

  Many Government advertisements do not identify the sponsor but, whether explicit or implicit, all advertising is placed on behalf of a Secretary of State in pursuance of his or her powers on behalf of the Queen. The subject matter of the advertisement will determine which, if any, phrase is used.

  Most Department of Transport advertisements in this category are for road improvement schemes.

  Cradlewell Bypass
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reply has been given by him to representations to him on the accuracy and validity of cost benefit calculations on the Cradlewell bypass, Newcastle.

  Mr. Norris
  My predecessor, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), answered a number of questions on this topic in the last Session of Parliament, 19 January 1994,Official Report, columns 593–94.

  It is not practicable for the Department of Transport to verify in detail the accuracy and validity of all the supporting documentation prepared by local authorities seeking financial support for their transport proposals. The system relies on good practice by local authorities and the detailed scrutiny afforded by audit and public inquiries. The cost-benefit analysis that Newcastle city council submitted for Cradlewell bypass gave an indication of the scheme's value for money that was within the normal parameters for schemes of this type.

  Coaches
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many lives annually he estimates will be saved if coaches are banned from the right-hand lane of carriageways with more than two lanes.

  Mr. Norris
  We shall be able to make a full assessment of the safety benefits of the coach outside lane ban at the end of the two-year trial period when accident data are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has a been published on the 588
  risks related to coaches in the right-hand lane of three and four lane carriageways.

  Mr. Norris
  A report by Wootton Jeffreys Consultants Ltd. commissioned by the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK and submitted to the Department, concluded that exposure to risk might be reduced because there would be fewer lane changes and cases of harsh braking.

  London Bus Timetables
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that arrangements for the free supply of London bus timetables will remain in place.

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for London Transport. I understand that it has no plans to introduce charges for bus timetables.

  Cyclists
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of(a) fatal and (b) non-fatal accidents to cyclists in each police authority area in 1983; and what is the latest available information.

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

  PQ 719/94/95—Number of accidents involving a pedal cyclist, by severity of injury to the cyclist, and by Police Force: GB 1983 and 1993

  Accidents

  1983

  1993

  Pedal cyclist— fatal

  Pedal cyclist— serious or slight injury

  Pedal cyclist— fatal

  Pedal cyclist— serious or slight injury

  Metropolitan Police

  32

  5,448

  17

  4,357

  Cumbria

  4

  227

  3

  178

  Lancashire

  8

  68O

  7

  580

  Merseyside

  2

  660

  4

  615

  Greater Manchester

  8

  1,534

  9

  1,238

  Cheshire

  10

  615

  6

  391

  Northumbria

  2

  438

  4

  382

  Durham

  4

  152

  1

  156

  North Yorkshire

  5

  441

  4

  324

  West Yorkshire

  7

  727

  4

  613

  South Yorkshire

  4

  394

  9

  378

  Humberside

  10

  733

  8

  674

  Cleveland

  2

  252

  2

  205

  West Midlands

  8

  1,162

  4

  863

  Staffordshire

  3

  594

  5

  415

  West Mercia

  10

  560

  5

  471

  Warwickshire

  7

  314

  0

  224

  Derbyshire

  6

  427

  5

  319

  Nottinghamshire

  6

  646

  3

  469

  Lincolnshire

  9

  393

  2

  308

  Leicestershire

  6

  546

  3

  414

  Northamptonshire

  4

  209

  1

  201

  Cambridgeshire

  7

  623

  7

  715

  Norfolk

  6

  483

  2

  396

  Suffolk

  11

  400

  6

  268

  Bedfordshire

  5

  338

  2

  194

  Hertfordshire

  7

  467

  4

  327

  Essex

  10

  809

  4

  611

  Thames Valley

  16

  1,135

  7

  904

  Hampshire

  14

  1,263

  4

  1,005

  Surrey

  3

  623

  0

  400

  Kent

  7

  777

  4

  548

  Sussex

  11

  806

  5

  634

  City of London

  0

  41

  1

  25

  Devon and Cornwall

  8

  607

  3

  560

  Avon and Somerset

  9

  637

  0

  486

  Gloucestershire

  7

  355

  4

  247

  589

  PQ 719/94/95—Number of accidents involving a pedal cyclist, by severity of injury to the cyclist, and by Police Force: GB 1983 and 1993

  Accidents

  1983

  1993

  Pedal cyclist— fatal

  Pedal cyclist— serious or slight injury

  Pedal cyclist— fatal

  Pedal cyclist— serious or slight injury

  Wiltshire

  6

  397

  0

  240

  Dorset

  7

  392

  2

  319

  North Wales

  0

  237

  3

  179

  Gwent

  2

  131

  0

  115

  South Wales

  4

  403

  2

  375

  Dyfed-Powys

  1

  128

  1

  88

  Northern

  3

  52

  1

  90

  Grampian

  3

  201

  2

  139

  Tayside

  0

  128

  0

  83

  Fife

  1

  109

  2

  57

  Lothian and Borders

  2

  335

  3

  289

  Central

  1

  91

  1

  80

  Strathclyde

  10

  645

  9

  405

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2

  60

  0

  20

  Total

  320

  29,825

  185

  23,574

  Barking to Gospel Oak Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has formulated since his visit to the Barking to Gospel Oak line in December to improve the service to passengers on that line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The provision of services on the Barking to Gospel Oak line is a matter for North London Railways, one of British Rail's train operating units. I have agreed supplementary credit approvals through the transport policies programme towards a joint bid by local London boroughs for selective station improvements along the line.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of state for Transport when the franchising director is going to publish his proposals for the first passenger service requirements for franchises; and if these will be subject to consultation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The franchising director is today publishing for consultation his proposals for passenger service requirement for the Gatwick Express, South West Trains, Great Western Trains and London, Tilbury and Southend Franchises. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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 590
  corporate clothing and at what cost; and what is the cost of specially designed and printed corporate stationery.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The chief executives of each of the Department's agencies have written to the right hon. Member with the specific information for each agency. In 1987–88, before the first departmental agency was established, the total number of staff in the Department was 15,286. In 1994–95 the equivalent figure for the Department, including agencies, is 13,755. Further reductions in staff are planned for 1995–96. The creation of agencies in the Department has led to improved performance through better targeting and clarification of responsibilities.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as this question deals with an operational matter, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  The answers to the questions raised are as follows:

  (1) The Coastguard Agency (TCA) HQ is located in Spring Place, Southampton. This property is shared with the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) HQ and the Southampton Marine Office. The move to this building has nothing to do with agency status. The Marine Emergencies Organisation (now TCA) HQ, the Surveyor General's Organisation (now MSA) HQ and the Southampton Marine Office were relocated from London to Southampton in May 1993 prior to Agency status. The annual rent on this property is £1.2 million, a saving of some £0.74 million on rented costs of previous accommodation.

  (2) The Coastguard Agency has recruited 3 permanent and one temporary member of staff to deal with the additional requirements of Agency status.

  (3) The Agency publishes a quarterly magazine "The Coastguard Magazine". This periodical predates the Agency having been published in a similar format for many years, and first produced in 1946. The current cost is £48,000 per annum.

  (4) No fleets of executive cars or single executive cars have been purchased by the Agency.

  (5) The costs of preparing a specially designed logo was £7,285.

  (6) Her Majesty's Coastguard which is part of the Agency has 473 staff who have been in uniform for many years. The 12 Marine Pollution Control Unit staff who may have to attend the scene of an oil spill are provided with protective clothing. No other agency staff wear corporate clothing.

  (7) Previous stocks of stationery were run down so that no additional costs were incurred for the design and printing of corporate stationery.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to provide details for the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) in response to your Question about Next Steps Agencies.

  Headquarters building
  The MSA Headquarters is co-located in Spring Place Southampton with the Coastguard Agency Headquarters. Spring Place is a leased property and is part of the Coastguard Agency estate and costs are borne on their budget.

  Support staff
  The Surveyor General's Organisation (from which MSA was formed) took over most of its own support function (personnel, finance, IT, etc) in 1991. There have been no changes in support staff as a result of the move to Agency status.

  Periodical journals
  The MSA issues a staff newsletter six times a year. The cost is small as it is copied and distributed in-house.
  591
  Cars
  The MSA has no official vehicles and does not provide cars for any of its staff.

  Logo
  The MSA logo was designed in-house at no cost.

  Corporate clothing
  The only "corporate" clothing used by MSA is high visibility protective clothing for use by operational surveyors which incorporates the MSA logo. This cost £27k in 1993–94 and replaced previous protective clothing allowance.

  MSA stationery
  The MSA corporate stationery was designed in house by the Department's drawing office team and has replaced the Departmental stationery used by the SGO. The printing of the MSA stationery costs no more than the original DOT corporate printed stationery.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 30 January 1995:
  With reference to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State of Transport about Next Steps Agencies in his Department the information requested in relation to the Highways Agency is as follows:

  (i) The headquarters of this Agency has been brought together in St. Christopher House, Southwark Street, London, a building already on the Government's Common User Estate.

  (ii) In general the staff of the Agency are those who were previously carrying out its functions in the Department of Transport. Two senior staff have been recruited from the private sector following open competitions, the Chief Executive and the Finance Director. The arrival of the latter will be offset by the departure of one of the original directors who will leave the Agency later in the year. Since the establishment of the Agency in April 1994 staff numbers have reduced and this will continue.

  (iii) The Highways Agency has not instituted publication of a periodical journal.

  (iv) The Highways Agency has not acquired any executive cars not has it provided corporate clothing.

  (v) Revised stationery using Agency headings was introduced under standard supply and usage contracts.

  (vi) The fee paid for the design of the Agency's logo was £1,250.

  Letter from John Wootton to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question on the cost of the change to Agency status. The answers to the points raised in your question are set out below:
  The setting up of TRL as an executive agency did not require the acquisition of new HQ buildings.
  TRL does not have any executive cars nor does it supply staff with specific corporate clothing. Some work and protective clothing has had the TRL logo applied to it a minimal cost.
  TRL publishes its research and findings widely as part of its dissemination role. Since becoming an agency these publications have been revised to include another, "TRL News", which costs £9,200 annually to produce.
  Prior to establishment as an executive agency TRL was required to increase its Personnel, section competence. One member of staff was seconded to TRL for approximately 6 months. Since then the number of support staff has been reduced in all areas of TRL operation in accordance with its published business plan.
  TRL, formerly TRRL, commissioned a revision of its old logo and the production of a design manual at the cost of £9,000.
  592
  Letter from L Manley to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about certain operational matters concerning the Driving Standards Agency (DSA).
  The information you requested is provided below:
  HQ building: The annual rental for Stanley House, Nottingham is £341,614. This replaced existing accommodation at 2 Marsham Street, London. The cost of providing in-going services at Stanley House was £712,000. An evaluation carried out after DSA relocated showed a benefit in net present value terms of nearly £3 million over 10 years, with payback occurring within 3 years of the move. Payback has been achieved.
  Support staff: DSA recruited 13 new staff to run the new building on relocation (including typists, support grades, office manager and deputy and administrative support). The costs were fully offset by a reduction in the charges made to DSA by Department of Transport (Central).
  Periodical journal: DSA does not publish any periodical journals.
  Executive cars: DSA does not have any executive cars.
  Corporate logo: The DSA logo was chosen from suggestions put forward by staff.
  Corporate clothing: DSA does not have corporate clothing.
  Stationery: Over the last 12 months the cost of DSA stationery for use in HQ and DSA's Regional Offices was £5,357. This replaced previous use of Department of Transport paper.
  Overall, there has been a substantial reduction in the level of on-costs paid to DOT(C) by DSA for services now provided in-house.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Gerald Kaufman, dated 30 January 1995:

  Next Steps Agencies—Vehicle Inspectorate
  Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question on Executive Agencies, on matters relating to the Vehicle Inspectorate (VI). Taking your points in turn:

  (i) VI has 2 sites which are occupied by staff undertaking HQ or support-type services. Both of these properties were occupied prior to the Agency being set up and were purchased, or rental contracts entered into, when VI was within the Department.

  (ii) The number of staff involved in support services has remained largely static since before the Agency was set up, though the activities undertaken have changed. Prior to its becoming an Agency, the Inspectorate had well-developed 'in house' Finance and Personnel functions.

  (iii) The actual number of VI employees (calculated in whole staff years) has reduced from 1,869 in 1988/89 (this figure has been adjusted to include the Traffic Examiner organisation which merged with VI in 1992/93) to a figure of 1,618 currently.

  (iv) VI does not publish periodical journals to customers, or to any other body, but does publish staff newsletters. These newsletters have an annual cost of approximately £10,000.

  (v) VI does not have any "executive" cars but does have a fleet of 43 "pool" cars for use by all staff. Of these, 6 are based at the HQ offices and the remaining 37 are located at our enforcement offices across the country. Some vehicles were also provided prior to the Agency being set up.

  (vi) The VI logo was modified at the time the Agency was established to incorporate the words "Executive Agency". This was undertaken at minimal cost.

  (vii) VI does not provide corporate clothing. However the Inspectorate does provide, and did provide prior to the Agency's establishment, protective clothing to staff.

  (viii) VI does use headed stationery incorporating the VI logo. This replaced the previous headed paper used by the Inspectorate prior to the Agency being set up.

  Please contact me if you need further information.

  Letter from Dr. S. J. Ford to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 30 January 1993:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question on Executive Agencies, on matters relating to the

  593
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). Taking your points in turn:

  (i) DVLA has not acquired its own HQ building as a consequence of becoming an agency.

  (ii) Annual cost—not applicable.

  (iii) No additional support staff have been required since becoming an agency: DVL Directorate already exercised a considerable degree of delegated authority before agency status.

  (iv) DVLA publishes twice a year `DVL Today' mainly to inform corporate customers such as the motor trade, the police and the courts about key developments and changes. Annual cost £35,000. DVLA also publishes a monthly staff journal "LICENCE" at an annual cost of £40,000. This was published before DVLA became an agency.

  (v) DVLA now operates 1 official car compared with 2 before becoming an agency, and is about to surrender the remaining vehicle.

  (vi) The DVLA logo was produced by a member of staff in an internal competition with professional assistance at a total cost of £1,000 for the final product.

  (vii) The design of existing official clothing for messengers was changed and now costs £1,000 a year less than before agency.

  (viii) There was no extra cost in incorporating the DVLA logo on specially designed and printed corporate stationery as existing stocks of stationery had to be replenished.

  Letter from Peter Nicholl to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 30 January 1995:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive on Agency business, I have been asked by the Secretary of State to reply to the questions you raised insofar as they relate to the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA).
  Taking your questions in order:

  1. In April 1990, some 3 weeks after its establishment as an executive agency, VCA moved from a shared Government building in central Bristol to a new headquarters in rented single-occupier offices 2 miles from the centre. A study carried out at the time indicated that the move represented value for money. The current annual rent is £156,007.32.

  2. VCA now has 11 staff providing support services which were previously provided centrally. (VCA's staff numbers were 73 in the year immediately prior to its establishment as an agency, 80 in its first year, and 75 by its fourth year 1993–94).

  3. VCA does not publish any periodical journals.

  4. VCA does not have a fleet of executive cars nor any single executive cars.

  5. VCA's logo initially derived from an in-house competition. Its design was improved last year at relatively low cost. (Please see item 7 below).

  6. VCA's staff do not have corporate clothing.

  7. VCA's stationery was originally designed by HMSO at a cost which cannot now easily be traced. The design of the logo and stationery was upgraded last year at a cost of £1,163.25. Supplies of stationery in this form are obtained when needed at the most economical cost that can be found.

  I would be happy to answer any other questions you may have about VCA's operations.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has reviewed cost-benefit analysis procedures on road schemes; if conclusions have been reached; and if he will place a copy of any new guidance on such analysis in the Library.

  Mr. Watts
  Cost-benefit analysis procedures for road schemes are kept constantly under review. I refer the hon. Member also to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Braridreth) on 19 December 1994,Official Report, columns 880–81.

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

  Mr. Norris
  (a) Once. I met with London Taxis International and one representative of Ian Greer Associates, to discuss taxi issues. Three officials of my Department were present.

  (b) None.

  Kent Coast Line
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has yet seen the British Railways Board's business case for the replacement, or otherwise, of rolling stock for the Kent coast line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  Establishing the business case for this investment is a matter for the British Railways Board. My Department has been sent, for information, some of the material on the basis of which BR made its decision not to accept the offer made last year by ABB Transportation.

  Subsequently, BR has indicated a willingness to re-examine the commercial case if an improved offer were received from ABB.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Oil and Gas Development
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to ensure that floating production facilities for oil and gas developments are built in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The industrial research and technology unit of the Department of Economic Development is in discussion with Harland and Wolff about possible Government support for the development of a floating production storage and offloading unit for the deep-water offshore oil industry. The company has been invited to submit a formal application to IRTU which will be subject to the normal rigours of a technical and financial appraisal.

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

  Sir John Wheeler
  From the information available in Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office, £1,142,112 was spent during 1994 in recruiting, 1,910 staff.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.
  595
  Mr. John Wheeler
  N. M. Rothschild and Sons has been employed on only one privatisation programme—Northern Ireland Electricity. Details of the fees and expenses paid in respect of this contract cannot be released as it would breach commercial confidentiality.

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

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  The Attorney-General
  None of the Departments for which I am responsible has made payments to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any such work.

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

  The Attorney-General
  (a) None: (b) None.

EMPLOYMENT

  Work-related Illnesses
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the Health and Safety Executive's estimate of the number of people who die each year as a result of ill health induced by work activity.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  It is not possible to state accurately the number of premature deaths which are the result of ill health cased by work. It is estimated there are at least 2,500 such deaths in Great Britain annually. Figures have been published in "Health and Safety Statistics: Statistical Supplement to the 1993–94 Annual Report of the Health and Safety Commission", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Business Start-up Scheme
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which TEC areas(a) will and (b) will not provide business start-up programme type support in 1995–96; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  A list of training and enterprise council areas where there will be direct business start-up support 596
  in 1995–96 from the single regeneration budget is shown in the table.

  Start-up support will also be available through the training for work programme, from TECs' own reserves and from the Prince's Youth Business Trust which receives funding from the Department, but the TEC areas concerned cannot readily be identified. For this reason, it is not possible to supply a list of any areas which may be entirely without such support.

  The Areas with direct business start-up support from the single regeneration budget, 1995–96

  Avon TEC

  AZTEC (Kingston upon Thames)

  Barnsley/Doncaster TEC

  Bedfordshire TEC

  Birmingham TEC

  Bradford and District TEC

  Calderdale and Kirklees TEC

  CENTEC (Central London)

  CEWTEC (Wirral)

  CILNTEC (Inner London North)

  County Durham TEC

  Coventry and Warwickshire TEC

  Cumbria TEC

  Devon and Cornwall TEC

  Dorset TEC

  Dudley TEC

  ELTEC (East Lancashire)

  Gloucestershire TEC

  Greater Peterborough TEC

  Hampshire TEC

  HAWTEC (Hereford and Worcester)

  Hertfordshire TEC

  Humberside TEC

  LAWTEC (Lancashire West)

  Leeds TEC

  Lincolnshire TEC

  London East TEC

  Manchester TEC

  Merseyside TEC

  METROTEC (Wigan)

  Norfolk and Waveney TEC

  North Derbyshire TEC

  North London TEC

  North Nottinghamshire TEC

  North West London TEC

  North Yorkshire TEC

  Northamptonshire TEC

  Northumberland TEC

  QUALITEC (St. Helens)

  Rochdale TEC

  Rotherham TEC

  Sandwell TEC

  Sheffield TEC

  Shropshire TEC

  SOLOTEC (Bromley)

  Somerset TEC

  South East Cheshire TEC

  South Thames TEC

  Southern Derbyshire TEC

  Staffordshire TEC

  Sunderland City TEC

  Sussex TEC

  Teesside TEC

  Tyneside TEC

  Wakefield TEC

  West London TEC

  Wolverhampton TEC

  597
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans his Department has for ensuring that unemployed people who wish to start their own businesses have an equal opportunity to do so following the placing of the business start-up scheme in the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Paice
  Support for unemployed people who wish to start their own business will continue. The single regeneration budget projects recently approved will provide over 18,000 start-up opportunities. Training and enterprise councils are being encouraged to take advantage of arrangements which allow people in training for work to pursue self-employment and TECs may fund further start-up help through their own reserves. We also continue to contribute to the work of the Prince's Youth Business Trust which helps young people set up in business through the provision of grants and/or loans.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what powers are available to local authorities and to other agencies to regulate the storage, use and installation of liquefied petroleum gas cylinders(a) generally and (b) for use in permanent domestic central heating.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The storage of 25 tonnes or more of liquefied petroleum gas requires consent from the hazardous substances authority—usually the local planning authority—under the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990.

  By virtue of its powers under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, the Health and Safety Commission has introduced the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994 to control, among other things, the storage, use and installation of liquefied petroleum gas, both generally, and for use in permanent domestic central heating.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what responsibility suppliers of liquefied petroleum gas have towards purchasers of the product concerning its safe installation and use.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994 place duties on a gas supplier. Duties under the regulations include a requirement that liquefied petroleum gas storage tanks be sited in such a manner that they can be safely used, filled and refilled.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if Health and Safety Executive guidance note CS4 applies only to safety at work.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No. Advice given in guidance note CS4 is to safeguard both people at work and members of the general public.

  National Development Agenda
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress there has been with the national development agenda; how much money out of the total budget for 1994–95 has been spent; and if he will make a statement on its evaluation and plans for the future.
  598
  Mr. Paice
  The 1994 national development agenda described key objectives towards which the Department's support for the development of the vocational education and training system is being directed. Examples include the standards programme, and action to encourage employers to see training as an investment.

  There is no single budget for national development. The work is funded from a range of individual budgets voted for particular purposes. At 31 December 1994 £15.6 million had been spent out of available funds of £.410.2 million for the current financial year.

  Progress is being made in all the areas covered by the national development agenda, with a wide range of projects contracted.

  It is a requirement that all projects are evaluated, and that where appropriate there should be evaluation of the performance of linked groups of projects.

  The results of evaluation form an important part of the Department's dissemination activity for national development work. Project outputs are disseminated widely to relevant audiences through conferences, seminars, publicity and promotional events, reports and other publications.

  For the future, a second edition of the national development agenda is planned for publication in February, taking account of the developments announced in the 1994 White Paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win".

  South Thames Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the range of likely costs to public funds which will result from closure of and redundancies of providers at South Thames TEC.

  Mr. Paice
  I do not expect that any closures or redundancies will lead directly to costs to public funds. Consequential costs, for example any calls upon the national insurance fund, are not possible to estimate.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he intends shall succeed South Thames TEC.

  Mr. Paice
  It is urgent to settle the arrangements for training and enterprise council coverage in London for 1995–96. I have today invited CENTEC to put proposals to me on how it would exercise the full range of TEC responsibilities in the London boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark, and SOLOTEC in the London boroughs of Greenwich and Lewisham, from the start of the 1995–96 contract. In the light of the views expressed about the future arrangements in the South Thames area, I expect this to lead to calls for a wider review of London TEC boundaries, and in particular to consideration of a central London TEC covering a broader area. I look forward to hearing the views of London TECs and other London interests on those issues in due course.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Government take priority over training provider creditors for cash from the receivers of South Thames TEC.

  Mr. Paice
  Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a secured creditor by virtue of a debenture held with the training and enterprise council.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing for each region in the united Kingdom the number of vacancies in jobcentres that were(a) temporary and (b) permanent in each quarter since December 1990.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is available monthly, but only for filled vacancies, from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Job Advertisements (European Commission)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 24 January Official Report, column 184, if the recruitment process for United Kingdom-based European Commission staff, including job advertisements, is subject to (a) the Race Relations Act 1974 and (b) the Sex Discrimination Acts.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No. The staff regulations of officials of the European Communities, which form part of a regulation made by the Council of the European Communities under the EC treaties, provide that an official may be appointed only if he or she is a national of a member state. However, the regulations also require that, subject to the nationality condition, officials be selected without reference to race, sex or creed.

  Credit Guarantee Insurance
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he offers credit guarantee insurance to TEC training providers.

  Mr. Paice
  No.

  Unemployment (Derbyshire)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of unemployment in Derbyshire in February 1986; and what is the latest figure.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Unadjusted claimant unemployment in Derbyshire stood at 37,310 in December 1994 compared with 50,068 in February 1986. This represents a fall of 25 per cent.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people and what percentage of the labour force in each region for the United Kingdom as a whole were classified as being in temporary employment in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  This information is not available as a consistent series from 1979. However, a consistent series for 1984 onwards is available from the labour force survey and can be obtained via the Quantime LFS service available in the Library.

  Food Service Industry
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what number of students work(a) full-time and (b) part-time in the food service industry; and what were the comparable figures for each year since 1989.
  600
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is given in the table:

  Number of students1 working in the food service industry (000's) in Great Britain

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Spring 1989

  —

  82

  Spring 1990

  —

  104

  Spring 1991

  —

  100

  Spring 1992

  —

  118

  Spring 1993

  —

  112

  Spring 1994

  —

  132

  Summer 1994

  —

  119

  Source:

  Labour force survey—not seasonally adjusted.

  Notes:

  —Less than 10,000 in cell; estimate not shown.

  1 Includes full-time students only.

  Pneumoconiosis
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the total sum of money paid out under the provisions of the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979; and what has been the number of beneficiaries.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  As at 31 December 1994, total expenditure under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 amounted to around £38.1 million. Some 5,700 people have received a payment under the Act.

  Work Permits
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the issuing of work permits to Japanese nationals, and on complaints made by employees of Quick Corp., London branch, 65 Clifton street, London EC2, about the overseas labour service section at his Department.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Work permits are issued to Japanese nationals on the same basis as those issued to other nationalities.

  The Department has not received complaints from employees of Quick Corp., London branch about the overseas labour service. OLS officials are considering representations from former employees of Quick Corp. about work permits issued to Japanese nationals employed by the company.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Miss Widdecombe
  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. has not been employed to undertake any work on the Department's privatisation programmes.

  Employment Service
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will make a statement about the inspection service in the London and south-east region of the Employment Service;
  601
  (2) if he will make a statement about the financial status of the London and south-east region of the Employment Service;

  (3) if he will make a statement about the London and south-east region of the Employment Service;

  (4) if he will make a statement about the level of achievement in the inspection service of the London and south-east region of the Employment Service in relation to its annual performance agreement;

  (5) if he will make a statement about redeployment of staff across the London and south-east region of the Employment Service and the reasons for it;

  (6) if he will make a statement about staffing in the London and south-east region of the Employment Service.

  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 D. Grover to Ms Harriet Harman, dated 31 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence on leave of the Chief Executive, to reply to your questions about the London and South East Region (Region) of the Employment Service (ES).
  Unemployment within the Region has fallen by almost 15% during the twelve months to December 1994. Indeed, in some locations such as Andover in Hampshire, the fall has been almost 35% Such falls indicate that the economy is in much better shape and, in part, reflect the success of ES initiatives to help people back into employment.
  Falling unemployment means that the ES, whose staff deal directly with the payment of benefits as well as offering job and other opportunities, has experienced a fall in the number of people using its services. ES managers have reacted swiftly to these changes to ensure that they are staffed to meet need and that taxpayers" money is not wasted. Inevitably, at a time of falling unemployment, this has led to a reduction in staffing levels
  As regards staffing, you will appreciate that the ES receives funding for staffing on the basis of need, i.e. the level of unemployment. Falling unemployment means that we now need less staff and can anticipate lower staffing levels for the financial year ahead. We need to manage our budgets and staffing levels to meet this new need. There are over 300 Jobcentres across the Region and unemployment is falling at differing rates at particular locations, so balancing staffing levels to need is a particularly challenging task. It has been necessary to redeploy staff between offices and between functions to ensure that a balance is maintained between staffing levels and the needs of our clients. Inevitably, staff have undertaken work in different areas of ES activity in the short term to meet short term need.
  The response to these changing needs from ES staff has been commendably high, as you will note from our continuing performance in the delivery of services to our customers. As regards finances, in the nine month period from April to December 1994, the Region had spent £267.1 million or 73.8% of its annual budget.
  Performance across all areas of our business is strong. The help offered to unemployed people continues to increase; the Region has placed almost 380,000 people in employment (April-December 1994) and I estimate that this figure will have increased to approaching 500,000 people by the end of March. Over one in three of these placings are long-term unemployed clients. At this point in time, the Region are 12% above their unemployed placings target in this area. Indeed, in almost every area of work, the Region are ahead of their targets and continue to offer an improved service to jobseekers.
  As regards the Inspection Service in the Region, as at December 1994 its targets for the full operational year (to April) for authorised prosecutions and claimants withdrawing claims had already been almost matched or exceeded.
  I hope this is helpful.

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

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have no knowledge of any such meetings.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Consultants
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many relatives of serving diplomats are currently employed by the Overseas Development Administration as consultants.

  Mr. Baldry
  We would not normally ask potential consultants about the occupation of their relatives. However, we are aware of two who are currently employed.

  Recruitment
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreiign and Commonwealth Affairs how many positions in the United Kingdom's overseas aid programme were filled from the Overseas Development Administration's own register of available personnel for each year since 1979; how many were advertised in the media; and how many were filled by outside recruitment agencies and consultancies.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information about the method of recruitment of the many thousands of overseas aid personnel appointed since 1979 is not available centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

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

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer to the hon. Member to the answer given on 23 January 1995,Official Report, columns 25–26.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N.M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation
  603
  programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Nil.

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

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Officials in the Department for which I am responsible did not meet representatives of Ian Greer Associates either formally or informally on 26 January to discuss matters relating to their clients' interests.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. Heseltine
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 17 January,Official Report, column 400. Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the chief executives of the nine agencies for which my Department is responsible. I have therefore asked Mr. John Hobday of the Account Services Agency; Mr. David Durham of Companies House; Mr. Peter Joyce of the Insolvency Service; Dr. Richard Worswick of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist; Mr. William Edgar of the National Engineering Laboratory; Dr. Peter Clapham of the National Physical Laboratory; Dr. Seton Bennett of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory; Dr. Paul Hartnack of the Patent Office; and Mr. Jim Norton of the Radiocommunications Agency to arrange for answers to be given.

  Letter from W. Edgar to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 31 January 1995:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION No. 180
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question relating to various items of expenditure incurred by NEL as a Next Steps Agency. NEL has not acquired its headquarters building. Since achieving agency status it has reduced from 13 to 5 the number of principal buildings it uses. Since achieving agency status NEL has reduced its support staff by about 43%. The only periodical journal published by NEL is its annual report which, unlike its pre-agency status annual report, is also used as a marketing document. Pre-agency there were two vehicles which could have been described as executive cars now there are three, the additional annual cost being £7900 per annum. All of the vehicles are available for general laboratory duties as required. NEL uses the same logo as it has had for almost 40 years. The number of staff issued with
  604
  corporate clothing has been reduced from 7 to 2 since NEL became an agency. There have been no costs incurred in the special design of stationery. As is normally the case, the stationery has been updated from time to time to add the symbols associated with the additional quality accreditations obtained by the establishment, no special design costs were incurred in incorporating these additions.
  I trust you will find the above information to be satisfactory for your purposes.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 31 January 1995:

  AGENCY MATTERS
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about certain Agency expenditure and resource requirements.
  The Agency has not acquired a new headquarters building as a result of becoming an Agency. The Agency will be moving to a new building in Docklands later this year since the lease on Waterloo Bridge House is about to expire.
  The Agency has 15 staff carrying out support functions which have been delegated to the Agency by the Department.
  The Agency issues a number of periodical publications, including the Annual Report, at a total annual cost of £120k.
  The Agency does not have any executive cars.
  The design of the Agency corporate logo cost £5k.
  The cost of corporate clothing is £12k per annum.
  The cost of Agency stationery in 1994/95 will be around £80k. However this is no increase on the equivalent DTI stationery.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 31 January 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Question about the costs of a number of Insolvency Service operational matters.
  The Service has not acquired any separate headquarters buildings since it was established as an agency in March 1990: both its London and Birmingham headquarters share buildings with Official Receivers' offices: its Edinburgh Disqualification Unit, set up prior to March 1990, shares a building with the Scottish Office.
  There has been a continuing process of delegation of support functions previously undertaken by central divisions of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI): the effect on overall resources, so far as I have been informed, has been neutral—any additional resources have been at least matched by reductions in central divisions' staffing.
  The Service is required to publish an Agency Annual Report: the publication cost for the last Report (1993–94) was some £13,000. It does not have or use executive cars. Its logo was designed in-house using ideas from staff: the cost was negligible. It does not have corporate clothing for any of its staff. It does not use specially designed and printed stationery beyond the incorporation of its logo on its letters etc, which is automatically produced by the word processing software, and where appropriate its corporate colour on its publications, replacing the DTI logo and colour.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 31 January 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about expenditure in Next Steps agencies.

  Buildings
  Prior to becoming an agency, NWML occupied a single building, part of DTI's estate, for which rent was paid. These arrangement were not been affected by NWML becoming an agency in 1989. The annual rent for the building is £239,000.

  Support Staff
  NWML currently has the same number of support staff as it had before it became an agency. The additional administrative duties associated with being an agency have been absorbed within the existing allocation of staff.
  605
  Journals
  Between 1 April 1993 and 31 March 1994, NWML spent £8245.67 on publications distributed to UK industry and Local Authorities.

  Executive Cars
  No NWML staff have executive cars. Prior to becoming an agency, NWML owned one pool car. Since becoming an agency it has disposed of the car and replaced it with a lease arrangement for a smaller car.

  Logos
  The agency has not spent any money on logo design.

  Clothing
  The agency has spent £1414.52 on corporate clothing (150 ties, 50 scarves and umbrellas) since 1989.

  Corporate Stationery
  NWML has not changed the design of letterheads, compliment slips or business cards as a result of becoming an agency. Its expenditure on these items in 1993–94 was £2,310.58 which is approximately the same annual expenditure as before becoming an agency.

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 24 January 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply in respect of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC) to your Parliamentary Question (No. 180) about certain costs incurred by Next Steps Agencies in the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).
  The position on the points you raise is as follows:

  (i) LGC has not acquired any of its buildings. It has occupied premises, including its main laboratory, which form part of the DTI's estate at Teddington since 1988 (when it relocated from central London) and pays an annual rental to Property Holdings;

  (ii) as a result of organisational and operational changes which have affected LGC since it became an Executive Agency in 1989 it is not possible to give a precise response to the changing requirements for support staff over the past five years or so. The Laboratory's total support staff has risen from a complement of 64 in 1989/90 to a total of 67 in the current financial year. This increase reflects the considerable additional administrative responsibilities which the Laboratory undertakes. A range of tasks previously carried out by DTI centrally are now covered by LGC's Human Resources, Accounts and Finance and IT Groups and a Business Development Group has been set up during this period. A Strategic Research Unit (five staff) to support our scientific activity has recently been created but this is not included in the figures for support staff above;

  (iii) the Laboratory publishes an Annual Report and Accounts, and produces on average two issues of the Government Chemist bulletin a year. The cost of these in 1993/94 was approximately £30k;

  (iv) the Laboratory has no executive cars;

  (v) the Laboratory first used a logo in 1978/79 on headed stationery, publicity material etc. The design work was carried out within DTI;

  (vi) the Laboratory has a long standing policy of issuing clothing to staff primarily for health and safety reasons (in some instances as a statutory requirement) e.g. laboratory coats and gloves, external site working equipment such as helmets, boots and overalls. In addition staff in the Laboratory's Post Room are issued with uniforms including safety shoes. The total cost of these items in 1993/94 was approximately £7k;

  (vii) the cost of stationery (including letterheaded paper which incorporates an LGC logo) to the Laboratory in 1993/94 was approximately £4k.

  I hope this meets with your requirements.

  Letter from Dr. Peter Clapham to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 31 January 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Question concerning the cost of building etc., used by Next
  606
  Step Agencies. This reply concerns the National Physical Laboratory.
  Taking each of your questions in turn:
  Headquarters Building: NPL has not acquired any additional buildings to those occupied prior to becoming an Agency.
  Support Staff: While the balance of our support specialisms has changed, NPL has not acquired any net additional support staff since becoming an Agency. Such additional tasks as have been delegated to the Agency, eg wider personnel responsibilities, have been absorbed by existing staff.
  Periodical Journals: NPL has continued to publish NPL News once or twice a year—there has been no significant change in cost since becoming an Agency.
  Cars: NPL does not operate any executive cars.
  Logos: NPL has always maintained its own 'house style' and has revised it from time to time for promotional reasons. The East occasion was just prior to becoming an Agency, and the design cost was borne by the Department (about £3,000).
  Clothing: NPL has introduced no new corporate clothing, but a number of industrial staff now wear overalls bearing the current logo at negligible additional cost.
  Stationery: NPL has its own printing facilities for technical reports etc, and most corporate stationery is printed in-house at marginal cost. The Agency's total stationery costs are about £25k per annum.
  I hope this provides the information you were seeking.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 31 January 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to respond to your Question about costs incurred by Next Steps agencies in his Department.
  The Patent Office became an executive agency in March 1990 and over the following two years we relocated from London to a new building in Newport, South Wales. In October 1991 we became a trading fund and acquired title to the new building at a cost of £17 million.
  Over the last five years we have reduced our cost base by about £7 million a year, partly because of lower accommodation costs, partly by efficiency savings, and partly because staff numbers have reduced in line with a long-standing decline in demand for our services following the establishment of a European Patent Office in Munich in 1978. We currently have 963 staff in post including 218 support staff (ie staff who are in support of our core functions of granting patents and registering trade marks and designs) compared with 1179 staff in post, including 285 support staff, on 1 March 1990.
  We publish a number of journals in line with statutory obligations: the Official Journal (Patents) at an annual cost of £77,890; the Trade Mark Journal at an annual cost of £78,528; and Reports of Patents, Design and Trade Mark Cases at an annual cost of £8,580. The cost of our Annual Report to Parliament for 1993–94 was £18,000. Non-statutory publications centre on free information about how to go about obtaining patents, trade marks and registered designs and we send out a total of nearly 250,000 information packs each year at a printing cost of £130,000. We also publish occasional material such as monographs on patent trends. Our total statutory and non-statutory printing costs are around £600,000 a year.
  We have no fleet of executive cars, and we have no single executive cars.
  Our logo (see heading of this letter) was created in 1986 by the DTI's Information Division at no cost to the Patent Office. The cost of overprinting standard stationery with the logo (1,500,000 sheets a year) is £4,000. We have a flag incorporating the logo which cost £268.
  We have no corporate clothing and we do not have corporate stationery other than that described above.

  Letter from John Hobday to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 27 January 1995:
  Your recent Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade asked a number of questions about the costs incurred by

  607
  Next Steps Agencies in his Department in introducing their own corporate identities.
  The Accounts Services Agency was created in October 1991. Since when:

  (i) the Agency has acquired its one and only operational centre the rental for which for 1994–95 was £135,125

  (ii) it has not been necessary to increase the number of support staff

  (iii) ASA has not published any periodical journals other than its three Annual Reports the cost of which were £6,410.10 in total

  (iv) the Agency does not possess any official cars

  (v) the Agency's logo was designed at a cost of £100—the prize for an in-house staff competition

  (vi) no corporate clothing is used

  (vii) the costs of specially designed and printed corporate stationery was £19,147.15

  The costs quoted include VAT. Some of these costs would be matched by savings on the equivalent Departmental budgets.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 31 January 1995:
  You asked the President of the Board of Trade the following question: (PQ180)
  "To ask the President of the Board of Trade, 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."
  I have been asked to respond direct to you as Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency.

  Headquarters Building
  Companies House headquarters occupies a property in Cardiff that has been a crown freehold since it was built in 1975. No change in ownership has occurred as a consequence of CH becoming an executive agency. The property's book value in CH's balance sheet for 31 March 1994 was £13.8 million.

  Support Staff
  It is now over 6 years since CH became an executive agency, and the many changes in the nature of our operations make comparisons between staff functions over this period of time difficult. The total number of staff in post (measured as full-time equivalents) has fallen from 1081 on 3 October 1988 (Agency Day) to 1006 at 31 December 1994. Of these, 156 were classified as "support staff' in October 1988, compared with 184 in December 1994. However the term "support" staff includes computer, accounting, and building service staff as well as other functions such as personnel, typing, training and customer service. The largest single category of support staff are computer staff, whose numbers increased from 43 to 58, reflecting the much greater use of information technology to deliver CH's services.

  Periodicals
  Companies House publishes a periodical called "The Register", which is used to disseminate information about changes in company law, current prices for our services and details of new services, and information about our performance against published targets. It is distributed free to anyone who wishes to receive it, and published four times a year. The present annual cost of publication, including postage, is approximately £70,000 for a circulation of 22,000 per issue.

  Executive Cars
  There are no cars provided for staff, executive or otherwise. The costs of official travel by car are reimbursed by means of Treasury and Inland Revenue approved mileage rates. In certain cases, involving longer journeys, staff are encouraged to use hire cars where this is cheaper than standard mileage rates.
  608
  Specially Designed Logos and Stationery
  The present CH logo was part of a single, integrated corporate design exercise undertaken in 1990, which included corporate stationery designs as well as the logo itself. It is not possible to separate out the design cost of the logo alone. The total design cost was £30,000.
  The great bulk of our stationery costs arise from the printing and distribution of statutory forms and notes for guidance for companies. To try to answer your question, we have looked at our costs for standard A4 corporate letterhead stationery. We presently pay £320 per 10,000 sheets of 80gm 1 side, 2 colour paper. We understand that this is in fact less than that paid for comparable items by our parent Department, DTI.

  Corporate Clothing
  CH provides uniform clothing for all staff working in areas open to the public. Clothing is provided for 64 staff at an average cost per person of £105.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those Government measures of particular help for small businesses introduced since May 1992.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Government measures introduced since May 1992 focus on the establishment of a network of Business Links, to bring together in partnership and in one location, all the key local business support providers.

  Business Links will provide a range of integrated support services including advice on exports, innovation and technology and design. Sixty-nine Business Links are now open, with around 200 planned by the end of 1995.

  Other measures include:

  A new consultancy service which will offer both a diagnostic and consultancy service and a consultancy brokerage service for smaller firms.

  The small firms training loans scheme, launched in June 1994, will help very small businesses pay for both training consultancy and training related to business objectives. The training initiative for small firms, which will start in April this year will enable businesses to develop, in house, the training skills of key workers.

  Budget measures over successive years have encouraged both investment through the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital and trusts, and re-investment, changes to capital gains tax in businesses.

  The issue of late payment of debt has been addressed in a variety of ways including the development of proposals for a British standard for prompt payment and further prompt payment requirements on Government Departments and their agencies.

  Changes were introduced to the small firms loan guarantee scheme in 1993 to improve access to finance. These included offering established businesses 85 per cent. guarantee on loans up to £250,000 and reducing the premiums paid by borrowers.

  Many of the reforms introduced under the deregulation initiative—for example, the small firms litmus test to assess the impact of any legislative proposals on the sector—are of particular benefit to small firms.

  A new three-year programme for the small firms merit award for research and technology programme, which provides grants to small firms to help them with the development of new innovative products was announced this month. The related support for products under research programme continues to be available.

  Regional Electricity Companies
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what meetings he has had with the regional electricity companies to discuss regional investment.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  DTI Ministers meet representatives of the regional electricity companies from time to time to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to meet the Director General of the Office of Electricity Regulation to discuss proposals for the regulation of foreign owned the regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My colleagues and I discuss a wide range of issues with the Director General of the Office of Electricity Regulation from time to time.

  Arms Exhibitions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 593, to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), if he will list for each overseas defence exhibition listed, the number of export licences granted to British firms to permit the temporary export of military technology for display.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information requested could be extracted only by examining the original licence application papers for all the relevant countries of destination for the periods in question; and this could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps are being taken to quantify the market price of electricity to which renewables are expected to converge under the NFFO programme;

  (2) what steps are being taken to ensure that projects which are offered power purchase agreements under the NFFO programme have had cash flow forecasts certified as financeable by a reputable organisation;

  (3) what steps are being taken under the NFFO programme, to provide an initial market for new and renewable technologies awaiting demonstration in Britain;

  (4) what steps are being taken to provide wood with a separate technology band within which to bid under the NFFO programme.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Renewable energy non-fossil fuel obligation orders for England and Wales have been laid before Parliament in 1990, 1991 and 1994, in order to facilitate an initial market for those renewable energy technologies which are both technically robust and can be deployed at a cost which, with the benefits of experience under successive NFFO orders, can be expected to converge towards the market price for electricity. The obligations under these NFFO orders were set at 103 MW, 457 MW and 627 MW respectively, that is, a total of 1186 MW, convering hydro, large and small-scale wind projects, sewage gas, landfill gas, municipal and industrial waste, energy crops and agricultural and forestry wastes.

  However, a proportion of the contracts made to meet the obligations under the orders are not expected to go forward to commissioning, for reasons such as failure to secure planning permission or project finance. As a
  610
  consequence, the level of the relevant obligation will be reduced by an amount corresponding to the capacity of the projects terminated.

  The Government are working towards 1,500 MW of new renewables-based generation capacity in the UK by 2000, mainly through NFFO-type arrangements.

  Specific provision was made under the third renewables order, requiring the regional electricity companies in England and Wales to secure capacity based on gasification by partial combustion of energy crops and agriculture waste. Three projects with an aggregate capacity of 19 MW were awarded contracts, each of which is expected to use wood grown specifically as a fuel.

  Over the next few months, the Government will be considering the possible size, shape and timing of the prospective fourth renewables order for England and Wales, taking account of representations made to them, including those on the market price for electricity from renewable sources, technology banding and the specific issue of an obligation for wood grown as a fuel. That fourth renewables order would be expected to be laid before Parliament in 1996, with a fifth order in prospect for 1998.

  Judgment of the commercial viability of individual projects is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Sizewell
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions his Department has had with Nuclear Electric about the construction of a gas station at Sizewell C.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My Department has had no such discussions with the company.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the nuclear installations inspectorate will be publishing the results of the long-term safety review on Sizewell A.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that the Health and Safety Executive expects to publish the findings of the nuclear installations inspectorate's assessment of the Sizewell A long-term safety review in early April 1995.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what timetable he set for the construction of Sizewell B.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The CEGB's committed programme envisaged commencement of fuel loading 72 months after first permanent structural concrete. This was achieved within 73 months, on 17 September 1994. The committed programme envisaged full commercial power six months after completion of fuel loading.

  Nuclear Waste Shipments
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the number of shipments of high-level waste from the United Kingdom if the current proposal for substitutions(a) is and (b) is not adopted.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This is a matter for the management of British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Konver Funds
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made on the distribution of Konver funds.

  Mr. Eggar
  Konver I grants worth £17.9 million were allocated in 1993 to projects across the country. The introduction of Konver II, intended to cover the period 1994 to 1997, has, however, been delayed throughout the EU.

  On 1 July 1994 the European Commission published a notice on Konver II asking member states to send by 1 August lists of areas eligible according to stated job loss criteria; it would then issue a list for the whole EU by 1 October. The Government and other member states duly sent their lists; but the Commission, finding them too long, decided to modify the criteria. I wrote to Commissioner Millan complaining about this procedure on 21 November.

  Eventually, on 21 December, the Commission drew up a "provisional" list of eligible areas and invited member states to propose additional ones. A revised provisional list is expected to be published in the Official Journal shortly.

  Also on 21 December, the Commission announced that the United Kingdom would receive £79 million from Konver II.

  Member states' programmes for the use of Konver II, including their proposals for additional areas, are now to be sent to the Commission by 1 March. The first applications cannot be considered until programmes have been agreed with the Commission, probably in the summer of 1995. Allocations and payments will follow thereafter.

  Electricity
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the ratio of United Kingdom imports to exports of electricity supply via the electricity supply link between the United Kingdom and France for the four quarters of 1994; and what were the amounts involved expressed in gigajoules.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Imports of electricity from France, expressed in gigawatt hours and gigajoules, for the four quarters of 1994 are as follows:

  Gigawatt hours

  Gigajoules1

  Q1

  4,252

  15,307,200

  Q2

  3,981

  14,331,600

  Q3

  4,313

  15,526,800

  Q4

  4,394

  15,818,400

  Total

  16,940

  60,984,000

  1 Assumes 1 gigawatt hour = 3,600 gigajoules.

  There were no exports of electricity to France during 1994.

  Conference
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet finalised plans for the British Government's contribution to the February G7 conference on the information society.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I shall be attending the G7 ministerial conference on the Information Society in Brussels on 24 612
  to 26 February. Ministers will hold discussions on three broad themes: the regulatory framework and competition policy; development of information infrastructure; and social, societal and cultural aspects of the information society. The conference will also launch a number of pilot projects to demonstrate the scope for international collaboration in different areas of the information society. In my discussions I shall in particular be emphasising the importance of liberalisation of infrastructure in reducing prices, in order to encourage a wider range of services to be provided.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which his Department, and the Department of Energy, has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following table lists the sales conducted by my Department, and the former Department of Energy, in which N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. were appointed and the roles to which they were appointed. The fees paid to firms appointed within the privatisation programme are commercially confidential.

  Table of appointments (year of sale in brackets) Adviser to the Department of Trade and Industry:

  Cable and Wireless—feasibility study (1981)

  British Coal (1994)

  Adviser to the former Department of Energy:

  Amersham International Ltd. (1982)

  British Gas Corporation (1986)

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many contracts involving Taylor Woodrow International Ltd. were supported by export credits guarantee between 1 August 1983 and December 1988; and what was their total value;

  (2) how many contracts involving British Aerospace plc were supported by export credits guarantee between 1 August 1988 and December 1992; and what was their total value;

  (3) how many contracts involving (a) Kleinwort Benson Group, (b) N. M. Rothschild and Sons, (c) TSB Group, (d) Balfour Beatty Ltd, (e) the Weir Group plc and (f) National Westminster bank were supported by export credits guarantee since 1991; and what was their total value for each company;

  (4) how many contracts involving Trafalgar House plc were supported by export credits guarantee between 1 February 1988 and December 1994; and what was their total value;

  (5) how many contracts involving (a) Hiscox Syndicates Ltd., (b) J. Henry Schroder Wagg and Co., (c) Foster Wheeler Ltd., (d) Bovis Construction Group and (e) GEC were supported by export credits guarantee since July 1993; and what was their total value for each company;
  613
  (6) how many contracts involving Hawker Siddeley Group were supported by export credits guarantee between 1 April and December 1990; and what was their total value.

  Mr. Needham
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose information about commercial relations between ECGD and individual companies unless the relevant parties have agreed to this.

  Exports
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of United Kingdom exports, including services and invisibles, was exported to(a) Germany, (b) France, (c) Belgium, (d) Denmark, (e) Austria, (f) Holland and (g) Luxembourg in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Needham
  The available information is given in the table.

  Share of UK visible exports and invisible credits

  Per cent.

  Year

  Germany

  France

  Belgium and Luxembourg

  Denmark

  Holland

  1988

  8.0

  7.4

  4.4

  1.1

  5.1

  1989

  8.1

  7.7

  4.4

  1.1

  5.4

  1990

  8.9

  8.0

  4.5

  1.2

  5.6

  1991

  9.9

  8.3

  4.6

  1.2

  5.8

  1992

  10.4

  8.0

  4.5

  1.3

  5.7

  Radioactive Wastes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a list of the proposals put forward by British Nuclear Fuels plc to manage radioactive wastes in the United States.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: Proposals to manage radioactive waste in the United States are a commercial matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc and the other companies concerned.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if BNFL is negotiating for radioactive waste management services, including reprocessing contracts, with India.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: This is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what date Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric have to finalise their reprocessing contracts with BNFL.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: This is a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will allow Patent Office staff to bid for the marketing services of the Patent Office on equal terms with private firms; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will allow Patent Office staff to bid for the information technology services of the Patent Office on equal terms with private firms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answers 30 January 1995]: As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced in his reply to my hon. Friend the
  614
  Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) on 14 December 1994, Official Report, columns 657–58, when he confirmed executive agency status for the Patent Office, new targets will encourage the office to contract out activities wherever this is compatible with its statutory role and good value for money. In areas identified as candidates for contractorisation, bids for managing contracted-out services will be evaluated against benchmarks for the forecast cost and quality of service from in-house provision. In principle, management and staff bids could be allowable, although not on the basis that management and staff would remain civil servants if their bid was successful.

  Security Equipment
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the companies to which export licences were granted for the export of electronic batons in the last five years; what assistance his Department is giving to British firms selling security and paramilitary products to Peru, Colombia and other countries in south America in 1995; and if British Aerospace was assisted in the sale of electro-shock batons to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s.

  Mr. Needham
  The first part of this question could be answered only at disproportionate cost. British firms selling to south American countries are eligible for the DTI's range of export services, but it is not possible to isolate those operating in the general areas identified. British Aerospace has denied both publicly and to my officials that electro-batons have been supplied by the company to Saudi Arabia.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for further regulating the sale of equipment which can be used for and has been designed for use against persons in repressive conditions.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: I have no such proposals.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what evidence he has received that Hiatts equipment, manufactured in the United Kingdom, restricting body movements has been sold by United Kingdom companies and used by countries in the middle east;

  (2) what evidence the Government have that oversize handcuffs manufactured in Birmingham by Hiatts and modified at a later stage have been used in conditions of torture.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answers 24 January 1995]: I am aware of the allegations made in the Channel 4 television programme "Dispatches", screened on 11 January. Hiatts of Birmingham has denied such practices, both publicly and to my officials.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to promote legislation for the regulation of the co-ordinated purchase of sensitive military equipment throughout the world by United Kingdom registered companies.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: No.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions Ministers and civil servants have visited the covert and operational procurement exhibition, held annually in Esher, Surrey.
  615
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: Officials from my Department have visited the COPEX exhibition although precise figures on the number of visits are not available.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total annual value of exports which can be used as shackles and leg restraints.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: There is a wide variety of equipment that could theoretically be used as shackles and leg restraints and it is not possible to answer the question as posed. My Department would not issue export licences for leg-irons.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions officials from his Department met that person calling himself John Clarkson or that person calling himself Frank Davies to discuss matters relating to defence equipment exports.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: The persons referred to in this question are fictitious names used by journalists appearing on the Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme on 11 January 1995. The makers of the programme did not contact my Department before transmission and a statement was provided.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions he has acted to prevent the export of equipment that can be used in torture in each of the last 18 months.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: None. I have not received any information about any such proposed exports.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions representatives of his Department have met representatives of IPS and CAZ in the last five years.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: It is not possible to answer this question on the information provided.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial support was given to Mr. Frank Scott to enable him to visit the far east for the purpose of selling electro-shock equipment.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: There is no evidence of ICL Technical Plastics Ltd., or Mr. Frank Stott of that company, receiving financial support for this purpose.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the British Overseas Trade Board has used public money to subsidise covert and operational procurement exhibitions related exhibitions overseas in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: Over the last five years contributions towards exhibitors' costs have been made under the DTI's trade fairs support scheme in respect of six COPEX exhibitions in the United States of America.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions in the last 10 years trade and investment representations of SAS have met officials or Ministers from his Department.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: It is not possible to answer this question on the information provided.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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 publish 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. Dorrell
  As indicated in the respective agency framework documents, it is for the chief executives to respond on operational and managerial matters and their respective replies are reproduced.

  In 1993–94, Historic Royal Palaces met or exceeded all its key performance targets including achieving a 2 per cent. target for an efficiency gain on running costs. For the same year, Royal Parks met all but one of its key performance targets, including achieving a 1.5 per cent. target for an efficiency gain on running costs. The one missed target was due to circumstances beyond the Royal Parks' control.

  Prior to the creation of these two agencies, central functions were provided by the Department of the Environment. In view of the expenditure transfers between Departments when my Department was established in April 1992 and the provision of some central services on an allied basis without repayment, details of these could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from David Welsh to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 25 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for National Heritage has asked me to reply to your Question about the changes in the operations and costs of managing the Royal Parks that have become necessary since we became a Next Steps Agency.
  The Agency moved into the Police Station in Hyde Park. Since this building belongs to the Royal Parks, no rental is involved.
  We required eight staff to provide personnel, registry and reception functions that were previously provided by the Department of Environment.
  The Agency's logo cost £16,000 to design, and we spend £7,500 on supplying stationery for a year. We produce a brochure each year informing the public of the programme of free entertainment available in the Royal Parks. This cost £9,000 to produce and is available free to the public.
  The Agency has no corporate clothing and has no executive cars.

  Letter from David Beeton to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 26 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for National Heritage has asked me to reply to your question about the changes in the operation and costs

  617
  of managing the Historic Royal Palaces that have become necessary since we became a Next Steps Agency.
  We have not acquired any headquarters building and have not acquired any additional support staff. We do not publish periodical journals and have no executive cars.
  Our identities for each palace are based on a relevant Royal Coat of Arms.
  Staff uniforms cost £150,000 a year (including Yeoman Warders, Jewel House Warders at Hampton Court and Kensington Palace and shop and ticketing staff).
  The annual cost of specially designed stationery is £17,000.

  Disabled People.
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the departments and agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document "Forces and Ability".

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest available figures show that 17 non-industrial staff employed by my Department and associated agencies identified themselves as disabled. This represents 1.6 per cent. of all staff. Of this total, three are registered disabled and 14 are not registered.

  Electricity Companies (Sponsorship)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had(a) with Northern Electric and (b) with the other regional electricity companies about their sponsorship of regional arts and sporting events.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have had no discussions with either Northern Electric or any other regional electricity company regarding its sponsorship of regional arts and sporting events.

  Library and Information Commission
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress he has made towards creating the new Library and Information Commission.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The reaction since my predecessor announced in July 1993 his intention to draw up proposals for a co-ordinating body to advise Government on library and information issues has been very positive. Responses to the consultation document issued in February 1994 showed broad support for the proposals in the library and information community. Having regard to this, I announced in October 1994 that the Government would be proceeding with the establishment of the Library and Information Commission.

  I have now appointed as the commission's first chairman, Mr. Matthew Evans, chairman of Faber and Faber Ltd. His appointment will run for three years until 31 December 1997 and will be renewable by mutual consent. Among many other qualities, Mr. Evans combines the cultural and economic awareness the library and information sector must encompass if it is, as the Government intend, to make a significant contribution to the success of organisations and individuals as the United Kingdom moves into the next century.

  After further consultation with my ministerial colleagues and with Mr. Evans, I shall in due course announce to the House the remainder of my appointments
  618
  to the commission, which I envisage will number around a dozen.

  I can now confirm the formal terms of reference for the new commission, which state that it will:
  advise Government Departments representing the United Kingdom in European Union and other international policy-making bodies on the implications of their activities for library and information services;
  develop, in association with the relevant Government Departments as far as necessary to achieve consonance with Government policy, a strategy for research and development requirements in the library and information field, having regard to the needs and interests of all areas of library and information activity and of all parts of the United Kingdom, and secure the disbursement of the available funds in accordance with that strategy;
  advise on, and where necessary to draw the Government's attention to, the implications for library and information services, including the commercial information sector, of particular policy or technological developments;
  as necessary advise on and assist the Government in developing and keeping up-to-date library and information policies and support activity which gives effect to such policies;
  provide independent expert advice as necessary on specific issues referred to it by Government Departments or other relevant bodies;
  advise Government Departments which so request on co-ordinating, and avoiding unnecessary duplication between, information services of different types and assume such executive activities in support of this aim as the Government may specify and resources permit; and
  co-operate as it and the Government see fit with other relevant bodies.

  The Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland have carefully considered the proposals to establish a new body. My colleagues in Scotland and Wales have concluded that, in view of the different traditions, statutory provisions, where appropriate, and the present organisational arrangements applying to Scotland and Wales, as well as existing mechanisms for co-operation, the remit of the new commission should not for most purposes extend to those countries. In the areas of international representation and research strategy, however, the commission's remit will he United Kingdom-wide. For each of these functions, the commission will operate primarily through sub-committees. The arrangements for these sub-committees, including their terms of reference and their representation of Scottish and Welsh interests, will be determined in consultation with my right hon. friends.

  I shall, as proposed in the consultation document, shortly wind up the existing Library and Information Services Council (England). At the same time, in close co-operation with the local authorities, I shall be establishing a new advisory council to advise me on my responsibilities under the terms of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 and in particular on public libraries in England.

  Welsh Rock and Folk Music Council
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, columns 115–16, if he will place in the Library a copy of his report from the Association for

  619
  Business Sponsorship of the Arts on the circumstances of the award to the Welsh Rock and Folk Music Council.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 January 1995]: No. The report was prepared for the use of my Department. Its conclusions will be taken into account by the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts in determining its response to the matters under review.

  Arts Grants, Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list those cultural organisations which have received grants from the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts in Wales under the business sponsorship incentive scheme, which also received a grant from the sponsorship scheme run by the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, S4C, and the Independent Television Producers Association, TAC.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 January 1995]: The information requested is as follows:

  Theatre Bara Caws

  Y Faner

  Dalier Sylw

  Ewrosgol

  Creu Cof

  Cwmni Dawns Camre Cain

  Welsh International Film Festival

  Wales Actors Company

  Arad Goch

  Hwyl a Fflag

  National Film and Video Archive of Wales

  Clwyd Arts and Exhibition Service

  Taliesin Trust

  Theatr Gorllewin Morgannwg

  Barddas: y Gymdeithas Gerdd Dafod

  Theatr Had

  Model House Llantrisant

  Rhiniog

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority concerning the issuing of a new guidelines on the channel's relationship with the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 January 1995]: Any guidelines governing the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority's relationship with the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts are a matter for the authority in the first instance. My Department will be discussing this however in the light of my consideration of the reports to which I referred in my answer of 24 January 1995, Official Report, column 115–16.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority and of the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts concerning the grant given by the' authority to the Celtic Film Festival, Zeitgeist Film Productions and the Society of Independent Television Producers of Wales.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 January 1995]: My Department is in touch with both organisations on matters relating to the operation of the business sponsorship incentive scheme in Wales.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  World Summit for Social Development
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the final preparatory committee for the world summit for social development which ended in New York on 27 January.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The final preparatory committee of the world summit for social development took place in New York from 16 to 18 January. It made considerable progress on the draft declaration and programme of action covering the three core issues of the summit:(a) the enhancement of social integration; (b) alleviation and reduction of poverty; (c) generation of productive employment. The draft texts will be finalised at the summit in Copenhagen from 6 to 12 March.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Russian Government concerning the invasion of Chechnya; what consideration he has given to suspension of economic aid and trade contracts with Russia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Russians are well are of our concerns about their handling of the intervention in Chechnya and, in particular, at the appalling civilian casualties. Most recently, on 24 January, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to President Yeltsin recognising that there are no easy answers to this deep-rooted problem, but pressing President Yeltsin to put an early end to the fighting; allow humanitarian relief; and work for a political agreement which allows the Chechen people to express their identity within the Russian Federation.

  We have encouraged Russia to assist the Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe in its efforts to help find a solution to this tragic conflict. We fully support the OSCE's involvement. A senior British official was a member of the OSCE team which has just visited Chechnya. We are also assisting humanitarian relief efforts. The ODA has committed £1 million.

  Our aim remains to support democratic reform in Russia. At present, we believe it would be counterproductive to suspend our assistance programmes. Those that would be the most affected are reformers who are feeling most beleaguered at present.

  United Nations
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given by his Department to structural changes in the UN, including the Security Council, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In our continuing efforts to improve the performance of the UN, we look at all aspects of the organisation, including structures. For example, we have played a leading role in the restructuring of the UN's peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. We support the proposed enlargement of the UN Security Council and are playing an active role in the debate in New York.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No payments have been made to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. by my Department for privatisation programmes since 1979.

  Burma
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his current policy towards Burma.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The situation in Burma remains of great concern. Our policy and that of our European Union partners is one of critical dialogue with the State Law and Order Restoration Council. We have made it clear that normalisation of our relations depends on progress in key areas, including human rights and political and economic reform.

  Algeria
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current establishment of the United Kingdom embassy in Algeria; and what safety precautions have been taken.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are currently four diplomats at the embassy in Algiers. The staffing situation is kept under regular review in the light of the security situation there. The diplomats are protected by a team of nine Royal Military police. Major improvements have been made to the physical security of the embassy and staff accommodation.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his current policy towards Algeria.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We deplore the escalating violence on both sides. We call for a wider dialogue involving all those who reject violence with a view to holding genuine elections during the course of this year. We call on the Algerian Government to continue implementing its International Monetary Fund—approved programme of economic reforms.

  Lockerbie
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek information from the US Government about the reason why the US air force intelligence document relating to Pan Am 103 produced in 1991 was provided to the parties in a legal dispute relating to the destruction of the aircraft.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the document was released following a request under the United States Freedom of Information Act.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations have been made to the Government of Iran 622
  to seek information about Ali Akbar Mohtashemi following the production of the US air force intelligence document relating to Pan Am 103 in 1991;

  (2) what representations were made to the Government of the Republic of Syria to seek information about terrorist groups following the production of the US air force intelligence document relating to Pan Am 103 in 1991.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. As I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend of 26 January,Official Report, column 332, the allegation contained in the document was first made at an early stage in the Lockerbie investigation, was examined at the time, but no evidence has been found to substantiate it.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Mr. Edwin Bollier of the Swiss Company Mebo sought the opportunity to see the circuit board relating to the timing device in Pan Am 103; and whether permission has been given.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has repeatedly made it clear that it would not be proper to discuss communications between the prosecuting authorities and a potential witness in pending criminal proceedings.

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

  Mr.Goodlad
  To my knowledge, there have been none.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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 publish 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. Hague
  The Department of Social Security has six next steps agencies: the Benefits, Contributions, Resettlement, War Pensions, Information Technology Services and Child Support Agencies. Each agency is set demanding annual targets for efficiency and quality of
  623
  service, and running cost budgets are tightly controlled and subject to specific efficiency savings targets. Direct comparisons between pre and post-agency performance are difficult to make because of change in work loads and the introduction of new work such as that of the -Child Support Agency. It is, however, clear that there have been significant improvements as illustrated, for example, in

  Benefits Agency

  Contributions Agency

  Resettlement Agency

  War Pensions Agency

  Information Technology Services Agency

  Child Support Agency

  Headquarters buildings

  Quarry 1House purchased at a cost of 2£54 million. No.1 Trevelyan Square has an annual rent of 2£485,623

  3None

  3None

  The Agency is moving in February to a new building on the Norcross site, built at a cost of 2£12 million

  3None

  3None

  Periodical journals

  £528,000p.a

  £64,000p.a

  None

  £10,000p.a

  £90,000p.a

  None

  Executive car(s)

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

  Specially designed logos

  £11,900

  £19,800

  None

  £13,574

  Designed in-house at minimal cost

  £58,750

  Corporate clothing

  4£4,117,810

  4£18,235

  None

  None

  None

  None

  Specially designed and corporate stationery

  5£255,377

  5£29,204

  5£264

  5£9,364

  5£14,305

  5£32,930

  1 Quarry House is shared with the NHS executive.

  2 There was a good business case for moving to new premises, and the moves will result in long-term savings.

  3 The Contributions, Resettlement, Information Technology Services and Child Support Agencies headquarters occupy sites that were part of DSS before the agencies were created.

  4 Figure given is total to date.

  5 Figure given is expenditure to date in the current financial year.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 19 December,Official Report, columns 929–30, which posts were filled as a result of the employment of executive search agencies; which executive search companies were involved in this exercise; and what were the values of the individual contracts involved.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Name of post

  Name of Executive search Agency involved

  Pensions Ombudsman

  Price Waterhouse

  Director of Resource Management and Planning

  Price Waterhouse

  Director of Procurement (not yet finalised)

  Purchasing and Materials Management Services [PMMS]

  The value of individual contracts is confidential.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the departments and agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document "Focus on Ability."

  Mr. Hague
  On 1 July 1994, the number of registered disabled people in the Department was 1,574. This represented 1.8 per cent. of all staff. Figures for the number and proportion of all disabled people employed in the Department are not yet available. We are still 624
  the published evaluation reports on the Resettlement and Contributions Agencies.

  Because of changes in work loads and work organisations, it is not possible directly to compare the numbers of support staff before and after the establishment of agencies. The other information requested on agencies' expenditure is in the table.

  conducting surveys, but indications at this stage are that there are at least as many non-registered disabled people in the Department as there are registered.

  Child Support Agency
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints have been received by the Child Support Agency since its inception; how many complaints have resulted in financial redress; on what basis financial redress has been made; and if he will give details of the individual and total payments that have been 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 from Miss Ann Chant to Dr. Tony Wright, dated 31 January 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security on complaints about the Child Support Agency.
  From 5 April 1993 to 30 November 1994 the Agency recorded 29,621 complaints. No distinction is made between complaints against the operations of the Agency and those concerning child support legislation.
  A special payment will be considered where a clear and unambiguous error by the Agency has resulted in an actual financial loss to the client. To the end of November, 16 such payments had been paid, totalling £1,148.46. This figure includes single payments of £310.00, £300.00, £172.39, £105.91, £100.00, £65.80, £25.00; two payments of £15.00, and six payments for various amounts less than £10.00.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's estimate of the number of women aged(a) 60 to 65, (b) 65 to 70, (c) 70 to 75, (d) 75 to 80 and (e) over 80 years who have access-to (i) only state benefits, (ii) state benefits and state earnings-related pension scheme, (iii) own occupational pensions, (iv) own private pensions and (v) benefits from deceased partners.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The available information is m the tables.

  Table 1: Numbers of women pensioners with only state benefits, by age

  Age

  60 to 64

  65 to 74

  75 to 79

  80 and over

  Number

  200,000

  300,000

  200,000

  250,000

  N.B: these figures are for benefit units so that the husband's income is taken into account for married women.

  Table 2: Numbers of women pensioners with an Occupational Pension, by age

  Age

  60–64

  65–69

  70–74

  75 and over

  Number

  500,000

  650,000

  600,000

  550,000

  Notes:

  1. Due to sample sizes it has been necessary to merge age ranges from those requested.

  2. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 50,000, they are based on small sample sizes and should be treated with caution.

  3. Estimates are derived from the 1992 family expenditure survey and the 1991 GAD survey of occupational pensions.

  4. SERPS is a state benefit and is therefore included in table 1.

  5. Information on the numbers of women receiving private pensions is not available.

  6. Separate figures for women receiving occupational pensions and benefits by virtue of their deceased husbands are not available. They are included in the information in table 2.

  Privatisation Programmes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department of Social Security has not engaged N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. in any capacity.

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

  Mr. Hague
  To my knowledge, there have been no such meetings.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 24 November, reference 5/3644/109.
  626
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I wrote to the hon. Member on Friday 27 January 1995.

  Appeal Tribunal Cases
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the Liverpool area have appealed to a social security appeal tribunal against a decision that they have been found fit for work or work within limits; what percentage of appellants was successful; and if he will give the figures for those who were represented and those who were not with the corresponding success rates.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available information is in the table.

  Appeals on invalidity benefit in the North West Region Year ending 1993

  Lodged

  3,775

  Heard and Decided

  1,754

  In Appellant's Favour

  56 per cent.

  Representative and/or Representative and Appellant Present

  882

  In Appellant's Favour

  76 per cent.

  No Representative Present

  872

  In Appellant's Favour

  36 per cent.

  Source: The annual social security appeal tribunal statistics 1993 produced by the Government Statistical Service.

  Government Actuary's Report
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received the report by the Government Actuary on the operation of the Social Security Acts since 1985.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have today laid before the House a report that the Government Actuary has made on the operation of Social Security Acts between April 1985 and April 1990 in accordance with section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975. The report provides a detailed forward look into the next century of the possible future costs of benefits paid out of the national insurance fund and the contributions likely to be needed to pay for them. The report also takes account of proposals in the Pensions Bill and I welcome the extra information it provides to the debate.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will order a public inquiry into improper payments made to chief executives and senior managers of NHS trusts in the last three years.

  Mr. Malone
  No. National health service trusts have powers under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to determine the terms of their staffs' employment contracts. However, the Department has issued guidance to trusts—TEL(94)3—which makes it clear that they are expected to use these powers responsibly with regard to probity and value for money. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Surgical Procedures
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the number of surgical procedures carried out by persons not legally qualified to operate on patients in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to require all meetings of NHS trusts to discuss tendering to be fully minuted; and what assessment she has made of NHS trusts' compliance with European Community tendering regulations.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. Paragraph 8 of section 10 of the Public Supply Contracts Regulations 1991 already requires national health service trusts to prepare a record in relation to the award of all contracts and sets out the information to be recorded. We are satisfied that NHS trusts are fully aware of their statutory obligations under those regulations.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the mental hospitals in the northern region in which there are patients suffering from involuntary tranquilliser addiction.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will carry out a study to determine the influence that private practice in the same unit or speciality has on the waiting list and waiting time for treatment in the NHS.

  Mr. Malone
  We have no plans for such a study.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those NHS trusts where, over the past 12 months, waiting times in accident and emergency departments have been reported as being longer than five minutes for an initial assessment and longer than two hours for treatment.

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the percentage of patients at national health service trusts who are seen and assessed within five minutes of arrival and accident and emergency departments for the three months ended March 1994 was published in "The Patients Charter Hospital and Ambulance Services Comparative Performance Guide 1993–94", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information on patients waiting longer than two hours for treatment in accident and emergency departments is not available centrally.

  Herbal Remedies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions she proposes on the sale to members of the public of herbal remedies and other products currently available without restriction in health shops.

  Mr. Sackville
  The existing Medicines Act 1968 provisions governing the sale and supply of herbal remedies will continue to apply.

  Herbal products not covered by medicines controls may fall under the provisions of food safety legislation; there are no plans to change this position.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many beds there are in private hospitals;

  (2) how many people are currently employed in the private health sector;

  (3) how many beds there are in private nursing homes;

  (4) how many people are currently employed in private nursing homes.

  Mr. Sackville
  On 31 March 1994, there were 11,371 beds in private hospitals and 165,021 in private nursing homes. Figures are not available for the total number of people employed in the private health care sector and in private nursing homes, but the number of nursing staff in private nursing homes was 154,688—Source K036 returns.

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

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 5 December 1994,Official Report, columns 85–87. No single definition of disability is given in the Cabinet Office document "Focus On Ability".

  Asthma, Rotherham
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current incidence of asthma amongst children under 10 years of age in the Rotherham district health authority; and what the figures were(a) in 1985 and (b) in 1975.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. John Neill, chairman of Rotherham health authority, for details.

  Special Transitional Grant
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those local authorities which have failed to meet the requirement to spend 85 per cent. of the transfer element of the special transitional grant in the independent sector.

  Mr. Bowis
  Audited returns detailing community care spending in the independent sector by local authorities in 1993–94 were due to be submitted to the Department by 31 December 1994. Some returns are still outstanding and are being followed up through the Audit Commission.

  Trade Union-financed Facilities
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many beds there are in the trade union-financed hospitals;

  (2) how many beds there are in trade union-financed nursing homes.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for FleaIth what assessment she has made of whether consultants are complying with their NHS contracts and whether private practice interferes with the function of the NHS or disadvantage non-paying patients.

  Mr. Malone
  National health service consultants are able to undertake private practice work as well as NHS work provided that it is not to the disadvantage of the NHS or NHS patients. NHS employers are responsible for ensuring that consultants are fulfilling their contractual commitments.

  Care Workers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she intends to implement a compulsory register for all paid care workers.

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

  Operations (Cancellations)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which NHS trusts, over the past 12 months, it has been reported that operations have been cancelled on the day they were due to take place; and where, in such circumstances, patients have not been readmitted within one month.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the number of patients at national health service trusts who, having suffered two last minute cancellations, were not admitted within a month thereafter, is published, for the three months ended March 1994, in "The Patient's Charter Hospital and Ambulance Services Comparative Performance Guide 1993–1994", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Single-sex Wards
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts do not currently admit patients to single-sex wards if that is their wish.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answers of 21 November to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw (Mr. Morris),Official Report, column 29, and of 11 January to the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend), Official Report, column 145, how haemophiliacs who may have received blood contaminated with hepatitis C will be traced for counselling and treatment if information is not centrally available to identify them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Blood products Used in the treatment of haemophilia patients have been virally inactivated since 1985. Doctors treating these patients are aware that prior to this date blood products carried the risk of transmission of hepatitis C. We understand that the majority of haemophilia patients have been counselled and tested as part of the management of their condition.

  Nurses
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of whether a sufficient number of people are qualifying as nurses and of the Royal College of Nursing report "Opening the Door".

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of training commissions required to supply an adequate number of newly qualified staff is determined by local employers, to ensure a good balance between demand and supply of highly qualified trained nurses. Regional plans to commission training places are monitored and overseen by the national health service executive.

  We welcome the publication of the Royal College of Nursing report "Opening the Door" as it shows a healthy majority of both newly qualified and experienced nurses gain considerable job satisfaction from their posts and do not wish to work outside nursing.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were trained in 1994; how many are expected to be trained in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1993–94 22,829 students started courses of nurse education. Confirmed figures are not yet available for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97. Final figures for these years will be provided in due course in the annual reports of the English National Board of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the total number of recorded cot deaths in England and Wales for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table:

  Cot deaths to infants and children aged under 5, England and Wales 1989–33

  Year

  SIDS1

  Sudden infant deaths2

  1989

  1,261

  1,367

  1990

  1,156

  1,246

  1991

  935

  1,051

  1992

  515

  579

  1993 (provisional)

  422

  457

  1 Deaths where sudden infant death syndrome—International classification of Diseases 9th Revision 798.0—is the only cause mentioned on the death certificate.

  2 Deaths where "SIDS", "Cot Death", or similar terms, was mentioned with other causes on the certificate.

  3 The figures for 1989–92 are based on annual registrations. The figures for 1993 are based on occurrences.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of all recorded cot deaths in England and Wales in the last five years were attributable to(a) colds and bronchial conditions, (b) emissions from plastic bedding and (c) urine and its reaction with bedding.

  Mr. Sackville
  The causes of sudden infant death syndrome remain unknown and substantial Government-funded and voluntary sector research continues in this area. It is not possible to attribute incidence by the categories mentioned.

  Camden and Islington Health Authority
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to reduce waiting lists for elective surgery in Camden and Islington health authority.

  Mr. Malone
  It is for Camden and Islington health authority to ensure that the shortest possible waiting times are available to its resident population from the hospitals with which it has contracts, and to ensure that at the very least the maximum waits guaranteed under the patients charter are not exceeded.

  Under the new patients charter which comes into effect in April we have reduced the maximum time patients will have to wait for elective surgery from two years to 18 months from the date of their going on to a waiting list.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions she has reached on the use of cannabis under the Medicines Acts for the relief of pain for sufferers of multiple sclerosis or glaucoma.

  Mr. Bowis
  None, but I have seen and heard representations on this issue.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which her Department has engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no such sums to report.

  Royal Northern Hospital
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what future plans her Department has for the Royal Northern hospital, Holloway road, N7; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  None. The hon. Member may wish to approach Sir William Staveley, chairman of North Thames regional health authority, for information about the future of this site.

  Reversal of Status Forms
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in each regional health authority in each of the past three years are recorded as having signed reversal of status forms from(a) private to NHS and (b) NHS to private.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 23 January,Official Report, column 14, on capital allocations, if she will set out the undershoot on external financing limits at November 1994 by region.
  632
  Mr. Sackville
  The external financing limits set for each trust are annual targets. Performance against them is measured at the year end and reported in trust annual accounts. External financing limits are equivalent to a cash limit on both revenue and capital expenditure by trusts. There is therefore no direct relationship between under or overshooting the limit and capital expenditure.

  Young Carers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the number of children and young persons who are currently providing a substantial amount of remedial care to a sick, elderly or disabled relative.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on 17 January Official Report, column 387.

  Patient Anonymity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for health (1) what arrangements she has made to protect patient anonymity in the collection of medical records for statistical purposes in the area of(a) mental health, (b) cancer and (c) other categories;

  (2) what consultations she has had with the Data Protection Registrar concerning the future protection of patient anonymity in the collection of data from medical records for statistical purposes in the area of (a) mental health, (b) cancer and (c) other categories.

  Mr. Sackville
  Patient information is confidential.

  Information given by patients concerning their health and treatment is protected by the common law, the Data Protection Act 1984 and the ethical responsibilities of health professionals. This applies even when the information is anonymised and aggregated.

  We have recently consulted on draft guidance for the national health service on "Confidentiality, Use and Disclosure of Personal Health Information" which includes advice on the use of anonymised/aggregated information. Prior to the consultation we had a number of meetings and discussions with the Data Protection Registrar.

  We have since received comments from the Data Protection Registrar on the use and disclosure of personal health information, which are being considered.

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

  Mr. Sackville
  Officials receive representations about a wide range of matters. Central records are not kept of meetings with external organisations, and to the best of our knowledge no such meetings have taken place.

  Waterborne Viruses
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out by her Department into the health impacts of viruses in sea and river water.
  633
  Mr Sackville
  The Government funded an extensive four-year research programme into the health effects of sea-bathing, which was published in January 1994.

  The study concluded that bathing in water that met the current bathing water directive standards was not associated with overt infection or serious illness.

  Capital Schemes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date each individual capital scheme received external financing limit approval; on what date it received final approval after being tested for private finance initiative funding; and what was its value for each region since April 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a list of capital schemes that received initial external financing limit approval but were rejected for final approval after failing to achieve private funding under the private finance initiative in each region since April 1994, indicating the value of each scheme.

  Mr. Sackville
  No capital schemes have been rejected for failing to secure funding under the private finance initiative.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has received to the draft guidance on long-term care; when she expects to issue new guidance; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 10 January,Official Report, column 118, and to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 26 January, Official Report, column 343.

  Children (Residential Care)
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by the support force for children's residential care since September 1993; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The support force for children's residential care has recently reported on its progress in its first year. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  This report demonstrates the significant progress made by the support force in its first year. It has worked in partnership with over 50 authorities and independent sector providers to help bring about improvements in residential care for children and young people.

  Private Dental and Medical Insurance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's estimate of the number of people with the cover of private dental insurance, and of private medical insurance.
  634
  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 January 1995, c. 765]: I regret that my previous reply is incorrect. It should read:
  "Information on the number of people with private dental insurance and medical insurance is not collected by the Department."

  Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the length of time allowed for general practitioners to obtain adequate training to judge on applications under the chronic bronchitis and emphysema regulations, and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Department has no responsibility for the training of general practitioners.

  Assessments of disablement for prescribed disease D12—chronic bronchitis and emphysema—are made by independent adjudicating medical practitioners, all of whom are fully registered medical practitioners.

  Prior to the introduction of PD D12 on 13 September 1993, the AMPs were given a training package approved by the DSS's senior medical advisers.

  The training package consisted of:

  (1) an introductory course of one day given by an expert in respiratory medicine;

  (2) half-day refresher training in spirometry—FEV1 test;

  (3) training in reading X-rays over a four-month period;

  (4) training manuals taking six hours to assimilate the information.

  The AMPs who assess PD D12 all have considerable prior experience in the examination and assessment procedures for industrial injuries and prescribed diseases.

EDUCATION

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 722, if she will list the 28 hoards, authorities, committees and other public bodies and the total amount of public spending relevant to each body.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information given is the latest available.

  Grant allocations to public bodies in FY 1994–95

  (£ million)

  Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit

  4.699

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching1

  0.832

  Education Assets Board

  0.118

  Fulbright Commission

  0.389

  Funding Agency for Schools

  237.026 (net)

  Further Education Unit2

  —

  Further Education Staff College2

  —

  Further Education Development Association3

  —

  Further Education Funding Council (including 9 regional committees)

  2,847.058

  Higher Education Funding Council in England

  3,436.079

  National Council for Education Technology

  5.391

  National Youth Agency

  1.394

  Royal Ballet School

  2.200

  School Curriculum Assessment Authority

  34.000

  Special Educational Needs Tribunal

  0.220

  635

  Grant allocations to public bodies in FY 1994–95

  (£ million)

  Student Loans Company

  16.638

  Teacher Training Agency4

  2.000

  University Commissioners5

  —

  Yehudi Menuhin School

  0.450

  1 In addition to the DFE grant, CILT will receive grant of over £100,000 from other government departments.

  2 The further education unit and the Further Education staff college ceased to be supported by the Department for Education after the end of the 1992–93 financial year, Government funding now falls under the FEFC budget.

  3 Government funding for the Further Education Development Association falls under the FEFC budget.

  4 The expenditure total of £2 million includes a small amount£68,000—of preparatory expenditure prior to the establishment of the agency.

  5 The university commissioners ceased to be supported by the Department for Education after the end of the 1993–94 financial year. In the 1994–95 financial year provision of £25,000 was made in the Department's running costs for the residual work of the commissioners.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 722, if she will list the appointees of each of the 28 boards, authorities, committees and other public bodies, and what the remuneration was of the appointees.

  Mr. Boswell
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which her Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has not commissioned N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. to undertake any work on privatisation.

  Postgraduate Support Scheme
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which institutions or students are to lose funding as a consequence of the reduction in the postgraduate support scheme funding; what the level of the reduction is in total; and how much will be lost by each institution or student affected.

  Mr. Boswell
  Provision for the Department's postgraduate awards scheme will be reduced by 10 per cent. from 1995–96 to a total of £4.3 million.

  From the academic year 1995–96, bursary support will be withdrawn from postgraduate courses as follows:

  Journalism

  University College, Cardiff

  City University

  Tourism

  University of Surrey

  Language studies

  University of Bath

  University of Bradford

  University of Kent

  University of Westminster

  636
  Art gallery and museum studies

  University of Manchester

  University of Leicester

  The number of bursaries for postgraduate studies in librarianship and information studies in the academic year 1995–96 will be reduced by 10 per cent. at the following institutions:

  University College Wales Aberystwyth

  University of Central England

  Thames Valley University

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  Liverpool John Moores University

  Loughborough University

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  University College London

  University of Northumbria

  University of North London.

  Students already on courses will not be affected.

  It is not possible to give figures in respect of the financial effect on individual institutions or students since bursaries are means-tested and the circumstances of individuals vary significantly.

  Lay School Inspectors
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what vocational training grants are available to individuals following lay school inspector courses;

  (2) what expenses may be claimed by individuals training to be lay school inspectors.

  (3) how many individuals have undertaken training to be lay school inspectors in England and Wales.

  Mr. Forth
  These are matters for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the independent Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

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

  Mr. Boswell
  There were no meetings between departmental staff and representatives of Ian Greer Associates on 26 January.

WALES

  South Gwynedd Partnership
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will be meeting the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and a deputation from the South Gwynedd Partnership.

  Mr. Redwood
  21 February.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends visiting Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.

  Mr. Redwood
  I visited the hon. Member's constituency in September last year, and have no other
  637
  immediate plans to visit Meirionnydd Nant Conwy again in the near future.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hours he has spent in Wales during 1995.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information on my visits to Wales is not held in this format.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to which categories of employee of county and district councils in Wales he expects the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to apply during the reorganisation of local government.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made in Standing Committee A on 17 May 1994.

  Footpaths
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent or grant aided in each of the last three years for which figures are available by the Countryside Commission for Wales on the repair of eroded footpaths.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Countryside Council for Wales does not grant aid routine maintenance of public rights of way unless they are of national trail status. It did, however, pay grants of £320,000 in both 1992–93 and 1993–94 on the enhancement of the public rights of way network.

  In addition to this, grant of £150,000 in 1992–93 and £240,00 in 1993–94 was paid toward the maintenance of national trails. In 1993–94, a further £32,000 in grant was paid on the development of a possible additional national trail. It is anticipated that similar sums will be paid in the current year 1994–95.

  Milk Industry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives his Department is adopting to assist the milk industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The milk industry in Wales benefits from a variety of schemes designed to help business and industry and to promote the efficient marketing of agricultural products. No special initiative is required.

  Staff Commission for Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings he or other Ministers have had with the Staff Commission for Wales in the last nine months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  One. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), met the staff commission on 14 November 1994 for its annual review meeting.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many dentists in each Welsh family health services authority have stopped treating NHS patients in each year since 1992;
  638
  (2) how many dentists in each Welsh family health services authority have closed NHS registers to new patients in each year since 1992.

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Delegations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the attendance list of all those who were members of delegations received in the past six months by him, his fellow Ministers and his senior civil servants.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has not paid any money to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. in connection with privatisation programmes.

  Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerning the timetable for the running down of the stores service in Gwynedd and the establishment of the new service in Clwyd.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place copies in the Library of his departmental letter of 24 January to consultees on the future management arrangements of the clinical side of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Mr. Redwood
  Copies of DGM(95)4 consulting on the future management arrangements of these clinical services have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerning the increase in the share out of savings offered to the Gwynedd Hospitals NHS trust to secure its agreement to the closure of the Ysbyty Gwynedd site on 31 March.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. There are no plans to close Ysbyty Gwynedd.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current review of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority Department of contracting and capital in north Wales; and when he expects the review's findings will be published.

  Mr. Redwood
  These matters are currently the subject of discussions between the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and its customers. The outcome of these discussions advising the future handling arrangements is expected in the autumn.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had and proposes to have with the British Limbless Ex-Servicemens Association
  639
  concerning the proposed changes in the management arrangements for the artificial limb and appliance service.

  Mr. Redwood
  The British Limbless Ex-Servicemens Association is one of the organisations currently being consulted about the proposed management arrangements for the artificial limb and appliance service.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of each of the service evaluations of the financial and non-financial implications of change in the future management arrangements of the clinical side of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority by each clinical branch of the authority.

  Mr. Redwood
  Copies of the evaluation reports produced by each of the clinical services have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the assets considered liable to transfer from the Welsh Health Common Services Authority under the proposed new management arrangements for the artificial limb and appliance service Wales and Breast Test Wales; what arrangements he is making for an independent valuation of those assets; and what estimate he has made to date of the fair valuation of any or all of such a list of assets.

  Mr. Redwood
  Established procedures governing the transfer of assets will be implemented once decisions are taken about the future management arrangements of BTW and ALAS.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has given to the group director of the artificial limb and appliance service Wales and the director of Breast Test Wales concerning the applicability of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to the proposed changes in management arrangements; what provisions he has had for expert legal advice to be given to them in the discharge of their personnel function following new management arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is for the Welsh Health Common Services Authority to take legal and other advice at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he is proposing for the publication of the views of the staff of the artificial limb and appliance service and Breast Test Wales concerning the proposed new manning arrangements.

  Mr. Redwood
  Subject to individual confidentiality and requests being received, arrangements can be made to publish responses to the consultation exercise.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what arrangements he has made for separating those aspects of the artificial limb and appliance service in Wales which are regarded as suitable(a) for separating into three area-based services located at Rookwood, Morriston and Wrexham-Maelor hospitals and (b) only for a single site all-Wales provision under the options review for the clinical side of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority;

  (2) what consultations he is undertaking with respect to the arrangements for ring-fencing of the sums repatriated to the district health authorities equivalent to those currently allocated for purchasing by the artificial limb and appliance service in Wales;
  640
  (3) what consultations he is carrying out on the length of time and detailed arrangements for ring-fencing the resources to be repatriated to district health authorities for the purchase of breast screening services;

  (4) what is his current estimate of the time for further guidance on contracting for artificial limb and appliance service and Breast Test Wales services;

  (5) what consultations he has had with the management of Breast Test Wales concerning the required time period for ring-fencing of the funding for purchasing breast cancer screening services after repatriation of those funds to district health authorities, arising from the need to complete and evaluate the first round national screening programme; and how long he has given them and other consultees to express views on the suggested length and administration of the protection period for the funding of the service;

  (6) what are the arrangements for health authorities to consult each other with a view to setting up consortium or lead-purchasing arrangements for the artificial limb and appliance service; what consultation he has had with the management at the artificial limb and appliance service in relation to the pooling of purchasing arrangements; and what evaluation he has made of its benefits.

  Mr. Redwood
  Decisions on these issues will be taken in the light of the results of consultation.

  Reversal of Status Declarations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients in each health authority area, or other convenient sub-division, signed reversal of status declarations from either private to NHS, or NHS to private in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally.

  Patient Anonymity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what arrangements he has made for the protection of patient anonymity in the collection of data from medical records for statistical purposes under the proposed new management arrangements for the Welsh Health Common Services Authority;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the Data Protection Registrar concerning the protection of patient anonymity in the collection of data from medical records for statistical purposes in the area of (a) mental health, (b) cancer and (c) other categories.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information given by patients concerning their health and treatment is protected by the common law, the Data Protection Act 1984 and the ethical responsibilities of health professionals. This applies even when it is anonymised and aggregated.

  We have recently consulted on draft guidance for the NHS, "Confidentiality, Use and Disclosure of Personal Health Information", which includes advice on the use of anonymised/aggregated information. Comments have been received from the Data Protection Registrar which are being considered by health Departments.

  The management arrangements for the Welsh Health Common Services Authority are still under review.

  Breast Test Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will specify the time period within which trusts and prospective trusts can apply to administer the management arrangements for Breast Test Wales; what arrangements he has made to permit trusts and prospective trusts not currently involved in carrying out biopsies for Breast Test Wales to have equal status with Llandough NHS trust in applying for approval to manage Breast Test Wales; and what criteria he will use in evaluating the bids to manage the service.

  Mr. Redwood
  The consultation period on the future management of clinical schemes ends on 23 February. No restrictions have been imposed on consultees; bids for the management of Breast Test Wales will be assessed against their ability to maintain the quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the service.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 718, if he will list the external financing limit for each of the NHS trusts in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The external financing limit for each of the NHS trusts in Wales in 1994–95 is shown in the following table:

  NHS Trust

  £000

  Glan Clwyd Hospital

  787

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital

  5,185

  Gofal Cymuned Clwydian Community Care

  9,116

  Llanelli Dinefwr

  334

  Carmarthen and District

  2,419

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  1,172

  Derwen

  947

  Nevill Hall and District

  (1,247)

  Gwent Community

  2,667

  Glan Hafren

  1,876

  Gwynedd Hospital

  1,562

  Gwynedd Community

  3,399

  Bridgend and District

  4,066

  Rhondda

  (650)

  East Glamorgan

  2,653

  Pembrokeshire

  (494)

  Powys Health Care

  1,412

  Llandough

  6,907

  Velindre

  (55)

  Swansea

  3,808

  Morriston

  6,038

  South and East Wales Ambulance

  407

  North Wales Ambulance

  321

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance

  176

  Note: Brackets denote a negative external financing limit—this means that no new borrowing is required.

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the management of the National Blood Transfusion Service Wales concerning the ending of the ring-fencing for the purchase of tissue-typing services from the blood transfusion service by health authorities.

  Mr. Redwood
  The management of the NBTS(W) were consulted prior to the decision to end ring-fencing for tissue-typing services.

  Hospital Supplies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that the capacity to replenish hospital supplies at short notice will be maintained after the proposed closure of the stores at Ysbyty, Gwynedd on 31 March.

  Mr. Redwood
  These are matters for the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and its customers.

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

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Health Service Forms
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the total number of forms collected by his Department for health service administrative purposes in each of the past five years, as measured by the(a) number of different forms and (b) volume and number of actual forms collected.

  Mr. Redwood
  Annual figures are not available for the period requested. However, in 1993–94, I ordered a comprehensive review of 106 financial and statistical forms sent to the NHS in Wales by the Welsh Office. These returns consisted of around 220 pages in total and, taking account of the frequency of collection and the number of respondents, an estimated 6,800 completed forms were collected in 1993–94. As a consequence of the first phase of the review, 35 forms—47 pages in total—equivalent to some 1,300 completed returns, were discontinued.

  A second phase of the review is in train and I expect to announce a further reduction in the form-filling burden on the health service in the near future.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of state for Wales what consultations he has had regarding the Welsh contribution to the United Kingdom-wide evaluation of the effectiveness of the screening in the diagnosis arid treatment of and reducing the incidence of breast cancer, arising from the options review of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. My Department is represented on the Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer Screening which promulgates advice on the United Kingdom evaluation of the breast screening programme. Breast Test Wales' contribution to the UK screening and evaluation programme will continue unchanged.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Calves
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he is doing to develop alternatives to export for surplus calves from dairy farms.
  643
  Mrs. Browning
  I hope that, over time, farmers can have a greater opportunity of finding more markets at home for their animals and that as much as possible of the export trade can be in meat. I met the Meat and Livestock Commission on 19 January to discuss these possibilities.

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

  Mrs. Browning
  On 1 July 1994, there were 146 registered disabled people among the non-industrial civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, including its agencies, representing nearly 1.5 per cent. of the total staff in post. In 1993, a voluntary survey of all staff, which achieved a 60 per cent. response, showed that between three and four times that number considered that they had a disability.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will cut journey times allowed for transportation of live animals for slaughter to six hours.

  Mrs. Browning
  We have no such plans.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account is taken of travel in British waters in the journey times allowed for the transportation of live animals for slaughter.

  Mrs. Browning
  Time at sea counts as part of the journey time under the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994, except where the animals can be fed and watered on board the vessel.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provision was made for the feeding, watering and resting after 15 hours of the livestock held on a ship at Brightlingsea on 19 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  The ship used was a fitted livestock vessel and the sheep were fed, watered and rested in their pens once aboard. The animals were accompanied on their voyage by a Ministry veterinary inspector who was satisfied with the facilities available and the arrangements made for the welfare of the sheep during the sea journey.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the occasions since 1 October 1994 when livestock animals have died while awaiting export from the United Kingdom or during the crossing to the European mainland, giving in each instance(a) the dates, (b) the numbers of animals involved, (c) the types of animals involved, (d) the causes of death and (e) the location where the animals died.

  Mrs. Browning
  The information requested is not available. Those responsible for export consignments are not under any statutory obligation to provide it.

  Fishing (Swap Arrangements)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what requirements exist for British consultation and consent in swap arrangements made between other EEC Governments in respect of British waters.

  Mr. Jack
  As my reply to the hon. Member on 20 January,Official Report, column 736, explained, the Commission must be notified when a swap has been agreed. The Commission then notifies all member states. There is no requirement for prior consultation with the member states in whose waters the quota may be fished.

  Fishing (Irish Box)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what extra funding is available from the EEC for the costs of additional fishery protection efforts to control Spanish access to the Irish box from 1996.

  Mr. Jack
  Decisions on the detailed arrangements to apply from 1 January 1996 have yet to be made.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 738, to the hon. Member for Southend, East, (Sir T. Taylor), what assessment he has made of the relevant financial benefits accruing to (a) the Irish Government and (b) Her Majesty's Government in respect of the arrangements for the Irish box.

  Mr. Jack
  Discussions have not yet reached a stage at which such an assessment could be made.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the Spanish fishing vessels to be admitted to the Irish box have been inspected by British fisheries protection vessels for secret fish holds.

  Mr. Jack
  As I indicated in the reply given to the hon. Member on 20 January,Official Report, columns 735–36, under the agreement reached at the December Fisheries Council it is for each member state to inform the Commission, by the end of March this year, of its proposed reference list of named vessels which may have access to the fisheries covered by the agreement. Access to the Irish box—excluding VIIa and VIIf N of 50 °30'N—for Spanish vessels will not be permitted before 1 January 1996. From that date they will be subject to possible inspection by British fishery protection vessels when they are in UK waters within the Irish box and elsewhere in western waters.

  Fishing (Norway)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what study he has made of Norwegian methods of access control and discipline in respect of foreign fishing vessels into Norwegian waters; and if he will make it his policy to introduce similar measures in British waters and to press for their acceptance by the EEC as a common standard.

  Mr. Jack
  Norwegian fisheries management procedures were extensively considered during Norway's accession negotiations. Within the EU, Council regulation (EEC) No. 2847/93 provides the framework for the effective and non-discriminatory enforcement of the common fisheries policy. At the December Fisheries
  645
  Council, it was agreed that further control measures should he adopted for western waters including provisions relating to the communication of vessel movements—hailing in and out—and the declaration of catch, to both flag and coastal states. These provisions are similar to those in force in certain Norwegian fisheries.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the nations which participate in the EEC Fisheries Council, indicating which of them presently fish in(a) the Irish box, (b) area VII, (c) the North sea, (d) the channel and (e) British waters as defined by the Fishery Limits Act 1976.

  Mr. Jack
  The Fisheries Council consists of the Ministers responsible for fisheries in each of the 15 member states of the EU.

  The following member states have quotas which may currently be taken in all or part of the areas listed:

  (a) The Irish box: United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands.

  (b) Area VII: United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Spain.

  (c) The North sea: United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden.

  (d) The English channel: United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Spain.

  (e) British waters as defined by the Fisheries Limits Act 1976: United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Portugal.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what experiments have been performed involving feeding calves with BSE infected milk; and what results have been obtained.

  Mrs. Browning
  None. Other experiments have revealed that bovine milk contains no detectable BSE infectivity.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the dates of birth of the last five confirmed BSE cases in Somerset.

  Mrs. Browning
  The information requested is as follows. The exact date of birth for four of the cases is unknown.

  1987

  7 September 1987

  Spring 1988

  April 1988

  April 1989

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has available on the numbers and circumstances of confirmed BSE cases born after 18 July 1988.

  Mrs. Browning
  As at 23 January 1995, 15,771 cases of BSE had been confirmed in cattle born after 18 July 1988. Of these 8,955 were born in 1988, 5,995 in 1989, 812 in 1990 and nine in 1991. The great majority of the born after the ban cases have probably been exposed to ruminant protein in feed. The normal range of incubation period makes it inevitable that further cases will be confirmed in some animals exposed to infected feed and born in the months following the feed ban. Although it is still possible that BSE can occasionally be transmitted 646
  maternally or horizontally, there is no unequivocal evidence that either has actually occurred.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Southwood committee's report on BSE in 1989 took into account the numbers of confirmed BSE cattle from after the feeding ban of July 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  Paragraph 6.2 of the report of the working party on BSE dated February 1989, stated that the estimate of the numbers of future cases of BSE contained in the report"Assume that no new infections have arisen or will arise after 18 July 1988, when the ban on ruminant protein in feed became operative."

  The great majority of the born after the ban cases have probably been exposed to ruminant protein in feed. The normal range of incubation period makes it inevitable that further cases will be confirmed in some animals exposed to infected feed and born in the months following the feed ban. Although it is still possible that BSE can occasionally be transmitted maternally or horizontally, there is no unequivocal evidence to indicate that either has actually occurred.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of BSE cases slaughtered and confirmed during 1994.

  Mrs. Browning
  The provisional figure for the number of suspect BSE cases slaughtered in 1994 is 28,257. The number of cases confirmed in 1994 was 25,578.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards rapid detection of cattle infected with BSE prior to their final encephalopathic clinical illness.

  Mrs. Browning
  Research is in progress to permit more accurate diagnosis of BSE in the clinically suspected live animal. Studies include detection by post mortem and laboratory test of changes in the concentration of metabolites in urine, proteins in cerebrospinal fluid and detection of PrP peripheral tissues. None is sufficiently advanced to be of immediate use.

  Another study, based on work already published in the Veterinary Record by Austin and Simmons—27 March 1993, 132, 324–325—involves field trials where monitors are attached to cattle for detection of changes to heart and rumination rates. These studies are still in progress but will not result in instant diagnosis. It is expected that monitors would need to be attached to cattle for several hours if they are to be a valuable diagnostic indicator. They will only be of value for cases where clinical diagnosis is in doubt. It will not be feasible to use such equipment on all suspect cases.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) renderers, (b) feed compounders and (c) farmers have been prosecuted for contravening BSE regulations annually since 1988.

  Mrs. Browning
  There have been two prosecutions taken by the local authorities concerned under the Animal Health Act 1981 for contravening BSE regulations since 1988, one in 1991, the other in 1992.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the results of the vertical experiment, identified within the Southwood report at paragraph 8.1, will be published.

  Mrs. Browning
  The animal experimental part of the cohort study in maternal transmission in BSE is expected
  647
  to be completed at the end of 1996. Results of the study are expected to be available by mid-1997.

  Interim observations of this study were reported in Hansard on 12 December 1994, columns 523–24.

  EU Scientific Veterinary Committee
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the United Kingdom representatives on the EU Scientific Veterinary Committee.

  Mrs. Browning
  The following is a list of United Kingdom members of the European Commissions's Scientific Veterinary Committee:

  Mr. R. Bradley

  Dr. D. J. Alexander

  Dr. A. M. Johnston

  Dr. R. J. Gilbert

  Prof. D. Broom

  Prof. J. Webster

  The Commission appoints experts to be members of the various EC expert committees. These members do not represent their respective member states when participating in the work of the committees.

  Cattle Semen
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what volume of cattle semen from United Kingdom herds was exported to(a) New Zealand, (b) Australia and (c) Canada, annually, from 1992 to 1994.

  Mrs. Browning
  The information requested in respect of exports from Great Britain is set out in the table. The figures are based on the expected number of doses to be exported included in applications to the Department for official export health certification. It is possible that quantities actually exported differ slightly.

  Year

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Destination

  New Zealand

  —

  5,933

  10,653

  Australia

  2,500

  —

  200

  Canada

  8,107

  5,371

  4,495

  Offal Disposal
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has available to identify the routes of disposal for specified offals from cattle prohibited from entering human food in November 1989.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989, which came into effect on 13 November 1989, prohibited the use of specified bovine offals, as defined, in food for sale for human consumption.

  The SBO controls, which are under review at present, require, subject to certain exceptions, that SBO must be sterilised or stained at the slaughterhouse. Movement permits are required for the removal of SBO from the slaughterhouse for disposal. The movement of protein material derived from SBO—after rendering—is prohibited except under licence for incineration or burial.
  648
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the decision of 30 June 1994 to remove intestines and thymuses from calves under six months has been reported to EU member states.

  Mrs. Browning
  The European Commission and individual member states were informed of the decision on the 30 June 1994, and official notification to the commission under the technical standards directive—83/189/EEC—was made on 26 July 1994.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which his Ministry has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Mr. Jack
  From records held centrally, N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. has not undertaken any work on privatisation programmes in which the Ministry has been engaged since 1979.

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

  Mr. Waldegrave
  To my knowledge, officials from this Department have had no such meetings.

  Shellfish
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those inshore and estuarial fisheries where the collection of shellfish for commercial purposes has been banned because of the level of viral and faecal matters in seawater.

  Mr. Jack
  Since 1 January 1993 single market legislation requires all shellfish growing areas in the Community to be classified according to microbiological criteria. The classification of production areas as A, B or C carries specific requirements for the marketing of the shellfish—bi—valve molluscs.

  A areas—molluscs can be harvested for direct human consumption.

  B areas—molluscs can go for human consumption after purification in an approved plant, or after relaying in an approved relaying area, or after an EU approved heat treatment process.

  C areas—molluscs can go for human consumption, only after relaying for at least two months in an approved relaying area whether or not combined with purification, or after an EU approved heat treatment process.

  Molluscs must not be marketed from areas that are not classified, or fall outside the criteria.

  Shellfish growing areas are monitored continuously by local food authorities. The results for England and Wales are collated by the Ministry's fish disease laboratory at Weymouth and the classification is published annually. The latest classification, which contains a list of designated prohibited areas, was issued on 4 October and a copy is in the Library of the House.

  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 corporate clothing and at what cost; and what is the cost of specially designed and printed corporate stationery.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 January 1995, c. 358–61]: The letter to the right hon. Member from the chief executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate stated that he would write to the right hon. Member when the information on the cost of the VMD logo was available.

  I understand that the VMD has now written to the right hon. Member. The text of the letter is as follows:

  Letter from C. J. Lawson to Gerald Kaufman, dared 27 January 1995:
  I am now able to let you have the information about the costs incurred in the design of the Directorate logo, which was not available when I wrote to you on 24 January.
  The design costs were £360 + VAT.
  I am very sorry that I could not let you have this in my original letter and regret any inconvenience that may have been caused.

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

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 January 1995, c. 356]: Total income from farming is estimated to have risen by 4.4 per cent. in real terms in 1994 compared with 1993. This is further evidence that the industry is responding well to common agricultural policy reform. 1993 saw a very large increase in agricultural income and I am pleased that overall there has been a further improvement in 1994. Detailed estimates of income, output and productivity of United Kingdom agriculture in 1994 were published this morning and have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (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 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 on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 25 January 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 25 January 1995, Official Report, column
  650
  197. Ministers and officials receive representations about a wide variety of matters, but the information requested is not collected.

SCOTLAND

  Health Care International
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to submit Health Care International hospital Clydeside to independent audit in respect of losses to public funds.

  Mr. Stewart
  At the request of the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office is currently preparing a factual memorandum on the public sector funding of the Health Care International project. In preparing this memorandum, the NAO has had full access to departmental records on the HCI project and the full co-operation of my right hon. Friend's officials.

  The receiver has recently signed an agreement in principle with a preferred bidder for the continued operation of the Clydebank facility and there is therefore every possibility that the project will yet yield the economic development and job creation benefits which the public sector funding was designed to secure.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the company that takes over Health Care International in Clydebank will be eligible for regional selective assistance; what promises have been given to the receiver on this matter; and what are the conditions for the release of any grant assistance.

  Mr. Stewart
  If a new investor were prepared to take the project forward, there is no reason in principle why consideration should not be given to transfer of the balance of the existing offer. Such a transfer would be subject to appropriate conditions and be based upon the project being taken forward as previously envisaged. No promises have been given to the receiver on this matter. If the offer was transferred, the unpaid balance of grant would be released in line with the job targets which would otherwise have applied to HCI.

  Employment (Children)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to include clauses on child employment in the forthcoming Children (Scotland) Bill.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no plans to include provisions relating to the employment of children in the Children (Scotland Bill). The Government are committed, however, to making changes in the regulation of employment of children in line with the European Community directive on the protection of young people at work. The Scottish Office Education Department and the Department of Health are currently consulting education authorities about this.

  Student Finance
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what would be the full amount of a student loan to be repaid, assessing the current rate of interests, if a student currently in the first year of a three-year course applied for the maximum loan in each of these years; and what is
  651
  his forecast for the total loan for a three-year course beginning in 1995 and subsequent years for which calculations on present information can be made.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures requested are set out in the table. In order to estimate them it has been necessary to make certain assumptions, the basis for some of which will be subject to review from time to time.

  The main assumptions used in estimating the figures are:

  (i) The move to broad parity between grants and loans for student maintenance will continue and will be achieved in academic year 1996–97;

  (ii) the value of the student maintenance provision will be increased in line with forecast price increases;

  (iii) movements in the retail prices index will be consistent with those underlying the Budget statement in November 1994;

  (iv) the students concerned are studying away from home outwith the London area; and

  (v) repayments commence in the April following completion of the course.

  Table 1: Total level of debt for student on a three year course

  Course beginning in academic year:

  Estimated total debt as at April following graduation

  1994–95

  £4,000

  1995–96

  £4,500

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the absenteeism rate for the Lord Advocate's Department in each year since 1991.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average number of working days lost per staff year due to sickness is as follows:

  1994: 9.6

  1993: 8.1

  1992: 6.4

  1991: 9.6

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the absenteeism rate for(a) his Department, (b) Historic Scotland, (c) the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, (d) the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, (e) the Register of Scotland, (f) the Scottish Office Pensions Agency, (g) the Scottish Prison Service, (h) the Scottish Record Office and (i) the Student Awards Agency in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Lang
  The average number of working days lost per staff year due to sickness is as follows for:

  a. The Scottish Office-excluding SPS;

  b. The Scottish Prison Service Agency-SPS; and

  c. The Secretary of State's Executive Agencies of Registers of Scotland and the Scottish Record Office-SRO:

  The Scottish Office (excluding SPS)

  SPS

  ROS

  SRO

  1993

  10.3

  15.3

  15.9

  10.1

  1992

  8.9

  12.6

  15.0

  7.2

  1991

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Information on the disaggregation of the Scottish Office, excluding SPS, total into the core and each of its agencies is not readily available.

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

  Sir Hector Monro
  Official records on the number of sheep scab cases in Scotland are not available for the period following the deregulation of compulsory controls in 1992. The number of confirmed cases in the preceding three years were as follows:

  1990: 4

  1991: 5

  1992 (to 30 June): 17

  In the early part of last year, industry reports suggested a growing incidence of sheep scab throughout Great Britain and a surveillance exercise was carried out at sales and markets during the spring of 1994. In Scotland, this showed that sheep scab was present throughout the country, although the incidence related to flock numbers was relatively low.

  The Government carried out an extensive poster and leaflet campaign in the autumn of 1994 to urge farmers to dip their sheep and to remind them of their welfare responsibilities. Surveillance at markets was also stepped up and a further survey of the incidence of the disease will be made in spring 1995.

  Energy Recycling, Airdrie
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will outline the criteria used to approve the energy recycling scheme proposed by Shanks and McEwan Ltd. for the generation of energy from methane gas from the Greengairs landfill site near Airdrie;

  (2) if he will outline the criteria used to turn down the energy recycling scheme proposed by Monklands district council for the generation of energy from methane gas from the Dalmacoulter landfill site in Airdrie.

  Mr. Steward
  In setting the size of the waste-to-energy band within the Scottish renewables obligation, my right hon. Friend accepted the advice of the Director General of Electricity Supply that only those projects bidding at less than 4.2p per unit generated should be supported.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much additional expenditure each health board has incurred as a result of dentists de-registering patients following the changes in their pay structure implemented by the Scottish Office in October 1990; and how much of this expenditure has been reimbursed to them by the Scottish Office.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 26 January 1995,Official Report, columns 346–48, giving expenditure on general dental services over the past five years by each health board. It is not possible to to attribute changes in expenditure to specific causes. All legitimate costs incurred in providing general dental services are met from central funds.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which health boards have emergency dental services; when these dental services were established; how much it has cost to provide these services; and how many patients have received treatment from this
  653
  emergency dental service in each of the last five financial years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since 1990, general dental practitioners have been responsible for providing emergency dental treatment for their own registered patients. Health boards may also set up emergency dental services to provide treatment out of hours, at weekends and on public holidays where necessary, using general dental practitioners and/or community dental staff. The table shows which Scottish health boards operate formal emergency dental services and when these services were established. It is not possible to identify separately the cost of providing emergency dental services from the overall costs of the general dental service. Information is not held centrally on the number of patients who receive treatment under emergency dental services.

  Emergency dental services available

  When services established

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  —

  Ayrshire and Arran

  yes

  1982

  Borders

  yes

  October 1990

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  Fife

  yes

  1989

  Forth Valley

  yes

  1986

  Grampian

  yes

  1982

  Greater Glasgow

  yes

  1982

  Highland

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  Lothian

  yes

  1977

  Orkney

  yes

  Pre-October 1990

  Shetland

  yes

  Pre-October 1990

  Tayside

  yes

  1982

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many patients were de-registered by their dentists in the financial year 1993–94; how many patients have been de-registered by their dentists in the financial year 1994–95 so far; and how many dental practices were involved in these de-registrations in each health board area in Scotland;

  (2) how many patients have been de-registered by their dentists; and how many patients in each of these years were still in receipt of dental treatment, in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Formal arrangements for patients to be registered with a dentist were introduced in October 1990. Information supplied by health boards about de-registrations since that date is contained in the table. It is not possible to identify individual patients de-registered or to establish whether each subsequently received treatment from another dentist.

  October 1990–March 1991

  Health Board

  Number of patients de-registered

  1Number of dentists involved

  Argyll and Clyde

  3

  1

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  —

  Borders

  1

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  Fife

  1

  1

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  Grampian

  —

  —

  Greater Glasgow

  7

  5

  Highland

  4

  3

  654

  October 1990–March 1991

  Health Board

  Number of patients de-registered

  1Number of dentists involved

  Lanarkshire

  4

  4

  Lothian

  18

  2

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  n/a

  n/a

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  n/a—not available.

  Notes:1 Number of dentists involved in de-registration in a particular year.

  April 1991–March 1992

  Health Board

  Number of patients de-registered

  1Number of dentists involved

  Argyll and Clyde

  25

  2

  Ayrshire and Arran

  14

  10

  Borders

  11

  4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11

  2

  Fife

  —

  —

  Forth Valley

  42

  12

  Grampian

  9

  5

  Greater Glasgow

  41

  36

  Highland

  19

  12

  Lanarkshire

  70

  10

  Lothian

  101

  21

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  n/a

  n/a

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  n/a—not available.

  Notes:1 Number of dentists involved in de-registration in a particular year.

  April 1992–March 1993

  Health Board

  Number of patients de-registered

  1Number of dentists involved

  Argyll and Clyde

  2,241

  14

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1,309

  11

  Borders

  1,432

  4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,518

  10

  Fife

  295

  32

  Forth Valley

  201

  23

  Grampian

  257

  21

  Greater Glasgow

  579

  45

  Highland

  210

  24

  Lanarkshire

  252

  29

  Lothian

  483

  23

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  2206

  229

  Western Isles

  37

  4

  Notes:1 Number of dentists involved in de-registration in a particular year.

  2 From July 1992.

  April 1993–March 1994

  Health Board

  Number of patients de-registered

  1Number of dentists involved

  Argyll and Clyde

  42

  1

  Ayrshire and Arran

  400

  13

  Borders

  683

  4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,388

  10

  Fife

  417

  21

  Forth Valley

  63

  18

  Grampian

  179

  18

  655

  April 1993–March 1994

  Health Board

  Number of patients de-registered

  1Number of dentists involved

  Greater Glasgow

  339

  49

  Highland

  73

  24

  Lanarkshire

  145

  25

  Lothian

  1,625

  17

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  57

  11

  Western Isles

  16

  4

  Notes1 Number of dentists involved in de-registration in a particular year.

  April 1994–December 1994

  Health Board

  Number of patients de-registered

  1Number of dentists involved

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  16

  Ayrshire and Arran

  65

  17

  Borders

  41

  4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  724

  16

  Fife

  439

  24

  Forth Valley

  184

  —

  Grampian

  140

  35

  Greater Glasgow

  893

  87

  Highland

  67

  32

  Lanarkshire

  47

  57

  Lothian

  650

  22

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Interactive

  Non-interactive

  Total

  29 October-20 November 1992

  573

  186

  759

  21 November-18 December 1992

  315

  395

  710

  19 December–15 January 1993

  383

  291

  674

  16 January–12 February 1993

  973

  330

  1,303

  13 February–12 March 1993

  621

  519

  1,140

  13 March–9 April 1993

  714

  500

  1,214

  10 April–7 May 1993

  472

  362

  834

  8 May–4 June 1993

  539

  436

  975

  5 June –2 July 1993

  579

  549

  1,128

  3 July–30 July 1993

  647

  589

  1,236

  31 July–27 August 1993

  366

  495

  861

  28 August-24 September 1993

  323

  478

  801

  25 September–22 October 1993

  420

  639

  1,059

  23 October–19 November 1993

  319

  446

  765

  20 November–17 December 1993

  285

  359

  644

  18 December–14 January 1994

  256

  305

  561

  15 January–11 February 1994

  543

  413

  956

  12 February–11 March 1994

  524

  515

  1,039

  12 March–8 April 1994

  346

  444

  790

  9 April–6 May 1994

  653

  512

  1,165

  7 May–3 June 1994

  398

  426

  824

  4 June–1 July 1994

  566

  714

  1,280

  2 July–29 July 1994

  360

  844

  1,204

  30 July–26 August 1994

  430

  626

  1,056

  27 August-23 September 1994

  734

  398

  1,132

  24 September-21 October 1994

  4,031

  337

  4,3681

  22 October-18 November 1994

  5,090

  1,554

  6,6441

  19 November–16 December 1994

  2,003

  428

  2,431

  17 December–12 January 1995

  514

  566

  1,080

  Total

  23,977

  14,656

  38,633

  1 Corrected and updated figures.

  656

  April 1994–December 1994

  Health Board

  Number of patients de-registered

  1Number of dentists involved

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  361

  48

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  Notes:1 For 1994–95 the figures show the running total of dentists involved in de-registration from July 1992 to December 1994.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment the Scottish Office has made of the impact of de-registration of patients on the dental health of the overall population.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of patients registered with general dental practitioners has decreased by less than 1 per cent. over the last 12 months from 2,650,925 to 2,632,878. Patients can be de-registered by their dentists for a variety of reasons. It is not possible to relate this information directly to the level of dental health in Scotland.

  NHS Helpline
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 466, how many (a) interactive and (b) non-interactive phone calls were made to the NHS helpline up until 12 January.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total number of interactive and non-interactive calls received by the NHS helpline between 29 October 1992 and 12 January 1995 is listed in the table.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines exist for the declaration of business interests by the directors of local enterprise companies in Scotland; what interests they are required to declare; and what scrutiny procedure exists for these declared interests.

  Mr. Stewart
  The local enterprise companies are required by their operating contracts with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to maintain a register of directors' interests; to make that register open for public inspection; and to have in place procedures designed to avoid potential conflicts of interest. The approval and monitoring of the local enterprise companies' conflict of interest procedures is an operational matter for the enterprise bodies and I have asked their chairmen to write to the hon. Member.

  Long-term Care
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS continuing care beds each health board in Scotland plans to close from 1 April 1994 in(a) learning disabilities, (b) psychiatric, (c) geriatric, (d) psycho-geriatric and (e) physical disabilities; over what timescales the closures will take place; and if he will make a statement on Government targets in these areas.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no centrally imposed targets for long-stay bed provision in the NHS. The pace of change is directed by patient needs. The organisation of long-stay care and care services in the community are determined by continuous joint assessment of local needs involving health boards and local authorities. The aim is to secure the most effective package of services, both in hospital and the community, that meet the specific needs of patients and carers.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been transferred from each health board in Scotland to local authorities under resource transfer arrangements in respect of reductions in NHS continuing care beds in(a) learning disabilities, (b) psychiatric, (c) geriatric, (d) psycho-geriatric and (e) physical disabilities in each year since 1991; what is his assessment of the adequacy of the level of resource transfer to local authorities; and what proportion of the money saved by health boards will be transferred to local authorities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on money transferred from health boards in Scotland to local authorities has only recently been collected centrally and is available for the period 1993–94 onwards. The data provided do not include an analysis of the different categories requested. The latest information available is given in the table:

  Health board

  Resource transfer 1993–94 £000

  Estimated resource transfer 1994–95 £000

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  1,465

  Ayrshire and Arran

  642

  1,529

  Borders

  —

  608

  Dumfries and Galloway

  119

  857

  Fife

  1,018

  1,822

  Forth Valley

  987

  2,129

  Grampian

  2,404

  3,216

  658

  Health board

  Resource transfer 1993–94 £000

  Estimated resource transfer 1994–95 £000

  Greater Glasgow

  399

  466

  Highland

  549

  1,519

  Lanarkshire

  778

  2,105

  Lothian

  590

  3,926

  Tayside

  604

  1,401

  Orkney

  —

  163

  Shetland

  —

  101

  Western Isles

  144

  147

  Total

  8,234

  21,454

  In addition to the above, health boards paid £10.3 million to other agencies in 1993–94 for non-NHS care services, and are estimating £9.6 million for 1994–95.

  Resource transfers are to be regarded as a contribution towards the cost of alternative care services in the community. Health boards' contributions will reflect what can be afforded from the savings achieved through contractions in long-stay bed provision after any necessary reinvestment in alternative health care services. The level of reinvestment is very much dependent on local circumstances and need. It is not possible, therefore, to draw ready conclusions about either the adequacy or proportion of savings eventually transferred. I am, nevertheless, encouraged with the expected level of increase for 1993–94 to 1994–95.

  Development Corporations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 467, if he will list for each development corporation of Scotland (a) how many of their properties are currently leased to housing associations and (b) the name of the housing association in each case.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his question on 17 January,Official Report, columns 467–68.

  Footpaths
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent or grant aided in each of the last three years for which figures are available by Scottish National Heritage on the repair of eroded footpaths.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Expenditure on footpath repairs in each of the last three years has been:

  1991–92: £277,655—Countryside Commission for Scotland

  1992–93: £292,024—Scottish Natural Heritage

  1993–94: £272,566—Scottish Natural Heritage

  These figures exclude some expenditure on paths which is aggregated with other works to improve a recreation site or facility. They are grant costs at rates varying from 50 per cent. to 85 per cent. according to location of site and the range of organisations which are contributing to the costs.

  SNH also runs a footpath management project with aims of promoting more action on path management and encouraging high standards of work. This project is funded through SNH's research budget at around £20,000 per annum. In addition, SNH has undertaken surveys of the need for path management to establish better the scale

  659
  of the problem. Surveys of this kind have been undertaken in Wester Ross and are under way in the Cairngorms.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the number of buildings currently listed in category A and in category B;

  (2) how many applications have been received from the owners of listed buildings for financial assistance towards the cost of repairs and maintenance in each of the last five financial years; and what has been the total value of the grants awarded.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The subjects of the questions relate to matters undertaken by Historic Scotland. I have asked its director and chief executive, Mr. Graeme Munro, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graeme N. Munro to Mr. Robert Maclennan, dated 31 January 1995:
  You have tabled two Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland for Written Answer on 31 January. As these Questions relate to operational matters undertaken by Historic Scotland, I have been asked to provide the information you are seeking. The terms of this letter will be reproduced in the Official Report and a copy of it will also be deposited in the Library of the House.
  I shall answer each Question in the order in which it appears on the Order Paper.
  Question: What is the number of buildings currently listed in category A and in category B.
  As at 25 January 1995, the number of buildings listed at category A was 2,987 and the number of buildings listed at category B was 25,093.
  Question: How many applications have been received from the owners of listed buildings for financial assistance towards the cost of repairs and maintenance in each of the last five financial years; and what has been the total value of the grants awarded.
  The total number of historic building repair grant applications received from owners of listed buildings and buildings situated within outstanding conservation areas over the past five financial years is as follows:

  1989–90 116

  1990–91 103

  1991–92 62

  1992–93 54

  1993–94 97

  Total 432

  The total value of historic building repair grants awarded for the last five complete financial years is as follows:

  1989–90 £8,848,360

  1990–91 £11,371,775

  1991–92 £12,317,845

  1992–93 £9,836,580

  1993–94 £14,644,413

  Total £57,018,973

  The relationship between the figures in the above tables warrants some further explanation. The award of a grant can take place in the same financial year in which the application was received, but that is unusual given the importance of a careful evaluation by the owner, his professional adviser and Historic Scotland of the building and its needs so that a comprehensive specification for repairs can be agreed. What is more, the amount of grant awarded for what are usually significant capital projects normally is paid over two or more
  660
  financial years and payments do not flow until recognised phases of the work have been completed.
  The actual grant payments in each of the last five complete financial years were:

  1989–90 £8,358,655

  1990–91 £8,954,716

  1991–92 £9,219,458

  1992–93 £10,291,158

  1993–94 £11,140,000

  Total £47,963,987

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Reversal of Status Forms
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients in each health board area are recorded as having signed reversal of status forms from(a) private to NHS and (b) NHS to private in each of the past three years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many Glasgow houses Scottish Homes intends to transfer to new landlords or housing associations;

  (2) if the ballot papers issued to Scottish Homes tenants will have an option for the tenants concerned to vote (a) to remain with Scottish Homes or (b) to be transferred to the local authority;

  (3) what guidelines he has issued or plans to issue to housing associations with regard to which organisation they can borrow from in order to acquire the property which Scottish Homes wishes to transfer;

  (4) what housing estates in Glasgow Scottish Homes will be seeking to transfer to new landlords or housing associations;

  (5) what is the current value of the houses that Gemini housing association has expressed an interest in buying from Scottish Homes;

  (6) what restrictions on borrowing have been placed on Gemini housing association by Scottish Homes; and if he will make a statement.

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

  A74-M74
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many miles of the A74–M74 upgrading being financed by his Department is in England; what is the estimated cost of the work involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None of the A74 upgrading being financed by the Scottish Office is in England.
  661
  The Kirkpatrick Fleming to Gretna contract, administered by my Department and opened in December 1992, incorporated a 1 km length of motorway in England, including an interchange at Guardsmill. This short section was necessary to enable the new road to be opened as a motorway and was financed by the Department of Transport.

  The Scottish Office and the Department of Transport are exploring the possibility of completing the remaining sections of route using a design, build, finance and operate solution. Should this proceed as a single joint contract, the costs would again be apportioned to each Department.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department (i) hold open meetings, (ii) conduct public consultation exercises, (iii) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interest, (iv) publish a register of members' interests, (v) publish agendas for meetings and (vi) publish the minutes of meetings; and whether this is in each case(a) under a statutory requirement or (b) voluntary.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 December 1994]: The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:

  (i) In the case of children's panel advisory committees, the meetings are open to the public but discussions relating to confidential matters affecting children's panels or individual panel members or candidates are taken in private.

  (ii) The Boundary Commission for Scotland conducts public consultation exercises by publicising proposed changes to electoral boundaries and holds inquiries under the Parliamentary Constituency Act 1986. The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland also publicises its proposals and holds local inquiries under section 19 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Local inquiries usually take place where there are major differences of opinion about the commission's proposals.

  (iii) No consultation exercises are held by any advisory non-departmental public body sponsored by my Department with outside commercial interests.

  (iv) No advisory non-departmental public body sponsored by my Department holds a register of members' interests.

  (v) Agendas of meetings of children's panel advisory committees are available to the public if required.

  (vi) Minutes of meeting of children's panel advisory committees are available to the public if required. Subject to confidential matters concerning individuals not being available, the boundary commission would be willing to consider making minutes of meetings available to interested parties.

  The requirement for children's panel advisory committees to make available the information recorded above is not statutory. The requirement
  662
  for the Boundary Commission for Scotland and the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland to publicise their proposals is statutory.

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

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 26 January 1995]: In 1992 research was commissioned by the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department into the distribution of New Zealand flatworm in Scotland and also its impact on agriculture and horticulture. The flatworm was found to be widely distributed, mainly in private gardens and allotments. There is evidence to show that it has not become widely established in agricultural land. The research was thus unable to assess fully the impact on earthworm populations and soil in an agricultural background.

  There has been an increase in sightings reported by the public. These are recorded by the Scottish Crop Research Institute, which monitors the position in conjunction with the Department. The need for further research into the impact of the New Zealand flatworm and methods of control is kept under review.

  Electro-shock Weapons
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the manufacture and supply of(a) electro-shock weapons and (b) instruments of torture by Scottish-based companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: I have no such information.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the acquisition of electro-shock weapons by police forces in Scotland, the use for which they are acquired and the guidelines which govern such acquisitions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: No police force in Scotland has acquired electro-shock weapons, nor has any force intimated an intention to acquire such weapons.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what financial assistance has been given by his Department to United Kingdom companies actively involved in the manufacture, marketing and supply of electro-shock weapons; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the policy of his Department in providing financial assistance to firms involved in the manufacture, marketing or supply of electro-shock weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any financial assistance having ever been provided to support the manufacture, marketing or supply of electro-shock weapons. Prior to 1989, regional development grants amounting to less than £5,000 were paid to ICL Plastics Ltd., but these grants did not relate to electro-shock weapons.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 275, if he will publish the findings of any engineering or structural survey of the Forth rail bridge commissioned by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 25 January, Official Report, column 275.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Mr. Lang
  No work has been undertaken by N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. on any privatisation programmes in which my Department has been engaged since 1979.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by
the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Private Finance Initiative: Scope
Lord Barnettasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the Private Finance Initiative.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, the aim of the Private Finance Initiative is to ensure that, where appropriate, private finance is the first choice for investment in government infrastructure and services.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I would agree with those sentiments in principle provided always that the transaction offers value for money? I am sure that the Minister is aware of the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying last week—he also issued a press release—that one of the first projects to be undertaken under the Private Finance Initiative would be redevelopment of the Treasury building itself, so I assume that nothing is sacred any more. I am sure that the Minister is aware too that the Chancellor said that the idea is to go right across the public sector with the Private Finance Initiative. Can the Minister confirm whether that applies also to local government? If so, will local authorities be able to build homes through the Private Finance Initiative, using private builders, and lease them back, thus providing much needed homes as well as jobs that are greatly needed in the building industry?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can confirm that my right honourable friend addressed a packed audience last week at the very successful private finance panel conference. As the noble Lord so clearly said, my right honourable friend announced plans for the work at the Treasury to be undertaken under one of the initiatives. That shows that the Treasury puts its money where its mouth is. I hope that that will be a highly successful initiative along with the other £5 billion-worth of private finance contracts due to be signed in 1995, with another £1 billion-worth in the pipeline. As regards local government and whether it can partake in the initiative, I should prefer to take advice because that question goes slightly beyond central government. However, I can confirm that although the Private Finance Initiative is focused predominantly on transport initiatives, we should like it to be focused across all government departments.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, will the Government be prepared to put public sector finance into private sector enterprises where there is a long payback period to ensure that the Government share the risk of important developments in strategic industries?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously there will be occasions when the Government put money into such
1326
things. What we want to do is to ensure that the risk is shared between the private sector and the public sector. We are certainly not looking to transfer all risk onto the private sector.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Treasury is a listed building and, if so, to what extent can it be hacked about?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Treasury is a listed building, and the degree to which it can be hacked about, as the noble Lord puts it, would be a matter for the appropriate authorities on advice from English Heritage.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the Minister aware of general agreement that this is a desirable initiative, especially if it means that there can be additional investment in essential public services? However, is the Minister also aware that the definition of what is "appropriate" is still somewhat restrictive? The Minister referred particularly to risk. Is he aware that those to whom I have spoken believe that there is a tendency to ask them to shoulder more of the risk than the profits will bear?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for support from the Liberal Benches and I hope in due course to receive support from the Benches opposite. It is important to get the share of the risk exactly in the right place. I was trying to stress in reply to an earlier question that we believe that the risk should be shared. It should not all be placed on the private sector; nor for that matter should we be removing all risk from the private sector. There must be a degree of risk.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Barnett asked the Minister an important question about whether private money is now available, or can be made available by agreement, to local authorities so that they can build much needed housing for those who are poorly housed and, in many cases, homeless. As the Minister must be aware, that would provide extra work for the building industry which is once again in decline. If a local authority and a private finance company were able to do a deal to build houses, would that, in the interests of everybody, have the blessing of the Government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear in reply to the noble Lord's noble friend, I answered purely in terms of central government and undertook to take advice on that issue. In so doing, I shall write to the noble Lord as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the arrangements that are envisaged for the Treasury involve a purchase and lease-back arrangement? Would that apply to the entire building and could it be applied to government buildings generally?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it could be applied to all other government buildings. The exact details of the Treasury's proposals still have to be worked out. All my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer

1327
announced was that there was a prospect of making use of the Private Finance Initiative to bring much needed money into redevelopment of the Treasury building.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Private Finance Initiative was announced three years ago? Will he also confirm that of the nearly 700 projects so far proposed by the Government a mere 26 have passed the tender stage? Is that not a clear indication that, despite Sir Alastair Morton's best efforts, the project is being seriously mismanaged and indeed obstructed within the Treasury? Is not the reason for the Government's failure in that respect that they are trying to hive off the public sector rather than to build constructive private/public partnerships?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. I should have thought that the fact that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took so seriously the conference to which I referred stresses the importance that he attaches to it. That is why he announced in the Budget that some £5 billion of private finance contracts were due to be signed this year, with a further £1 billion in the pipeline. That does not show that we are going slow on the matter. The project relating to the Treasury building shows, as I said earlier, that the Treasury puts its money where its mouth is.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the House will be glad to know that the Government have learned the creative accounting techniques pioneered by both Tory and Labour local authorities in the 1980s which enabled their capital budgets to go ahead. Are the Government aware that now they are using those techniques to get around their own Treasury rules, local government might find it useful to have the same freedom of manoeuvre?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally reject the noble Lord's suggestion, as I imagine will most of the House, that this is merely creative accounting. The key point is to introduce private sector management and expertise so as to deliver better project management and value for money for the taxpayer.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I would not want to see the Government doing any creative accounting, as I am sure the Minister is aware. I am surprised by his reply that he needs to take advice about the local government sector as last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"We are seeking to push the Private Finance Initiative right across the public sector".
The Chancellor also said that there would need to be value for money before he agreed a project. How will he do that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as we all know, the noble Lord is an accountant and he is creative, but I should be the last to say that he was ever a creative accountant. I said earlier that I would prefer to take advice on that point. I shall do so and write to him.

Motorail Service: Future
2.47 p.m.
Lord Rentonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to ensure that the service currently provided by Motorail will continue to be provided after privatisation of the rail network.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the franchising director has announced that he will not be requiring a future franchise operator to provide the Motorail service through the passenger service requirement. However, franchisees will be free to use their commercial judgment on whether to operate the Motorail service in addition to the PSR.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat disappointing reply. Is he aware that the Motorail service has proved to be a great advantage to many people, and has the further advantage that it keeps cars off the road over long distances? Will he point that out to the franchising director?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the service has provided a valuable facility to many people, but it is extremely expensive to operate. It is used to carry very few vehicles.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister recall undertaking after undertaking given by Ministers during the passage of the Railways Bill that there would be full consultation whenever controversial issues of this kind arose? Is he aware that there has been no consultation with the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee—a matter of complaint registered by Major-General Lennox Napier? Is he aware that there has been no consultation with the tourist industry which is bound to be vitally affected by these decisions? What would be the use of consultation now that the franchising director has made up his mind and pre-empted any alternatives?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the franchising director has taken fully into account the factors mentioned by the noble Lord. No final decisions on ScotRail's PSR have yet been made. There will be formal consultations with the rail users consultative committees, the bodies set up under the Railways Act 1993. Consultations in respect of ScotRail's PSR will be held later this year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why was there no consultation before the franchising director made those two critically important decisions?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in order to end speculation about the service the franchising director made an earlier announcement. It is clear that the service is extremely expensive to operate, uses specialised machinery that is not used elsewhere and the benefit is limited to the small number of people who use the service.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that from the point of view of taking cars

1329
off the road Motorail is almost wholly irrelevant? The total capacity of Motorail is approximately 17,500 cars per year whereas on the busiest stretch of the M.1 to Scotland the total daily traffic is approximately 120,000 cars.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend described the situation perfectly. Motorail represents a valuable service to the few people who use it. However, in context with the number of cars travelling to and from Scotland it is insignificant.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his answers to the supplementary questions that have been asked from all parts of the House indicate that the privatisation programme is a lot of nonsense and that most members of the public disagree with it? It is only the Government's dogma which persists in going through the formalities of getting the Bill through the House. Why do they not ditch the whole idea?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not agree with a word that the noble Lord said. Franchising will bring considerable benefits and economies to consumers and will involve the use of private finance. We firmly believe that the franchising business will be a great success. Similar remarks were made by other noble Lords in advance of privatisations which have proved to he great successes.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when voting for privatisation I did so enthusiastically and on the assumption that what he has called "a valuable service" will be retained?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the service caters for few people and costs a great deal of money. The franchising director is under an obligation to spend the limited amount of subsidy that is at his disposal on the services which are most necessary.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if and when the Government's programme for rail privatisation reaches fruition will enough trains be left running to keep the train spotters occupied?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions
2.53 p.m.
Lord Carverasked Her Majesty's Government:
What further measures they propose to ensure that the Rio target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to their 1990 level by the year 2000 is met.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government are committed to fulfilling their obligations under the Climate Change Convention which was signed at Rio. We are currently considering whether further measures are needed in the light of recent developments,
1330
and will also be taking account of the revised energy projections which the Department of Trade and Industry is working on.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But does he agree that, as VAT on domestic fuel is not going up to 17.5 per cent., as the report on transport and the environment by the Royal Commission on pollution showed that the proposed periodic increases in the price of petrol and diesel would not bring about the expected reduction in CO2 emissions and as the economy is likely to grow at more than 3 per cent., the assumptions behind the Government's 1993 climate change paper have been undermined? Is it not therefore essential that they at least give Nuclear Electric the go-ahead to build Sizewell C? Like Sizewell B, which opens today, it will produce a great deal of power but with no greenhouse gas emissions.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we are reviewing the impact of the measures in the climate change programme, including the VAT position, as part of the monitoring process. We shall take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that we remain on course. Our monitoring shows that we are currently on course to meet our commitments under the Climate Change Convention. Obviously, carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector have fallen by about 20 per cent. since 1990. That is due in part to increased output from gas-fired and nuclear power stations.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, there appears to be a degree of uncertainty in the Minister's Answer. Will he give an absolute assurance that the commitment entered into at Rio will be kept and, I hope, improved upon?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government are fully committed to fulfilling their obligations under the Climate Change Convention. We played a leading role in the international negotiations on the convention and remain committed to active participation in the process. The UK climate change programme, which was published in January last year, sets out in full the measures aimed at returning CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although opinions differ as to the extent and effects of climate change and global warming, it is in any case prudent to restrict emissions of carbon dioxide in order to avoid upsetting the balance in the atmosphere, especially when the natural cycle is being affected by the disappearance of forests and other green areas of the world?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes. My noble friend has raised an issue which needs to be taken forward on a global scale. From an environmental point of view, the Government, and I am sure the whole House, would regret the disappearance of many forest areas around the world.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Minister's reply indicated that the Government are contemplating further measures to achieve their emissions objective. Will he indicate

1331
what those measures might comprehend? Will they comprehend fiscal stimuli to improve efficiency in the home and industry?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the budget for the home energy efficiency scheme, for instance, has been increased to more than £100 million in 1995–96. The scheme provides advice and grants as regards insulation and draft-proofing for low income households. The energy efficiency best practice programme aims to generate additional energy savings of £800 million. By 1994 it achieved savings of some £300 million per year, or a 2 million-tonne reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. I believe that the stimulus that those schemes have produced makes a great contribution towards the 10 million tonnes by which we have agreed to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that reducing carbon dioxide emissions by building nuclear reactors is jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire? Much more attractive alternatives are open to the Government.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord expresses his own view. There are two sides to the issue, but there is no doubt that nuclear power has a part to play in the reduction of CO2 emissions.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as regards nuclear energy, if Sizewell C and the proposed Hinkley C power station were built we could reduce the amount of nuclear powered fuel that we are importing from France and at the same time create an enormous amount of employment, certainly in the south west, which is in need of a great deal of employment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord must be patient. The House will know that the Government are undertaking a nuclear review. They have not completed or published their conclusions and it would be premature for me to comment on the matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the Government's record on energy efficiency and the proper use of electricity is lamentable? Do the Government recognised that at every stage of the Electricity Act in your Lordships' House they resisted putting a duty on the distributors of electricity to ensure and promote energy efficiency? If the Government are so keen on energy efficiency and the proper use of electricity, why do they not restore that duty?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government have established the Energy Savings Trust which is being funded by the electricity generating companies. That will promote energy saving in the private sector and will include options for less energy consumption.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Viscount not agree that there has been a very sharp reduction in CO2 produced by power stations? The increase in such emissions does not emanate from power stations but from motor vehicles. Will the Government
1332
give that aspect far more attention than they are giving to the prospect of building additional nuclear power stations?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in the climate change programme which was put forward by the Government, we committed ourselves to a longer term strategy of increasing transport fuel duties by at least 5 per cent. per year on average above the rate of inflation. At the last Budget, duties were raised by 8.6 per cent. above the rate of inflation. That indicates the seriousness with which the Government regard the part that transport plays in relation to CO2 emissions.

Palestinian Territories: EU Declaration
3.1 p.m.
Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What response was received from Israel to the declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on the situation in the Palestinian territories, dated 5th January 1995.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Government of Israel are aware of the European Union's concerns about the situation in the occupied territories, including the situation in relation to settlement building.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is it not the case that the declaration demanded a total cessation of work on expanding settlements? Will the presidency of the European Union now inform Israel that further private house building in such places as Maale Adumin, Gush Etzion and Giz'at Ze'ev will provoke financial penalties on Israel's trade with Europe?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the building of settlements in the occupied territories is contrary to international law and is an obstacle in the way of peace. The matter of settlements is one that has been reserved under the declarations of principle of the Oslo Agreement of 1993 until issues relating to permanent status are determined. Nevertheless, the building of those settlements is in breach of international law and we believe that it is contrary to the spirit behind the declarations of principle.
The EU troika of Foreign Ministers will visit Israel next month and that matter will be brought very forcefully to the attention of the Israeli Government. Indeed, in the following month, the Prime Minister of this country is to visit Israel and he too will be bringing forward those matters.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, in view of the Minister's very welcome reaffirmation of the Government's view that the settlement policy of the Israeli Government is illegal and contrary to international law, will he join our European partners in trying to persuade the United States Administration to follow the precedent of their predecessors in also declaring illegal the Israeli settlement policy?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we are at one with our European partners in our attitude towards those

1333
settlements. We understand that that is the view of the United States Government. Obviously it is for them to take their own decisions on those matters.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in view of the grievous situation now developing on the West Bank, will the noble Lord say anything about the trend of British arms exports to Israel since their resumption last summer? While one can understand that any equipment which would help the Israeli Government to detect suicide bombers in bus stations is a very good kind of export, what about the more lethal equipment which I presume that we are still sending to Israel?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reiterating the degree of seriousness in connection with the state of relations in Israel. I am not in a position to give the noble Lord any detailed reply about arms exports other than to say that the normal criteria obviously apply in this case.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, has it not been clear for many years now that peace in the region will never be possible while the Israelis continue to build settlements in occupied Arab territories? The noble Lord rightly says that the Government have protested often in line with the Security Council and the European Community. But why have they always opposed bringing pressure to bear on the Israeli Government, perhaps along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I do not think it is true to say that the Government are opposed to bringing pressure to bear on Israel. In the current circumstances, where matters are extremely sensitive, it is our priority and that of our European Union partners to see whether we can proceed with the current negotiations. That is the cardinal principle behind our policy at this time.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the European Union noted the watering down of the safeguards against torture in the process of interrogation of terrorist suspects which was announced by the Israeli Justice Minister on 13th November of last year? Have the Government noted also any response from the Israeli authorities to a human rights Middle East report which refers to the use of torture and ill-treatment by Israelis in their interrogation of Palestinians from the occupied territories? Will the European Union consider raising those matters at the Geneva meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer the detail of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. But it is a matter which is at the forefront of our concerns; that proper human rights provisions should be observed by the Israelis.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, given that there is now a serious danger that the peace process will stall completely, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government intend to have any discussions with the
1334
United States Government to ask them to put pressure on the Israelis to go back to the table and to rethink their settlement policies?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I hope I explained earlier, it is a matter of the greatest concern and importance to Her Majesty's Government that the peace process continues. The House may rest assured that we shall not spare any effort to try to ensure that that occurs.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that in spite of the wave of terrorism which is taking place, it is important for both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Administration that the peace negotiations should continue?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I concur entirely with the noble Lord's remark.

Petition: Berkshire County Council
3.9 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from Berkshire County Council which prays that this House will urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to reject the final recommendations of the Local Government Commission in so far as they relate to Berkshire. The Petition prays also that this House will vote down any orders placed before it seeking to implement the final recommendations of the Local Government Commission in so far as they relate to Berkshire
Petition presented.

Law Reform (Succession) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the distribution of the estates of deceased persons and to make provision about the effect of the dissolution or annulment of marriages on wills and appointments of guardians. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Legitimated Persons (Succession to Titles) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to enable legitimated persons to succeed, and to transmit a right to succeed to dignities and titles of honour; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Kilmarnock.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 1st February
3.10 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Northbourne set down for tomorrow shall be limited to 2 hours and that in the name of the Lord Allen of Abbeydale set down for the same day to 3 hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am all in support of the Motion on the Order Paper which relates to the Business of the House. However, I should be glad if the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would explain to us the specific authority claimed by the Government in respect of the Unstarred Question this evening which is tabled in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich by which the debate is limited to one hour. Where is the specific authority for that step to be taken? I have in mind the very great importance of the matters that are the subject of the Unstarred Question for the whole issue of the preservation of historic buildings in this country and the ecclesiastical and general culture that is associated with them.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the fact that there are 21 speakers for the first of tomorrow's debates and only 15 for the second, will my noble friend have further discussions through the usual channels to see whether he can revise the time limit for the short debate which has the greater number of speakers?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can readily understand the motives of both my noble friend and the noble Lord for intervening in the Motion. Perhaps I may, first, address the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. As I am sure the noble Lord will know, a recent amendment was made to the Companion to the Standing Orders at page 83, which reads:
"On an experimental basis, Unstarred Questions, time-limited to one hour, may be asked during dinner adjournments. These should be limited in scope. The questioner is allocated 10 minutes and the Minister replying 12 minutes".
Noble Lords will be aware that recently, following the Third Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of the House for the year 1993–94, that experiment was made permanent with the agreement of your Lordships. I should add that the right reverend Prelate was very clear in his desire to introduce such a debate—on a question which, quite rightly, exercises the minds of many noble Lords—that a firm date should be secured well in advance of the time.
Therefore, although the right reverend Prelate was well aware of the risks attendant on securing such a fixed date—namely, that many people would want to speak in a very short debate—he preferred to do so, as I understand it, rather than take the risks attendant upon going for a balloted Motion.
1336
I must tell my noble friend Lord Gisborough that we are discussing a Motion which was put forward by the Cross-Benches. I believe that it has been made clear by the representatives of the Cross-Benches, through the usual channels, that that is the balance of time that they would prefer. I am sure noble Lords would agree with me when I say that it would be discourteous of the rest of the House to interfere with the preferences of Members of the Cross-Benches, who form such a substantial part of the Chamber, when they have expressed such a desire for the management of the time which has been allocated to them. I hope that my noble friend will accept that that is something to which I believe the House should adhere.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for his response. Is the noble Viscount aware that I was merely seeking to be helpful to Her Majesty's Government to enable them to get out of their difficulties in the matter? However, I should stress that my services will be available on another occasion when I hope to be helpful to the noble Viscount.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am always extremely grateful to any offers that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, makes when he wishes to be of help to the Government. I particularly note the fact that, unlike many consultants who are employed by Her Majesty's Government, the services of the noble Lord come free.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the noble Viscount comment on the fact that, while the Order Paper suggests that speakers in this evening's Unstarred Question will be allocated two minutes so as to fit in to the one-hour schedule, when an Unstarred Question was scheduled on a previous occasion to take place during the dinner hour, the rest of the Business of the House was completed before that time, thus leaving the Unstarred Question, effectively, without a time limit? Will the House take note of the latter as a possible precedent which might be used this evening?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. My understanding—and I am open to correction in such matters—is that, under the circumstances that the noble Lord predicates, the hour is extended to an hour-and-a-half. Although in this particular instance I believe that noble Lords would not find themselves with very much more time at their disposal, it may be worth underlining to your Lordships that the risks associated with the procedure have always been made clear. In particular, the Select Committee recommended that noble Lords should, perhaps, consider carefully before adding their names to a list of speakers, the length of which already indicates that speech times will be short. If the procedure is to work, it is, to a degree, in your Lordships' hands; as, indeed, is the case with all things in this House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.16 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.]
[Amendments Nos. 191A and 191B not moved.]
Lord Beaumont of Whitleymoved Amendment No. 191C:
Before Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Emergency drought orders
In section 73 of the Water Resources Act, 1991 (power to make ordinary and emergency drought orders), after subsection (2) (b) there shall be inserted—
"(c) is satisfied, after consulting the Environment Agency, that the deficiency is such as to be likely to threaten the environmental well-being of flora and/or fauna."").
The noble Lord said: Looking at the long list of groupings that is before the Committee today, I believe that it would be unwise to wish your Lordships Kung hei fat choy, although it does look as if it is a good start to the Year of the Pig.
The purpose of the amendment, and of many of the others which are to be discussed in the grouping, is to enable the Secretary of State, or the agency, to issue drought orders on environmental grounds. The Water Resources Act 1991 enables the Secretary of State to issue drought orders whereby water abstraction from specific sources may be limited or prevented during a period of drought. However, the Secretary of State may do so only on the grounds that a deficiency has been wrought in the supply of waters due to a lack of rain. Requests for such orders to be made come either from the NRA or a water undertaker.
The legislation initiating the new agencies would have been an ideal opportunity to offer further protection to the environment by enabling drought orders to be made on environmental grounds; indeed, it would be and is an ideal opportunity. Situations often arise where a serious lack of rain has caused, or threatens to cause, serious damage to the environment. Of particular vulnerability are sites of special scientific interest.
Such protection could be offered by amending Section 73 of the Water Resources Act 1991, which deals with,
"power to make ordinary and emergency drought orders".
The environment agency should have the ability to issue drought orders where it believes that there is a risk to "flora and/or fauna". I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I wish to speak to my amendments which are grouped with this one. May I first say that I support the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has just spoken. I have a similar one which I shall deal with briefly when we come to it.
1338
My Amendment No. 203 is aimed at managing water resources so as to protect nature conservation interests. The amendment would allow statutory nature conservation agencies to request revocation or modification of an abstraction licence where it appeared that the licence was causing significant damage to a site of special scientific interest.
Section 52 of the Water Resources Act 1991 allows the NRA or the Secretary of State for the Environment to formulate proposals for revoking or varying an abstraction licence. The owner of fishing rights in an inland water supply can apply for such revocation or variation. The amendment would allow the statutory bodies to make a similar application to that of fishing interests to protect sites for which they have a statutory responsibility.
Amendment No. 204 concerns licences of right and licences of entitlement granted under the water Acts of 1963 and 1989. Abstraction levels for the licences were set at relatively high levels to allow for possible future demand. There was not at that time any consideration of environmental impact. The system, I understand, has had considerable adverse effects on SSSIs and on some rivers. The RSPB, which supports the proposed amendments, suggests that over 100 sites of special scientific interest and 40 rivers have been damaged. The licences have also created difficulties in re-allocating water between users in an effort to balance supply and demand. Amendment No. 204 would ensure that abstractions were formally reviewed by the agency within five years to take account of the environmental duties of the new environment agency. Has the Minister considered the matter? Does he intend to do anything about the licences even if he cannot accept the amendment?
Amendment No. 205 seeks to clarify the emergency drought orders. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, dealt quite extensively with that; I shall therefore be brief. I notice that the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, which appear much further on in the Marshalled List, are on the same lines. It seems important that the environmental considerations of drought orders should be taken into account.
Amendment No. 207 seeks to allow the Secretary of State to set mandatory leakage targets for water undertakers. This touches on discussions we had earlier in the Bill, but I remind the Committee that about a quarter of treated water is lost through leakage. The setting of targets is supported by the National Rivers Authority, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Association of County Councils and the Nature Conservancy Council. Diminishing the rate of loss would obviously be of benefit in reducing demand on existing supplies and in the creation of new sources which in turn would lead to a reduction in pressure on the natural environment.
Finally, my Amendment No. 222 seeks to introduce an incentive charging scheme for abstraction licences. The present cost recovery system does not encourage the abstractor to conserve water. Incentive charging could be a useful tool in encouraging the wiser use of water. I understand that following consultation on the

1339
paper Using Water Wisely the Government are considering the possibility of introducing incentive charging for abstractions. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how far that has progressed. I hope he recognises that the Bill provides an opportunity to introduce such a system if that is what the Government intend.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Perhaps I should declare an interest. I am an abstractor. Unless I am mistaken, the NRA has powers to take environmental measures. I should have thought that those powers would be transferred to the agency. Therefore I do not see any need for the amendment. While on the subject of abstraction, perhaps I should mention irrigation. I know that irrigation is hated by many because it is thought that it increases yield. Actually that is not its main purpose. If farmers are not allowed to irrigate, none of the supermarkets will take our produce. One may think that that is wrong. I think that it is wrong, but that is the fact of the matter. Therefore we will have imported substitutes for what we can produce ourselves. I cannot see the necessity for the amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I wish to speak in general in support of the amendments spoken to both from the Liberal Democrat Benches and by my noble friend Lady Nicol. Water is one of the essential elements of life, not just for ourselves but also for many wetland plants and animals. It is becoming an increasingly scarce resource, and not just in this country. However, one would not think that that was the case given the current floods in northern Europe. However, it is thought that in the next century countries will fight over water rather than oil. Therefore the more rigorous we can be in preserving water and in ensuring that it is not wasted and that abstraction levels are kept at a minimum, the better placed we will be to cope with shortages and with droughts. I support this group of amendments.
Lord Gisborough: The NRA is surely already responsible for the protection of water and is able to revoke licences. That power is being handed to the agency. Therefore surely the amendment is not necessary.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: In replying to this amendment I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 203, 204, 205, 207, 222, 377A, 378ZA and 378ZB. The amendments are concerned with changing the powers of the Secretary of State to make drought orders on environmental grounds. Amendment No. 191C introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, seeks to permit drought orders to be made to provide means of protecting the aquatic environment by extending the grounds on which drought orders can be made. Amendment No. 205 introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, similarly seeks to permit drought orders to be made to provide means of protecting the environment as well as on the present grounds of a threat to public water supplies. Amendment No. 378ZA in the names of my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Mills is similar to Amendment
1340
No. 191C in that it seeks to widen the grounds under which a drought order can be made to include protection of the aquatic environment.
At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Crickhowell drew attention to the absence of any such provision in spite of frequent requests from the NRA for it. We are now faced with no fewer than three attempts to rectify the matter. Experience has shown that it can be necessary to take action to preserve aquatic environments during droughts. However, the department is advised that the present wording of Section 73(1) of the Water Resources Act 1991 does not permit a drought order to be made for the preservation of an aquatic environment: the trigger is,
"a serious deficiency of supplies of water,"
which, in the general context of the 1991 Act, has to be taken to refer to the activity of supplying water. Amendment No. 205 is defective in that it would not have the intended effect but would probably limit the making of any drought orders to cases where both public supplies and an SSSI were threatened. While I am sympathetic to the idea behind the amendments I would hope that, in asking noble Lords not to pursue them they will take some comfort in my undertaking to further consider the amendment of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell which goes some way towards our requirements on the issue.
Amendment No. 378ZB also seeks to make changes to the powers for dealing with drought orders in that it seeks to give the new agency powers to issue drought permits. A high proportion (about 60 per cent.) of drought orders made are in effect temporary substitutes for licences to abstract water or temporary amendments of the conditions of such licences. Those powers would allow the agency to issue drought permits under similar circumstances as currently apply to the making of ordinary drought orders. They would allow the agency to authorise changes to compensatory abstraction and discharge conditions affecting mainly either rivers or reservoirs. We have already published our intention to bring forward changes of this nature and are broadly in agreement with the amendment. The Government are therefore happy to give it further consideration.
I now come to the second tranche of amendments in the group concerned with changing the system of licensing the abstraction of water from surface waters and ground water.
Amendment No. 203 introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, aims to give English Nature and its Welsh counterpart the power to seek the review by the agency of any water abstraction licence where they think this necessary.
At present the agency will inherit from the NRA full discretion to undertake a review of any licence, either on its own initiative or at the request of anyone else, and to propose any variation that it thinks appropriate. Given its duty to conserve the aquatic environment, it would seem necessary for it to take seriously any request from a statutory nature conservation body. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will continue to be able to direct the agency to carry out such a review. If

1341
English Nature is dissatisfied with the response from the agency it can ask my right honourable friend to intervene.
We therefore see no reason for legislation to restate what is already the case. We think that it would be retrograde to do so by specifying a requirement for the agency to act on a request from a statutory conservation body since that might be used by a licence holder to justify objections to doing so at the request of a non-statutory body such as the RSPB.
The second amendment on water abstraction licences tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, (Amendment No. 204) seeks to pre-empt any such applications from the conservation agencies by requiring the agency to review all existing licences of right. The noble Baroness asked whether the Government had considered that.
The suggested duty to review all licences of right within five years seems to us undesirable. First, the proposal would require the agency to review a very high proportion of all licences. There were initially just under 50,000 licences of right: there are still only just over 50,000 licences in total. Few of those licences seem likely to give grounds for serious anxiety. Such a review would therefore impose substantial costs not merely on the agency but also on the licence holders. Secondly, such a blanket approach would cut across the more selective system set up by the NRA. That programme requires the NRA to inspect about 2,000 highly critical licences and about 13,000 critical licences every year. If those inspections show grounds for concern negotiations for change can take place and, in the last resort, proposals for compulsory change can be developed. It seems far better to concentrate the available resources on licences identified as critical, rather than to look at those that merely have a particular history.
Amendment No. 377A in the names of my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Mills would correct the confusion caused by the 1991 consolidation over succession to water abstraction licences. We have already said that it was our intention to correct that inadvertent change to the legislation, caused as a result of the 1991 consolidation, as soon as the legislative opportunity arose. While the amendment affords the ideal opportunity, at this stage I can only undertake to give it further careful consideration.
Amendment No. 207 would permit the setting of mandatory leakage targets for water undertakers. Leakage control targets need to be set at a level which is the lowest reasonably achievable, not for the water company as a whole but in each water supply zone. The Ofwat consultation paper Paying for Growth emphasises that it will in general require an assessment to be carried out by a water company of the relative merits of demand management measures, including leakage control, before taking new resource development into account in setting price limits. The NRA has also made it clear that it will not normally grant further abstraction licences for additional water to a water company unless leakage levels in the supply area are at the lowest level that is economically reasonable. Persistent failure to deal with leakage levels might even result in a review of existing
1342
licences. Finally, the actual working of the non-domestic rating system as applied to water companies provides a significant economic incentive to reduce leakage. I suggest that such steps, which are already being taken within the existing legislation—and which are already resulting in substantial reductions in leakages—are better than a new system requiring universal setting of an overall target for the whole of a company.
Finally in this group of amendments, Amendment No. 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, would enable the agency to promote a charging scheme for water abstraction which would allow charges to be more than is required to recover the costs of running the licensing system, and would enable the Secretary of State to direct the agency to consider terminating or reviewing the water abstraction charging scheme.
The second proposal in the amendment is clearly otiose: the general power of direction in Clause 38 would cover this. The first proposal is, however, much more interesting. In effect, it would allow the agency, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to introduce an economic instrument to regulate the allocation of water rights.
This raises major questions. There has always been a close link between property rights and rights to use water. A water abstraction charge that did more than recover the costs of administering the system could be represented as charging people for the use of their own property. That is not to say that there may not be arguments for such a charge, but they would have to be considered very carefully before it was introduced. We do not think that it would be proper to leave decisions on the form which it might take to the agency: it raises questions which go much wider than its interests. The Government have undertaken to publish a consultation paper on the use of economic instruments to regulate both discharges into water and the abstraction of water. I suggest that it would be better to wait until that paper is available and we have had the benefit of comments from all those interested before we take a decision on the proper form of an economic instrument in this field. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw that amendment, together with all the others.
Baroness Nicol: I am very grateful for the Minister's full reply. However, I may have misunderstood one point. In relation to licences of right, who can trigger a review other than the inspectors? Can anyone do so?
Viscount Ullswater: If I recall correctly what I said, anyone can trigger such a review.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. If I understood him correctly, he gave an undertaking that the Government are interested in the first amendment and those which fall into the same category and will look at them again. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

1343
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 [Incidental general functions]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrovemoved Amendment No. 192:
Page 29, line 18, leave out ("functions") and insert ("purpose").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to flag the potentially wide-ranging powers of Clause 35. As the clause is currently drafted, many of the agency's functions have yet to be decided and so will be determined under ministerial guidance. Therefore, enabling the agency to do anything which is "conducive or incidental" to its functions is a very wide-ranging power. The amendment alters the emphasis away from the functions of the agency to the purpose of the agency, on the understanding that that purpose is integrated environmental protection management enhancement. We believe that that would be much better than referring solely to the functions, which have not yet been decided. I beg to move.
Viscount Mills: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 193 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell apologises to the Committee for the fact that he is unable to be present today. It therefore falls to me to present this amendment and the other amendments in our names.
The purpose of Amendment No. 193 is to ensure that in all its main functions the agency would have a right to take civil action in the courts should that be necessary. The current situation is anomalous. The NRA has a common law right to take out an injunction to protect a public right but needs the consent of the Attorney-General. The waste regulation authorities are under no such constraints, while Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution has specific powers to apply directly to the High Court in order to back up its enforcement powers.
By way of example I should like to refer to the Durham coalfield. When British Coal was closing the Durham coalfield, it proposed that it would switch off the pumps used to pump out minewater. There was no statutory restriction on that due to the defence of Section 89 of the Water Resources Act 1991. As a result the NRA considered instituting civil proceedings. However, given its existing powers, it was advised that it would need the Attorney-General's consent to do so. The delay in obtaining that consent would obviously have led to an increased risk of pollution occurring. Happily an understanding was reached between the NRA and British Coal which was not tested in the courts. It was a happy outcome; but that may not always be the case.
Similar issues have arisen with respect to local government. However, Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 expressly provides for local authorities to institute proceedings in their own name. They can now obtain injunctions without the consent of the Attorney-General. I ask the Minister carefully to consider the amendment which would harmonise not only the powers given to the different functions within
1344
the new agency but indeed the power between the different public bodies with a common responsibility to safeguard public rights and prevent public nuisance.
Viscount Ullswater: Clause 35(1) allows the agencies to do anything calculated to facilitate the carrying out of their functions. Amendment No. 192, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, contains a drafting change substituting "purpose" for "functions". I imagine that the noble Lord's aim is to extend the power under Clause 35(1) but I fear that the effect would simply be to leave its scope uncertain.
The noble Lord indicated that he preferred the word "purpose". Clauses 1 and 20 define the purpose in relation to the discharge of each agency's functions. The agencies cannot do things for which they have neither powers nor duties. The agencies' functions are the totality of their powers and duties. The clause as drafted will therefore enable the agencies to do anything calculated to facilitate the carrying out of anything that they can properly do. It is difficult to see how it could be appropriate to go further.
Similarly, I do not believe that there is any need for Amendment No. 193, moved by my noble friend Lord Mills. Each new agency will be able to commence civil proceedings through its general powers in Clause 35(1) (a). An unfortunate side effect of the amendment, however, may be to give agency officials standing in proceedings on matters for which they would not have proper locus under normal court rules. I therefore hope that both noble Lords will see fit to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend for clarification. He stated that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mills would give the agency the right to appear where that was not allowed for by court rules. If I have understood it correctly, that seems a strange argument. My noble friend who moved the amendment has a point. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will look at the matter again.
Viscount Ullswater: Of course I undertake to look at the issue again. When I was briefed this morning, I questioned carefully the wording to which the noble Lord draws attention. I have been advised that the words,
"and appear in any legal proceedings",
would give the agency officials standing in proceedings for which they would not have a proper locus under normal court rules.
I have also said that with regard to civil proceedings I believe that that power is now awarded to the agency.
Viscount Mills: Before my noble friend sits downs, perhaps I may say that I am grateful for those comments. I shall be grateful, too, if he will look again at the issue before Report stage.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am slightly disappointed. I had sought to explain that "functions" have not yet been fully decided. They have yet to be considered and expanded by the department. Therefore the functions could change a little. We are referring to the purpose of the agency.

1345
However, that is a matter to which we can return later. It is not simply a semantic point. It is an important matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 194 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworthmoved amendment No. 195:
Page 29, line 23, at end insert:
("(c) without prejudice to the generality of that power, may, for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of those functions, establish subsidiary companies.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment proposes that the agencies should have a specific power to set up subsidiary companies. I understand that there are similar provisions in the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, although those provisions are somewhat disputed. In this case the waste regulation authorities are the local authorities and presumably local authority powers would move to the new agency. Since the powers to which I have referred are imprecise, it seems necessary to clarify the position.
The Committee may recall that during Second Reading I discussed the great difficulty for the waste industry in meeting the obligations put upon it by the waste regulatory authorities: to provide moneys in whatever amounts to an escrow account at the beginning of and during a licensed period to ensure that at the time the site is closed there will be sufficient moneys to meet any obligation which may occur, at whatever cost and at whatever time. The timing may cover two or three generations and may be for remedial effect. The WRAs are currently asking for sums of the order of £4 million for an average site.
There are many sites across the land authorised and under licence. But it is proving nearly impossible to find a solution. It may be reasonable to say that so far it has been impossible to find either an insurance company or a bank which will underwrite those sums. It falls therefore on the companies to provide cash. One can easily see that £4 million for an average site amounts to a lot of money across the industry. It is money that is totally frozen; it cannot be banked or used for any other purpose.
Following my remarks at Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister wrote to me on 25th January, for which I am grateful. However, I am sorry to say that his letter shed no great light on the matter, other than he said that discussions to develop arrangements which would enable applicants for waste management licences to meet the financial provision requirements of the legislation were in hand.
"The Department welcomes these moves and is keeping in touch with the discussions… There will certainly be other means of meeting this requirement, one of which may be a mutual fund arrangement".
That is so, but seems to me that, if the agency had the opportunity to set up a subsidiary company—which might well be the fund managers—this would provide
1346
another opportunity. There is no thought behind the amendment that the industry should escape its obligations in licensing matters under the 1990 Act. The amendment would, therefore, merely give the agency an opportunity to set up a company if that were thought desirable by both the agency and the industry. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: The effect of Amendment No. 195, introduced by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would be to provide specifically, as part of each new agency's general powers, for an agency to be able to establish subsidiary companies in connection with the carrying out of its functions. We can see no reason why, for the effective discharge of its functions, an agency should need to establish such companies. Furthermore, those functions are to be conferred on the agencies. The public needs to be clear as to who it is that has the responsibility for environmental regulation. It would be wholly inappropriate for the agencies to be able to set up subsidiary companies to perform some of their functions.
However, my noble friend went on to explain that the motivation behind this amendment was to provide for the new agencies to be able to establish a subsidiary company for the purpose of managing a mutual fund by which waste management operators who contribute to the fund would be able to meet the financial provision requirements on waste management licensing. A person wishing to obtain a waste management licence must satisfy the waste regulation authority—in due course the appropriate agency—that he has made financial provision which is adequate to discharge the obligations arising from the licence.
My noble friend indicated the sum of money that is being talked about. The statutory guidance issued to waste regulation authorities by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State explains that there are a number of ways of doing that. One means identified is a mutual fund.
I am aware that the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors put considerable effort into the development of such a fund in advance of the introduction of the new waste management licensing arrangements in May last year. I understand that the proposal was not taken forward.
I know that the waste regulation authorities and the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors are working together to try to develop an alternative scheme which would offer one means of meeting the financial provision requirements of the legislation. It would be quite possible for such a scheme to be based on the concept of a mutual fund. Clearly the agencies, as regulators, would take a close interest in any such fund designed to provide resources to meet the long-term obligations of licences which remain the responsibility of the waste management operators. It would not, however, be necessary for such a fund to be managed by a subsidiary company of an agency. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate for either agency to manage a fund which was intended to take on responsibility for licence obligations along the lines of the scheme proposed by the association. I see no reason why such

1347
a scheme could not be developed without the need to involve subsidiary companies of the new agencies. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend for his full response, although I am disappointed in it. He mentioned sums of money "being talked about"—those were his words—but it is not a matter of talking about the sum. A Cambridgeshire firm was required by the waste regulation authority, which was the county council, to provide £1.6 million for a comparatively small site. I do not believe that the Government realise the great difficulty that could be met by setting up what might be called a mutual fund—in other words any other funding arrangement—to meet the obligations for which the industry is quite prepared to pay. It seems to me that if the agencies were given the power, they could accept or reject the responsibility and no one could say any more about it. But to deny them the opportunity of assisting in the setting up of a fund seems to me a negative approach.
I do not believe that I can let the matter go like that, although I do not propose to divide the Committee this afternoon because I wish to study carefully what the Minister said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvelmoved Amendment No. 195A:
Page 29, line 23 at end insert:
("() without prejudice to the generality of that power, shall, for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of those powers promote energy efficiency.").
The noble Lord said: I wish to move this amendment standing in the names of my noble friend Lady Hilton and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 198, 199 and 200.
This is an important group of amendments, although at this stage I regard them as probing. The reason I do so is that I wish to explore how far the Government will move along with us in setting a different agenda for the agency from the rather limited one which the noble Viscount set out on Second Reading when he introduced the Bill.
Clause 35 gives us an opportunity, if we wish, to insert a number of other functions which are relevant to the environment and which could be performed by the agency. They are the subject of the amendments to which I am speaking this afternoon.
First, I refer to Amendment No. 195A. At Question Time today the noble Viscount and I agreed on one thing: efficiency in the use of energy is of vital importance in sustainable development and the Rio plan, if I may call it that. The burning of fossil fuels for energy by industry and in our power stations is the largest source of UK carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas causing climate change. Therefore, it is a vital element in the environment, in the wider sense of the word.
1348
The UK is, of course, a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Under that convention the UK is required to return its emissions of carbon dioxide to the 1990 levels by the year 2000. One of the major control operators in the programme is HMIP. The chief inspector of HMIP has said that it will be an inspectorate that will have to deliver the CO2 targets for this country.
Energy efficiency is widely recognised as being the most cost-effective means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions: the improved use of electricity, the improved use of any substance which, when burnt, emits carbon dioxide. It therefore seems to us to be important that the new agency—which, after all, will incorporate HMIP within itself—should have a central role in monitoring and indeed promoting energy efficiency. That should be one of the functions that both agencies should use when exercising their powers. If we were to give that remit under Clause 35, it would improve the profile of the agency as we see it.
To refer to Amendment No. 198, as I mentioned at Second Reading, there has been considerable progress—not least through the energies of the Confederation of British Industry—in making sure that companies take account of and start to report the environmental effects of their activities. There is within the CBI an environmental group, which—and I hope that I am not saying anything out of turn—is making very good progress. A number of companies have signed up for that group. One of the conditions for signing up is that you have to have a director on the board who is specifically responsible for environmental matters; you have to have an environmental audit, and all sorts of other things. I should like to see the two agencies that are being set up in this Bill promote this sort of activity. An important function that the two agencies could assume is to encourage companies to report the environmental effects of their activities. That is the objective of Amendment No. 198. I do not see that any Member of this Committee could possibly disagree with the thrust of that amendment.
Turning for a moment to Amendment No. 199, I would have thought that it is, again, an amendment which every Member of this Committee would encourage. As I said at Second Reading, we have an enormous opportunity in this country of being in the forefront of clean technologies. Such an agency as we propose to set up—not the agency that the Government propose to set up, but the one that I should like to see set up—should have a function to promote the development in the United Kingdom of clean technology and to encourage its export. We have to be in the forefront of such technology and be able to sell it to other countries, where it will be sorely needed if the Rio targets are to be met, as we hope they will be.
Amendment No. 200 is slightly more modest. It simply seeks to put the drinking water directorate into the agency. The drinking water directorate, as the Committee will know, has been the object of some controversy over the years. On these Benches we are not entirely happy that it is working to our satisfaction. For instance, one environmental organisation describes the drinking water inspectorate as a "dormant

1349
watchdog". While that may be overstating the case, there is some point in incorporating into the agency what the drinking water inspectorate does at the moment.
In moving Amendment No. 195A and speaking to the others, I come back to where I started. This is an agenda for the agency which is rather more forward than the agenda that the Government have announced. The Government's agenda is simply to merge three organisations which already exist. Our agenda is to make this agency a powerful environmental agency. It is on that basis that I beg to move Amendment No. 195A.
4 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: The amendments in this group seek to place a variety of additional duties on the agencies. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, indicated that these were probing amendments. He also indicated that in his view the agencies should have a different agenda; namely, to be made into a much more powerful environmental agency. I have to indicate to the noble Lord that the Government have considered many of the things that he wished the agency to do. But during the course of my remarks I shall indicate some of the reasons why we did not feel that it would be appropriate for that agency to undertake those duties.
Amendment No. 195A would require the agencies to promote energy efficiency. The Government attach great importance to the efficient use of energy. It saves money which could be used to develop businesses, improve homes and living standards and boost the economy. It helps to protect the environment by reducing the threat of climate change—all the things that the noble Lord indicated were important, and I agree with him. It also helps us to carry forward our sustainable development policy, changing people's culture by promoting realistic ways of achieving development at lower cost to the environment.
But, the new agencies will have specific tasks related to environmental regulation. The legislation should concentrate on these primary functions, leaving it to others such as the Energy Saving Trust and the regulators of the gas and electricity industries to promote the efficient use of energy. The noble Lord proposes that that should be a requirement of the agency; but I believe that there are separate bodies of legislation which deal with these issues.
Amendment No. 198 seeks to place a duty on each new agency to promote the proper reporting by private companies of the environmental effects of their activities. The noble Lord made reference to making a corporate commitment, which is what companies undertake at the moment. This kind of reporting on environmental performance is something we would undoubtedly wish to encourage, and we would wish to see the development of business-led good practice. But the agencies will not have dealings with all companies, and there seems no reason for singling out those with whom they will have dealings for special treatment. Nor is it clear what in practice this duty would entail. It is of course right that in seeking authorisations for potentially polluting processes, companies should assess and provide information on environmental impacts. This is
1350
why the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides for this. But I believe that the proposed amendment could lead to additional and unjustified burdens on both the agencies and on industry.
Amendment No. 199 seeks to place a duty on the agency to promote the development and encourage the export of clean technology. In exercising its IPC functions, each agency must encourage the use of the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs (the BATNEEC techniques), and the concept of best practicable environmental option underlies many of the agencies' functions. BATNEEC in itself encourages innovation, and this seems the appropriate way for regulatory bodies such as the agencies to encourage clean technology. In addition, one of the objectives to be included in the national waste strategy under Clause 75 will be to encourage the prevention or reduction of waste through the development of clean technologies. However, the stand alone duty proposed by this amendment appears inappropriately wide-ranging and would go well beyond this.
The purpose of Amendment No. 200 appears to be to make the new agencies responsible for the inspection of drinking water. The Government considered whether or not the drinking water inspectorate, which is presently part of the Department of the Environment, should be transferred to the proposed new environment agency for England and Wales. Its conclusions, having considered carefully the responses to our consultation document, were that such a transfer of functions should not take place because drinking water quality relates to public health rather than to the environment.
The amendment is a little confusing, because it refers to the "functions for inspecting drinking water assigned to the National Rivers Authority by Section 86(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991", and, so far as I am aware, there is none. Section 86(1) of that Act does allow for the appointment of technical assessors to advise the Secretary of State on drinking water matters, and it is under that section that the present chief inspector is so appointed. The amendment therefore proposes the transfer of functions which the NRA does not have.
I do not quarrel with the noble Lord concerning the technicalities of the amendment: I understand the purpose. I am also a little unclear about the intended scope of the amendment because it refers to "each" agency, which implies in context that SEPA is also to have the powers of the National Rivers Authority transferred to it. But, for the record, I should make it clear that in Scotland, where the Scottish Office Environment Department is responsible for drinking water quality legislation and its enforcement, no changes in the existing arrangements are envisaged.
I hope, in view of what I have said, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: I too hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will withdraw his amendment. I respect his motives. The matters that he has mentioned in the four amendments which he has on the Marshalled List are important matters. But I think that, if we wish this new environment agency to succeed, we must not turn it into too great a mammoth. It is going to have

1351
vast responsibilities as it is, as a combination of several public bodies already exercising various responsibilities. If we try to shove on to it everything we can think of, then I am afraid that the whole administration will break down.
We have to have a sense of proportion over all this. It is a fact, as my noble friend Lord Ullswater has pointed out, that with regard to energy we have other statutory requirements, as we have with regard to drinking water, and in Scotland there are the special arrangements which my noble friend has mentioned.
I really think it is best to leave things as the Government propose.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I should like just to comment on the noble Viscount's reply to Amendment No. 195A, to which my name is attached. If I understood the noble Viscount rightly, he is in sympathy with the general thrust of it, but thinks that it is all dealt with under other arrangements.
I have sympathy with the idea that we should not overload the Bill with extra bits which are not needed, but the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is a slightly different one, surely: it is whether or not the environment agencies should actually perform this function that we have put down as an amendment, and which we say should be written into the Bill. One cannot at the same time say that they should not be loaded with these functions, and that they will in fact be carrying them out.
I should be most grateful if, before we come back to the Report stage, the noble Viscount would rather fill out his reply to this amendment by showing why there is no need for this particular amendment and why it is totally covered by other legislation and other arrangements. I think that would help us all a great deal.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: I indicated in my reply that I believe the new agencies are set up with very specific tasks which are related to environmental regulation. What the noble Lord proposes is that they should have a requirement to promote energy efficiency. I indicated that I thought this was the duty of other regulators, the regulators for the gas and the electricity industries, and that there were separate bodies of legislation which dealt with the operation of those two regulators. I felt that it was covered in legislation, and that, bearing in mind that other legislation, this would be a confusing duty for the agency to have, and I did not really believe that it should have it in the first place.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this short but important debate. It brings out the difference in opinion between these Benches and, I think, the Benches to my right, and certain noble Lords opposite, on the real function of these two agencies.
As I said on Second Reading, I regard the Government as adopting a minimalist approach. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, accuses me of putting everything we can think of into the agency. There we have the difference of opinion. It is not everything that
1352
we can think of: if I sat down with a blank sheet of paper, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that I could think of an awful lot of other things that I might wish to put into the agency. It seemed to me that these were the fundamental things that should go into these two agencies in so far as they could do so. I accept that the drafting may not be right, and that the Scottish matter is different. But these are essential things to put into the agency if it is to be an environment agency rather than a simple merger of three existing bodies. Here, the Government and we have a very clear difference of opinion. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is on the side of the Government in this matter.
I emphasise that, because this is going to be a recurring theme, not only during the Committee stage, where we are at the moment, but also at the next stage of the Bill—and also, I can assure the noble Viscount that when this Bill goes down to another place it will be a recurring theme, because there is a difference of philosophy between ourselves and the Government as to how we see this agency working.
The noble Viscount says that the agency would not have contact with many companies. I was rather surprised by that comment, I must say, because I should have thought that an agency which comprises the National Rivers Authority, HMIP and local waste regulation authorities, would have contact with a great many companies. Indeed, if an agency of this nature wanted to get into touch with any company, whether privately or publicly owned, I am absolutely certain they would have no difficulty in doing so.
I was also rather surprised that the theme lying behind his criticism of Amendment No. 198 was that this would be laying too many burdens on industry. As I tried to point out, the CBI itself believes that the environment and environmental considerations should be built into the centre of economic company operations. All I am doing is echoing something—not what trade unions say—that the CBI is saying, and I believe the agency should have an important function in that.
I am told by the noble Viscount that I should not insist on Amendment No. 199, because it is too wide ranging. I do not mind wide-ranging amendments for an agency such as this. Indeed, we had a debate in the course of this Committee about a possible amendment of a strategic nature, right at the beginning of the Bill, pointing out what this agency was about. That would have been a wide-ranging amendment. I am not bothered about that. I believe that the agency, if it is going to be the sort of agency we want as opposed to the sort of agency that the Government is proposing, should have wide-ranging powers and wide-ranging functions of this nature.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I ask him to bear in mind that, in asking in Amendment No. 199 that each new agency should encourage the export of technology, he is placing upon the agencies a very wide and highly technical responsibility. It is something for which I would not have expected them to have the quite large numbers of staff which would be required, and which in any event

1353
is the responsibility to a great extent of private agencies like the CBI and of the Department of Trade and Industry.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. But that again demonstrates the difference of opinion between him and me. All Amendment No. 199 seeks to do is to "encourage" the export. If I were to table an amendment saying that the agency should discourage the export, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would say that that just is not on.
Lord Renton: I would not agree.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord would not agree with me; that is absolutely right. I am saying that the agency should have a function which recognises the importance of the export if this country is to be in the forefront of clean technology.
Lord Marlesford: I have great sympathy with what the amendment seeks to achieve. But I question whether one wants to write into the statute those specific requirements. For many years I was a member of the Countryside Commission and for fewer years the Royal Development Commission under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Vinson. Many things were done by those two agencies which were desirable but not in the statute.
If we put in the statute a duty to promote exports we are asking for the setting up of a great bureaucracy. Therefore, though I sympathise greatly with the noble Lord in terms of what he would like to see happen in this country in terms of energy conservation and so forth, one needs to focus the function of the agency rather closely in order that it performs as well as possible. I do not believe there is a difference in philosophy between the noble Lord and myself in relation to the agency's functions; it is a matter of how one sees the style of the agency.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I know that he and I are in sympathy as regards the aims of the agency. I do not want to persist in this matter. This is a House of Parliament. The only opportunity the Opposition has to affect what is done in smoke-filled rooms in quangos operated by whoever it may be of the noble Lords opposite, is to put something in the Bill. That is the object of the exercise. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Greenwaymoved Amendment No. 196:
Page 29, line 23, at end insert:
("() Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the Agency may make and carry into effect agreements with any other person, on such terms and conditions (including as to payment) as it thinks fit, with respect to the carrying out by any other person of any of the management functions of the Agency in relation to any waterway in respect of which the Agency exercises functions as a navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority.").
1354
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 196 is by nature a probing amendment. As I mentioned earlier in Committee, all navigation and boating interests are awaiting a consultation document from the Department of the Environment. That follows the recommendation of the environment Select Committee of another place that a review be carried out of the navigation functions of the NRA and British Waterways. I understand that that document is due fairly soon. In view of that it is difficult to comment on policy issues in relation to where navigation should sit within the Government structure.
Those bodies who look after the interests of the navigators do not at this stage want to propose any radical change. They would rather wait and see the consultation document and respond to it in a constructive way. In the meantime—this is the reasoning behind the amendment—I am seeking confirmation from the Minister that the powers contained in Clause 35 as drafted, or an equivalent power at the end of the Bill, would allow the new environment agency to delegate the management of its navigations to a third party. That would not involve the transfer of parliamentary powers or authorities for the navigations as was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McNair. They could remain with the environment agency. Rather it would be the day-to-day management of the agency's navigations that may be subcontracted in the future to a third party.
I stress that I am not advocating such a change now. I just want to be comfortable that the legislative provisions are in place should all parties find a unanimous alternative as part of the DoE's consultation process. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I hope in replying that I can make the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, more comfortable.
Amendment No. 196 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, would allow the agency to contract out to a third party the management functions in respect of any waterway that it enjoys as a navigation authority, a harbour authority or a conservancy authority. It refers to the agency making agreements for the carrying out by others of its management functions in respect of certain waterways.
It would not be appropriate for the agency to seek to divest itself of its statutory responsibilities. If, on the other hand, it is the intention behind this amendment that where it has those responsibilities the agency should be able to contract out day-to-day running of particular waterways to third parties, I believe that the Bill would allow appropriate delegation or contracting out of the type I have described. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greenway: I thank the Minister for his reply and do indeed draw comfort from what he said. It confirms what I hoped was already written in the Bill. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

1355
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsaymoved Amendment No. 197:
Page 29, line 24, leave out second ("the") and insert ("each new").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 197 would extend to SEPA the duty on the environment agency in England and Wales to provide advice and assistance to the Secretary of State or the Minister as requested. It corrects an erroneous reference to a single agency in a provision which should apply to both. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 198 to 200 not moved.]
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 200A:
Page 29, line 41, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 200A I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 200B, 201A, 224, 224ZB, 224ZD and 224ZF. Those are amendments directed at providing affordable access to information and therefore genuine open government rather than merely lip service.
The first amendment seeks to change subsection 35(b) so that each of the agencies is obliged to make available the results of its research and other matters rather than it having the discretion to do so. The second of the amendments is to provide for a reasonable fee rather than again leaving the appropriate fee to the discretion of the agency.
I tabled the amendments particularly in the light of work undertaken recently by the Campaign for Freedom of Information as regards the charges made by government departments in response to requests for information under the new code of practice on access to government information—a code which is supervised by parliamentary ombudsmen and which promises more openness in Whitehall. My attention to its work was attracted by a short press item which referred to what the campaign describes as being the worst example. Sadly, it is the National Rivers Authority, whose photocopying charge for information is £100 a page for an A3 photocopy and £50 a page for an A4 photocopy. The NRA's comment was that its policy is to properly maximise income. I dare say that some noble Lords would attack its policy on the basis of a split infinitive, but that may be the fault of the Campaign for Freedom of Information.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution indicated that for the time inspectors spent on deciding whether information about radioactive waste could be disclosed under the environmental regulations, it would charge £993 per day. Following that, I understand that the Department of the Environment said that the charge was calculated on the wrong scale. However, as the Campaign for Freedom of Information comments, it is alarming that that figure was put forward at all.
I accept that there are occasions when charges of some significance need to be made. I appreciate that one can sometimes believe that requests for information made by members of the public are frivolous and time consuming and not perhaps generally in the public interest. Having seen the charges that are made at present—I will not weary your Lordships with further
1356
examples—I believe it is proper for the criterion of reasonableness to be applied perhaps without specifying the precise charge. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I advise the Committee that, as the noble Baroness is also moving Amendment No. 200B, if the present amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 201.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: This group of amendments is an entirely logical one, which is a great relief to me in that it is so much easier to make speeches. I entirely support what the noble Baroness has said. The aim of my amendments is exactly the same: to increase accountability and information to the public. Amendment No. 201A, which is a rather obscure amendment, refers to the European directive on information relating to the environment which requires that charges for that information should be reasonable. Amendments Nos. 224ZB and 224ZD require that the annual reports of the agencies are published, not just to Parliament. That is consequential upon Amendment No. 224ZDB: the deletion in line 26.
The other amendment to which I speak is Amendment No. 224ZF. That provides that if any advisory committees are set up their reports should also be made public and information should be made available to the public. In relation to the environment where so many hazards to the public and pollution may occur, it is essential that this information is in the public domain, however uncomfortable that may sometimes prove to be for Ministers or public bodies who are responsible for clearing up that pollution. It is essential that what the agency does and the things done in its name should be in the public domain. That is the objective of these amendments.
Lord Marlesford: I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said. I was horrified to hear of these matters. It seems to me that this is an example of the need to protect people from the tyranny of government. I speak in the absence of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell but in the presence of my noble friend Lord Mills, who I understand has some knowledge of the workings of the National Rivers Authority. If these charges are being made they are clearly an abuse of public power, and somebody ought to answer for the agency. I hope that the Government, if not supporting the wording of these amendments, will assure us that they will include at Report appropriate words to give substance to the case that is being made.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sorry to differ with my noble friend. Personally, I would go with him to any lengths to stop the tyranny of government, but I do not believe that this amendment, which is a strange one, will do anything of the kind. The agency is required to have an opinion. Surely, that means a judgment. If the agency is compelled to follow its opinion, this seems to me to be unnecessary. It ought to be in a position to consider the practicality of doing something which at first sight seems to it to be reasonable. I very much hope that my

1357
noble friend will not look with any sympathy at this amendment which I regard as simply plausible but as not having any real effect whatever.
As to the second amendment which deals with cost, I have no brief for the National Rivers Authority. My noble friend Lord Mills can speak much better on this topic. I believe that we are steeped in information of every possible kind today. To put upon authorities the burden of providing information, which may be unimportant and trivial, without putting some deterrent element in the price, is I believe unreasonable. We do not want to inflate the costs of these agencies, or make them inefficient and too bureaucratic. I very much hope that my noble friend will dismiss them summarily.
The Earl of Onslow: Surely, it must be right that the maximum information is available to the public. It seems to me that this is a defence of the future environment protection agency. If it is asked by a hack from the Sun, "Why have you allowed 3,000 gallons of sewage to go somewhere where it should not have gone?" It should be able to say, "There is all the information. You should have been able to look it up. Nothing has been hidden." The moment that somebody says, "But it is hidden. We have not been able to get it because it is too expensive", it builds up a "them and us" situation. It is so much more sensible that the maximum amount of information is in the public domain so that we can all get it without hassle. I say that in spite of my noble friend Lord Peyton saying that it is all ruddy garbage, as I heard him murmur to my noble friend Lord Mills. He may take that view of what I say on frequent occasions; but in this case, I pick him up on the point.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: If it is of any comfort to my noble friend, I did not intend to refer to his utterances as garbage. I was merely referring to the volume of information. I was not making a public remark. Nevertheless, he attributed it to me. I merely say that there is a flood of information about, not all of which is very valuable. A great deal of it can well earn the description that my noble friend has given it, with which I do not disagree.
The Earl of Onslow: It is up to the public to look at the flood of information—garbage, call it what you will—and make a judgment whether or not it is valuable. Above all, it gives the environmental protection agency the right to say, "It is in the public domain. You have all known about it, so do not complain", whereas if it has to be levered out of the agency with a crowbar it is to its disadvantage. If in doubt, publish.
Viscount Mills: To respond to my noble friend Lord Marlesford, I believe that the figures to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred are the maximum charges for the most complex data that the NRA provide. I can assure the Committee that the NRA provide a great deal of information free of charge. I wholly concur with the remarks of my noble friend that
1358
it is vital that information both from existing agencies and the new agency is made freely available, or if necessary at cost, to everyone who requires it.
Lord Elton: If I have correctly understood the discussion so far, the issue is a very narrow one—that is, whether or not the authorities should be able to make deterrent charges or those which roughly reflect the cost of making available that information. I hope that is the issue my noble friend will address, rather than the question of oceans of garbage, etc. Nobody will pay money for garbage. People will pay money only for what they want to obtain.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I have some sympathy for Amendment No. 200B and the proposal to take out the word "appropriate". In every major Bill in Committee that I can recall somebody has wanted the word "appropriate" taken out and the word "reasonable" put in. The main reason for that is that "reasonable" is a condition that is easily challenged in the courts, whereas "appropriate" is not.
The charges that local authorities in the tendering system have employed as appropriate charges to be taken into account have included, one might almost say, everything including the kitchen sink. What one is trying to establish by the use of the expression "a reasonable fee" is a fee that is reasonable in the circumstances under which that particular piece of information is made available and bearing in mind the purpose for which that information is to be used. It seems to me, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil is really quite wrong in suggesting that charges should be set so as to discourage the use of such information or wild or frivolous inquiries. All of us who have had anything to do with public authorities, institutions or research organisations know full well that one gets a whole raft of frivolous information, whether it comes from the press or from people thinking that they might do a piece of research on their own one day. That is one of the hazards of life in that kind of environment.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give serious consideration to this single word "reasonable". Fees have to be paid. Everyone knows that. The fee has to relate to the amount of work that goes into providing the information. It is not good enough to use the word "appropriate". "Appropriate" means very many different things to those who begin to build up the Bill. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be sympathetic to that amendment.
Baroness Nicol: I hope that in the general discussion the Minister will not lose sight of Amendment No. 224ZB because it is important that the agency should publish its report and that it should be readily available. After all, it will have considerable interface with the European environment agency. It is important that the information which will be going to that agency from ours should also be freely available—I do not mean free of charge but available freely—to members of the public in this country and particularly to NGOs, which cannot

1359
afford to pay enormous amounts for it but, as always, will be willing to pay a reasonable amount. I hope that the publication of the report will be taken seriously.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: I certainly take note of the large number of your Lordships who have spoken to this group of amendments. I consider that there is a fundamental point here which we need to clear up on the first occasion. My noble friend Lord Elton indicated that the whole of this debate was about whether reasonable charges should be made or whether deterrent charges should be made. That was the point put forward by my noble friend Lord Peyton. I do not believe there is any intention on the part of the agency to make deterrent charges. We ought to start from that basis. There is no intention to make deterrent charges.
Amendment No. 200A, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would oblige the agencies to make available any research which they carry out. As I explained on the second day of Committee, much of this work will be available under the Environmental Information Regulations. However, this amendment goes much further and would remove any discretion on the part of the agencies to restrict access even if the research were commercially confidential or carried out by third parties.
Amendment No. 200B seeks to change the basis on which a new agency may charge a fee for making available the results of research or related activities. As it stands, the Bill provides that the fees should be such as the relevant agency considers appropriate. This amendment would replace the term "appropriate" with "a reasonable fee" and would also remove the onus from the agencies in considering what fee would be reasonable. That would unnecessarily leave unclear who has this responsibility.
Amendment No. 201A would make this provision explicitly subject to Article 5 of the EC directive on freedom of access to information on the environment. That is the article which provides for reasonable charges.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to reports which she had seen in the press regarding very high photocopying charges being made by the NRA. I am advised that perhaps the noble Baroness may have missed the subsequent letter from the NRA which was published explaining that the report was in error. It is again a case of perhaps not believing everything one reads in the paper.
I do understand the concerns behind the amendments—that the fees in question should be reasonable—but I believe that the concerns are unfounded. I have said that the agencies will be subject to the Environmental Information Regulations. The regulations transpose the EC directive into domestic law. But for the research which falls outside the scope of the regulations—research not related to the state of the environment—I believe an "appropriate" charge is preferable. That would enable the agency to sell, on a competitive basis, research such as work it might undertake on new analytical methods.
1360
We have already discussed at some length the agencies' powers and duties concerning the provision of information to the general public. Amendment No. 224, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to give to each new agency powers to furnish the general public with information relating to each new agency's property, functions and responsibilities generally. Once again I assure the Committee that I fully agree that it is right that the agency should have the ability to provide information to the general public and that it should actively try to contribute to public information and debate on environmental issues, but it has that ability without this amendment.
I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed in the debate about transparency. That is why we have included in the draft guidance on Clause 4, as one of the objectives of the agency, that it should provide clear and readily available advice and information on its work. We are satisfied that its incidental powers under Clause 35(1) are sufficient to enable it to do that. However, Clause 48 is not concerned with information for the public. It is a provision which is designed to ensure that Ministers can get the information they need from each agency about its property, functions and responsibilities generally in order to be able to do their own job properly.
Amendments Nos. 224ZB and 224ZD, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, seek to replace the duty on the Secretary of State to arrange for the publication of the annual report with a duty on each agency to publish it. I do not see that that is necessary. What is important is that the report is published and made available to the public and it seems right that the Secretary of State, who is responsible to Parliament for the agency, should be responsible for ensuring that that happens. I see no reason to change that arrangement.
Amendment 224ZF, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, seeks to place a duty on the advisory committee for Wales and on the regional environmental protection advisory committees to prepare each year a report on their activities which they would send to the appropriate Minister and publish. As far as concerns the advisory committee for Wales, the equivalent committee of the NRA prepares such a report each year for the Secretary of State for Wales and copies of it are placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I would expect the agency's Welsh advisory committee to continue that practice.
As regards the regional environmental protection advisory committees, it is important to remember that they are advisory and not executive bodies. They do not have a budget for which they are responsible; nor do they carry out any functions; so there is a limited number of matters for them to cover in a published report. It would seem unnecessarily bureaucratic and costly to put such bodies under a statutory duty to produce an annual report which would simply cover the matters they had considered during the year. The NRA's annual report contains a brief overall summary of the work of its regional committees. I would expect the agency to continue that practice which seems to me to represent an appropriate level of reporting on advisory committees.

1361
I understand that there is a difficult balance to be drawn on the question of transparency. I believe that the measures in the Bill allow the agency to publish the material that is at its disposal and that that is as far as the agency and the legislation should go. I therefore ask whether the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Before my noble friend sits down, he spoke earlier about the agency being able to charge competitively. Is he suggesting that in its preparation of research documents the agency should compete with other institutions involved in the same area of research and that it should therefore use some of its powers to engage in competitive tendering for pieces of research? That suggestion seemed to emanate from my noble friend's earlier remarks, but perhaps I completely misunderstood.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I wonder whether I may intervene in respect of one or two of my noble friend's comments. I should like to make clear what I should have said and what I mean. In my view, the agency should be free to charge the full costs of replying to questions. If that cost is surprising to some people—so surprising that it deters them from asking questions—that cannot be helped.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may return to what my noble friend said earlier. It appears that the agency may arrive at something commercial in the course of its research. Does my noble friend follow the precedent of the Admiralty which during the 19th century took charts of the world and sold them to anybody wanting one? Or does he follow the precedent of finding the maximum economic value to be derived from information or research obtained by the environment protection agency? I am not quite sure where I stand on this. It is perfectly reasonable that the agency should face that dilemma, especially when money and government funds are involved. Can my noble friend help?
There seems to me a difference between something which is commercially useful to the outside world, discovered and developed by the environment protection agency during the course of its business, and general information which should be available to the public. If a noble Lord asks a Question, he is not charged personally for the hard work that is done by my noble friend's civil servants in finding an obfuscatory Answer—or an informative Answer. Given that a noble Lord is not charged for that, why should the public be charged for a piece of information which should be available in the public interest? There is a difference between information which should be available and information which it is perfectly reasonable to say is commercially useful and should be confidential to the agency.
Baroness White: We in Wales expect to have fully adequate reports of the activities of the agency in the Principality. If our advisory committee is not allowed to give an adequate description of its activities, we shall be considerably disappointed.
Viscount Ullswater: I agree with my noble friend Lord Peyton that to charge the full recovery costs might
1362
be off-putting. Although they would not be levelled as a deterrent to making inquiries, I have to agree that in some instances the costs may be a deterrent. It would depend on how deep the pocket and how deep the requirement to know the information. I have some sympathy with my noble friend's suggestion that the information should not be so freely available as to encourage the agency to do nothing else but provide free information. It has other duties to perform.
In reply to my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Onslow, the agency's research will need in the first instance to be related to its activities. That research may reveal results which could be exploited by a third party. That is why I distinguished between information subject to the environmental information regulations, which relate to the state of the environment, and other information. Some of the research will relate to the state of the environment. It is, however, right that the agency should be able to sell some of its other research on a basis that is competitive with other research institutions. I stress that the agency is not primarily a commercial organisation. It will be undertaking research that relates to its activities. I have not sought in anything I said to put the agency in the place suggested by my noble friend Lord Onslow who said that it occupies a commanding position and can therefore charge competitively for its research. What I am talking about is where, in undertaking its activities, it strays into areas where its research may be sold on a competitive basis.
I believe that I said—I was questioned on this by the noble Baroness, Lady White—that the equivalent committee of the NRA prepares a report for the Secretary of State for Wales. I would expect the new Welsh advisory committee also to report to the Secretary of State for Wales. A copy of the NRA committee report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses to date and I see no reason why the new advisory committee should not continue that practice.
Baroness Hamwee: The debate has highlighted the importance of the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred devastatingly to my amendment as being "plausible" on the basis that the agency must first have an opinion—I believe that the noble Lord is referring to subsection (5) (a)—as to whether it will undertake a piece of work, and that it is only after that that the issues of accessibility and copying come into play. The noble Lord's comments are always attractive—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I assure the noble Baroness that there was absolutely no intention in my mind of being "devastating" towards her personally. Many other people are much higher on my list for that purpose.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not sure what it will do for my reputation if I thank the noble Lord for that. Nevertheless, I accept the noble Lord's point that the agency has first to decide whether to undertake a certain piece of work. But, as we have said many times in our consideration of its commercial and quasi-commercial activities, the agency is a public body. I think we should start from there. Subject to the question of licence fees, the agency is publicly funded. Therefore, the results of its work should be publicly available.

1363
On the question of setting the level of the fees, it was not so much the word "appropriate" and the substitution of "reasonable" that was in my mind as the phrase, "such fee as it"—that is, the agency—"considers appropriate". I stress the word "considers". What concerns me is the agency's element of discretion leading to the setting of the fee and not whether the fee is reasonable or appropriate.
The Minister said that there was no intention to make deterrent charges. As the agency is not the Government, I wonder how he knows, although I am glad to be assured that the question has been taken up and the Government know what the agency will or will not do. I shall of course consider the Minister's response. Today may not be the day to take this matter further, but it is a subject which should be taken further on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 200B to 201A not moved.]
5 p.m.
Viscount Millsmoved Amendment No. 202:
Page 30, line 5, at end insert ("or consents or approvals involving or relating to land drainage").
The noble Viscount said: The amendment seeks to rectify an omission. Clause 35(7) empowers the agency to charge for advice and assistance prior to the application for environmental licences. Thus time spent on advising on abstraction licences and discharge consents will be rechargeable. However, much of the agency's time will be spent on advising individuals and companies who wish to build or create structures under, over, or on main water courses for which a land drainage consent is required.
At present the NRA grants some 6,000 land drainage consents per year. The Bill as drafted does not include the ability to charge potential applicants for those land drainage consents. That is what the amendment seeks to redress. This is an important issue, given the scale of some of the projects involved. An example I can give is of proposed barrage schemes. They have involved NRA staff from a variety of different disciplines in weeks or even months of work, both in assessing the environmental implications of those schemes and advising potential promoters.
The amendment will ensure that advice sought not just for abstraction licences or discharge consents but land drainage consents will be charged for in a consistent manner. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 202 would extend the agencies' powers to make agreements to charge fees in connection with requests for advice (or assistance) in relation to environmental licences to requests for land drainage consents or approvals. My noble friend gave instances of how that works.
The amendment could give rise to problems of interpretation. Consents and approvals relating to land drainage are subject to provisions in the Water Resources and Land Drainage Acts of 1991 which we propose to retain. Both Acts include a power to charge a fee of £50 and would therefore be covered by the
1364
savings in subsection (8) (b) of this clause. I appreciate that a fee of £50 may not cover costs in all cases. However, there is also provision in both Acts for other sums to be specified by order made by Ministers. I am sure that Ministers would be prepared to consider proposals for changes to the fees put to them by the agency if those were well founded. That procedure provides for some flexibility and seems preferable to extending the provisions in this clause which require the agreement to the fee by the person being charged.
I hope that that explanation will satisfy my noble friend and that he will not press the amendment.
Viscount Mills: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend two questions about what he said. I am grateful for his comments, and that may well be a solution to the problem. But how quickly might an order be brought in? Would it involve a scale of charges? Perhaps I may expand on that point. It is worth pointing out that land drainage consents are issued for minor projects such as putting in a number of rocks to provide habitat for fish, right up to the scale of activity that I have just mentioned; namely, barrage schemes.
Viscount Ullswater: I said to my noble friend that Ministers would be prepared to consider proposals put to them by the agency for changes to the fees. In that instance it would be up to the agency to say that it wanted to change the fees. If it put forward a proposition to Ministers which Ministers found acceptable, then I dare say that regulations could be brought forward. I cannot tell my noble friend how quickly that might happen. I would need to confirm this with advice; but if the proposal was for a scale of charges, then I dare say that Ministers would be prepared to consider that.
Viscount Mills: I thank my noble friend for his comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 203 to 207 not moved.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardonmoved Amendment No. 208:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Agency to certify pesticides
.—(1) Each new Agency shall have the function of inspecting and certifying pesticides as safe for use.
(2) In carrying out its function under subsection (1) above, each new Agency shall satisfy itself that any pesticide certified as safe for use has no adverse environmental effects.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is part of our attempt to put clear-cut duties for the agency on the face of the Bill, and not just leave them to the whim of Ministers. It is also related closely to the fact that Clause 1, which we shall continue to attempt to amend, has no clear purpose for the agency.
The amendment ties in with ones moved earlier by my noble friend Lord Williams in relation to drinking water and other responsibilities that we feel the agencies should have. In 1993, there were breaches of the pesticide standard in drinking water from all 10 water companies. For example, 77 per cent. of the supply zones of the Thames Water area were contaminated by

1365
herbicide. For that reason we feel that the control of pesticides should go naturally with attempts to provide us with decent drinking water, and with the overall strategy in relation to our rivers, reservoirs and so on. The amendment would fit neatly into that logical set-up.
We feel that we should have more on the face of the Bill in relation to the actual purposes of these agencies. We should continue to press for at least a general purpose to protect the environment—an issue to which we shall return on Report. This is a specific duty that we feel the agencies should have. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: After my previous remarks, I do not believe that the noble Baroness would expect me to accept the amendment. There is a well established and comprehensive system for authorising pesticides before they can be used and no purpose whatsoever would be served by sweeping this away and giving the task to the new agencies.
I should remind the Committee of the current arrangements for ensuring that pesticides used in this country are safe. These require that Ministers in six departments, including the Department of the Environment, and the Scottish and Welsh Offices, must authorise the marketing or use of any pesticide. Before Ministers will consider granting an authorisation, they will take full account of the recommendations of the expert Advisory Committee on Pesticides, which is independent of government and of industry. The committee in turn has the benefit of an exhaustive assessment of the relevant data by MAFF's Pesticides Safety Directorate or the Health and Safety Executive. Ministers and their advisers, as one would expect, consider fully environmental effects including effects on wildlife, soil and water. But they look also at human safety, whether it be of the pesticide user, of bystanders or of consumers of food. They also take account of the effectiveness of the proposed product in tackling its target pests or diseases.
The present system has been developed over a number of years and works well to make sure that human and environmental safety are ensured. There is no need to give this work to the new agencies, and much of the work involved—for instance, the human toxicology and agricultural efficiency —lies far outside their remit.
I hope that I have persuaded the Committee to reject the amendment if it is pressed.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: The Minister is right; I am not at all surprised by his response. The amendment is part of our overall attempt to give the environment agency clear responsibilities, if not specific functions. The fact that six Ministers are required to oversee the safety of pesticides suggests that it might be useful to have a single point of responsibility. However, in view of our intention to return at a later stage to the overall duties of the agency, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1366
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Delegation of functions by Ministers etc. to the new Agencies]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworthmoved Amendment No. 209:
Page 30, line 27, at end insert ("or a power to determine appeals against decisions of a new Agency.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 343, which is consequential. Although Amendment No. 209A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, is grouped with my amendments, I do not propose to speak to it.
Clause 36 gives Ministers wide-ranging powers to agree with the new agencies that they carry out such ministerial functions as shall be appropriate. However, the Bill allows for the delegation of certain specified functions. In cases where those functions should properly be exercised only by government, they are not appropriate to the new agencies. They are set out in Clause 36(2).
I believe that there has been an oversight in the drafting of the clause. Clause 36(2) provides that an agreement between a Minister of the Crown and the new agency under subsection (1) leaves the agency, or any of its employees:
"to exercise on behalf of a Minister of the Crown any function which consists of a power to make regulations or other instruments of a legislative character or a power to fix fees or charges".
There is, however, another responsibility which should not be delegated to the agencies. It is the vital safeguard against unreasonable or unsound decisions for those who will be regulated by the new agencies; it is the right of appeal to the Secretary of State. To be effective and credible regulators, the agencies must have the confidence of those they regulate and must be seen to be accountable. Clearly, it cannot be the Minister's intention that the agencies might be allowed to determine an appeal lodged against them under subsection (2). My amendment corrects that oversight. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I shall speak to Amendment No. 209A, which seeks to prevent Ministers from acting unreasonably. Clause 36(1) provides for any Minister of the Crown to enter into an agreement with the agency to carry out a function on his behalf. However, Clause 36(7) allows the Minister to exercise that function himself, even though the previous agreement exists. My amendment is designed to ask the noble Viscount whether it would be reasonable for a Minister to ignore the agreement and act in his own right. The fear is that, having reached an agreement with the agency on some specific matter such as the level of activity in combating certain polluters, the Minister might ignore or overrule findings which would lead to their prosecution.
The current position on licensing scrapyards, for example, makes it clear that scrapyards fall within the class of operations which will be subject to waste licensing. For many years waste regulators have been making it clear that scrapyards present considerable potential for serious pollution. However, the

1367
Government are taking extensive steps to exempt many scrapyards from licensing and are ignoring the pollution potential of such places.
A similar conflict could arise where the agency is required to exercise the Minister's pollution prevention powers while the Minister might refuse to apply them to certain undertakings. I therefore ask the noble Viscount to resolve the apparent contradiction between Clause 36(1), where an agreement can be reached with the agency to carry out certain functions, and Clause 36(7), which will allow the Minister to overrule that agreement. The amendment is intended to ensure that the Minister acts reasonably in carrying out that overruling.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: I have every sympathy with Amendment No. 209, moved by my noble friend. If an appeal against an agency decision is made to the Secretary of State, it would clearly be quite unreasonable for the Secretary of State then to delegate the determination of that appeal back to the agency.
It seems to me that what is at issue is the appropriate form of drafting to achieve the policy. Clause 36 allows only the delegation of "eligible functions", which are defined in Clause 36(10) as those which the Secretary of State considers can appropriately be exercised by the Agency in question. As it would obviously be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to delegate the determination of an appeal back to the agency which made the original decision, I am advised that there is no need for the clause to make an express provision to this effect. I hope that my noble friend is reassured and will feel able to withdraw this amendment and Amendment No. 343 which is consequential upon it.
Amendment No. 209A, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, seeks to amend Clause 36(7) to ensure that any Minister who has delegated an eligible function of his to a new agency may only exercise this function himself "reasonably". I do not believe that this amendment is necessary. The current provision ensures that any agreement by a Minister to delegate a function to a new agency does not prevent him from exercising the function. If such an agreement ends, or if the agency fails for any reason to exercise the function adequately, the Minister would need powers to exercise the function himself. I would not expect a Minister to delegate function of his to a new agency should he wish to continue to exercise the function himself under normal circumstances. But since the clause also provides that anything done, or not done, by an agency shall be treated as having been done, or not done, by the Minister —except in the case of consequent criminal proceedings—it is the Minister who still has responsibility for ensuring that the function is exercised or performed satisfactorily and who is, of course, accountable to Parliament for this.
I believe that I comprehend what the noble Baroness is seeking to do by this amendment but I cannot see that it is necessary. Clause 36(7) as it stands ensures that Ministers have sufficient power to exercise delegated functions themselves should this be necessary; the
1368
normal test of "reasonableness" should apply and there is no need for such a qualification to be inserted into each relevant subsection of legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful for my noble friend's response to Amendment No. 209. In drafting the amendment I have not taken into account subsection (10) to which he referred. Since the advice which my noble friend gave to the Committee in response to me is somewhat to the contrary to that which I have, I should like to give further consideration to what has been said. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 209A not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [General duty of the new Agencies to have regard to costs and benefits in exercising powers]:
Viscount Millsmoved Amendment No. 210:
Page 31, line 32, after ("shall") insert ("subject to subsection 2(b) below or").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 212 and 213. I shall take first Amendments Nos. 210 and 212 which deal with costs and benefits not being applicable to enforcement issues.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that decisions to enforce and in particular to prosecute under environmental legislation are not thwarted by reason of cost benefit. Without the amendments potential defendants could challenge any decision taken to prosecute on the basis that the prosecution was not the most cost-effective solution.
The costs of taking enforcement action should not be the primary factor used to decide whether to enforce the law and to protect the environment. If costs become paramount, we may reach a situation in which many cases are taken against those who cannot afford to challenge the environmental regulators but fewer cases are taken against industry and large businesses which are able to afford lengthy and expensive legal cases. Will the Minister give me a clear assurance that the agencies' discretion in those matters permits the exclusion of enforcement decisions from cost benefits?
The purpose of Amendment No. 213 is to provide the agency with an essential additional power to obtain information from a third party. That information is needed to comply with the new duty relating to costs and benefits in Clause 37. If the agency is to fulfil that new duty, it must have the necessary powers including the power to obtain the information necessary to make the decisions in the first place.
Any lack of information may inhibit or even prevent the accurate assessment of costs and benefits as directed by government. I received recently a parliamentary brief from the CBI, as I am sure did many Members of the Committee. That brief advised opposition to the amendment on two grounds. The first ground was that the necessary information is already accessible. I wonder how the CBI knows that all the information that

1369
may be needed for those purposes is accessible. At this point in time, I do not believe that anyone can know that.
The CBI is concerned also that if the amendment is accepted and the regulators' powers extended, that would introduce both unnecessary bureaucracy and complexity of decision making. Again, I ask why that is so. It is in the agencies' own interests to avoid bureaucracy and complex decision making. After all, what is the advantage of the agency doing that?
Further down the same page, the CBI brief states:
"Business expects that on strategic issues the Agencies should carry out a rigorous appraisal of costs and benefits".
I quite agree with that. On major strategic matters, the agencies may be asked quite rightly to justify their decisions in relation to costs and benefits. But in order to do so, they must first have access to the information on which they need to base their decisions. I believe that the amendment is necessary and I hope it is accepted as such by the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I apologise for not having attended the Committee earlier but I have been attending a Select Committee which was considering sustainable development.
I am rather concerned about the first two amendments dealt with by my noble friend Lord Mills; that is, Amendments Nos. 210 and 212. It may be that my noble friend moves the amendment in order to probe the Minister in relation to the questions that he asks. But if the amendments were accepted, it seems to me that the new agencies could be relieved largely of their subsection (1) duty in exercising the general run of their powers. I find it difficult to believe that that is what my noble friend intends.
Among those powers are consenting to discharges to controlled waters, especially those from sewage treatment works, and the licensing of the abstraction and impounding of water. It seems to me that it is rather extreme to have a blanket relief of those powers because those are the very areas in which the quality regulators' requirements might impose on water or sewerage undertakings significant costs without any requirement to justify them as economically efficient.
It is true that those decisions are subject to appeal to the Secretary of State. But that is no substitute for the duty which Clause 37 is intended to impose on the agencies. It may be that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to relieve my anxieties and make it clear that the amendments are unacceptable. It may be that my noble friend Lord Mills had not appreciated their impact on what is a rather important core function. However, I hope that when the Committee considers the arguments, it will not succumb to the blandishments of my noble friend Lord Mills.
Lord Elton: My noble friend has made a very powerful point, which I shall not repeat. I agree with him. It seems absurd to have an agency and then make the performance of its powers purely voluntary.
But I am puzzled by the use of the language in the amendment. One does not enforce powers; one enforces requirements. A power is used to enforce regulations
1370
and so on. Therefore, I should like to know more precisely what is intended and how it is proposed that it will work. Which of the functions which we are expecting the agency to carry out will it be at liberty not to do? Some are duties and some are powers. I do not wish to go through the Bill picking them out, but I hope that those drafting the amendment have done so.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Amendment No. 211, which stands in my name, is also in this group of amendments. The purpose of the amendment is to restate what the Bill is all about—the environmental and human effects of the Bill. I can see that in some circumstances, it may leave the SEPA open to incurring very high charges but I am sure that common sense will overcome that. The decisions as to necessary work by the SEPA should be made on environmental and cost grounds. There should be a marrying of them both. The agency must be conscious that its first duty is to the environment, but it must use its money in the best possible way to look after the environmental and human factors involved. I believe that my amendment creates the right balance.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I hope that my noble friend will strongly resist any of the amendments to Clause 37. As I said on Second Reading, I believe that it is a very important part of the Bill. It helps those whom it will affect to accept it and to make sure that it works in a proper and effective way.
As has emerged clearly from a number of debates on amendments in that regard, environmental measures now affect the lives of us all and they affect business. If that is so, we must remember that the environment is not the only matter which business must take into account. Business is also about wealth creation and achieving what is possible in society to benefit a whole range of people. If we expect—and it is quite right that we should—that everything is done in a proper and effective environmental way, similarly, we must impose the regulations in such a way that they do not put undue costs and restrictions on the ability of business to create wealth and employ people and also add to the other responsibilities with which those concerned have to deal.
In my view it is extremely important—and I know that I have the support of all the major organisations in this respect—that Clause 37 should stay on the face of the Bill unchanged. Like my noble friend Lord Jenkin, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will ensure that that happens.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: I rise to speak briefly to Amendment No. 211A which is tabled in my name. I should explain that the intention behind the amendment is, it is to be hoped, to tease out from the Minister a comment that he made on Second Reading; namely, that third party costs and environmental benefits would be taken into account.
The purpose of the amendment is merely to probe. We are not just talking about the costs and benefits of the agency itself; we are talking about the economic costs and benefits to the agency, to third parties and to

1371
the environment. I should be most grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is indeed what is intended. While noting the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I hope that my proposal will also be in line with his intentions.
Lord Moran: I should perhaps say a few words about Amendment No. 214 which is also included in the grouping and tabled in my name. One of the crucial tests by which the new agencies will be judged is whether they deliver effective enforcement of environmental regulations and rigorous and effective prosecution policies for those committing offences. In that, the NRA has, I believe, been notably successful.
One of my main concerns about Clause 37 as it stands is that the agencies should not always be looking over their shoulder wondering whether they can enforce proper environmental regulations or prosecute environmental offences, or, indeed, whether their assessment of costs and benefits has gone far enough to allow such proper enforcement.
We do not want the new agencies to be inhibited in carrying out their proper enforcement duties. Ideas of costs and benefits are, I believe, already a proper general consideration in deciding whether to bring prosecutions, as set out in the guidelines of the Attorney-General. However, that is expressed in a very general way. We need to be very clear that the clause does not stand in the way of effective enforcement. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point.
Lord Renton: I have a few brief comments to make. They arise from the discussions surrounding each of the amendments that have been mentioned. Whenever we are enacting any legislation, quite obviously we should be careful to ensure that it is enforceable. Otherwise, we are merely enacting a dead letter. When we give power, we are giving a discretion. But if the body to which we are giving the power exercises its discretion in favour of using such power, it must have adequate power of enforcement.
Amendment No. 212 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills uses the expression "to enforce powers" which has been criticised. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy in that respect. The implication in the amendment is that those concerned have decided to use the power and that they then need to be able to enforce it. However, it is a rather tricky drafting matter about which I shall express no more than an opinion.
The expression "costs" in relation to benefits has also been commented upon by several noble Lords. I wonder whether "costs" is the best word in that context. We are always talking about cost benefit; in other words, comparing the advantages and disadvantages of steps which may be taken in a wide range of circumstances. But, in that connection I should have thought that we are really considering the expense involved and it might be better if "costs" was replaced by "expenses". I know that it would mean sacrificing the usual cost-benefit comparison, but in the context in which it is used in the amendments I believe that "expenses" might be the more appropriate word.
1372
I have a great deal of sympathy with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, regarding his amendment. I must confess that I have a little doubt about Amendment No. 213. That amendment seeks to introduce a new criminal offence, whereas it may not be necessary to do so. I know that we must have adequate powers of enforcement, but I should have thought that most of the enforcement which will be needed will be enforcement by the civil process of the courts. It does not seem to me that that process should have to be enforced with the aid of the creation of the minor criminal offence outlined in the amendment. I shall be most interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Ullswater says in his response.
Lord Vinson: Before my noble friend responds, I should like to lend my support to those who believe that he should resist the amendments. It would be very strange indeed if the new agency were given exception to the well accepted, tried and tested mechanism, not only in this country but also in America and elsewhere, for assessing the appropriate remedy for any environmental damage.
On Second Reading I was glad to see that my noble friend the Minister made it clear that such a consideration does not override the agency's other duties and obligations; in other words, I take it that it does not override the agency's emergency powers but that it does give time for considered thought as to what the appropriate remedy would be and prevent unnecessary costs being put on to the firm or individual involved, which at the end of the day are costs that are borne by all of us because they are ultimately reflected in prices.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will clarify the position. At the same time, perhaps my noble friend could also assure me that the provisions of the deregulation Bill that made it possible for sensible appeals procedures to be introduced early on can be built into the new agency's remit in line with that legislation.
Lord Marlesford: I agree with my noble friends Lord Wade and Lord Vinson, and, indeed, with other noble Lords, on the need to ensure that decisions or proposals made by the new agency should take full account of the cost-benefit part of the equation. I understand why the provision has been included in the Bill in the form of Clause 37. We have had so many examples of extremely burdensome proposals from various agencies. Perhaps the Health and Safety Executive is the most notorious. That is why I very much supported the Government's attempts to lighten the burden through the deregulation legislation, which is now an Act. But having said that, I would ask the Government to consider carefully whether including this provision in Clause 37 is the right way of doing it.
Of course we must take more seriously both costs and benefits in putting forward environmental regulations. It is only now that some of the most ill considered matters that were introduced several years ago are coming into practical effect.

1373
I wish to give the Committee one small example which has just come to my notice. Under the Control of Pollution Act and the Environmental Protection Act horse manure has been classified as industrial waste. Believe it or not, under Statutory Instrument 819 of 1988, that means that unless the animals concerned are being used for agricultural purposes their muck has to be put onto a licensed tip. Apparently there is no de minimis exemption to that. It would be a laughing matter were it not quite serious for some people. I am told that in the county of Cambridgeshire it has been customary for the muck from the Newmarket horses to be stored in a field by an enterprising entrepreneur who collects it from the stables and then sells it to gardeners and others. The environmental department of the Cambridgeshire County Council has now said that that is illegal as the field is not a licensed tip and those concerned have been fined £1,500. No doubt that will result in the end of that particular enterprise.
I give that as an example of the crazy sort of things we have to avoid. However, there have been other cases where expectations have been aroused by environmental legislation which have not been met. Often those expectations have been aroused because the costs have not been taken account of in the legislation. One of the most obvious examples is the bathing water directive from Europe. It was all embracing and in certain cases was unachievable, and therefore has not been achieved, and in many other cases it has been used as an excuse to do nothing. It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory method of proceeding. I am one of the relatively few Members of this Chamber who has spent 16 weeks of my life in Blackpool—not on holiday. I had to attend every party conference of both parties there for 16 years. I am not decrying Blackpool; it is a wonderful place. However, the beach there has singularly failed to benefit from the directive. I am merely trying to illustrate the nonsenses which can arise when a provision is ill digested. That is the important point.
Of course one can understand why the Government have been tempted to introduce into the statute a costs and benefits provision. However, I question whether that is the right way of proceeding. It is, I understand, a precedent in environmental legislation and as such its implications need to be thought through carefully. Some Members of the Committee may be aware that I am chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. In order to obtain an objective view of this issue the CPRE asked Mr Jeremy Sullivan QC, who is the CPRE's honorary standing counsel—he has just taken over that role from Mr Justice Carwath on the latter's appointment to the High Court Bench—for an opinion. Mr Sullivan's advice is clear. If I may, I will send my noble friend a copy of the advice which I have here. Mr Sullivan states—this is the crucial point—that the drafting is in such generalised terms that it will positively invite challenges to almost anything that this agency does, by way of judicial review. In other words, if it is a case of saying that the benefits were not properly taken into account in a decision that is made, there is a challenge of judicial review; or it may be a case of saying that the costs of the measures that are
1374
taken were not properly accounted for. The measure is going to make, or could make, the whole of the agency's operations unworkable. That cannot be desirable.
Starting from the simple premise that I fully support the need for a balanced decision based on cost benefit in any such agency's activities, I would suggest that the right way of doing that is by advice and guidance from the department to the agency. It is a much more difficult matter to challenge judicially regulations which the agency may make if that is done on the basis of common sense and good practice. I believe that most of the agencies—I am afraid the Health and Safety Executive is an exception; in general the National Rivers Authority is not an exception—have not put forward foolish measures.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Marlesford: I think many of them have put forward some foolish measures, but in general they have recognised that they have to accord with what will be seen as possible, desirable and justifiable. That is the right way to proceed. I believe it would prove to be technically flawed to incorporate in the Bill a provision which would enable judicial review to be used in a campaign against the agency. This would weaken its role not only as a champion of the environment but also as an organisation which could take a sensible and balanced view of what is possible in terms of cost and benefit.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: I am glad that my noble friend Lord Marlesford eventually reached the end of his speech because I was confused to begin with as, in the first instance, his words seemed to promote this clause and then he managed, with dexterity, to say that we should not have the clause in the Bill. I also notice that he wishes to oppose the Question that Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill. Perhaps we should have another debate on that matter when the proposition that the clause should stand part of the Bill is before the Committee, because I believe that many of the other amendments tackle the different view.
Sustainable development involves reconciling the needs of economic development and effective environmental protection. Regulators should not therefore be able to impose costs which are not justified by the environmental benefits which they bring. In saying that I hope that I have the approval of my noble friend Lord Wade and of course my noble friend Lord Vinson. The provision should require the agencies to consider costs and benefits in the round, including environmental costs and benefits. It is not intended to restrict that consideration either to only specified sorts of costs and benefits or to costs and benefits falling only on specified classes of organisations or people.
Large amounts of work have been and continue to be done on quantification of environmental costs and benefits. But I accept that not all costs and benefits can be quantified in financial terms. This is why the clause is not intended to restrict consideration to those costs and benefits which can be quantified or to require the agencies to act only where they can demonstrate an

1375
excess of benefit over cost. The agencies must use their judgment and the clause is intended to enable them to do so.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford pointed to some of the difficulties which can occur on both sides and warned us to beware of that. All of these amendments seek to modify the proposed duty on the agency to have regard to costs and benefits. Amendments Nos. 211 and 238 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, seek to limit the cost to environmental and human cost. The former of those amendments would amend the general duty on the agency, and the latter would apply both to the agency and to local authorities and would apply specifically in relation to remediation notices for contaminated land. Amendments Nos. 210 and 212 in the name of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and moved by my noble friend Lord Mills and Amendment No. 214 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, would exclude the need to consider costs and benefits in relation to enforcement functions. Amendment No. 213 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills would provide a new power for the agency to require any person to provide information that it reasonably considers it needs to take account of costs and benefits and would make non-provision of such information an offence. Amendment No. 211A in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, would specify that the cost to be taken into account includes the costs of third parties.
As I have sought to make clear, the Government accept that the costs and benefits to which the agency should have regard should not be limited to financial costs and benefits but must include the wider costs and benefits with which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is concerned. But it cannot be limited to environmental and human costs. The justification for financial costs imposed, for example, on those who are required to meet particular standards in terms of releases to the environment, must also be considered. That is recognised in the existing provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and we believe must equally be recognised here.
My noble friend Lord Mills and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, are clearly anxious to ensure that decisions to enforce and, in particular to prosecute, under environmental legislation are not thwarted by challenges on the basis that prosecution was not the most effective solution. They have stressed that there may be valid reasons why a prosecution is appropriate in a particular case which do not relate solely to the cost of environmental damage in that case, and which may not easily be quantified.
I recognise the validity of that argument. Nor do such considerations apply only to enforcement. Equally, the agency must not be thwarted, for example, in its ability to deal effectively with environmental emergencies by a need to undertake costs and benefits analysis. That was a point made by my noble friend Lord Vinson. It is to cover such cases, which I do not believe can be listed exhaustively, that the Bill qualifies the requirement in Clause 37(1) to take account of costs and benefits:
1376
"unless and to the extent that it is unreasonable for it to do so in view of the nature or purpose of the power or in the circumstances of the particular case".
It seems to me that this provides a more effective way of dealing with the concerns which have been raised than the amendments proposed.
I listened particularly carefully to the explanation of my noble friend Lord Mills of the need for Amendment No. 213 and will wish to look at the record in Hansard. Clearly it is important that the agency should not be thwarted from effective action by those who would seek to challenge its decisions on the grounds of cost but then withhold from it the information it would need to take proper account of costs and benefits. But equally I believe that we should avoid if possible the need for the agency to take account of costs and benefits leading to the imposition of additional burdens on regulated organisations and the introduction of new offences and penalties. That point was brought forward by my noble friend Lord Renton. On the basis of experience with the assessment of best available techniques not entailing excessive cost under integrated pollution control I do not believe that such additional information-gathering powers are required. In practice the agency can only properly have regard to information on costs and benefits that is available to it. Those who wish to argue that a particular course of action is too costly would therefore need to provide evidence to support their claims. If they decline to do so the agency would be justified in acting on the basis of the evidence it had. Indeed, I believe that there is a risk that the amendment would have the perverse effect of helping those who might wish to challenge the agency on the ground that it had the power to obtain further relevant information but failed to use it in a particular case.
In Amendment No. 211A the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seeks to specify that the costs to be considered include those of third parties. I believe that the clause as drafted covers such costs and that such an explicit statement is therefore unnecessary. Indeed, by specifying that costs to one set of parties are specifically covered the effect may be to cast doubt on whether all other costs are to be considered equally.
My noble friend Lord Vinson suggested that there should be some form of appeal mechanism. This Bill and the environmental legislation under which the agency will operate include a number of appeal provisions. It is not proposed to rewrite all of those to bring them into line with the model provision being developed under the deregulation Act. However, they incorporate the principles which are to be reflected in that model provision.
At an earlier stage in the Committee proceedings I undertook to take further legal advice on whether costs and benefits should be interpreted as restricting the types of costs and benefits which are relevant. I am advised that there is no doubt that benefits should be construed widely, including environmental benefits. However, it is possible that costs incurred could be construed more narrowly as actual financial costs. We are continuing to examine the matter, but if there is real doubt I shall consider introducing an amendment to remove it.

1377
With that assurance and those explanations I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Renton: In examining the matter further will my noble friend consider the possibility of replacing "costs" and "benefits" with "advantages" and "disadvantages"?
Viscount Ullswater: I shall certainly consider everything that has been said today and take further legal advice on the matter.
Viscount Mills: I am encouraged by the remarks of my noble friend the Minister, particularly with respect to Amendment No. 213. I shall read carefully in Hansard all the comments made by Members of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 211 to 214 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister has taken a little wind out of my sails with his final comment about reconsidering the use of the terms "costs" and "benefits". Nevertheless, it is important that at this stage we should have a short general debate on the place in the Bill of a provision for cost-benefit analysis.
The more we talk about the new agencies the more I see them as not merely regulatory bodies. Therefore, I accept that they will have a function in assessing relevant criteria in the decisions that they take. However, I join with those who doubt whether the balance within the clause is correct, and in particular the relationship between subsection (1) and subsection (2).
Subsection (2) states that the duty imposed on the new agency to consider costs and benefits does not affect its obligation to discharge its duties. In other words, there is a distinction between its duties and its powers. That was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned earlier this afternoon. However, how is the agency to perform a duty if its power to perform that duty is limited?
Subsection (2) overrides subsection (1). That being so, what meaning is to be given to the cost-benefit provisions of subsection (1)? Subsection (1) must have a meaning; subsection (2) must also have a meaning. I am not yet convinced as to which is secondary.
In his evidence before the Environment Committee of another place, the Secretary of State put cost benefit in the context of sustainable development. He said that it gives a real reference to the meaning of sustainable development. It will not have escaped the Committee's attention that we have not defined that clause. Indeed, some will quarrel with his exposition on the term and his acceptance that there is a need for growth.
The Secretary of State also indicated before the Environment Committee that the subject will be a matter for guidance and that draft guidance in that specific area would be available by Committee stage in another place. He indicated that there will be a dialogue with the new agency and others. From that dialogue a guidance will emerge. That is to be welcomed.
1378
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has stressed that the issue might be more safely dealt with by guidance. However, I wonder whether cost benefit is an appropriate tool, with the assessment of costs on the one hand and advantages or disadvantages of benefits on the other. One has to ask: what costs, and to whom? The Minister has indicated the Government's further consideration of whether environmental and human costs come within the term. I had approached the issue on the basis that they could not do so because that seemed to be the way in which the Bill was to be read. However, that is perhaps not the only issue. The central issue relates to how one assesses the cost on the one hand and the value on the other of achieving or not achieving an aim. I refer to the protection of a geographical area or a specific species of flora or fauna. Such matters are probably the central issue. I do not believe that society has sufficiently advanced the dialogue regarding how one assesses the cost when considering the loss of a species or the threat to a geographical area.
In considering the provision, I have asked: the cost to whom? A small undertaking required by the agency to clean up its act may incur considerable costs. Those costs would be considerable to that small undertaking. They might indeed lead to its liquidation. The costs would be proportionate to the small business's expenditure but, proportionately, a small environmental cost considered globally in absolute terms. I have difficulty regarding how the impact on different sizes of organisations and on the environment as a whole is to be assessed.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, reminded us of the legal fragility (if I may use that term) of the provision—that it may be open to challenge. Constant legal challenge from powerful industries would compromise the agency's effectiveness and make it consider whether it has the means, funded by government, and indeed the will, to resist the big guns of big business. (I hope that I am not too pejorative.) I note that Ofwat supports the clause. I do not believe that it lies well in the mouth of that industry to comment on the costs of environmental protection given the profits earned in the water industry. Even if there is no major challenge, it must be likely that the agency will become bogged down on the wrong issues. After all, it has much to do.
Reference has also been made to the fact that whether or not there is such a provision, public bodies cannot simply take wild decisions. Such bodies are always open to challenge by the courts if they are clearly acting unreasonably given the state of knowledge at a specific time. Without that provision, I do not believe that the agencies would be free to impose clearly impossible and unreasonable costs on society.
Article 130(r) of the Treaty on European Union prioritises the following principles: the precautionary principle; the preventative principle; and the polluter pays principle. It states that costs and benefits are to be "considered". I am interested in the advance—if it is an advance—that the Government consider should be made in the Bill.

1379
I hope that the Minister can explain in some detail the best practicable environmental option, and the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs, matters to which he has already referred. There is now a good deal of literature on BATNEEC and BPEO. I had thought that the principle of BATNEEC was supported by Government. I do not understand the relationship between those and the provisions of Clause 37; perhaps the Committee does. It would be helpful to understand them.
Clause 37 gives the wrong balance. It will require the agency to compromise itself. We must ask ourselves whether cost, as defined in terms which are normally used with regard to costs to individual businesses, is a cost to be put on the environment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I echo much of what has been said. I welcome what the Minister said, although it confirmed some of our worst fears: that the term "cost" tends to be measured only in financial terms. That is our specific anxiety about Clause 37.
It has been interesting to note that briefing material which has flowed in has been sharply divided between the industries' interests on the one side—I refer to the CBI, Ofwat and the Institute of Directors, which are all much in favour of the clause—and the environmental groups which are much opposed to it. For some of the reasons just given, industry clearly sees the provision as a means of avoiding the imposition of anti-pollution measures—measures which will support the environment. The environmental groups fear that that is what will happen.
We are all in favour of efficiency and the BATNEEC principle. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, ridiculous costs should not be imposed on our society. As the noble Lord said, it would be sensible if the issue were subject to ministerial guidance as opposed to being on the face of the Bill. Our anxieties are that there is no purpose laid down for the agency. Its aims and objectives are not laid down in the Bill. Those are subject to ministerial guidance and are therefore much weaker. For some mysterious reason the duty relating to cost-benefit analysis has been written on the face of the Bill.
There is a reference, too, in Clause 37 to the objectives and aims of the agencies, but those are not spelt out in the Bill. There seems an imbalance in favour of considering the costs of any environmental measure as opposed to the other duties, aims and objectives of the agency which are merely subject to ministerial guidance and are not written into Clause 1 of the Bill as its overriding, overarching purpose.
That is our specific concern about the clause. It is not that one is opposed to the idea that the expense of any proposed measure should be part of the assessment as to whether that measure should be put into effect but rather that the agency's position in pursuing environmental objectives is considerably weakened by Clause 37.
1380
It is interesting to note that the CBI's briefing on this issue refers to aims and objectives of the agencies as though those were clearly laid out and we all knew what they were. It opens by saying:
"Clause 37 provides a significant move forward in ensuring that the new Agencies will take action proportionate to their objectives".
But as the Bill does not lay down any aims, objectives or purpose for the agency, one cannot agree that the balance has been correctly struck. It is precisely for that reason that we have considerable doubts about having Clause 37 in the Bill when the agency has not been given clear directions and powers elsewhere.
It is not my intention that Clause 37 should necessarily be removed from the Bill, but it should be balanced by a clear purpose for the agency elsewhere in the Bill. That is something to which we propose to return at Report stage.
The Earl of Onslow: At Belshazzar's feast there appeared on the walls the words:
"Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin".
When translated, the phrase did not mean: "unless and to the extent that it is reasonable" etc., it meant:
"Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting".
So we know early on what a cost-benefit analysis is. I should like to see in the Bill words more like those my noble friend Lord Renton suggested, using "advantage" or "disadvantage". Of course, the agency must rightly make value judgments and ask: "Do we save this one bogwort but ruin employment for 800,000 people?". I take the argument obviously ad absurdum. It seems to me that the language of the clause is convoluted and in some ways over-precise but in other ways not precise enough. If the Old Testament can get it right—which it did fairly easily with:
"Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting"—
and we all know exactly what that means—then surely the drafters of government Bills, with the assistance of the Renton Committee and possibly the previous lesson in English from the authors of the Authorized Version of the Bible, could make a better attempt at laying out what the view of the agency must be in this example rather than what is written in very obscure language.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My noble friend Lord Onslow is being extraordinarily optimistic in suggesting that the parliamentary draftsmen, given the instructions they receive from Ministers, could possibly match the Old Testament for clarity. However, I echo some of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in moving the Motion, but that is not to say that I look for the same answers to her questions.
First, there is a small point about which I should like to be clear. In balancing costs against benefits, is it right that when we use the word "costs" we are talking about financial costs? I take it that that is correct but I should be grateful if my noble friend could confirm it. I repeat what the noble Baroness said about that: whose costs, what benefits and to whom will those benefits accrue?

1381
The second question is one which the noble Baroness also asked: what is the second half of the clause intended to do? I have a nasty feeling that, having done what I consider to be the right thing in the first half of the clause, the Government then seem to have had second thoughts and said: "Oh no, sorry, we didn't really mean that. We will go back to where we were, without the first half of the clause". I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us a lucid explanation of the meaning, value and import of the second half of the clause.
The most important point that I wish to make is that I believe that the Government are absolutely right to take into account the costs of doing all those things. Everyone who is sensible and sane, including industry, wishes to see the environment improved. There is no question or doubt at all about that. But to say that the costs must be regarded as secondary or put up as an excuse by industry is quite wrong. It is high time that the country, and all of us, remembered that when we mention costs we are talking about the competitive capacity of British industry and about jobs. Let that not be forgotten.
When my noble friend Lord Marlesford said on an earlier amendment that departmental advice was preferable to having something in the statute for ministerial guidance, I respectfully beg leave to differ with him. I can think of nothing I would rather avoid in this context than ministerial guidance or departmental advice. I mean no offence to my noble friend.
Lord Moran: I hope that the Government will take careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, as it seems to me important. If they do not do so and if we maintain the present wording of Clause 37, one point bothers me; namely, that in many cases it must be much easier to calculate industrial costs, for example, than to calculate environmental benefits. Perhaps I may give one example of what I mean. As my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas is present, perhaps I may give a Welsh example. A power station in Wales may burn some agreeable substance like orimulsion, emitting a good deal of sulphur. The regulating agency—at present the NRA and HMIP, but in future the environment agency—applying BATNEEC, may say that the power station must install the best form of flue gas desulphurisation. It is clear that that is a very expensive option and there is no difficulty in calculating the cost of the operation. However, on the other side, the environmental benefits may largely consist of ensuring that fish, invertebrates, dippers and other organisms may continue to survive in large numbers of Welsh rivers and lakes. It must be extremely difficult to calculate that against a clearly defined industrial cost.
Lord Vinson: Will the noble Lord give way? He may be comforted to know that the cost of cleaning up orimulsion to the levels which I believe he would find acceptable and which would make the atmosphere or the exhaust gases of the power station fully within the regulatory limits, is about 5 per cent. of the cost of the electricity generated. I believe that everyone would
1382
agree that that is a wholly acceptable cost. It can be calculated and therefore I do not think that the point the noble Lord makes will stand up.
Lord Moran: I am glad to hear what the noble Lord said and, if it is correct, it is good news. I was only giving it as an example because, as a general principle, it must often be difficult to balance an assessment of the rather intangible but still extraordinarily important environmental benefits against the quite easily calculated industrial costs. That is what worries me and why I much prefer "advantages" and "disadvantages", as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Elton: Despite what my noble friend Lord Vinson said, there will be occasions when, supposing the calculation given had been 50 per cent. and not 5 per cent., either an important question will be unanswered in the Bill or we shall have to compare apples with eggs, counting them against each other. I suspect that the clause, as drafted, takes account of that. If Members of the Committee will turn to page 50, there is a proposed insertion in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. At line 13 it will read:
"Without prejudice to section 37 of the Environment Act 1995".
That is the part that we are looking at. To summarise, there shall be a duty on the agency to have regard to,
"the cost which is likely to be involved",
on a person on whom it has served a notice. That clearly is a financial cost. By preserving the duty under Section 37 and introducing a duty dealing with cost in this new clause, it seems to me that a distinction is made between them. I merely ask my noble friend whether, if that is so, it could not be more clearly stated than it is now, for example, in some way such as that suggested by my noble friend Lord Renton.
Lord Chorley: This is an occasion when, perhaps surprisingly, I find myself in some sympathy with the Government on this matter. I am sure that we need some provision on the lines of Clause 37, though it may not be precisely right. I spent much of my professional life off and on being involved in cost-benefit analysis, so I know all about the pitfalls and so forth. In the world in which I moved in those days it was a well understood term of art. Perhaps that is part of the problem.
However, I emphasise—I refer to what the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said on a previous set of amendments, on which he said that he would come back to the House—it is not just a question of financial costs. It is a question of costs right across the board, including all the environmental costs. That is what the term of art means.
There is another point which it is important to emphasise and which has been touched on by other Members of the Committee. There is a great problem, in that many of the costs are not readily, or even, in some cases, at all quantifiable. That has to be recognised. It is important to set out clearly in each case the distribution of costs and benefits and who incurs them or benefits from them—in other words, the distribution of the costs and benefits, whether quantifiable or not. It is important that these matters are described. Whether any advantage is to be gained from

1383
the use by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, of the term "advantages and disadvantages", I do not know. It is not normally a term of art in the world in which I moved. However, I would possibly go along with it provided that there is some reference to costs, because it is very important to know what costs (whether or not they can be measured) are being incurred.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I agree strongly with the noble Lord who has just spoken. But he has underlined the necessity to spell out what is needed rather more clearly than is done in this clause. Given the way in which he described it, I believe that almost all of us would agree. I could not accept, for instance, what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, as I understand it said. The noble Lord said that everyone wanted to improve the environment, which is probably more or less true. He then went on either to state or to imply—I believe he stated it—that therefore people would all act accordingly. What happens is that everyone is in favour of improving the environment so long as the cost does not fall on themselves but on someone else. Therefore there is absolutely certainly a need to sort out what the cost benefits are. It is in relation to that aspect that we need from the Government rather more clarity than is presently the case.
Viscount Ullswater: Clause 37 requires each new agency, in considering whether or not to exercise any of its powers, or how to do so, to take into account the costs which are likely to be incurred and the benefits which are likely to accrue as a result. This duty is subject to two exceptions. First, it does not apply to the extent that it would be unreasonable for a new agency to take into account costs and benefits because of the nature or purpose of the power or the circumstances of the particular case. Secondly, the duty to take into account costs and benefits does not affect the non-discretionary obligations of the new agencies. That is set out in the second half of Clause 37.
This clause has attracted considerable comment both at Second Reading and in Committee. There has been erudite discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of cost-benefit analysis, its ability to deal with costs and benefits which cannot adequately be quantified, the circumstances under which it might be unwieldy or inappropriate, the information that might be required for it and, as my noble friend lord Marlesford said, the risks of legal challenge to which it might lead.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me where I felt that BATNEEC and BPEO fell into the duty. When I was explaining the Government's response to the last group of amendments, I indicated that we have experience with the assessment of BATNEEC under the IPC. I did not believe that additional information gathering powers were required, as put forward in Amendment No. 213 by my noble friend Lord Mills. BATNEEC is a mandatory requirement. It must be applied under Section 7 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We therefore take the view that its application is an obligation for the purposes of Clause 37(2) of the Bill. Therefore there is no discretion for the agency in that instance.
1384
My noble friend Lord Peyton wanted me to expand a little on what I intended to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. He asked me whether the costs were just to be financial costs. In my reply to the last group of amendments I said that I believed there would be a possibility that "costs incurred" could be construed more narrowly as actual financial costs. We are examining the matter and we may need to introduce an amendment to remove that narrow definition.
My noble friend also asked me who is to judge what the costs and the benefits are and to whom they should apply. As the clause sets out, that is for the judgment of the agency. That is what the agency is required to do; namely, to make a judgment as to the costs and benefits. But of course it will have guidance from Ministers. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, asked me about guidance. The guidance under Clause 4—I refer to the guidance under paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4; of course these are only draft guidance notes—states that,
"many forms of economic development make demands upon the environment and these have to be assessed. Such an assessment ought to take account of all the costs and benefits involved—economic and environmental equally … Often however it is difficult to establish what the environmental costs and benefits are. To assist, a number of supporting principles have been developed",
and so on. Therefore there is ministerial guidance to assist the agency in fulfilling its functions.
I must stress again that the Government are not seeking to impose upon the agency a requirement to undertake a full cost-benefit analysis before it acts in any case or to follow slavishly the results of such analysis. We recognise that costs and benefits must be considered broadly and in the round. I pray in aid the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who I believe stands with me on that. We recognise that cost-benefit analysis is a tool whose value will vary from case to case and that the agency must be free to exercise its judgment. We recognise that the consideration of costs and benefits must be capable of being exercised on the basis of available information and that there will be circumstances in which it would be unreasonable or would conflict with the agency's environmental obligations. That is why the clause is drafted as it is to reflect the core proposition that the agencies should have some regard to the likely costs and benefits of their actions but this must not interfere with their ability to ensure effective environmental protection, management or enhancement.
I believe that to reject this clause—which is the proposition before the Committee—would send a very damaging message to all those who are looking to us to reconcile the needs of the environment with the needs of economic development as part of a balanced and sustainable approach to environmental protection, and I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I have two questions, which I shall ask very shortly. But first I have one comment: official guidance on industrial costs is not always very convincing or very valuable, and I personally would put a very large question mark over the usefulness of such guidance.

1385
The second point concerns the question I asked him, which I do not think he has dealt with and which is: what exactly is the effect of the second half of the clause on the first half? It seems to me to go some way towards apologising for the first half.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend replies to that, perhaps I may take the liberty of reminding him that he did give an undertaking to reconsider the question of how the guidance in Clause 4 should be expressed constitutionally.
The Earl of Onslow: There is one other factor which has arisen out of my noble friend's reply. I personally like the idea of some such clause as this in the Bill. It seems to me that it is essential, because it is a guidance measure as much as anything else.
What happens if the agency, in weighing and balancing, makes a grave error and puts 4lb in one set of scales and 3oz in the other? Is there any method of appeal to say that, "You, 0 agency, have weighed it very incompetently", to use the words of the Book of Daniel, rather than those of the environmental protection agency establishment Bill?
Baroness Hamwee: Before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he can tell the Committee when he thinks he will be able to come up with any alternative, if that is what his legal advice in fact suggests, because clearly the timing of any alteration in the approach that this clause takes is a matter of concern to many Members of the Committee. I hope that he will be able to pursue as a matter of some urgency the question of legal advice as to whether "costs" and "benefits" are the best terms?
I wonder if he could also include in consideration the point on BATNEEC, to come back to that. I understand the comments he has made, BATNEEC being an obligation for the purposes of subsection (2) BATNEEC is about avoiding excessive cost. That suggests to me that excessive cost may be reasonable within Clause 37(1).
I am not asking the Minister to respond to that now. I hope I have made myself clear, but I think that the relationship between the two propositions requires some further investigation.
Lord Marlesford: Before my noble friend finally responds to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Peyton about ministerial guidance and all that, the problem surely is that costs are relatively easily measurable and expressible in monetary terms. Benefits are identifiable just as costs are identifiable, but are much harder to measure, and the value imputed in an equivalence of costs to benefits will be a function of—if you like, in a democratic society—opinion at the time. This is why a government is much more easily able to give guidance as to the resolution of such an issue than if the matter is left to an agency which is made up of people who are not in any sense elected and who, although responsible ultimately to Parliament, have no particular skill at interpreting the public mood. We all know that the public mood towards environmental problems has changed hugely in all our lifetimes. To reflect that, I should have much preferred to see the Government
1386
made responsible for giving guidance to the agency as to how it should assess, in the phrase of my noble friend Lord Renton, "the advantages and disadvantages of a particular proposal".
Viscount Ullswater: I am not sure that I can say a great deal more at this stage, but I should like to take up the point which my noble friend Lord Peyton made because I believe that this is where the distinction can be drawn, and I think it also encompasses the point made by my noble friend Lord Marlesford.
The difference between the two sections of the clause, as I understand it, is that in Clause 37 subsection (2) refers to the "duties", and therefore it does not give the agency any measure of discretion. That is the requirement of Clause 37(2) and that is where it differs from Clause 37(1). I believe that we need the clause so as to distinguish between these two matters, which would not necessarily be undertaken —or, let me say, it seems as if we are going further by putting this on the face of the Bill than we would necessarily do by taking the advice of my noble friend Lord Marlesford and merely putting it into guidance. I believe that we are making it quite clear that the new agency has duties. That is taken under Clause 37(2).
My noble friend Lord Renton also asked me about the status of the guidance. On the first Committee day, I said I would consider whether the guidance should be published and should be subject to consultation, and I am obviously in the process of considering that at the moment. So the status of the guidance is as it is at the moment on the face of the Bill, but I am considering whether those two matters should be taken into account.
I trust that I have explained in what I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the role which I believe BATNEEC plays. This is a tried and tested method, and it falls under the obligations of the agency to use it in certain circumstances. I do not believe that that has been questioned during the course of the debate—except perhaps in parenthesis by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I do not believe that the technique has been questioned, and I therefore consider that I cannot go any further on that particular matter. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Ministerial directions to the new Agencies]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): If Amendment No. 214A is accepted, I cannot call Amendment No. 214AA under the pre-emption rule.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrovemoved Amendment No. 214A:
Page 31, line 41, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 214AA, 214AB, 214BA and 2 I4BB. This first amendment curtails the overall power of Ministers, which we feel is rather too great in this group of provisions and the Bill generally. Amendment No. 214A is an amendment from the Law Society of Scotland, a very reputable body, which is normally very

1387
correct and conscious of the importance of the Government getting things right. It has been a great help to all of us on this side of the House.
The Law Society has asked that the Government should abide by their stated intention referred to earlier in the booklet, Improving Scotland's Environment: The way forward, which was to provide an agency at arm's length from the Government. That is ideal for an environmental body. Clause 31(1) contravenes this intention and gives all the power to the Minister.
Amendment No. 214AA is too widely drawn. The Minister should give specific guidance and not guidance which is as general as it appears in this particular subsection.
Amendment No. 214AB addresses the question of whether there is a contravention of Community law. It is suspected that that may be the case and Ministers should be aware of it. Amendment No. 214BA is a consequential amendment. Amendment No. 214BB seeks to preclude the exemption for emergencies. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: It is not unusual for bodies which are accountable to Ministers to be subject to direction from those Ministers on a range of issues. Indeed, the power to give directions contained in Clause 38(1) is very closely modelled on an existing power of Ministers to give directions to the NRA. Nor is it our intention that Ministers should be able to use this power coercively. The Bill provides that, except in an emergency, this power shall be exercisable only after consultation with the new agency concerned.
Amendment No. 214A seeks to omit Clause 38(1) from the Bill, thus removing the power for the appropriate Minister to give a new agency general directions in relation to its functions. Amendment No. 214AA would preclude ministerial directions of a general character unless they implement a Community treaty or another international agreement. Such directions could only be specific.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, explained that the purpose of the amendments is to highlight concern about the broad nature of the powers to issue directions to the agencies. As non-departmental public bodies, it is appropriate and indeed necessary that the agencies are properly accountable for their work to the appropriate Minister and through him to Parliament. Along with ministerial accountability, there must be responsibility. And there cannot, I would suggest, be proper responsibility without power to direct an agency, where necessary.
It has been mooted that the powers of direction in this Bill are in some way exceptional. That is not the case. Let me pray in aid Section 5 of the Water Resources Act 1991 and Section 11 of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, which contain broadly similar direction-making powers in relation to the NRA and Scottish Natural Heritage.
A power to issue general directions is required, as it might not always be practicable or appropriate to issue specific directions. For example, if there were to be a direction covering the procedure to be followed by an
1388
agency in appointing persons with powers to inspect MoD premises, while it might be possible to replicate a direction for each individual MoD premises, it would be extremely cumbersome.
Amendment No. 214AB would require the appropriate Minister to direct a new agency to advise him on relevant Community treaties or other international agreements. I have no doubt that the agencies' advice on such matters is likely in many cases to be invaluable. But I do not believe the amendment is necessary. Clause 35(2), already requires the agency to provide such advice and assistance as requested by the Secretary of State or the Minister. The amendment does, of course, require that advice to be sought. There will, I imagine, be few cases in which Ministers would not wish to have the advice of the agencies. But I think the amendment is unduly prescriptive.
Community treaties and other international agreements are made through a series of negotiations which are often lengthy, going through numerous drafts. Would an agency need to be directed before every meeting and give its views formally to every twist and turn in the drafting process? I would suggest that it is best left for Ministers to determine when they require advice and for that advice then to be given.
Amendment No. 214B would require the appropriate Minister, before giving directions under Clause 38 to the environment agency for England and Wales, to consult that agency and other affected bodies as to the direction's content. Amendment No. 214BB would preclude any direction being issued unless the appropriate Minister first consults a new agency.
Clause 38(6) already makes provision for the appropriate Minister to consult the relevant agency in this matter. It will therefore come as no surprise that I am sympathetic to the motives behind the amendment. Given that directions may affect a large number of bodies, not all of whom could be readily identifiable, I do not believe that a requirement for consultation with all affected bodies would be practical. Nevertheless, where and to the extent that they consider it appropriate, my right honourable friends will consult persons or bodies other than the agency in question before giving directions. The clause as drafted recognises the importance of first consulting the agencies, and there is a requirement on Ministers to do so. But, while I accept that as something which should be done where at all possible, I cannot accept that such consultation should stop action being taken quickly in an emergency. Our first priority must be to prevent harm to human health or the environment. In an emergency situation, such consultation is likely to place a bureaucratic obstacle in the way of preventing such harm. I must therefore resist this attempt to remove that important safeguard.
Amendment No. 214BA seeks to extend the publicity requirements for directions that implement Community treaties or other international agreements to cover all directions issued under Clause 38. I understand the intention behind this amendment: that is why Clause 49(2) requires all directions—other than those whose disclosure would be contrary to the interests of national security—to be included in a new agency's annual report. But the additional publicity arrangements for

1389
directions made under Clause 38(2) are specifically necessary. They are required in order to meet Community requirements as to the level of publicity required in order to give the direction the necessary force and transparency. This is not the case for directions issued for domestic reasons, which may deal with more "nuts and bolts" issues. And, while those will be publicly available, I would suggest that they do not warrant the same level of publicity.
On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The feeling that motivated the tabling of these amendments was disappointment. I refer to the Scottish White Paper, Improving Scotland's Environment, which promised a great deal more freedom and was well received, yet when the Bill was tabled it was felt that someone had got cold feet and Whitehall again had the whip hand. That is the reason for the disappointment.
The Minister's response seems very reasonable except that the power goes back to the Cabinet Minister, which enables him to thwart, if he wishes, action that perhaps should be left to the agency. This is one group of amendments that we shall be looking at carefully and possibly bringing back at Report stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 214AA, 214AB, 214B, 214BA and 214BB not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 not moved.]
Clause 39 [Power to make schemes imposing charges]:
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 216A:
Page 33, line 4, leave out ("supervising activities authorised by virtue of') and insert ("performing functions conferred by").
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 216A is consequential upon the amendment to Section 62 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which is made by Amendment No. 372B. Section 62 enables regulations to be made to deal with special waste; that is, dangerous or intractable waste. Section 62(3) (a) enables the regulations to provide for waste regulation authorities to supervise activities authorised under the regulations and to recover their costs. The amendment to Section 62(3) (a) is needed to make clear that the regulations may provide for the authorities to supervise all the activities to which the regulations apply and to recover all their costs of so doing. Those costs will be recovered in accordance with a charging scheme under Clause 39 once the agencies become responsible for waste regulation. Amendment No. 216A is needed to ensure that Clause 39 refers to the new wording of Section 62 of the 1990 Act.
Amendment No. 372B also substitutes a new Section 63(2) of the 1990 Act to rectify a flaw in that subsection, which has not yet been commenced. Waste licensing and the special waste regulations generally apply only to controlled waste. However, it was the intention that
1390
Section 63(2) of the 1990 Act should replicate the effect of an earlier provision in the Control of Pollution Act 1974 which made it an offence to deposit, without authorisation, non-controlled waste which had the hazardous characteristics of special waste. This is not achieved by Section 63(2) at present, and the amendment will ensure that the original intention prevails. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this amendment is desirable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworthmoved Amendment No. 217:
Page 33, leave out line 15.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 217 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 218 to 221. This group of linked amendments seeks to clarify the scope of the charging schemes which are to be introduced by the agencies. I reassure your Lordships' Committee that I do not question the intent of the clause or indeed the creation of these powers.
The constituent bodies that will be united into the agencies already operate a variety of charging schemes in respect of the various licenses, consents and so on which they all differently administer. Therefore, Clause 39 is sensible and welcome. As I read it, it is an attempt to harmonise the different provisions that exist in other previous legislation. However, we have to be careful that in trying to simplify these somewhat complex provisions we do not confuse matters even more. It appears to me the drafting of Clause 39(2) introduces duplication and some overlap of powers. For example, where an agency modifies a licence on its own initiative as part of its ongoing supervision of a licence activity a separate modification fee may be charged. On the face of it, this seems to be somewhat unfair. Surely, if the licence-holder has already paid a fee for the monitoring and supervision in the form of a subsistence charge he should not have to pay again.
As far as Amendment No. 218 is concerned, this goes a little deeper than the others in the group. The amendment is intended to prevent the repetition of an anomaly currently found in the charging scheme for waste management licences. At present licence holders are required to pay an annual fee for the waste regulation authority's ongoing supervision and monitoring. However, in practice a licence may be dormant. It may be some years before disposal commences on the site. Even when that happens there is nothing for the authority to inspect. Therefore, the fee for inspection and monitoring remains and, although there is nothing to inspect, it cannot be waived. That does not seem to be terribly fair. If we modify Clause 39 I hope that we shall not repeat the same mistake, because mistake I think it is.
Even if the words of my amendment fail to meet the intent, I hope that the intent will be recognised by my noble friend and will find favour with him.
Viscount Ullswater: In replying to Amendment No. 217, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 219 to 221. These amendments redefine the matters in respect of which the agencies may prescribe charges in

1391
respect of environmental licences. They reflect provisions currently in force which relate to waste regulation.
The intention behind Clause 39(2) is to encompass the whole range of matters in respect of which charges for environmental licences may be prescribed. This is not to say that individual charging schemes will encompass them all. But our aim is to include all the matters in respect of which charges may currently be prescribed and, at the same time, give the agencies scope to develop charging schemes in ways appropriate to the manner in which they carry out their functions in the future, including, for example, a more unified system of charges than exists at present. We would not wish to restrict the agencies' freedom to propose new schemes in this way. The legislation does not, however, permit the agencies to charge for whatever, and however much, they like. Under the provisions of Clause 40 charging schemes will be subject to approval by the Secretary of State following consultation with those likely to be affected.
An amendment restricting the matters to those which now apply only to waste regulation would also cause particular problems for certain charges relating to other functions of the agencies. For example, the proposal to delete subsection (2)(b) would be inconsistent with provisions in the Water Resources Act relating to discharge consents under which the NRA, and in future the environment agency, might in certain circumstances grant or vary licences without an application. That said, our intention that the clause should cover all activities relating to environmental licences for which a charge may currently be made means that we shall consider carefully whether it should be amended to refer explicitly to applications for transfer, renewal or surrender of a licence, as well as the transfer, renewal or surrender itself.
The provisions of Clause 39 relating to subsistence charges encompass all the existing provisions in the various charging schemes for the different pollution control regimes. Amendment No. 218, moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas, would prevent a charging scheme from prescribing subsistence charges for environmental licences where the activities authorised by the licence had not yet commenced. It would thus reduce the scope for charging compared with the existing provisions.
In the case of waste management licences, the need for waste regulation authorities to supervise licensed facilities begins before the actual disposal or recovery of waste commences. High quality site preparation is essential to ensure that sites are able to meet their performance standards for pollution control; and Section 35(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides that a licence may impose requirements which are to be complied with before the disposal of waste begins. That is why the agency will have a duty to supervise all licences which are in force. That duty needs to be reflected in its powers to prescribe charges. It is not for the Bill but for charging schemes made in accordance with its provisions to determine details such
1392
as the appropriate level of charge for a site where a licence is in force but where the authorised activity has not begun.
The particular issue raised by this amendment is being reviewed in the context of the preparation of a revised waste management charging scheme under existing legislation. We have received a number of representations on this matter, including one from the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, which we will take into account in this review. I hope that I have said sufficient to expect my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply and I take some encouragement from his remarks on Amendment No. 217. He said that he will consider the matter carefully. I appreciate that the authority may need to carry out some pre-operational inspections—my noble friend suggested site preparation and the like—but the problem, which I do not think my noble friend has addressed, is that a licence may be applied for and be granted but no work of preparation or usage may take place for some years. Meanwhile, the subsistence fee cannot be waived and therefore is payable although there is no intent, perhaps for some years to come, to use the site. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 218.
As soon as an operator gives notice that he intends to use the licence and start operating—he may be talking on 1st February 1995 and say that he proposes to start operating in July 1995—I would expect the agency to set down the conditions of site preparation, access roads and so on, and the fees would then become payable. However, that is not what the Bill says. I rather think that my noble friend has missed that point. However, since he assures me that a consultation process is going on, I shall be happy enough to leave the matter there for the moment, but I shall probably want to come back at the Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 218 to 222 not moved.]
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Approval of charging schemes]:
The Earl of Lindsaymoved Amendment No. 222A:
Page 35, line 12, after ("to") insert ("Scotland or").
The noble Earl said: The first three amendments in this group would enable the Secretary of State for Scotland to recover his costs through SEPA's charging schemes in relation to the discharge of his new functions under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. Provisions for these new functions are contained in Amendments Nos. 387 to 393. They ensure that the provisions which we are inserting into the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 relative to consultation on certain authorisations under Section 13 of that Act will apply throughout Great Britain.
At present, the Bill's provisions require the agency in England and Wales to consult the relevant Minister before granting or varying an authorisation in respect

1393
of the disposal of radioactive waste from any premises situated on a nuclear site. The amendments will require SEPA to carry out similar consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworthmoved Amendment No. 223:
Page 35, line 37, leave out from ("take") to ("for") in line 38 and insert ("all reasonable steps, in accordance with the appropriate procedure under section 39 above").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to my noble friend the Minister if I have confused him. I think that at one time Amendment No. 223 was grouped with the others. However, I took it out of the group as I felt that this matter was quite separate from the generality of charging schemes.
The amendment has a very simple purpose: to ensure that the regulations which the Secretary of State will issue and which will prescribe the steps the agencies must take before they revoke a licence will also set out the methods by which they should publicise the charging scheme. The Bill carries forward provisions in existing legislation which enable a licence to be revoked if the operator fails to pay the annual subsistence charge. Quite clearly, the non-payment cannot be condoned, and in no way should it be made easier to continue to be in operation without having paid the appropriate fee. However, mistakes sometimes happen. Mistakes happen by accident. Revocation is a serious matter and for a smaller operator can possibly lead to the complete loss of a livelihood. Therefore, any regulations which set out the steps to be taken and the procedures to be followed before this ultimate sanction is employed are a welcome solution. However, proper publicity for the provisions of the scheme and the consequences of non-compliance and non-payment would go a long way towards preventing problems in the first place. Prevention is better than cure. If the publicity surrounding a revocation for non-payment is made abundantly clear, that has obvious advantages for everyone concerned.
In the past there have been some rather hit and miss, ad hoc arrangements which by and large have worked. But the new agency will have a good deal more responsibility placed upon it than the old WRAs. I am not suggesting that the old WRAs did not carry out their responsibilities properly, but the new lease of life given by the formation of the agency will have a much greater impact.
I think that the amendment is drafted reasonably well. I hope that I have persuaded my noble friend the Minister of the advantages of having a formal procedure that can be understood by all and undertaken by the agency. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 223 seeks to change the basis on which a new agency shall bring the provisions of a charging scheme to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them. As it stands, the Bill requires the agencies to take such steps as they consider appropriate. The amendment would require them to take reasonable steps in accordance with a procedure prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State—at least, I understand that to be my noble friend's
1394
intention. In fact, the amendment is rather more specific. It would require the agencies to take steps for publicising charging schemes in accordance with a procedure specified by the Secretary of State for revoking environmental licences, a procedure which is unlikely to be suitable for this purpose.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend said because his amendment attacks a slightly different prospect which I should like to consider further when I have had an opportunity to read in Hansard what he has said. I believe that the anxieties which I suspect underlie my noble friend's preference for the word "reasonable" are unfounded. As public bodies, the agencies will be under a general duty to act reasonably. That will apply when they are determining what steps it is appropriate for them to take in order to publicise the provisions of charging schemes. We do not think it necessary for such steps to be stipulated in regulations which could constrain the agencies' freedom to develop effective ways of publicising the provisions of schemes. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend for his response. He is right is his second assumption. This is not a question of exchanging "appropriate" for "reasonable". The amendment intends to bring a new regime to bear alongside that which already exists. That which already exists has not proved satisfactory in a number of cases. This provision is intended to bring in an additional safeguard.
It is obvious that my amendment—and perhaps what I have said—has not found its mark this evening. However, the tone of my noble friend's response is such that I am encouraged to feel that we might have discussions about this matter before the next stage—
Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I undertake to write to him on the substance of his amendment. If that is of any help, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend and look forward to receiving his communication. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsaymoved Amendments Nos. 223ZZA and 223ZZB:
Page 35, line 41, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a new").
Page 35, line 49, after ("that") insert ("new").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Gisboroughmoved Amendment No. 223ZZC:
Page 36, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert ("in accordance with the relevant charging scheme").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks commitment from the Government that the agencies' fees and charges will be fully transparent and properly attributed. As presently drafted, Clause 40(8) allows the Secretary of State to decide how much of the cost of work done by the Department of the Environment for the agencies can be received under the agencies' charging schemes. This is therefore an area where there is potential for less than transparent accounting.

1395
It is very important that the agencies' fees and charges are administered on a cost recovery basis. The agencies will need to make it clear how charges are derived and which activities they are funding. Cross-subsidisation must be avoided. Charge payers should not be covering the costs of services supplied to others. Clearly, any system of charging should satisfy the payers that they are getting value for money and that the service is being supplied efficiently and fairly. The agencies will be no exception and must give value for money in the carrying out of their functions. Their fees and charges must be calculated on an open and fair basis and developed through effective consultation with those who will be paying them.
Under Clause 40(3) as drafted, the Secretary of State can set amounts to be recovered by the new agency to meet "cost and expenses" which he
"considers it appropriate to attribute to the carrying out of"
those functions in relation to activities to which environmental licences relate. That seems to give scope to the Secretary of State for imaginative accounting and that is why reassurance that the clause will not give scope for charges to expand without transparency and clarification are sought.
In addition, at present the wording in Clause 40(4) (b) is such that charges can take account of
"the depreciation of, and the provision of a return on, such assets as are held by the new Agency".
Obviously, it would not be fair to make those paying the charges cover the cost of buying an asset—a capital cost —and the cost of the asset's depreciation in value.
Clause 40(4) (a) states that when the Secretary of State is determining which costs and expenses it is appropriate to attribute to the new agency's functions, or the Minister's functions or his own in relation to environmental licences, he should take into account the new agency's "financial duties" under Clause 41. Those duties may be set out in the financial memoranda to the agencies but there is no statutory provision for disclosure. It would therefore be useful to have an explanation of what is meant by the term.
Clause 41(3) allows the Treasury to recover any surpluses that the agency may have. However, deficits could still be recovered from future charges to business. That emphasises the need for transparency and efficient management. Obviously, business does not want to pay for the agencies' deficits while the surpluses are clawed back by the Treasury. Britain must receive the best possible return for its investment in environmental protection. It is imperative that the agencies are cost-effective and endeavour to provide good quality regulation at a reasonable price.
I would welcome the Minister's assurance that the Government will remove all areas where there is potential for doubt such as this. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: The amendment seeks to ensure that, where there is any question about which sums recovered by a new agency may fairly be regarded as being recovered for the purpose of meeting a Minister's
1396
expenses in relation to authorisations under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 in respect of nuclear licensed sites, this question should be determined in accordance with the relevant charging scheme. Clause 40 as it stands provides that such questions should be determined by the Secretary of State together, in England, with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I understand my noble friend's intention in bringing forward this amendment, although I do not think it is necessary or desirable. His intention appears much broader than the area on which the provisions actually fall. Therefore, I shall not discuss the amendment on the very small class of authorisations because I believe that my noble friend wanted that on a much broader basis.
The amendment would require a provision to be built into any scheme relating to authorisations. The current charging scheme made under the 1993 Act expressly provides for the Minister to receive a sum equal to his costs and expenses incurred in relation to the authorisations. In such a case, there will clearly be no question of what sums are payable to Ministers, and subsection (8) of Clause 40 would not be necessary.
There are various ways in which a charging scheme might be formulated and we would not wish to constrain the agencies in this manner. Subsection (3) requires the Secretary of State, when considering whether to approve a charging scheme submitted by an agency, to do two things: first, he must consider representations and objections; and, secondly, he must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the amounts recovered by way of charges will meet the relevant costs and expenses incurred by the agency and, where appropriate, by Ministers. It would be unduly onerous to require the scheme to include either a set formula for apportioning income or a provision for arbitration in the case of uncertainty or argument.
The clause as drafted will ensure that, if there is any doubt, it will be resolved by those who are concerned with both the proper financing of the agency and the recovery of their own department's costs. In this way a proper balance can be struck. We consider this to be a sensible arrangement.
I believe that the provisions for charging schemes that we have included in the Bill are flexible and fair. It has always been our intention that charging schemes should only recover the agencies' costs, in respect of those of their functions which are relevant to different types of environmental licences. The legislation does not permit the agencies or Ministers to charge for whatever, and however much, they like; under the provisions of Clause 40, charging schemes will be subject to approval by the Secretary of State following consultation with those likely to be affected. We expect the agencies, as we do all public bodies, to be efficient, well run organisations offering good value for money. It is too early to say what level of grant will be provided by government, but I can assure the Committee that we shall take full account of all their functions and the statutory duties that are being placed on them in determining the agencies' resources.

1397
I hope that those reassurances will enable my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I thank my noble friend for that explanation. I was especially glad to hear him say that the charges do no more than recover costs. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Grants to the new Agencies]:
Earl Haigmoved Amendment No. 223ZZD:
Page 38, line 4, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: The amendment seeks to ensure that the agencies will have the money to carry out their statutory functions. One disadvantage of the Bill is that it would distance clients at the local level from sources of revenue. Under the present system in Scotland, funding is channelled from the local authorities through the river purification boards which are in close touch with regional authorities. Even if money is needed at short notice to cope with emergencies, it can be provided without delay.
Under the Bill, financial sources would be more remote. Procedures would take time. Time lags may emerge. Ministers who would control the purse strings with the approval of the Treasury might ignore urgent appeals from agencies. Treasury constraints may well cause agencies to be underfunded and unable to cope with emergencies.
The amendment means that all finances would not be left just to the discretion of Ministers and to the Treasury, but some money would be kept up front ready to meet emergencies. Ministers would ensure that grants were adequate for the agencies to meet their commitments, but the arm's length principle would prevail over too much control by central government.
Without some qualification of Clause 44, there must be doubts about the level of damage limitation in the event of a crisis. Perhaps I may declare an interest as a Tweed riparian owner. Since 1955, when the Tweed Purification Board was set up, there have been several events which might have turned nasty had there not been a quick and successful response. Thanks to careful monitoring, the quality of the water has improved. Through this simple proposal, we would have some assurance that we will enjoy the security we have enjoyed in the past. I hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendments Nos. 223ZZD and 223ZZE seek to ensure that the agency will have sufficient financial support from government to enable it to carry out its statutory functions.
Clearly it is important that the agencies should be adequately funded, and although the charging schemes will enable them to recover their costs in respect of many of their activities, we do not expect that either of the agencies is likely to be entirely self-financing in the foreseeable future. We expect that they will continue to be supported by government grant.
1398
The current precept system is based on seven river purification boards with boundaries broadly similar to those of the Scottish Regional Council. That system is not appropriate for a national agency. The provision in Clause 44, however, is modelled on the equivalent provision for the NRA in Section 146(1) of the Water Resources Act 1991 and is the standard wording for ministerial grant-making powers to non-departmental public bodies. I see no reason to change this. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Haig: I am disappointed that the amendment has not been felt worthy of consideration. I can do nothing at this stage but take it away. I should like time to think about whether to bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 223ZZE not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage resumes again at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Historic Buildings: VAT on Repairs
7.28 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwichrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will support moves within the European Union to set a lower rate of VAT for repairs to historic buildings, including Grade I listed parish churches.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to ask this Question, because it allows me to highlight an issue of great importance and widespread interest. I am grateful to the large numbers of noble Lords from all sides of the House who have expressed their concern over this issue, even though many of them were prevented from being here this evening. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for being here, and I look forward to hearing his response.
This is a subject which deserves thorough treatment—far more thorough than is possible within the confines of this evening's debate. The issue is timely because the European Commission is pledged to revise the transitional phase of VAT by the end of December 1996. Under the definitive phase which follows, member states will be authorised to apply, in addition to the standard rate, one or two reduced rates, which must not be less than 5 per cent., to a limited list of products and services.
The revision of that list will be undertaken shortly, and there is a considerable and powerful body of opinion throughout Europe which is urging that heritage items should be included. It is therefore important to encourage our government representatives, not least the

1399
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will attend a meeting of Ministers in March, to support such moves, or, at the very least not to oppose them.
The Question embraces all historic buildings, but I wish to limit what I say to the buildings that I know best—our ancient parish churches, particularly those in rural areas. A similar case can be made for cathedrals, stately homes, and other public buildings. But parish churches focus the issue sharply, because they, unlike some other categories of building, depend very much on money raised locally, often in very small communities; but, like the others, they form an important part of our national heritage.
I speak from personal experience of nine years in a diocese where I have the care of some 650 mediaeval churches which are listed as of special architectural and historic interest. My brother of Lincoln has a few more churches than I have but the diocese of Norwich has more mediaeval churches per acre than anywhere else in the world. The city of Norwich contains more mediaeval churches than the cities of London, Bath and Bristol combined. The large majority of those buildings are in small communities; nearly half in villages with fewer than 300 inhabitants.
Of course, we must not forget the great things that have been achieved. The past 30 years will go down in history as one of the greatest ages of church restoration, far exceeding that of our Victorian forefathers. Taken overall, most of our ancient churches are in a better state of repair than since the Middle Ages and the quality of the work is such that it will last for generations. Of that we can be justly proud.
However, serious problems remain. Perhaps I might illustrate that by quoting extracts from the letters of two Norfolk parsons. The first states:
"We have just completed repairs to the church tower at a cost of over £30,000, thanks to the years of effort by the tiny congregation and generous grants. In another of my parishes with some 30 houses and a congregation that can be counted on the fingers of one hand, we faced repairs in excess of £40,000".
He concludes:
"the days when it is possible for tiny congregations to maintain ancient buildings together with the expenses of the ordained ministry, sadly appear to be numbered".
Those are the words of a hard-working, very experienced, imaginative and faithful country parson like whom, thank God, there are scores of others in all our rural areas. But we need to take seriously the reality that he and his parishioners face week by week.
The second letter relates directly to the Question that I am asking. He writes:
"We have just completed the repairs to our parish church. We are immensely grateful for the grant we have received from English Heritage. It just covers the bill for the VAT on the repairs".
That parson, little does he know it, was lucky because, taken overall, the grants received from the Government through English Heritage amount to less than half the total bill for VAT on the repairs to our church buildings. When we repair our ancient churches, the Government receive more than twice what they give. And that is true not only of church buildings.
1400
For years the churches have urged the Government to charge a lower or zero rate of VAT on repairs to church buildings. We have been met with adamant refusal. Ministers' replies to letters on this subject have been less than satisfactory. "You will appreciate", says one, "that a concession to one worthy cause raises expectations for similar special treatment from other equally worthy causes". The blandness of that reply evades the reality that there are very few causes where so much is undertaken by so few for so many. It is sometimes pointed out that extensions and alterations to churches are zero rated. True, but maintenance and repair involve 95 per cent. of our expenditure on church buildings and they attract the full rate of 17.5 per cent. VAT.
In recent years within the European Community there has been a growing and widespread opinion that concessions should be made for repairs to ancient buildings. The Maastricht Treaty of 1993 added to the provisions on Community policies a new title IX "Culture". In a single article (Article 128) it states,
"The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of member states".
It also states that,
"Conservation and Safeguarding of the Cultural Heritage of European significance",
shall be one of the priority action areas.
As far back as 1991 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe advocated VAT relief among other measures in favour of the conservation of the architectural heritage. In addition, the Vienna Summit of Heads of State of the Council of Europe, meeting in October 1993, stressed the importance of the cultural heritage.
Our mediaeval churches are a rich inheritance which I believe we have a duty to care for. Parishioners in rural areas have raised millions. Those who are not regular churchgoers are also often generous in support of their building which is part of the whole community. In Norfolk, as in other counties, we have formed village church trusts, and we have the local support of the marvellous work of the Norfolk Churches Trust. But the size of the problem is enormous, and it is a problem which belongs to the whole nation because it concerns what is a significant part of our national heritage.
The Government recognise this in many of their public pronouncements and in the practical action they have taken in enabling grants to be made, notably through English Heritage. But much more needs to be done. It is not enough to point to the tax concessions made to individuals who give to charity. This is an issue which is beyond the scope of individual response; it is beyond the scope of small communities; it is beyond the scope of local trusts. It is an issue which belongs to us all and which is the responsibility of us all, including our Government.
I could have produced many more arguments, perhaps appealing to the Government's self-interest, by justifying the case in terms which would benefit the economy—concerning the importance of these matters in relation to one of our largest and growing industries, tourism; in relation to job creation; that it actually makes long-term economic sense. But I shall leave those

1401
arguments to noble Lords better qualified than I am. I wish simply to appeal to the Government's higher motives, and to what I regard as natural justice. It is a ludicrous and unjust state of affairs when the Government take back from those who guard the nation's heritage more than twice what they give to them.
This is not just an issue for the churches; it is an issue of our nation's heritage. The Government are fellow guardians with the churches and other groups of that heritage. We do not begrudge the money, time and energy that we give, but we do find it difficult to understand why the Government so far have been unwilling to look sympathetically at this issue. My hope is that the opportunity which is presented to us through new moves in Europe will encourage our Government to think new thoughts and make new commitments and perhaps to take a lead in Europe in a matter which is of immense importance to us and to the generations who succeed us.
The Government hath given and the Government taketh away. Blessed is the name of the Government that giveth just a little more than they taketh away.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I support the powerful case made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I was appalled to hear that, although the state gives certain contributions to assist the churches, it takes back substantially more in VAT. It is the old Whitehall trick; if you have to give with one hand, make sure if you possibly can that you take away more with the other.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned country churches. The church with which I am involved is a country church. There are three small villages with small populations and there are three churches. The treasurer tells me that normal maintenance—not large works—costs an average of £5,000 per year. Of course, VAT is added to that.
We must also take into account the fact that we in the Church of England are expected to raise larger sums of money in quota because less comes from the Church Commission. That is a new factor which I hope the Government will take seriously.
As was said by the right reverend Prelate, we have a rich and glorious heritage in our churches. We must maintain them in good order so that God may be praised in them for many centuries to come. Inevitably, repairs to churches involve specialist work, which is time consuming and therefore costly. Zero VAT rating, or at least a reduced rate, would be a great help. I hope that we shall receive a sympathetic and positive response from the Government.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for giving us the opportunity of this debate, even though it is very short and there is hardly time to say more than, "I agree with everything that he said". However, I shall do my best.
1402
It has been agreed generally so far that our churches are part of our heritage and that it is our duty to see that they are properly maintained. But by their nature, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has just said, they are expensive to maintain and repair. Although the heritage grants are extremely welcome, there is the disadvantage that they come with strings attached. Quite often the extra work entailed as a result of those strings adds considerably to the buildings costs. I do not blame English Heritage for that because I know that it must keep up its standards. Nevertheless, that is a factor which must be taken into account. As we have heard, the grant may be less than is paid out in VAT in some cases.
But the importance to the community of those churches cannot be overestimated, even though the congregations may be very small. That is no reflection of the feeling which local people have toward their church. I know that the congregations should be larger but they are not. However, whenever people are in trouble or want to get married or hold a christening, they turn naturally to the Church. It is only right and proper that that should be their feeling and that the church to which they go should be in a good state of repair.
Some congregations struggle very hard to keep up their churches. It seems to me quite wrong that the pennies that they raise by baking cakes and holding jumble sales, and all the other things which are done to raise money, should attract VAT. I hope that the Government will look kindly upon the request made this evening by the right reverend Prelate and that they will at least consider setting a lower rate of VAT if they cannot abolish it altogether.
7.41 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I am grateful to be able to intervene in the debate. I speak also as the chairman of the Committee for State Aid to Churches in Use. In that sense, we are grateful that over 10 years, English Heritage has given £90 million for churches. That is an average of £9 million per year. But in 1992, the bill for repairs and renovations was £112 million so that £9 million does not go far towards that, although we are grateful for it.
There are 16,364 Church of England churches of which 12,970 are listed Grade I or II buildings. They were built mostly in an age before mobility was easy. If the Church of England began today, it would not start from where it is. In view of the mobility in relation to supermarkets, medical centres and so on, we should probably build only one in 10 of our churches. But we have them and they are very much part of the nation's heritage, not just part of the Church's heritage. They crown the landscape all over our country and wonderfully so. In one town in my diocese, £100,000 was raised to prop up a tower which was about to fall down—a free-standing tower which used to belong to the church. That was done because it crowned the village. Without it, the village would never have looked the same. Therefore, there is a sense in which this is a national rather than a Church question.
Indeed, 40 per cent. of all that English Heritage does goes to churches. It estimates that that is the proportion of its heritage responsibility. The local community

1403
strains to continue with that work, as we know. It really is a fight for some small communities. There may be only 300 people in a community which has a large church. My diocese has many such churches. They are wonderful, beautiful buildings which are left rather like whales on the beach from a time when the community was all around. But they are there and the village people fight to maintain them. The last cruel blow is the 17.5 per cent. VAT on top of it all.
Now we have an opportunity for action. The European Commission recommending a review of VAT this year is, as I understand it, well persuaded by the strong heritage lobby in Europe that there must be an alteration to Annex H and, within it, there should be the possibility of a lower rate for the support and repairs of heritage buildings. If that is what is declared in a few weeks time—and I understand that it may be—that is the moment not for reaction but for action; it is not the moment for pathetic excuses or shilly-shallying. This is the moment that Britain should be a country of culture taking a lead to support that move. We should not drag our feet but should lead the way in Europe by setting a lower rate for the support of heritage buildings throughout Europe.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I quickly declare an interest and go on to remind the House that there are half a million listed buildings and 14,000 scheduled monuments in England, all of which carry a repair duty of 17.5 per cent. VAT.
Sixty three per cent. of all listed buildings are domestic. They range from Blenheim Palace to humble cottages in Lincolnshire. The span of owners is similarly wide, from dukes to sometimes very poor retired couples on income support who own Grade II buildings. Of course, religious buildings represent the greatest number, but it is worthy of note that the Church of England, which is responsible for over 6,000 Grade I buildings, receives proportionately less public money per listed building than does the National Trust. Therefore, a reduction in the rate of VAT should certainly not be seen as a gift to the very well off.
The rise in VAT rates since its introduction has not been paralleled by any similar rise in government grants. Exact figures are almost impossible to come by, but the recent 2.5 per cent. increase in VAT represents about 10 per cent. of the total grant of English Heritage aid. There is no doubt that the Government are getting more back in VAT on repairs to historic buildings than they are providing in grant aid through English Heritage. That applies also to Scotland and Wales.
The impact of VAT on owners falls most heavily on those who have no opportunity to reclaim it. Those particularly affected include the owners of smaller historic houses and bodies such as the Church of England and charities. Commercial and business owners and those with major houses offset VAT on repairs against VAT charged on the services which they supply. The impact of VAT on historic building owners is thus not neutral but regressive.
1404
The campaign to achieve a lower rate of VAT for repairs to historic buildings has widespread support from building professionals. In England the Historic Houses Association and the National Trust, with English Heritage, have taken a lead with support from the major amenities societies, the Church and many other representative bodies.
The desirability of reducing VAT rates for repairs on listed buildings is the most important issue which concerns them. I am not arguing for a special regime for the repair of listed buildings in isolation, but I ask the Government to support the inclusion of repairs to historic buildings in the list of goods which attract a reduced rate of VAT in Annex H. It would not require the Government to introduce such a rate now in the UK, but would merely provide the opportunity for a future government to do so after 1997.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I speak as chairman of the Churches Main Committee. The committee represents some 35 denominations and has, as part of its brief:
"to act as a liaison body between the churches and the machinery of government".
Most of the denominations that we represent have historic churches and all of them suffer from the burden of VAT on repairs to their church buildings.
For some 20 years now, ever since the introduction of VAT, we have been in communication with successive Chancellors requesting some relief in VAT on repair expenditure. But always we have met with total resistance. It is all very well for the Government to say, as they do, that the proper way of giving tax relief to charities is through income tax rebates rather than VAT reductions, thus enabling the charities to spend their money as they choose. But the Church has to spend a large part of its income on items which are subject to VAT. If the buildings were not maintained, they would cease to be usable and may even become structurally dangerous. It simply does not have any choice in the matter.
The Government recognise the importance of maintaining historic buildings as part of the national heritage. They make grants towards the upkeep of some of them. But ironically, the grants which they make towards the repair of churches are far outweighed by the VAT which the Government claw back. Is that really how the Government wish to treat parishioners who shoulder on behalf of the nation a major responsibility in the maintenance of buildings which are part of our national heritage? In 1991, the Church paid £35 million in VAT, compared with £8 million of grant aid received through English Heritage. Today, the VAT bill is nearer £50 million.
Our church buildings have a religious community and cultural significance. They are visited by vast numbers of people, they have become tourist attractions and their upkeep engenders a good deal of work. Therefore, in terms of the balance of payments and the creation of jobs, they have an added importance. The latter are

1405
among the criteria which have led the European Commission to adjudge some items as being worthy of a lower VAT rate.
On behalf of all the major denominations, I strongly urge the Government to make a clear statement that they will now commit themselves to early action along the lines suggested in tonight's debate.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for giving us the opportunity to debate VAT in the context of repairs to historic and listed buildings. The tourism industry, in which I declare an interest, would welcome European moves towards more sympathetic treatment.
The built heritage is a major part of our attraction as a tourist destination—70 per cent. of a recent sample of foreign visitors to London said that it was our greatest attraction. In another survey, 65 per cent. of foreign visitors to Britain stated that, in general, our cathedrals, historic houses and sites of historic importance were their main reason for coming here. Anything that we can do to enhance such attractions and their viability must add to our competitiveness in the cut throat world of international tourism.
To that end, the British Tourist Authority has set up a working party of relevant, major trade associations, including the Historic Houses Association, to look at the effects of VAT on our international competitiveness. As I understand it, Touche Ross is in the final stages of a complex study on the subject. The study aims to demonstrate that applying a reduced rate of VAT to a range of tourism products in the United Kingdom—and, in particular, to the built heritage and in line with our European partners—would have a positive or, at the worst, a neutral impact on Exchequer revenues because extra tourism business would be generated.
The working party has also been concerned to see the scope of the EU reduced rate list extended. Discussions are currently in progress in Brussels about this, as part of the moves towards agreeing the final or "definitive" VAT regime. Repairs to listed buildings is one of the items which the working party—and I repeat myself here—would most like to see included.
I very much hope that the Government will study very carefully the final report from the BTA working party and, in the negotiations on the final scope of the reduced rate list, campaign for the list to include repairs, among other things, to our ecclesiastical heritage but also to our built heritage in general. To do so would benefit not only our own lives but also our tourism industry immensely.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, in whose diocese I live, for tabling tonight's Unstarred Question. He said that he had about 650 mediaeval churches in his diocese, of which 300 are in the countryside, with populations of less than 300 to look after them. But, incidentally, what he did not say is that there are more mediaeval churches in Norwich than there are in the city of Florence.
1406
I suppose that I am declaring an interest of some sort when I say that I am a church warden who is responsible for one of those small mediaeval churches which is situated right out in the country and listed Grade II*. Of the seven churches in our group, we have two Grade I and the rest are Grade II or Grade II*. I firmly believe that the lower rate of VAT should be applicable to all listed churches.
My concern is not only for the main structure of the church —indeed, I speak somewhat proudly because we have actually finished our roof and paid VAT on it—but also for the other parts of it which make the church so important, especially when they are listed. I refer to the interior. For example, we are at present trying to restore an organ which dates back to 1820, but VAT makes the bill for restoring it look quite horrible. The other monuments, bells and furnishings, when they are listed, should also qualify for the lower rate of VAT. Again, if one looks outside the church into the churchyard, the walls, gates, monuments and, as I am sure noble Lords will all expect me to say, its archaeological remains, together with the buildings and the tombstones, should also attract the lower rate of VAT when being repaired. Incidentally, those planners among noble Lords present this evening will know what I mean when I say that we had a tombstone which was declared a "building at risk". That was indeed so.
Churchyards are indeed an important part of the ambience of the church. They are havens for wildlife. We all know that that is so in the cities; but that is also the case in the countryside simply because that is one of the few areas where there are no chemicals to be found. They are also havens for people—people of all creeds and denominations. It is all part of our heritage which all taxpayers can support.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Suffield: My Lords, I should like to add my support to that already expressed for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. In Norfolk, in particular, we have inherited many churches built in times when local trade and financial support were more apparent than they are today. Such churches are now dependent on a small body of parishioners who are responsible for finding the quota to help pay the vicar's stipend but sometimes also have to find vast sums of money for repairs. I believe that a lower rate of VAT is fully justified and I urge that that be supported.
7.56 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for introducing the Question. I should like to urge the Government to accept the proposal that we are now considering. Like other speakers, I am most concerned about the listed parish churches which fill our countryside and also our towns. There are two points that I should like to make in that connection, while appreciating the grants that are made both to cathedrals, which I believe take the bulk of the cash, and also to churches from English Heritage.
First, as has been mentioned, those churches are often maintained by very small congregations and also by the local communities. The fact that they are accepted as a

1407
responsibility by the communities as well as the congregations is, I believe, evidence of the fact that it is the responsibility of the nation.
Secondly, parish churches are not money-making edifices. They are not like the Tower of London which receives a great deal of money from people who pay to visit it. Parish churches cannot afford the high rate of VAT. Therefore, I urge my noble friend the Minister to agree to accept the spirit of the proposal and to reconsider the position of the parish church as far as concerns heritage matters. If my noble friend is prepared to reconsider the latter, I should be most happy to write to him on one or two other factors that make parish churches suffer under the present heritage system.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I intervene tonight as chairman of the National Trust. The trust does not, in fact, have a serious VAT problem as regards its historic buildings. There is a simple technical reason for that which is not available to most private owners or, for that matter, to the Church. Nevertheless the trust strongly supports any move to reduce the VAT burden on the private owner. The reason is quite simple. Contrary to popular impressions, our sole purpose is to act as a long-stop should all else fail. We are not in the takeover business. We have long taken the view that the right way to preserve our heritage is through private ownership. A healthy private sector is all important to us; and, indeed, I would suggest, to the nation.
We strongly believe that the right way forward is that suggested in tonight's Unstarred Question—through the European Commission. The trust has been working strongly in Brussels over the past several years to that end.
It would be an enormous help to have the active support of the Government, or even merely an assurance that the Government will not oppose any moves by the Commission leading to a reduced rate. For example, a first stage, empowering member state governments to introduce the reduced rate at their discretion—I emphasise at their discretion —would be a great help.
I suggest that a reduced rate concession would be excellent value for the taxpayer's money. I see that as being in the nature of a fruitful partnership between the state and the private owner. After all, the private owner supplies the building which is open to the public. His huge expenditure of time and energy all comes for free.
We should not forget that stately home visiting is a hugely popular recreational activity. Nor should we forget—this point has already been mentioned—the importance of tourism as a foreign exchange earner. By contrast we have the ludicrous situation that in many cases the taxpayer pays the private owner as farmer to do nothing with part of his land—it is called set aside. That is, I suggest, an absurd state of affairs.
8 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, the owners of historic buildings already have a heavy burden to carry. Not only are the buildings usually inconvenient and draughty to live in, or if they are not
1408
dwelling-houses the chances are they are equally inconvenient for the use they are put to. On top of that, anybody unlucky enough to be involved in a Grade I building is today hamstrung as to alterations and repairs. All building work, however trivial, has to be passed by the relevant department and has to be done in traditional materials in the traditional way, which usually costs over double what it would cost if the work was done in the modern way with today's materials.
Of course your Lordships will be aware that there are grants on occasions to help with this work, but in my experience even with the grant, which is usually 50 per cent., the work still costs more than if the owner was given a free hand to do the repairs as he thought fit. I am not necessarily decrying the rules on historic buildings or the grant system. In fact I think we look after our historic buildings very well in the UK, considering the large number that have been left to us. What I do feel most strongly is that charging VAT on repairs, considering all the impositions and disadvantages an owner of an historic building has, is adding insult to injury. I declare an interest in as much as I am chairman of the Friends of St. Ethelburga's, the mediaeval church in Bishopsgate which was blown up by the IRA. We have been quoted £2 million to restore that church. On top of that we have to add a smart £340,000 VAT.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, when the right reverend Prelate suggested I might join in his Unstarred Question, I was delighted to do so, and even more now that I realise my contribution will have to be subliminal. If your Lordships yawn, you will miss it. I endorse entirely what the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords have said. For some years now the Historic Houses Association has been campaigning for a reduced rate of VAT on essential repairs to historic buildings, houses as well as churches, because being old, like people who are getting on, they are in more need of repair than younger, newer ones.
We live in a beautiful country, and much of that beauty comes from the old houses and churches which punctuate the landscape. We want our grandchildren, and those who come after us, to share this beauty. But it can only be maintained by constant repair. Of course I have an interest to declare, living in a nest of ancient buildings, which all need repairing all the time. This winter for example, the roof of a 19th century dairy fell in in our courtyard, and also the roof of an 18th century gothic garden shed. Last year it was the 18th century wall which ran from the back door to the old laundry which fell down in the middle of the night, much to the dismay of the lady who lived behind it. We built that up. We will probably restore the roofs this year—at least we plan to. But without looking too far ahead, we are wondering what will fall down next year. To reduce the

1409
rate of VAT on repairs to historic houses, castles and churches, might help to prevent us all living in a countryside punctuated by ruins.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, it is evident from the debate this evening that there is deep dissatisfaction with the Government's approach to our national heritage. There has been a wealth of evidence presented by noble Lords on all sides of the House that buildings of vital importance to our nation's history and in our nation's cultural life are being allowed to decay, in some cases beyond repair. That is the issue which it is vital for the Minister to address this evening.
A powerful case has been made on all sides of the House for a lower rate of VAT on repairs. Of course the Government will not accede to the right reverend Prelate's request. It is impossible to imagine this Government willingly reducing any rate of VAT. As everyone in this House is well aware, the Government are VAT junkies. Every few years they need a new VAT uprating fix.
I suggest that the future of Grade I buildings is too important to be embroiled in the complexities of European Union tax law. It is all too likely that implicit tax subsidies would end up in many pockets which have little or nothing to do with any nation's heritage. Instead of leading noble Lords astray into the maze of tax legislation, the Minister should this evening be proposing practical steps to deal with Britain's heritage and in particular with the problems of repairs to our mediaeval churches. What new measures is the Minister prepared to announce this evening which will have immediate and practical consequences for the restoration of Britain's Grade I listed buildings? In particular what practical steps will he announce to deal with the problems of church restoration? Is he prepared to back the development of matching funds schemes to encourage those thousands of enthusiastic volunteers who spend so much of their time raising funds to help preserve our national heritage?
As many speakers in this debate have emphasised, the preservation of Grade I listed buildings is an important contribution to the tourist revenues which are one of this country's most important invisible exports. Are the Government, at very least, prepared to acknowledge this fact, and to make a commitment this evening to bring to this House for debate a proper study of the economic benefits which this country derives from our Grade I listed buildings?
Finally, given the obvious importance which Members of your Lordships' House attach to this question, are the Government prepared to provide appropriate time for a thorough debate of the economic and cultural issues involved in deciding upon an appropriate level of investment in the preservation of our national heritage?
8.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the House is clearly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for introducing this debate and
1410
giving your Lordships the chance to have two minutes and a little bit each on the subject. I think I have been subject to what might be considered in another context as short, sharp shock treatment. Certainly the fact that your Lordships' speeches were contained in two minutes did nothing to minimise the message which you were delivering to me and to the Government.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said—I wrote this down—that in his area there were more mediaeval churches per acre than anywhere else in the world. Perhaps as we are talking about European directives that should have been translated into hectares. Nevertheless the right reverend Prelate will still have more mediaeval churches than anywhere else. That is certainly one of the joys of going to places such as Norfolk, which to a Scot appears pretty flat. However, the one redeeming feature—perhaps there are more than one—and the great beauty of Norfolk is the parish churches. Often they have sadly been left behind in the march of population. One asks oneself who is around in that area to use churches of that size. Clearly when those churches were built the rural areas were heavily populated.
I understand and appreciate the sentiments expressed by all noble Lords this evening that we should indeed preserve our unique heritage for the benefit of both present and future generations, and there is the important commercial need to preserve and enhance our historic buildings for the tourist industry which is so important to the economic health of the country. As my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree rightly pointed out, we should preserve these buildings for their original purpose of worshipping and glorifying God. We should not omit that purpose from the list.
The Government remain fully committed to promoting a wider understanding of our country's built heritage. We provide considerable support both through tax reliefs and grants, to which I shall refer later.
The main question raised by your Lordships in the debate tonight is the Government's policy on positive reduced rates of VAT. I regret to say to the House that the position that I shall underline is the one that your Lordships probably expect but would prefer not to hear; the House would prefer to hear me say something different. We remain opposed to a variety of reduced rates of VAT as a matter of principle. We believe that they complicate the operation and administration of the tax and inevitably erode the revenue yield.
The Government have made it quite clear—and I have to do so again this evening—that we have no plans to have a reduced rate of VAT on anything other than domestic fuel and power. Our long-standing policy has been to favour a simple rate structure, with a single standard rate and a zero rate.
As noble Lords mentioned, the European Commission has just published a report on the approximation of value added tax rates having regard to the functioning of the internal market. The report also sought to establish whether distortions of competition between member states had arisen as a result of the operation of reduced rates in the single market. The review concluded that in the present circumstances there does not appear to be

1411
any justification for introducing major modifications in respect of the level and structure of the rate system or in the scope of the reduced rate list.
Turning to the situation in the United Kingdom, the total number of listed buildings is approximately 510,000. In England alone there are approximately 9,000 Grade I listed buildings, of which 4,100 are Anglican or Roman Catholic parish churches, 18,000 Grade II* listed buildings and 416,000 Grade II listed buildings.
The Department of National Heritage receives overall funding from the Treasury. It decides on the distribution of that money to bodies such as English Heritage, which in turn allocate those limited resources to individual projects on the basis of the greatest need. This year English Heritage will receive more than £104 million in government grant. Of that it will provide an estimated £44 million in grant assistance, of which £10.5 million will assist church restoration and £4.3 million will go to cathedrals. Assistance from English Heritage is usually restricted to those buildings which English Heritage considers to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest, which is reflected in their listed status as Grade I or Grade II* buildings.
In addition, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales received from the Government a further £18 million in grants, of which a substantial percentage was given to religious buildings. In Scotland, for example, about £12 million has been made available through the responsible agency, Historic Scotland, in the current year under the grant scheme for both secular and ecclesiastical listed buildings. Glasgow Cathedral, where I worship, is very grateful for the work of Historic Scotland in maintaining that building. Fortunately, it is in the ownership of Historic Scotland and not of the congregation, who would find it extremely difficult to maintain a building of that size and importance.
In Wales the grant budget is £4 million. Expenditure up to January this year was £2.25 million, of which approximately £500,000 was for churches. In Northern Ireland the grant for listed buildings amounts to £2.25 million, of which just over £250,000 is allocated to churches.
Local authorities are also empowered to offer grants for the repair of buildings, whether or not they are listed buildings. They give a total of the order of £11 million.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, does the Minister have figures as to how much VAT the Government have removed from those congregations at the same time?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, my Lords. Obviously that figure is not available. The VAT is paid by the building firms which do the work, both small and large. Their VAT returns include all the work that they do. Nobody prayed this point in aid, but those historic buildings which charge admission fees and run businesses—although cathedrals may not be in that category—may sometimes be in a position to reclaim at least some of the VAT. Therefore there is a possibility of reclaiming VAT in respect of some part of the built heritage. However, I concede that that does not cover
1412
those buildings where there is no admission charge and which are not businesses; and of course it does not cover parish churches.
There is one other future source of funds, although I am not entirely sure whether I should mention it in this context. That is the National Lottery and the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I believe it was William Booth of the Salvation Army who asked why the Devil should have all the best tunes. Perhaps the same should apply to the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
The fund is charged with the distribution of the heritage tranche of the lottery proceeds. Like other distributing bodies, it has drawn up guidelines for applicants for lottery funding. Churches of historic interest are among the bodies eligible to apply for funding from the National Heritage Memorial Fund for repair, conservation or restoration of buildings and for improvement to existing buildings to improve public access. Therefore, whether or not one approves of the lottery, a considerable amount of money will come forward in the next few years which will be available for the built heritage, including churches, in addition to the money already available from the taxpayer through the Treasury.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but we have 15 minutes left. Does the Minister not agree that it has been made quite clear that lottery money will not be available for repairs?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am told that money from the National Heritage Memorial Fund will be available for repairs, conservation or restoration of buildings. When I get back to my office I shall certainly ask whether that is right or whether the noble Lord is right. If the advice that I have received is wrong I shall certainly write to him. However, if the money is not available for repairs I am not entirely sure how one would define repairs as against conservation or restoration. It must be confusing when it comes to mediaeval churches or old buildings. Thinking on my feet, I do not think that that will be a great problem.
We recognise the financial burden borne by churches. The right reverend Prelates rightly drew our attention to that burden. It is a problem which many congregations face. Sometimes congregations are unlucky enough to have a modern church built 50 or 60 years ago which is not likely to stand the same test of time as mediaeval churches. The parishioners of those churches have a tremendous responsibility, as do the owners of houses of historic interest.
We fully appreciate the work of the churches and their important role in society. While I appreciate that there was a call for churches to be protected from taxation, I am sure that your Lordships will not be surprised to hear me say that no matter how valuable we consider the work that they and others do, it is not possible to protect certain groups from taxation which applies to everyone else. The number of people who would come forward, especially in relation to buildings, to plead that their cause deserved special VAT treatment would be considerable.

1413
Despite the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that we are VAT junkies, the fact is that VAT is an important part of the tax base. When I do not speak from this Dispatch Box on behalf of the Treasury I speak for the Department of Social Security, which requires a vast amount of taxpayers' money to assist many people whom your Lordships would rightly consider we ought to help. I do not think that we should run away with the idea that VAT can be discounted as being of importance to the Treasury as part of the tax take which we need in order to meet the competing demands on the taxpayers' money. Rather than going down the road which I am invited to follow this evening, our preferred way of helping churches is to encourage charitable giving by direct grants and by the grants through historic church buildings, consistent with what the country and the taxpayer can afford.
I know that all churches are keen to push charitable giving on people. I am amazed at the number of people who are reluctant to do that. They somehow believe that it will cost them something, whereas it will cost the taxpayer and the Treasury a little in addition to what most people will give Sunday by Sunday. Deeds of covenant, gift aids and payroll giving are all methods by which people can increase the amount of money that they give to whatever the good cause—in this case the church and church buildings.
In conclusion, the European Commission's report is perfectly clear: this is not the time to make changes in the reduced rate schedule. In its opinion, the present arrangements are working satisfactorily. Its next report will be in two years' time and will address any possible changes in the rate coverage against the Commission's conclusion on the definitive VAT system. We shall, of course, consider the position at that time.
Without ignoring the excellent cases that have been put forward by all noble Lords, I hope that I have made clear the Government's position on value added tax. I simply say that I do not believe that this is the right way to proceed with maintaining, as we should, this important part of our heritage.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, before he sits down, I asked the Minister a number of questions, none of which he has attempted to answer. However, given the shortage of time and the considerable interest in this Question expressed on all sides of the House, despite the Minister's evident embarrassment, will he give a commitment to provide time for the subject to be debated at an appropriate and less hurried length?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is not a matter for me but for the usual channels. I shall certainly draw their attention to the fact that the noble Lord would like to have a longer debate. But I do not believe that the case would be better made by having five-minute or 10-minute speeches than it has been by having two-minute speeches.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until half past-eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.22 to 8.30 p.m.]

Environment Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee
Clause 45 [Borrowing powers]:
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 223ZA:
Page 38, line 28, leave out ("not exceeding £160 million,").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 223ZA and 223AA with which are grouped Amendments Nos. 223A and 223B. This is an entirely simple and straightforward point. In moving to delete the limits on borrowing, I seek to ask the Minister how those limits have been arrived at. £160 million is a little more than £150 million which was a good round figure, but it seems a slightly odd amount to pick out of the air. My point is as simple as that. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Perhaps I may help by speaking to Amendments Nos. 223A and 223B which were grouped with the noble Baroness's amendments. I am also concerned about whether the new body will be able to function. The Minister may not be able to give us the figures now, although there is no reason why he should not have them somewhere. How do the total figures for borrowing relate to the amounts that can already be borrowed by the existing bodies? Is any new money involved or is it an accumulation from all the other bodies at present involved in environmental work? Does it all add up to the same thing?
Perhaps I should continue speaking until, as a famous Member used to say, the Seventh Cavalry arrives. If there is no new money for the new body, we will not get far because so much is involved. Perhaps we may have the figures from the Minister.
The Earl of Lindsay: Amendments Nos. 223ZA and 223AA, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would remove the upper limits on the amounts that Ministers may specify, by means of a negative resolution order, as the total that the agencies may borrow.
I believe that if it were ever necessary for the agency to borrow sums in excess of £160 million for a major project, it is likely that additional enabling legislation would be required, for example, as was necessary when consideration was being given to the building of the Thames Barrier. I do not think that the limit, which is the same as currently applies to the NRA under the Water Resources Act 1991—and that may explain to the noble Baroness why the sum was chosen—will give rise to any difficulties in practice. Nor do I believe that the limit of £5 million for SEPA is likely to cause any difficulties, in particular because it will not be undertaking any major capital works similar to those at present carried out by the NRA. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, moved Amendments Nos. 223A and 223B—
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I was not in a position to move them, I spoke to them.
The Earl of Lindsay: Yes. The amendments seek to increase SEPA's borrowing limits to bring them more

1415
into line with those of the environment agency. I suggest to the noble Lord that there is no need to do that since the environment agency's limit applies to both temporary and long-term borrowing. It includes any capital loans relating to flood defence. Since SEPA will not have the responsibility for flood defence works, it is not appropriate for its borrowing limits to be as high in equivalent terms. I am satisfied that the proposed limits are adequate.
In response to the noble Lord's specific question, the borrowing limits of existing bodies is disregarded for the purposes of the borrowing limits in Clause 45. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the noble Lord for that reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 223A to 223B not moved.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Provision of information by the new Agencies]:
[Amendment No. 224 not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
The Earl of Lyttonmoved Amendment No. 224ZA:
Before Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
("Corporate plan of the Agencies
.—(1) Before the end of each financial year each new Agency shall prepare and publish a corporate plan setting out—

(a) its assessment of the overall effectiveness with which the Agency operates;

(b) its assessment of its performance against its objectives and targets;

(c) its proposed overall strategy for the forthcoming and two subsequent financial years, including the emphasis and resources which it proposes to devote to different areas of its work;

(d) the level of performance which it expects to achieve during the forthcoming financial year.

(2) In preparing the corporate plan referred to in subsection (1) above, each new Agency shall consult such persons and organisations as it considers to be appropriate.").
The noble Earl said: Published with the Bill was a draft management statement which set out many important criteria relating to the Government's expectations for the agency in England and Wales. It is felt by the CBI and others that many of the criteria are too important to be left simply to non-statutory regulatory or guidance purposes. In particular, there is a requirement in the draft management statement to prepare a corporate plan. The first point is that the document referred to in my amendment is already provided for in the draft management statement.
It seems to me that it is important that the new agency sets an example which can be assessed and appreciated by all those in the industry and elsewhere who have to implement its provisions. They include many stakeholders—the public, businesses and environmentalists. They all look to the provision of a
1416
body which provides a clear framework of priorities. In particular, it is important that it demonstrates that it is giving value for money.
In its report Environment Costs, the CBI shows that companies were better able to integrate environmental performance into their business strategies where they were making decisions based on a clear, externally set framework of priorities. So I feel that this is important. It is a probing amendment to find out what the intentions of the Government are. Are we going to have a clear and effective statement of strategies? Is there to be cost-effective regulation? Is there to be a degree of freedom of information?
For all its apparent length, this amendment does no more than say that the agency should publish the report which, in accordance with the management statement, it is due to prepare anyway. So the additional costs should be limited only to the costs of publication. I say "only"; obviously I do not have any idea of what those might be. However, it seems to me that this is an important pointer. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Moran: I should say a word about Amendment No. 224ZC, which has been grouped with this one. As Members of the Committee know, we have been engaged for a considerable number of hours over four days in debating this Bill; but so far we have been singularly unsuccessful in securing other than minimal amendments, and that is somewhat dispiriting. This is perhaps an amendment which, as I hope, the Government will be prepared to accept—or at any rate to consider very seriously and perhaps bring back their own version on Report.
This amendment is to Clause 49 on page 40 of the Bill. That clause requires each of the two agencies to prepare a report on their activities during the year which they must send to Ministers. It requires the Secretary of State to lay a copy of the report before Parliament and to arrange for it to be published. That is very sensible and desirable. My amendment would add to subsection (2) of that clause a requirement that the reports which are already provided for in the Bill should contain an assessment of the aspects of the environment that are dealt with by the agencies and—this is extremely important—a statement of the agencies' priorities for addressing pollution of the environment in the coming year.
It would be very valuable, both to Parliament and to the public as a whole, to be given an indication of what the agency, which will be perhaps the principal environmental organisation in this country, thinks about the state of the environment and about the priorities. If, for example, it thinks that air pollution is the number one priority, it would be helpful for everybody to know that so that we can concentrate on it and see what can be done about it. I believe therefore that this amendment would be useful and sensible.

1417
My noble friend Lord Nathan, who unfortunately cannot be here at the moment but who was here earlier on, authorised me to say that he fully supports this amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 224ZA, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, would require the agency to prepare and publish an annual corporate plan. It would specify what that plan should cover and require the agency to consult during its preparation.
The corporate plan will be a key means by which the agency develops its future priorities, objectives and targets for consideration by Ministers. And we will indeed expect the agency to follow the NRA's practice by publishing its corporate plan. This will supplement the annual report on its activities for which the Bill already provides.
I believe, however, that the amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate: unnecessary, because corporate planning is a well-established practice for public bodies such as the agency, and the requirement to prepare a plan will be set out in the agency's management statement; inappropriate, because it seems inconsistent with the status of such plans. They are indeed plans, rather than final decisions on programmes and activities. They are submitted to departmental Ministers some time before overall government decisions on the public expenditure survey, and may have to be adjusted in the light of those decisions. Putting the agency's plan on a statutory basis risks confusion of this principle. Indeed, this is why many bodies do not publish corporate plans, and why the NRA's published plan draws attention to the possibility that figures may change as a result of the survey.
Amendment No. 224ZC, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, seeks to introduce a requirement that every annual report produced by each of the agencies should contain an assessment prepared by that agency of those aspects of the environment which are relevant to its functions and a statement of the agency's priorities for addressing pollution in the coming year.
I fully appreciate the concerns that appear to lie behind this amendment. But in the case of the English and Welsh agency I believe it would represent a duplication of effort. The Department of the Environment publishes annually a digest of environmental protection and water statistics. This document presents a wide range of environmental statistics and explanatory text covering all areas of the environment, not just those for which the agencies will have responsibilities.
We would expect the new agency, like the NRA at present, to feed into these publications. But given the wide-ranging nature of the information provided, going beyond the areas of the agency responsibilities, we have concluded in the interests of efficiency and consistency that the department should produce the publication which gives an overview of the state of the environment and reports on progress and priorities. So far as concerns the agency, it will set out its priorities in its corporate plan.
1418
The situation in Scotland is somewhat different. The Scottish Office does not compile and publish environmental information on this scale. Because of that, the Government intends SEPA to publish an annual report on the state of the environment. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will use his powers under Clause 49(4) to require SEPA to publish as an annexe to its annual report a state of the environment report. That will be based on SEPA's duty to compile such information under Clause 31(2). Therefore, although we sympathise with much of what the amendment seeks to achieve, we do not believe that it is necessary. I therefore invite the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Moran: I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply to my particular amendment. I have no difficulty at all about the Department of the Environment rather than the agency being the body which publishes and submits to Parliament the assessments of the environment and priorities. However, the digest, although very valuable, is perhaps not the vehicle that I had in mind. Goodness knows, we all have a vast amount to read; and what we really want is something that highlights the view on the current state of the environment and above all the priorities for action. Although they may be there in the agency's corporate plan and in the Government's digest, if some way could be found to bring them vividly across to Parliament and to the public it would be very much in the public interest.
The Earl of Lytton: I thank the noble Viscount the Minister for what was a very helpful response. At least he confirmed that it is the intention that the agency will publish its corporate plan in some form, rather on similar lines to the NRA. It remains to be seen in what form that will come in. I very much echo the point that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, just made: it is to be hoped that this document will be meaningful and helpful. On the strength of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Annual report]:
[Amendments Nos. 224ZB to 224ZD not moved.]
Lord Elis-Thomasmoved Amendment No. 224ZE:
Page 40, line 27, at end insert ("including the publication of a report of the Agency's activities in Wales in a form which complies with the Welsh Language Act 1993").
The noble Lord said: The intention of this amendment is to pursue the debate that we had on 19th January about the specific role of the agency in Wales and the relationship between the England and Wales agency and its activity within the Principality, and in particular to highlight the need for a separate publication of the report of the agency's activities in Wales. Not surprisingly, I also propose that it should comply with the Welsh Language Act.
The intention of the amendment is to ensure that the environmental debate in Wales continues as a distinctive debate. That is because of two factors.

1419
The environmental role of the Secretary of State in the Welsh Office is clearly identified in the work of that department. Indeed, this very day the Secretary of State has published his environmental agenda for Wales which includes references not only to the natural environment and the need efficiently to maintain sites of special scientific interest and nature reserves but also to the whole issue of air quality, environmental quality and waste recycling. They are all issues which are relevant to the work of the agency and are all covered in different ways in the Bill. Therefore I should like to ensure that the agency itself makes a distinctive contribution to the level of the environmental debate within the Principality. As I indicated, that relates to an earlier attempt to strengthen the Committee for Wales. The Government were not prepared to accept that. However, I ask them to look at this matter and at ways in which the agency will provide information.
The second point requires me to repeat a declaration of my interest as chairman of the statutory Welsh Language Board. The board—certainly I—was concerned to see no reference to the 1993 Act in this Bill. We assume that the new environmental agency, being a new public body, is covered by the terms of that Act and that the policies for bilingual publication which were pursued very effectively by the NRA will continue. I know that it is preparing a language scheme which, it is to be hoped, will now be handed on to the agency. I should like confirmation that this area of environmental policy, like all other aspects of public policy, is covered. Is it the Government's intention that that should be so?
It is important that when new agencies are created it is made clear from the start that when they provide a service for the people of Wales, wherever they are placed, they provide that service within the terms of the 1993 Act. We do not want to repeat a situation in which additional costs may be incurred in "bilingualising"—I see that the noble Viscount likes that word—an institution which might previously have been unilingual. We do not want those additional costs to bear upon the administration of any new agency when they might have been absorbed in an integrated fashion from the start. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I can understand why the noble Lord, who is chairman of the Welsh Language Board, as he indicated to the Committee, should wish to emphasise the importance of the agency ensuring that reports on its activities in Wales are in the Welsh language.
I can assure him of the Government's commitment to the Welsh language in public life. I am sure that he will be aware that the National Rivers Authority, for example, already publishes its annual report in both Welsh and English. Through his position as chairman of the Welsh Language Board, he will also know that the board has issued for consultation draft guidelines on the use of Welsh by public bodies and that in due course a final version will be put by the Secretary of State for Wales before Parliament for approval. I have confirmed that the draft guidelines will be brought to the attention of the advisory committee of the agency.
1420
The noble Lord may also wish to know whether it is the Government's intention that the environment agency, when established, should be designated as a public body under Section 6 of the Welsh Language Act. In considering what bodies should be designated under that section, I can assure him that full consideration will be given to the position of the agency. If the agency is designated a public body under the Act, it will become susceptible to notification by the Welsh Language Board that it should prepare a Welsh language report. Doubtless the noble Lord will ensure that the agency's activities in Wales will be properly considered in that event.
In view of those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured and will feel that it is not necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am indeed so assured.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 224ZF not moved.]
Clause 50 [Local inquiries and other hearings]:
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 224ZG:
Page 40, line 33, leave out ("a local") and insert ("an").
The noble Viscount said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I allow the noble Lord, Lord Moran, to address his amendment, Amendment No. 224A, which is grouped with this amendment. Then I can reply to him and also speak to the amendments in my name on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Lord Moran: I am grateful to the Minister. I can speak very briefly. At present, Section 213 of the Water Resources Act 1991 allows the Secretary of State to call for a local inquiry to be held in order, among other things, to prevent or deal with pollution of any controlled waters or in relation to any other matter relevant to the quality of any such waters. That is a very broadly worded provision. It allows the Secretary of State wide scope to call an inquiry where damage to the environment is threatened.
The Bill contains (on page 255) provision to repeal that section—Section 213 of the Water Resources Act 1991—and to replace it with Clause 50 of the Bill. Essentially, the new clause allows the Minister to call an inquiry in connection with any of the functions of the new agency or of his own functions in relation to the agency. I believe that that narrows the scope of the power to call inquiries in cases of environmental importance. My amendment adopts the broader wording in the Water Resources Act which I feel is better in the circumstance.
Viscount Ullswater: Clause 50 gives Ministers broad powers to hold local inquiries in connection with any of the wide range of functions of each new agency. It applies to such inquiries the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972, so that Ministers have powers to obtain papers, summon and cross-examine witnesses and deal with costs.
Amendment No. 224A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, seeks to extend those powers to cover an even wider range of environmental matters, so that

1421
Ministers could cause a local inquiry to be held with a view to preventing or dealing with pollution or in relation to any other matter relevant to the quality of the environment.
In so far as these matters relate to a new agency's functions, they will already be covered by the provisions of this clause. Since each agency has functions in relation to integrated pollution control, water pollution, contaminated land and waste, this will include a great many cases in which Ministers might consider that an inquiry should be held.
As far as concerns cases not related to the agency's functions, Section 96 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 gives powers to the Secretary of State to cause inquiries to be held with a view to preventing or dealing with pollution (other than air pollution) or noise at any place. Section 59(1) of the Clean Air Act 1993 makes a similar provision in connection with air pollution. Taken together, these provisions seem to me to give the Secretary of State all the powers needed to hold formal inquiries on environmental matters.
With that reassurance I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will feel able, in time, to withdraw or not move his amendment.
Amendments Nos. 224ZG, 224ZH, 224B, 224C and 224D all concern the provision for holding inquiries in connection with the functions of a new agency or the functions of a Minister in relation to a new agency. The amendments remove any doubt there may be as to whether the power to hold a local inquiry is wide enough to include power to hold a regional or national inquiry should that be appropriate to deal with any issue which arises in connection with the new agencies. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 224ZH:
Page 40, line 34, leave out ("a local") and insert ("an").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Moranhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 224A:
Page 40, line 37, at end insert:
("() Without prejudice as aforesaid the appropriate Minister may cause a local enquiry to be held in any case in which he considers it appropriate for such an inquiry to be held—

(a) with a view to preventing or dealing with pollution of the environment; or

(b) in relation to any other matter relevant to the quality of the environment.").

The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. They were somewhat technical and I should like to study them in Hansard to see whether I too can be satisfied that the situation is all right. Having said that, I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 224A not moved.]
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendments Nos. 224B to 224D:
Page 40, line 41, leave out ("local").
Page 41, line 6, leave out ("a local") and insert ("an").
Page 41, line 12, leave out ("local").
1422
The noble Viscount said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall move Amendments Nos. 224B to 224D en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Continuity of exercise of functions: the new Agencies]:
Viscount Millsmoved Amendment No. 225:
Page 41, line 36, after ("agreement") insert (", scheme of charges").
The noble Viscount said: I shall speak briefly on Amendment No. 225. The amendment seeks to allow any scheme of charges set up by former boards or authorities to be transferred to the new agency. As I understand it, that is not allowed for within the present Bill. The existing NRA charging schemes, such as those for abstraction licences and discharge consents, are not due to expire until after the agency has been set up.
I do not believe that the agency will be in a position to bring in new charging schemes effective from the transfer date. Any lack of continuity would create a hiatus during which no income-charging schemes would be in place. I am sure that that is not a situation that the Government favour, and the amendment seeks to prevent it. I must stress that it would not prevent amendment of charging schemes at a later date or indeed the introduction of new charging schemes. I beg to move.
Lord Moran: I rise briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount. He is an employee of the NRA and knows what he is talking about. If the facts are as he states them to be, then it is highly desirable that the new agency should be given the charging powers he mentions. We should listen carefully to what he says.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 225 seeks to continue in force the charging schemes made by the agencies' predecessor organisations. I recognise the anxieties that underlie my noble friend's amendment but do not believe that this is the correct way to proceed.
As matters stand, existing charging schemes will cease to apply once the agencies take over their statutory functions. Charges to be made by the agencies will be prescribed in schemes made by them under Clauses 39 and 40. I believe my noble friend is concerned that the agencies' charging schemes may not be in force by vesting day and I agree that we must avoid the situation he described.
However, it would not be sufficient merely to enable the schemes made by the predecessor bodies to continue. The agencies' charging schemes are required to be made under Clauses 39 and 40 instead of under the existing legislation. Therefore, while I believe that Amendment No. 225 is technically deficient and I ask my noble friend to withdraw it, I shall undertake to look

1423
again at the issue he raises and consider whether we should later bring forward a provision which would satisfactorily meet his anxieties.
Viscount Mills: I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrovemoved Amendment No. 226:
Page 44, line 24, at end insert ("and such date shall not be before 1 April 1997.").
The noble Lord said: Briefly, Amendment No. 226 could help the Minister if he is prepared to accept it. It seeks to say that the timetable given for the implementation of the Bill is unreasonable and unrealistic, particularly in view of the uncertainty and flux already being experienced by local authorities in relation to the implementation of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1994.
It is not the perfect start for a body for which we have great hopes. In fact, I do not know whether the Government have anything else to do, but in relation to Scottish matters they seem to be pulling up the plant every two or three months and looking at the roots to see if it is still growing. I know the programme is well advanced but there will be many problems. Good, hardworking local people are going to be labouring all hours in order to try to set up the organisation. If the Minister cannot say that he accepts the amendment, then we hope that he can give us good reasons why not and that he can assure us that he will meet any difficulties. There is going to be an enormous amount of compulsory overtime for local authority employees. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. I especially agree with the reference to the "good, hardworking local people" who will be involved both in the local government reorganisation and in the setting up of SEPA.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raises concerns about the timetable of SEPA coinciding with the reorganisation of local government in Scotland. That is deliberate, and for very good reasons. There is a great advantage in transferring local authority functions to SEPA at the same time as local government is reorganised. The transfer can be taken into account by the new unitary authorities and they can be given a fresh start with their full new range of responsibilities.
The alternative would be for these new authorities to have functions on a temporary or mark-time basis. I do not believe that that would be the best solution either for the efficient discharge of these functions and therefore for effective pollution prevention and control or for the authorities concerned. We very much wish to avoid those factors. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Obviously, in a perfect world, one can see the point of having the two changes taken together. However, with the upset caused
1424
by the new local government areas which will start in April, it will be very complicated. With the warning that I have given the Minister and the reaction that he is bound to get from local authorities in Scotland, I feel that I have done my bit. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsaymoved Amendment Nos. 226A and 226B:
Page 44, line 34, after ("1996") insert ("—(a)").
Page 44, line 38, at end insert ("; and
(b) in section 22(3) (a) (iv) above the reference to an islands council shall be construed as a reference to a council mentioned in section 3(1) of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 226A and 226B are technical amendments. They ensure that, when changes in the designations of islands councils brought about by the Local Government Etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 take effect, provisions in the Bill still read correctly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 [Contaminated land]:
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 226C:
Page 45, line 7, after ("in") insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 226C and shall speak also to Amendment No. 226D. I should like to declare a possible interest, in that I have 20 per cent. holding in a private company which owns the freehold of the surface of one of the pits in the Kent coalfield, now closed, which is leased to the coal board. This small amendment raises two issues, the first of which is a drafting matter. Strictly speaking, "in the land" includes "under the land". Since the 13th century common law has defined land as everything up to the sky and down to the centre of the earth. Of course, that common law rule is limited by subsequent statutes, such as the coal nationalisation legislation.
The second purpose of the amendment is to probe what the Government really mean by "in, on or under the land". Is a landowner to be made responsible for whatever goes on under his land, however deep down? How can a landowner know whether a mine gallery is being driven 1,000 feet under his land—because a coal operative has a perfect right to do that under the coal legislation? How can he know if polluted water has come under his land in an aquifer hundreds of feet down? It does not seem to me sensible to place such liabilities on householders and small landowners. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton: As this amendment also has my name to it, I rise to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and his succinct description of the problems. There are many instances where activities that go on on adjoining land, sometimes some distance away, can affect the substrata in a way that is outside the control of the landowner. I believe there is a very serious risk that knowledge of historical events may not be in the public domain and therefore may not be available to those who acquire or own land. If we are to

1425
have regard to the "polluter pays", we must address that particular problem. I strongly support this amendment in trying to ascertain the Government's views.
Lord Gisborough: I support this amendment. I live on an area of moorland beneath which are plates of rock. Pollution from ironstone mines comes from miles away and runs along the plates. I support the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 226C, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, together with Amendment No. 226D, seeks to make a technical change to the definition of contaminated land. By removing the reference to substances under the land it would leave only those substances in or on the land. The Government's only intention in including the word "under" was to ensure that the definition was sufficiently broad and that there were no unfortunate and undesirable omissions. For example, the definition of land in the Interpretation Act 1975 includes land with water. We want to make sure that any contaminated silts at the bottom of streams and ponds, both of which may themselves be considered as land, can be dealt with under these provisions.
We also wish to avoid any doubt that the definition would include substrata beneath the soil, as we would need to address those in order to protect groundwater and aquifers. I am advised that the case law on the definition of land would leave some uncertainty as to whether all substrata were included in the meaning of "land" and so for the avoidance of doubt the reference to "under the land" must remain. That in any event reflects the definition of "land" in the Law of Property Act 1925, which refers to substances under the land. However, to make sure that we eliminate entirely any doubt on this question, I would not wish to accept the amendments.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My noble friend's reply has answered one question but it has created a good many others. While I am prepared to withdraw the amendment as it stands, there is a whole can of worms here about things that go on under the land which are totally out of the control of the owner of the surface of the land. We shall hope to raise those matters at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 226D not moved.]
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 226E:
Page 45, line 9, at beginning insert ("serious").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 226E, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 226F, 226G, 228A and 228B. This is a further set of important amendments about the definition of contaminated land and they are intended to probe the Government's intentions. As the Government themselves stated in paragraph 2.6 of their policy framework:
"It would be neither feasible nor sensible to try to deal with all land contaminated by past activities at once. The wealth creating sectors of the economy could not afford to do so. The urgent and real problems should be dealt with, but in an orderly and controlled fashion with which the economy at large and individual businesses and landowners can cope".
1426
This approach requires remedial action only where, as the Government say in paragraph 2.4 of the framework document, the contamination poses unacceptable actual or potential risks to health or environment and there are appropriate and cost-effective means available to do so, taking into account the actual or intended use of the site.
As drafted, the definition in the Bill, together with the remediation duties, seems to cover all contaminated land, no matter what the level of risk to the environment or the degree of harm. It simply is no good for the Minister to say that we must rely on guidance proposed under new Section 78A(3) to limit the definition. It surely would be ultra vires if guidance purported to limit the scope of a duty imposed by Parliament on local authorities to remediate where any contaminated land is farmed.
The proposed amendments seek to restrict the duties laid on the agency and the local authority to dealing with harm which is both serious and requires immediate remediation. That is entirely in line with the intentions expressed in the framework. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton: I rise to support this group of amendments. Although my name is not attached to Amendment No. 226F, I should like to support that amendment as well. It is vitally important that we have some further clarification of the definition of "harm". In the 1990 Act, the definition is drawn very widely. It could include almost anything, however insignificant. Something needs to be done to bring this into line with the principles of BATNEEC on the one hand and the best practicable environmental option on the other.
If the small and insignificant can be picked up along with the large, not only, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, will we not get a proper priority set out for the necessary clean-up of such sites but also resources will be devoted to dealing with what one might call small fry situations rather than the more serious ones. Thinking in countryside terms, where I ought to declare some kind of interest, it is almost impossible to imagine one's bullocks milling at the gate without causing some muck in the gateway. In theory, bearing in mind that on Exmoor, where I farm, we already have problems with the outwintering of cattle and the surface damage caused in that situation, particularly on open moorland areas, it would not take much for an authority to pick on this and say, "Right, you, Lord Lytton, have got to clean up your act and you have to stop causing this damage". That is the logical conclusion of the term "harm" as a stand-alone word. I strongly support the amendments.
Lord Stanley of Alderle: I am somewhat concerned about the amendment. I warned my noble friend that I would raise this point. I am sure that your Lordships will have noted the definition of "harm" on page 46. Subsection (8) states:
"'Harm' means harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form part and, in the case of man, includes harm to his property".
I hate to say this, but I am concerned about fly-tipping on private land, which I believe could increase because of the increased costs that have recently been imposed in relation to waste disposal. What is the position of the

1427
owner of land which has been subject to fly-tipping given that, as I understand the definition that I have just read out, that could lead to contamination. Is the landowner then liable? If so, that seems quite a problem.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I should like to support the amendments which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. There is a great deal of worry outside the House about the width of the definition and about why it is in such conflict with the Government's structure policy which was published only in November 1994. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, quoted part of it, but perhaps I may remind my noble friend that the policy recognised that where contamination poses an unacceptable risk to health—the word "unacceptable" is a limiting factor—the objective of the framework is not only to improve sites, as and when hazards need to be dealt with, but to encourage an efficient market in land which has been contaminated. That is a very practical point of view. Finally, the objective is to encourage the development of such land.
I hope that my noble friend will be sympathetic to the amendments because the definition, as presently drafted, could lead to authorities having to serve remediation notices on the smallest point. They would have no option but to do so. This is a serious issue and I hope that my noble friend will consider it.
Viscount Ullswater: The main aim of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is to change the overall definition of contaminated land in these provisions so that it includes only land causing, or likely to cause, serious harm or serious pollution of controlled waters such that immediate remedial action is required to ensure that its condition was suitable for its actual or likely use.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for moving these amendments, as it provides an opportunity to expand on the Government's intentions in bringing forward the contaminated land provisions as a whole. As I said in our debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, these provisions are centred around our overall "suitable for use" approach to the issue of contaminated land.
In policy terms, this approach was described in our document Framework for Contaminated Land, as requiring remedial action,
"only where the contamination poses unacceptable actual or potential risks to health or the environment; and there are appropriate and cost-effective means available to do so, taking into account the actual or intended use of the site".
We believe the "suitable for use" approach deals with the genuine environmental problems presented by contaminated land, but does so without creating unnecessary financial and regulatory burdens. But how we convert that policy into statute is what underlies this current debate.
These amendments, and other comments and suggestions we have received from our continuing consultations and discussions with individuals and organisations outside Parliament, suggest that the definition of contaminated land currently contained in
1428
this Bill perhaps goes beyond our original policy intentions and could include sites not posing unacceptable risks.
I would suggest, however, that the test of "serious" harm or pollution and the requirement for immediate remediation which is set out in the amendment could suffer from the opposite problem of being too narrow and restrictive. The Government acknowledge that the question of definitions is critical to these provisions as a whole and if the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment, we would welcome the chance to bring forward our own amendments at a later stage to bring the legislative provisions into better alignment with our original policy intentions.
My noble friend Lord Stanley gave me warning that he was going to bring up the problem of fly-tipping, and raised the question of land which has been contaminated as a result of fly tipping. Of course, not all fly-tipping will result in land becoming contaminated, as defined in the Bill. While illegal in itself, fly-tipping of a small amount of builder's rubble may not result in contamination. On the other hand, I appreciate that fly-tipping of more toxic substances goes on and could cause contamination.
The provisions in Clause 54 do not specifically identify land which has been contaminated as a result of illegal action, such as fly-tipping. The reason is that in many cases it is not possible to determine precisely how or when a piece of land became contaminated, or whether it was the result of such activities. Where fly-tipping is known to have occurred, remedies already exist under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In particular, Section 33 enables prosecution of the person who deposited the waste; and Section 59 contains power to require removal of waste unlawfully deposited. I am sure that those provisions are adequate to deal with the problem of fly-tipping.
I understand the concern of the noble Lord, which was echoed by other noble Lords who spoke about the problem of the definition, and with my explanation I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, replies, I was pleased to hear my noble friend's remark about fly-tipping, but he missed one important point which always arises with fly-tipping; that is, one cannot find the person who fly-tips. If one cannot find the person who fly-tips, and it is causing contamination, which it may well be, am I responsible?
Viscount Ullswater: As I said, the provisions of Clause 54 apply to land which has been contaminated as a result of illegal actions such as fly-tipping. To that extent, the owner of such land could be liable under those provisions. However, the owner could already be liable to deal with contamination under statutory nuisance and town and country planning legislation. So these provisions do not significantly change liability in that respect.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, decides what he will do, perhaps I may

1429
ask my noble friend to let me know—it might save the Committee's time if he does so at his leisure—whether the word "remediation", which is in the amendments, occurs here for the first time in the Bill or has been invented at some other time. If it is in the Bill, I should like to protest about it later.
Viscount Ullswater: I had better obtain advice upon that point and come back at another stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is the noble Viscount not aware that "remediation of contaminated land" is a term of art? It is perfectly well understood in all professions that have to do with this.
Lord Northbourne: I most grateful to the Minster for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 226F and 226G not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 227 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 227ZA to 227B inclusive.
Lord Lucas of Chilworthmoved Amendment No. 227:
Page 45, leave out from beginning of line 15 to end of line 2 on page 46.
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 229, 230, 231, 233A, 234, 237 and 245, all of which are consequential upon Amendment No. 227. I should like also to address a few remarks to Amendment No. 227ZA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and Amendment No. 227A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, because they are germane to what I have to say.
We are entering a new area; that of contaminated land. Its degree of seriousness is indicated by the number of amendments on the Marshalled List. The amendments tabled in my name seek to remove the special arrangements for landfill sites, which in all conscience fall within the wider category of contaminated land.
The definition of contaminated land in Clause 54 is welcome. It is defined as land causing or likely to cause harm or pollution of controlled waters. An introduction of the new provisions will remove some of the doubts and uncertainties that have arisen in the past.
It is not my intention to seek any favourable treatment for closed landfill sites. However, I am puzzled to see that separate arrangements are proposed for closed landfill sites. Even more puzzling is exactly what the special arrangements are designed to achieve.
Clause 54 proposes a straightforward procedure. Local authorities will identify contaminated land then issue remediation notices, according to the advice of the agency. As regards closed landfill sites, the process becomes more complicated. There are a series of notifications from the local authority to the agency, from the agency to the Secretary of State, from the Secretary
1430
of State to the agency and then to the local authority. If at that stage the site is designated special, the agency will prepare a remediation statement. If it does not, the local authority will do so. Nowhere in the Bill is it clear exactly what is the purpose of a remediation statement and its relationship to a remediation notice. One presumes that at the end of the day the net result will be a remediation notice.
There appears to be some obscurity behind the clause. One is driven to speculate whether it is designed to address the problem of old local authority sites which were never licensed. In that case, presumably the authority will be unable to serve a remediation notice on itself. Will private and public sites be treated in the same way? What exactly do the Government want?
Amendment No. 227 sweeps away the entire definition of landfill, leaving it purely and simply as contaminated land—which is what it is—unless it is cleared by the local authority. Why do we need to mess about? Why not call a spade a spade and have done with it?
In Amendment No. 227ZA the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, seek a different definition of a closed landfill site. No doubt they will explain the matter and say whether I am wrong or confirm that I am right. Their amendment appears to widen the definition to include all and any landfill sites from whatever time they became so. As I said, Amendment No. 227 effectively calls for landfill to be defined as contaminated or potentially contaminated. That is as it may well be determined by the agency.
Therefore, I am left in a good deal of confusion as to why a closed landfill site should be picked out separately from any other contaminated land. Frankly, there is no great mystery about a landfill site. It is either contaminated, potentially contaminated or it is not contaminated. That can be determined. Monitoring and inspections in relation to the use of the site will take place for years and years after it is closed. If my noble friend is able to help me, I shall know rather better how to proceed with my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: I should declare an interest because I have an old and a present landfill site on my land.
The amendments would provide a defence for a person to argue that at the time it was carried out, the activity which led to the land being subsequently deemed to be contaminated was entirely legal and represented the state of the art at the time. In its report in the 1993 EU Green Paper on the use of civil liability for remedying environmental damage, the House of Lords European Communities Committee argued that there should be a state of the art defence as a matter of equity to encourage people and companies to make their best efforts to minimise the risk of future pollution.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 227A. Its purpose is to exclude from the provisions of the clause sites where the deposit took place before the coming into force of Section 3 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. That Act was the forerunner to the current controls over waste, and under

1431
Section 3 of that Act, it became an offence for the first time to deposit controlled waste on any land. This amendment clarifies the deposits which are covered and limits them to those which were regulated at the relevant time by excluding those which could not have been regulated at the relevant time. That is entirely in accordance with the preceding subsection.
The Earl of Lytton: I too should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 227A. It seems to me that the problem revolves around the question of blight where old landfill sites of one sort or another have been subsequently built on in good faith and no doubt with the benefit of building regulations consent from the local authority and in the full knowledge and extent of the then state of the art for cleaning up the site.
We know that some cases have not been entirely successful. Migration of methane gas and putrescible material has been found under some of those areas. It is perhaps less of a problem on an industrial site. Although I have no direct personal knowledge, I believe that a number of residential sites have been affected if not directly then indirectly by proximity. Are those owners to be the people on whom remediation notices will be served? Will their equity be affected?
There is a case to answer here which the Government have not addressed. I am concerned that unless we have an indication from the Minister that there will not always be somebody standing to stop the bullet which is being fired in the name of remediation, we are in for a very serious time in relation to some of those hard cases.
In my view, it is not possible for government departments and the Treasury between them to say, "We want an entirely risk-averse situation". No such thing exists in life; we all run risks. Running risks based on our own past national performance and standard of doing things, and so on, is one of the occupational hazards of progress.
Therefore, in certain circumstances, it will ultimately have to be accepted that some things are a collective, public problem and that they have to be treated like that if we are to procure a collective, public benefit through the clean-up. There is a very important point involved. I am pleased to support Amendment No. 227A, tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
Viscount Ullswater: In speaking to Amendment No. 227, I shall deal also with Amendments Nos. 227A, 227ZA, 227B, 229, 230, 231, 233A, 234, 237, 237ZA and 245. The amendments all address the way in which contaminated closed landfill sites are considered and dealt with within the overall provisions for contaminated land.
Amendment No. 227, moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would remove entirely the definition of "closed landfill sites". Other amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend would then replace references to closed landfill sites in particular with references to contaminated land in general. The Government's view is that an element of attention to some of the problems particularly associated with closed landfills is justified.
1432
From a technical point of view, closed landfills can give rise to particular types of problem from methane gas, noxious leachate or a diverse range of contaminants, as indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. That is not to say that they are necessarily more harmful than other kinds of contaminated sites, but in general the extent of contamination tends to be deeper and to present a certain type of engineering problem. Specific consultation with the agency, and in particular with its waste regulation side, which will inherit the wide experience of the waste regulation authorities, is therefore desirable to ensure that those sites can be dealt with in the best way.
In singling out closed landfills for a more tailored approach, we are reflecting the special emphasis given to such sites in much of Europe. We are also reflecting the concern expressed by Parliament during the passage of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which led to provision for a special remediation regime for closed landfill sites, under Section 61. The section has not, in the event, been implemented, and the provisions of Clause 54 will replace it.
Amendment No. 227A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is more limited in its intentions. It would remove explicitly from the definition of a closed landfill site any site in which waste was deposited entirely before the coming into force of the waste disposal licensing regime under Section 3 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
The Government do not support the amendment. Our intention was that those older sites should be included within the definition of closed landfill sites. We believe that that is implied by the reference to the deposit of controlled waste "without the authority" of a waste licence.
The Control of Pollution Act provided the first modern environmental regime for closed landfill sites. Prior to its introduction, those sites were regulated only through conditions set in planning approvals. As I explained a few moments ago, not all landfill sites will present problems. But, if anything, it is those older sites which pre-date the modern environmental regimes which are most likely to need the particular attention from the agency which the provisions set out for closed landfills provide.
Amendments No. 227ZA and 227B, tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, seek to provide an alternative route through the question. They would remove the exhaustive definition of a closed landfill site that is currently provided, and replace it with a system by which a local authority would certify a site as being a closed landfill where it had been used for the deposit of waste.
This would appear to offer some simplification in comparison with the exhaustive definition currently in these provisions. But, in practice, I suspect that the effect of these amendments could be to add to the complexity of the procedures, as landowners might well wish to appeal against the certification of their sites as closed landfills, particularly in the light of the general concerns which exist about such sites being stigmatised even under the existing definition.

1433
The Government have a further particular concern with these amendments. As currently provided, only those closed landfill sites which are also contaminated land come within the scope of these powers. This important qualification is omitted in the proposed certification procedure. The Government see no justification for local authorities being required to identify and certify closed landfill sites which are not presenting any environmental problems.
Amendment No. 237, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and Amendment No. 237ZA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, would extend the duty on local authorities to prepare remediation statements. As currently provided, this applies only to closed landfill sites and not to contaminated land generally. This restriction was deliberate. The intention behind the introduction of this distinct phase was to provide a public statement of the overall approach the enforcing authority intended to take for individual sites.
A remediation statement would not of itself require any specific action of anyone else. This would still be achieved through a remediation notice. We felt that this extra public stage was needed for closed landfill sites but not other sites, to reflect the greater likelihood that these sites would require more by way of long term remedial action and continued monitoring by the enforcing authority. This might particularly be the case where the site was generating landfill gas. Although public statements by the enforcing authorities about the remediation on individual sites might be helpful at some other sites as well, the Government do not believe that the preparation of such documents should be a statutory requirement in those cases. I therefore could not accept either of these amendments. I hope I have gone some way to explain the Government's position on these amendments and would ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Of course I shall withdraw the amendment, because there is nothing else I can do tonight. But I shall come back again to it another day. I hope my noble friend will accept what I have to say in the spirit in which I say it, and bearing in mind our very long and friendly relationship. I find his answer totally ineffective. I view that answer as a series of excuses, born mainly out of the failure of the Government to implement the provisions of the 1990 Act.
My noble friend said that during the passage of that Act much concern was expressed by Parliament over landfill and it was therefore decided to make special provisions. If memory serves me right—and it may not—I think it is Section 60 of the 1990 Act which provides for that concern to be remedied. But that provision—I may be wrong on the number—has not in fact been enacted. That is why we have today a cobbling together of a number of provisions—HMIP, and those provisions relating to landfill, which together make certain aspects of this clause somewhat heavy going and which are not in fact dealing with the real problem. My noble friend said, as regards landfill in particular, that
1434
the extent of contamination is deeper than in other kinds of contaminated land and the engineering problems are more difficult and we therefore need a tailored approach. Much has happened since 1989 in terms of engineering of landfill sites. There is no great problem there.
My noble friend said that there has been stigmatisation of land which is a closed landfill site. I cannot think of any greater stigma than contaminated land, whether an old gas station—such as the one which seems to have reached the headlines in the press recently—or anything else. There is far more danger in old oil sites, old chemical sites and old gas sites than there is in the controlled environment of a closed landfill site.
I do not find my noble friend's answer reassuring or comforting. I shall return to the matter on another occasion. However, as I suggested at the beginning of my response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 227ZA to 227B not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworthmoved Amendment No. 228:
Page 46, line 3, leave out ("a closed landfill site") and insert ("an area of contaminated land").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 228 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 235 and 236 in my name and Amendments Nos. 228ZA and 233B in the names of my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Mills.
The purpose of my amendments is similar to the purpose of the amendments of my noble friends but they relate to a wider issue, namely the treatment of landfill sites under the contaminated land provisions. Amendment No. 228 and its consequential amendments relate specifically to seriously contaminated sites.
Looking at the Bill as drafted, what are we to make of the curious phenomenon of "special sites"? Those special sites will only ever be closed landfill sites. However, the statistics which were presented to a parliamentary inquiry by the Department of the Environment in 1989 show that landfill sites are by no means the major constituent of contaminated land. Landfill sites account for just under 25 per cent. of contaminated land. An equivalent number of sites are spoil heaps from metal mines. What distinguishes closed landfill sites from those or old gasworks? My noble friend the Minister has not provided a satisfactory answer.
Landfill sites are subject to strict controls with respect to their initial location, preparation, operation, restoration and post-closure management. Since landfill sites will be regularly monitored by the operator until the agency is satisfied that harmful pollution is unlikely, one would think that of all the potentially contaminating uses of land, that is the least likely to cause problems, precisely because it is so regulated.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not suggest to the Committee that I am asking that landfill sites be treated more favourably than other contaminated land. Rather, I should like to see landfill sites—closed or otherwise—receive precisely the same treatment.

1435
I am worried that there is a hidden agenda here. If not properly maintained, closed landfill sites remain the subject of concern in the minds of the general public for some 20, 30 or 50 years. Quite rightly, the general public have exercised their rights to demonstrate, complain and lobby about matters which give them some concern. I suspect that they will be giving themselves the opportunity to demonstrate about the gas sites which are proposed to be sold to the public. No one knows too much about the level of their contamination.
I must ask my noble friend to give a better reason why a closed landfill site, decreed to be contaminated until such time as it is given a clearance certificate, should be treated any differently from any other contaminated land. The group of amendments follows that reasoning.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, will speak to one of the amendments in his name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It is grouped with the amendment. If so, I should like to hear what he has to say because I wish to respond to it.
Viscount Mills: Although I support in principle the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, it is similar to amendments which my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and I propose in Amendments Nos. 228ZA and 233B. I believe that the deletion of all reference to closed landfill sites, and hence the need to prepare remediation statements for all contaminated land sites, is not necessary. I consider that a broadening of the definition of "special site" would be adequate and would focus resources on those sites which are most contaminated and therefore most likely to cause pollution.
Like my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I had in mind such sites as closed chemical, steel or gas works which can cause equally as serious harm or pollution as closed landfill sites. The amendment in the name of my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and my amendment—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount. I hope that he will not feel that he has to go over the ground that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has already covered. I had hoped that he would speak to his Amendment No. 245AB.
Viscount Mills: I shall do so, of course. As I was saying, the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth and my amendment allow such contaminated sites to be designated as special sites and treated accordingly. Perhaps I may ask the Minister this question. Will it not assist the local authorities to deal with those other contaminated land sites by broadening the definition of special sites as proposed?
I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 245AB. I believe that the amendment highlights a specific problem. I hope to ascertain what the Government consider might be done to solve it. There is an inherent difficulty with the enforcement procedures with respect to contaminated land. I refer to contaminated land sites which are owned by local authorities. Those include
1436
both closed landfill and land which is to be used for redevelopment. In certain situations local authorities are required to serve remediation notices upon themselves. That includes setting out actions and the timetable for those actions to be carried out.
I am sure that most local authorities are active and responsible and have all the technical skills and expertise to deal with those contaminated land sites. However, I believe that other small rural district councils may not be staffed to deal with the complex problems that arise from pollution emanating, for example, from 19th century lead mines. That is not a criticism; it is merely a fact.
In those cases, it may be of assistance to the local authorities for the new agency to play a role. At this point I should like to make what I believe is an important distinction between derelict land and contaminated land, because the experience required to deal with the two is not the same. By way of example I should like to refer to a coke works in Nottinghamshire. The land on which an old coke works was situated was purchased by a local council, which extracted the top few meters of sand and capped the surface to prevent the flushing of further contaminants into the groundwater. However, no action was taken to protect already polluted groundwater, which has now spread out from the area of the site itself and lies in land adjacent to the original site. In a situation such as that the site was treated as derelict but I suggest that it was rather more contaminated land.
There is, I believe, a risk that local authorities could find themselves in a position where, through no fault of their own, they are unable to initiate an adequate programme of inspection, identification and remediation of contaminated land sites. In such cases, giving default powers to the agency to help deal with the problem may be one, but I suggest not the only, solution. However, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply—whether he considers that it is a problem, whether the Government recognise it as such and how they intend to deal with similar problems.
10 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I shall speak only to Amendment No. 245AB which is in the group and which the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, has just addressed. We are strongly opposed to the amendment. We believe that it is unnecessary because, despite what the noble Viscount implied, local authorities have a good record in the remediation of contaminated land. It is a threat to local democracy and we do not feel that an agency like the one outlined in the Bill should override local authorities and charge a levy in order to do so. A national quango, working through regional offices, is simply not the body to override local authorities. The agency is best placed to work with local government in determining appropriate standards. It is not, cannot and should not be placed to undertake the work itself. We are strongly opposed to the amendment which the noble Viscount has addressed.
Viscount Ullswater: All the amendments would affect the role of the environment agency and the

1437
Scottish environment protection agency in respect of the contaminated land provisions. Amendment No. 228, moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the broadly equivalent Amendment No. 228ZA, moved by my noble friend Lord Mills, would have the effect of changing the definition of a "special site" such that it need not necessarily be a closed landfill site. Other amendments in the group are consequential on that.
The intention behind the creation of this category of special sites was to ensure that the particular skills and professional expertise of the agency could be brought directly to bear on the most serious closed landfill sites. The limiting of the category of special sites to closed landfills was not meant to imply either that closed landfills necessarily presented risks of serious harm or pollution or that other categories of site were by definition not serious. But closed landfill sites present a particular range of technical and engineering problems on which staff in the agency are likely to be well qualified by virtue of their responsibilities for the regulation of operational landfills.
So while the Government are willing to consider the question of expanding the range of sites which could potentially be designated as special sites, we would wish to have a clear idea of why the agency would be better qualified to regulate those other sites than would the local authorities. At present, the case has not been adequately made, and we would wish to retain the restriction of designation as special sites to landfills.
Amendment No. 245AB, moved by my noble friend Lord Mills, would seek to expand the powers of the agency in altogether more sweeping ways by enabling it to take over the regulatory functions of individual local authorities if it felt that they were not being properly exercised. Local authorities already have powers under the statutory nuisance provisions under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act to deal with the problems posed by contaminated land and many of them have used those powers extensively. We believe that these new provisions, which provide specific definitions of targeted procedures, will do much to improve the consistency with which local authorities deal with contaminated land. We strongly believe that these regulatory functions should remain with local government—I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on that point. Contaminated land is essentially a local issue, and these powers tie in closely with other local authority functions, in particular those concerning planning and development control.
In any event, I remind the Committee that local authorities will have the assistance of detailed guidance from the agency and the Secretary of State in carrying out their functions. I do not believe that there is any justification for including powers of the kind suggested in the amendment, which would allow the agency to take over the functions and the money of an elected
1438
local authority. I hope that I have perhaps said enough to persuade both noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: As for the last amendment, I shall of course ask leave of the Committee to withdraw it. Again, there is nothing that I can do at this stage.
I am not persuaded at all by the Government's response to this amendment. I shall have to read very carefully what my noble friend said when he talked about the various categories that could then engage the special expertise and skills of the agency. We discussed this matter days ago when we talked about who would form the agency, what kind of people would be on the board of the agency and on the advisory boards. They should have wide enough skills and expertise to deal with all the problems that arise. It really does not matter whether you put it under the hat labelled "contaminated", "special" or "landfill". Those all present in their different ways hazards to the environment and to people. That is what we are concerned with—not a specialisation, one against another demanding special provisions. I am very disappointed that my noble friend cannot understand that simplicity in a Bill as complex as this one is a very desirable attribute which, certainly in Clause 34, we seem to be letting slip by.
Viscount Ullswater: Before my noble friend decides what to do about his amendment, it might just be useful if I pointed out to him the different categories, because I do not believe that he has really taken in the significance of my answer. We believe that there is a duty for the local authorities to look after the closed landfill sites and, when we come to remedial statements on the special sites, that those should be made by the agency since it has a particular expertise and the skill. That is the difference.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Although I am most grateful, I do not think that I did misunderstand. However, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to study carefully what our exchange has been all about. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 228ZA not moved.]
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 228ZB:
Page 46, line 10, at beginning insert:
("(a) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) below,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 228BB. These amendments are about the definition of "harm". This is a serious issue, although my amendments are probing amendments. The definition of "harm" in the Bill seems to me to be highly unsatisfactory, because it says:
"'Harm' means harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form part and, in the case of man, includes harm to his property".
I think we are all fairly clear what we want to say: the difficulty is that I do not think that form of words says it. We have already debated the question on an earlier

1439
amendment of mine—the question of the seriousness of the harm. That is not what I am talking about here. I am talking here about the kind of harm—or, more precisely, the kind of personal thing to which that harm is done.
As drafted, this clause would include within the definition of "harm" every kind of harm to every kind of living organism or ecosystem. It would therefore designate as "harm" all activities such as pest control—rats and slugs, after all, are livingorganisms—dredging rivers and lakes, gardening, agriculture, forestry, road construction, cleaning up of pollution and many other activities. Clearly, that is not what the Government mean. The problem is that it is quite difficult to designate and to define the nasty things, such as pests and diseases, that we want to be harmed and the ones which we love and do not want to be harmed. It has to be admitted that the problem is complicated by the fact that one man's pest is sometimes another man's pet.
I acknowledge that my amendment is imperfect, but I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to take the problem away and come back with a much better solution. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendments Nos. 228ZB and 228BB of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, seek to recognise that there are some living organisms which are themselves harmful—for example agricultural pests. It would indeed be perverse if these contaminated land powers prevented the appropriate use of pesticides.
These amendments are closely related to those dealing with the wider questions of the overall definitions of "harm" and of "contaminated land" and, as I indicated in response to those amendments, the Government already intend to bring forward their own amendments on these at a later stage. So, while I appreciate the intention behind the noble Lord's amendments, I would not wish to accept them now. Perhaps he will be good enough to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 228A and 228B not moved.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardonmoved Amendment No. 228BA:
Page 46, line 12, after ("includes") insert ("offence to any of his senses or").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move this amendment and speak to Amendment No. 238ZZA, which is grouped with it. Amendment No. 228BA is intended as a probing amendment, to ask the Minister why the definition is being changed from that in the Environmental Protection Act. In that Act,the definition of "harm" is:
"Harm to the health of living organisms",
and, in the case of man, includes offence to any of his senses or harm to his property.
The definition of "harm" in this Bill is almost identical but excludes any reference to any of man's senses. The reason for this anomaly is not immediately obvious. At this stage, therefore, the amendment is directed at asking the Minister to explain why there is a
1440
different definition of "harm" in this particular Bill, and whether it should include offences such as smell or odour which would offend human beings.
Amendment No. 238ZZA is an attempt to suggest that the future use of contaminated land is an important factor when deciding the extent to which it should be remediated. There is obviously a difference between land which is intended for use purely as a public car park and land on which it is intended to build houses, or to have a children's playground or a school. The intention therefore is to include in this clause and any consideration of the extent to which the land should be improved or pollution eradicated, the intended future use of the land. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I believe that the amendment may be open to so many different kinds of interpretation that it would cause great difficulty when it came to be considered by the courts or applied in any way.
Lord Northbourne: I rise briefly to speak on Amendment No. 238B, which is grouped with Amendment No. 238A. It says more or less the same thing as the second amendment of the noble Baroness. The standard of remediation should be limited to the standard of "suitable for use". The arguments that guidance will limit it are not satisfactory. There seems to me to be no reason why a "suitable for use" approach should not be spelt out in the legislation.
10.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 228BA, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, seeks to extend the definition of harm, and thereby of contaminated land, to include references to offences to man's senses. Amendment No. 372EB would also exclude premises which fell within that wider definition of contaminated land from all of the various categories of statutory nuisance set out in Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As presently provided, only those categories most directly relevant to contaminated land are excluded.
The Government quite deliberately omitted offences to man's senses from the list of possible harm which would define land as being contaminated. For example, we do not consider that land should be considered as contaminated on the basis of smells and odours which are not themselves harmful to health or the wider environment. The statutory nuisance powers will potentially still be available to deal as necessary with those other problems. I believe that that would meet the problem outlined by my noble friend Lord Renton. The Government therefore would not wish to accept those amendments.
Amendment No. 238ZZA, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, would increase the possible requirements of a remediation notice by making it a positive requirement for an enforcing authority to consider potential uses of the land. By contrast, Amendment No. 238B, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, would restrict the degree of any remediation required to that justified to make the land suitable for its actual or likely use. It is intended that the guidance on remediation standards which the agency

1441
would issue to local authorities should be informed by the "suitable for use" approach. But two important clarifications are needed.
First, any remediation notice also needs to consider those environmental effects which are not dependent on the use of the immediate site. Examples here could include any potential pollution of groundwater and, indeed, effects on health or property in relation to the use to which other sites nearby are being put. Amendment No. 238B would not allow those environmental issues to be addressed, and therefore I would not wish to accept it.
Secondly, it is not the intended role of this proposed regulatory system to make land fit for all of its potential uses. The powers have been quite deliberately structured around risks to health or the environment which are currently being caused, or are likely to be caused. In any event, planning authorities, in considering whether to grant permission for a new use of land, have powers to impose conditions to ensure that the development intended will not put future users or occupiers at risk if necessary by requiring improvements to the condition of the land before the development can be carried out. My department published a planning policy guidance note, PPG23, on Planning and Pollution Control in July of last year to advise local authorities on that question.
I hope I have said enough to convince the noble Baroness that both of the amendments to which she has spoken are not required and that she will be good enough to withdraw them.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am not wholly satisfied as to odours. It seems to me that if you are to build a school or some other place to which the public has access, rights under public nuisance law are not sufficient. Once the land has been developed in some way, if it continues to smell disagreeable it is too late to do something about it. I do not wish to press the point at this moment but I reserve the right to come back to it at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 228BB not moved.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardonmoved Amendment No. 228BC:
Page 46, line 13, at end insert:
("() "Assessment" means the doing of anything for the purpose of assessing the condition of land which appears to the local authority to be contaminated.").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 228BC and speak also to Amendments Nos. 237AA and 239E which are grouped with it. These amendments are concerned with the assessment of land which may be contaminated. The Bill requires local authorities to inspect areas within their boundaries and identify contaminated land, closed landfill sites and closed landfill sites that may be candidates for designation as special sites.
If a local authority identifies contaminated land it must serve a remediation notice. However, in its present form the Bill suggests that a remediation notice may also be used to require assessment of the condition of contaminated land, which in a way makes the
1442
assumption that it is known in advance that the land is contaminated. It does not allow for the possibility of assessing land which the local authority does not know to be contaminated. The Bill does not provide for the assessment of land that has been suspected of being contaminated to see whether it is contaminated. The amendments are intended to introduce a more logical approach to land that may be contaminated but about which people are not sure.
In those circumstances, the amendments will allow the local authority to serve an assessment notice that requires the owners or occupiers to determine whether the land is contaminated. The intention is to amend the Bill in a helpful way and allow local authorities to identify contaminated land. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I should like to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 228C and 239C, both of which deal with the detail of remediation notices. Amendment No. 228C proposes that the authority should inspect land at the expense of the landowner. In my view, inspections should not be carried out at the landowner's expense. Local authorities ought to be able to back up their convictions at the initial stages with their own resources; otherwise, there is no reason why they may not carry out what may be called fishing expeditions at the expense of landowners. It would seem to me that to give a blank cheque of this kind to local authorities is entirely unjustified.
As far as Amendment No. 239C is concerned, it is felt that, where remediation has been carried out and costs incurred by virtue of a mistaken assumption or assessment that land is contaminated, those costs should be recoverable from the local authority.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 233. I do not believe I can agree with what the noble Lord has just said. That leads on to Amendment No. 233, in which we suggest that "on a regular basis" should be substituted for the words "from time to time", which in these circumstances strike us a totally meaningless. We suggest that the requirement for local authorities to inspect an area from time to time in order to identify contaminated land and landfill sites is far too weak.
Local authorities must have a statutory duty to inspect their area on a regular basis and only a systematic programme of inspection will identify all the relevant sites. It is not in the public interest for site identification to depend on local authorities making inspections on such a vague basis. If an incident involved contamination which spread disease or even a rash among children or people going across the land, a report which was made only "from time to time" could have been produced a year before, 18 months before or two years before. It just would not stand up in court. Whatever action the Minister takes on the other amendments, this amendment is an obvious one to accept. He may not like the wording but he must accept that the sentiment and the reasoning behind the amendment are quite clear and strong.
Lord Gisborough: Amendment No. 228C is grouped with Amendment No. 237AA, which addresses the

1443
situation where the person on whom the remediation notice is served wishes to suggest an alternative method of remediation. It allows the local authority and that person to consult in order to pursue such alternatives if it is practicable to do so. I support that amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendments Nos. 228C and 239C, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, seek to ensure that the costs of any assessment work fall on the enforcing authority and not on the person receiving a remediation notice. Amendment No. 228C would amend the definition of remediation so that any assessment works were to be undertaken at the cost of the enforcing authority. Amendment No. 239C would, as an alternative approach to the same issue, enable the recipient of a notice to recover his reasonable costs from the enforcing authority for any required steps by way of assessment of the condition of the land if that assessment indicated that no further remediation steps needed to be undertaken.
Lord Northbourne: The noble Viscount has misunderstood the intention of the second amendment. It seeks to ensure that, if remediation was undertaken and it was subsequently found that it had been unnecessary, the costs could be recovered.
Viscount Ullswater: I accept the noble Lord's correction of what I said and I understand what he is addressing. I hope that my remarks will apply equally to what he has just said.
It is perhaps arguable that some provision of this kind is necessary to protect industry and landowners from predatory remediation notices based on little real evidence of contamination, but the existing provisions in the Bill and the basic principles of administrative law do not really support that line of argument. An enforcing authority must act reasonably in determining that any land appears to be contaminated. If it were to serve a remediation notice on scant or little evidence that the land was contaminated, or with disregard for the guidance as to the identification of contaminated land, the notice could be subject to appeal and the authority's decision could be subject to review. However, it would be reasonable for the enforcing authority, once it is satisfied that there appears to be harm or water pollution caused by contamination, to require the recipient of a notice to assess the full extent of the problems on the site and subsequently to take the appropriate actions to deal with them.
The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton—Amendments Nos. 228BC, 237AA and 239E—would, however, permit a local authority to serve a specific assessment notice on land which appeared likely to be contaminated. In the Government's view, that would open up the system to precisely the kind of problems which the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, sought to prevent. The noble Lord talked about a fishing expedition. Therefore, I would ask the Committee not to accept those amendments.
Amendment No. 233, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, seeks to change the basis of the inspection duty of local authorities to be on
1444
a regular basis rather than from time to time as currently provided. I would have to agree that in modern-day language the formulation "from time to time" might sound old fashioned and so I can sympathise with the sentiment behind the amendment. However, the existing phrasing has a particular legal intention and effect which I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord is not met by his amendment.
Different local authority areas will inevitably face different levels of problems associated with contaminated land. That may result from different patterns of development and land use, and from technical considerations such as the underlying geology of the area. In addition, the problems associated with the individual sites will arise or develop at different rates. The local authority may need to inspect on a frequent basis, but not necessarily at regular intervals, a site which it believes might start emitting methane gas. But most local authorities will not have contaminated land and will not present potential problems as a result of past land uses, and so long as the current use of those sites or others nearby does not suggest that new contamination might be occurring, the local authority would discharge its duty by inspecting at appropriate frequency, whether regularly spaced or not.
Both of those factors suggest that there should not be a rigid approach to the timing of the duty to inspect for contaminated land. Requiring inspections on a regular basis, as is suggested in the amendment, could lead both to unnecessary costs for local authorities and, in the case of some sites, to inspections not being carried out sufficiently frequently.
The formulation already in Clause 54 would permit a proper level of flexibility to allow both regularly spaced inspections (where that is considered appropriate) and frequent but irregularly spaced inspections for other cases. As I dared to suggest, "from time to time" is a time-honoured legislative formula which I should not wish to disturb without good reason. I am sure that noble Lords would agree with me and, on that basis, I. wonder whether the noble Baroness would care to withdraw her amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am sorry that the Minister thinks that local authorities would indulge in fishing expeditions. Clearly, they might be activated by a desire to be sure that there was no pollution on old industrial sites, and it seems appropriate that they should have the powers to investigate. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 228C and 229 not moved.]
Lord Jenkin of Rodingmoved Amendment No. 229A:
Page 47, line 32, leave out from ("owner") to end of line 46 and insert:
("(a) ("in relation to any land in England and Wales, means a person who, is entitled to receive the rack rent of the land, or, where the land is not let at a rack rent, would be so entitled if it were so let, but does not include a mortgagee not in physical possession of the land or one who is in possession of the land only for the purpose of preserving,

1445
protecting, repairing, securing or selling it, or investigating the condition of it, and otherwise performs no operational function in respect of it; nor does it include a trustee who has no beneficial interest in the land;
(b) in relation to any land in Scotland, means the person for the time being who is entitled to receive, or who would, if the land were let, be entitled to receive the rents of the land, and includes a factor, guardian or curator and in the case of public or municipal land, includes the persons to whom the management of the land is entrusted, but does not include a person who holds a security over the land (whether heritable or otherwise) not in physical possession or who exercises it rights as security holder only for the purpose of preserving, protecting, repairing, securing or selling it, or investigating the condition of it, and otherwise performs no operational function in respect of it; nor does it include a bare trustee;
(c) in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, "owner" shall have the same meaning as in sub-paragraph (a) above and the definition of "owner" in section 81A(9) of that Act shall be repealed.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I understand that we are considering also Amendments Nos. 238AA, 238D and 238E. My amendment is concerned with the potential liability of lenders of money (whether or not on the security of land) to a landowner whose land may well be contaminated.
When the Government published their document A Framework for Contaminated Land they stated quite clearly:
"the act of lending, whether secured or not, does not of itself open the lender to liability for meeting the costs of remedying any damage caused by the actions or omissions of the borrower".
When the banks and building societies, which are the main lenders in this country, read that, they were reassured. However, when they came to read the definition of "owner" in this clause, it seemed to arouse a good deal of anxiety. Two problems need to be addressed. First, under the present drafting, lenders could be held liable for environmental damage where circumstances forced them into possession of a mortgaged property. It is not unknown for someone whose business is in great difficulties to abandon the premises and drop the keys through the building society's letter box.
It could also happen that an owner abandons a site and the bank or building society, given that it is not getting any payment, needs to take some action to make the premises secure. We should bear in mind that we are talking not necessarily about large and potentially extremely damaging sites, but about small businesses, such as dry cleaners, printers, petrol stations, farms or suppliers of agricultural chemicals—virtually any company that happens in the course of its business to handle chemicals that are hazardous to the environment. Many such businesses rely upon borrowing from banks, or in some cases building societies, to be able to carry on the businesses.
In the circumstances I have described, that could turn the lender into an owner, and therefore liable to all the procedures contained in the Bill. He could have a remediation notice served upon him. He could then be under an obligation to take the action necessary to clean up the site. If he does not, he can be liable to fines, and substantial costs if the local authority itself does the work.
1446
What is a bank or building society to do in such circumstances with that risk hanging over its head? The right answer might be to walk away from the security, have nothing to do with it, and abandon it with no owner and no occupier. I cannot believe that that is what my right honourable friends intend by that definition of "owner" in the Bill.
There is a second circumstance which needs to be addressed—that is, under the Bill as drafted, trustees who hold just the bare legal title to the land, with no beneficial interest in it, may be caught by the definition of "owner", and so held personally liable for the consequences of the contamination by the owner. The suggestion in the amendment is that they should be liable only to the extent of any trust assets they control.
I have been rash enough to include in the amendment an amendment to the law of Scotland. I hasten to say that I know relatively little about the law of Scotland, although I was born in Edinburgh. I am advised that the position should be the same as in England and Wales, and that the drafting of the amendment achieves that. That is not the case at present. There is an exemption for the mortgagee in possession, but not for what I understand in Scots law is called a heritable creditor, which I understand to be the equivalent.
I recognise that my amendments may not be in the right form, but they raise an important issue. I hope that my noble friend will be able to offer some comfort to those who are genuinely anxious that they will find themselves saddled with a liability. The result will be that they will be infinitely less willing to lend. Businesses will be unable to raise the finance to keep going because of the potential liability hanging over the heads of the lenders. It is a serious point. I hope that my noble friend will be able to offer us some comfort. I beg to move.
Lord Boardman: I support my noble friend's amendment. I shall say just two things. First, the proposals put forward originally, as my noble friend said, in A Framework for Contaminated Land made it clear that lenders would not be faced with the liability that the Bill now imposes upon them. That is unfortunate.
My second point is that if the Government want people to lend money on land which could possibly become contaminated, by this clause they will prevent that wish being realised. Lenders will not lend money on land that may be polluted—under the Bill they would be required to monitor it to ensure that it was not being polluted for the whole time the security was held by them—because of the danger that they might be faced ultimately with a large bill. That would be fearful, so I hope that if the amendment is not accepted my noble friend the Minister will at a later stage introduce an amendment to reduce the real threat to those who would otherwise hope to borrow effectively for such investments.
The Earl of Lytton: Perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee if I now spoke to my Amendments Nos. 245AZA and 245AZB, which relate to insolvency practitioners. It is part and parcel of the same issue and it may be appropriate for the Minister to deal with it

1447
now. Often insolvency practitioners and other receivers deal with land that is subject to contamination. I remember some time ago being instructed to value a piece of land that had been used for scrap metal processing. I do not know what they did with the sump oil and so forth—perhaps they just tipped it on the ground. That is what it looked like!
It would be unreasonable for people acting as insolvency practitioners, whether appointed as receivers or in some other capacity, to assume personal liability under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, unless they were responsible for causing the harm, in which case they must accept liability.
Clause 54, which is to be inserted in the 1990 Act as Section 78P(3), seeks to limit the liability. However, the present wording refers only to insolvency practitioners and ignores other receivers. That is inequitable. I have spoken to representatives of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, some of whose members act in such a capacity. They are most anxious about the provision. Perhaps the Minister will consider the matter.
As regards lenders, if the situation comes adrift and the loan is called in they may well appoint a receiver. He represents the lender's interests in trying to realise the asset value. The purpose of my amendments is to extend to all classes of receiver the protection that is already built into the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: I speak to Amendment No. 238AA, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Beaumont and myself. It is not such a macro amendment as that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. Paragraph (4) at page 50 refers to the consent required by the person in occupation of land in the circumstances set out in the provision. The amendment addresses the point, although probably not adequately. It deals with what happens if consent is not given.
Lord Annaly: I speak to Amendment No. 238D, which is a probing amendment. Its object is to obtain a commitment from my noble friend the Minister that the principles by which liability can be transferred are stated in the Bill.
An efficient market in contaminated land, which encourages investment in remediation, depends on a clear and equitable division of responsibility for the land following sale and purchase. It is important for business organisations to have reasonable clarity as to the extent of their liabilities and not to be unfairly haunted by the past if they are to trade and borrow on an equitable basis. The right to transfer liability is a vital condition if the market for contaminated land is to operate effectively. The Government have made provision for that in the new Section 78E(3) but the conditions under which transfer takes place, and how liability under this part can be transferred, is not clearly stated.
This is a complex area of private and public law and uncertainty may mean that the provision does not have its intended effect. I am looking to my noble friend the Minister for an assurance that the principles by which liability is transferred are stated expressly in the Bill and not left solely to guidance.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 242B and 242C, which are in this group. They are probing amendments to ask the Minister what is meant by "hardship" when the authority is using its discretion in deciding what costs to recover. The local authority associations are extremely anxious about the provisions of Clause 54 which relate to hardship. Quite clearly they do not want the Bill to spell out a polluter's charter, such that responsibilities can be evaded, and some of the earlier amendments in the group seemed to suggest that people might seeks ways in which to evade liability for responsibility for pollution. But, on the other hand, local authorities recognise that an ability to exercise their discretion in the recovery of costs is an important local authority responsibility, and one which should be used only after considering a number of circumstances, of which hardship might be one factor.
Therefore, we are asking the Minister to outline what is intended by "hardship" and in what circumstances local authorities should be allowed to fund the clean-up of pollution.
Viscount Ullswater: These amendments all seek to make particular changes to some of the basic provisions concerning liabilities in respect of contaminated land.
Amendment No. 229A, moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, would change the definitions of "owner" used in the provisions for England and Wales and for Scotland, particularly as it could apply to financial institutions.
Following our overall review of policy on contaminated land and liabilities, and in particular the many responses we received to our consultation paper Paying for our Past, we have sought to clarify the potential liabilities of financial institutions. The Government are committed to the view that banks and others should not be treated as "deep pockets" to pay for the restoration of environmental damage for which they bear no real responsibility. The Government accept that any attempt to treat financial institutions in that way would serve only to threaten the supply of normal financial services to many sectors of the economy. In particular, the Government believe that the simple act of lending money should not of itself be considered as causing, or indeed knowingly permitting, the contamination of land which might arise as the result of the activities of those borrowing the money.
The issue of secured lending raises complex questions, however, as reflected in this amendment. In some cases, a lender could be acquiring a net liability if he took possession of contaminated land held as security, if the costs of necessary remediation exceeded the land's subsequent sale value. The Government consider that the lender should retain the right to walk away from his security in those cases, effectively limiting his financial exposure to the potential loss of the value of his loan.
The Government have noted concerns from the banking community, however, that in some cases the decision over whether to take possession of mortgaged property is effectively removed from the hands of the

1449
mortgagee, for example if the mortgagor hands over the keys to the property. It has been suggested that in those cases, the mortgagee could find himself potentially liable for contamination on the site without having any opportunity to exercise his right to walk away, as my noble friend indicated in his remarks. The Government are willing to consider this question further, and to examine whether changes to the definition of "owner" are justified to deal with the possibility of mortgagees finding themselves involuntarily in possession of land.
However, the Government do not accept the formulation set out in this amendment as being appropriate. It would provide an exemption from liability for a mortgagee in possession of a site, so long as he performs no operational function on the site and is in possession only for the ultimate purpose of selling it. That would serve in many cases to prevent prompt and necessary action to deal with environmental problems. It might also do little to protect the commercial position of the mortgagees, as they would still face the task of attempting to sell contaminated sites which would potentially be open to early action by the regulators requiring works to deal with the contamination.
This amendment raises the additional question of whether trustees with no beneficial interest in land should also be exempt from any liabilities. The Government would wish to consider that question further, particularly as the creation of an exemption of this kind could, if implemented in an inappropriate manner, create a possible route for unjustified evasions of liability.
Amendment No. 238D, in the name of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, would amend the existing provision concerning the transfer of liabilities from the person who caused or knowingly permitted the contamination to the current owner or occupier of the land. The Government are keen to ensure that the polluter does not, in effect, pay twice. We consider that it would be inequitable for someone to have to accept a low sale price for land which had been contaminated, and then have to pay for the costs of action to remediate it. We therefore wish to provide that, where the original polluter has legally transferred the burdens and responsibilities associated with his property, including those relating to contamination, the regulatory system should also respect that transfer.
I am grateful for my noble friend's amendment and for all the comments and suggestions that we have received from elsewhere as regards how we might shape the statutory provisions necessary to bring about our policy intention. If the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, who moved the amendment would agree to withdraw it, the Government would wish to consider the question further and to bring back their own amendment at a later stage.
Amendments Nos. 238AA and 238E tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, seek to change the provisions which would apply in any case where the current occupier of contaminated land, who was not himself the appropriate person to receive a remediation notice, refused consent for the appropriate person to enter on to his land to carry out remediation. The
1450
amendments would provide for a court to issue a warrant authorising entry, with or without conditions, and order the appropriate person to pay such compensation as it sees fit.
The Government believe that it is essential that some mechanism exists to ensure that remediation can take place even if the current occupier of the land does not wish to give his consent to entry on the land. However, we are not attracted to the system of warrants proposed here, which would appear to be unnecessarily cumbersome.
In looking again at our own provisions, which provide that an occupier who refuses consent in those circumstances would himself become an appropriate person to receive a remediation notice, we note possible concerns that there is no explicit recognition that in some cases there may be reasonable grounds for consent to be withheld; nor is there any overt provision for any compensation to be payable. If the existing amendments are withdrawn, we would wish to re-examine those questions.
Amendments Nos. 242B and 242C would apply to the circumstances where an enforcing authority might be seeking to recover some, or all, of its reasonable costs incurred in carrying out itself the steps specified in a remediation notice which have not been carried out by the original recipient. The first of those amendments would make explicit that that is a discretionary power to recover costs, and that there is no obligation on the enforcing authority to do so. However, that sense is already present, as the existing provisions refer to an "entitlement" to recover costs and not a duty.
The second of those amendments would have the effect of removing the duty for an enforcing authority to consider questions of hardship which might arise from its recovery of costs. The Government did not intend that hardship should be the only ground on which enforcing authorities could decide not to seek to recover. their costs. However, we believe that enforcing authorities should be required to consider at least that question. I would therefore ask noble Lords not to accept the amendments.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, indicated that he would like the Committee to consider Amendments Nos. 245AZA and 245AZB which relate to the provisions to limit the potential personal liability of any insolvency practitioner. The issue of the liability of such practitioners was raised during our policy review. It was felt by many to be important that insolvency practitioners, and others acting in a similar capacity—such as the receivers of land referred to in the noble Lord's first amendment—should not be held personally liable for the costs of dealing with contaminated land. This is an area that again the Government would like to consider very carefully and on which they also intend to bring forward their own amendments at a later stage. It will probably be convenient to leave it at that. Having said what I hope is of some comfort to my noble friend Lord Jenkin, he may consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I would only say to my noble friend that he has undertaken to do an immense

1451
amount of reconsideration with this group of amendments. I assure him that I speak on behalf of all Members of the Committee who took part in this short debate when I say that we are very much obliged to him. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 230 and 231 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 232 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 233 to 237Z4 not moved.]
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 237A:
Page 49, line 40, at end insert
("() The appropriate Agency or the local authority may consult with the owner of the land in the preparation of any remediation statement and also regarding any alternative action which that person might take to remedy the contamination on the land.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 237B. These are two further amendments about the procedures for remediation. The first relates to the fact that the Bill as drafted does not seem to make any provision for consultation between authorities and landowners so that agreement can be reached about the most useful and appropriate method of cleaning up. It merely provides for a remediation notice to be served, and when it has been served the Bill does not seem to provide any machinery for variation of the terms as a result of consultation between the parties. This amendment seeks to correct that position.
I regard Amendment No. 237B as important. It provides the local authority with a power rather than a duty to serve a remediation notice. As regards the Bill as currently drafted, where local authorities have identified any contaminated land in their area, they have a statutory duty to serve a remediation notice. They have no discretion to decide whether to serve a remediation notice. As a result local authorities will not be able to give priority to the most affected areas but will be obliged to deal with all cases of land deemed to be contaminated. However slight the degree of contamination is irrelevant. This is neither a sensible nor a practical approach and will put local authorities under unjustified strain, and it directly contradicts the Government's policy on priorities as set out in the framework for contaminated land. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 237A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, would give an enforcing authority the power to consult with the owner of a closed landfill site when preparing a remediation statement. It is certainly the Government's intention that an enforcing authority should, as a matter of best practice, consult with those concerned both when preparing a remediation statement for a closed landfill site or, indeed, when preparing a remediation notice for any contaminated site. It is expected that the agencies' guidance to local authorities will make this clear.
This consultation could usefully serve to promote better mutual understanding between the regulators and those being regulated and could provide an opportunity to encourage voluntary action to deal with
1452
contamination. However, the Government are not convinced that there is a need to specify on the face of the Bill that the enforcing authorities have a power to consult for this purpose.
Amendment No. 237B, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, would replace the existing duty on enforcing authorities to serve a remediation notice for any contaminated land with a discretionary power to do so. The Government would be extremely reluctant to soften this aspect of the regulatory regime, particularly if the definition of contaminated land is to be amended to bring it into better alignment with our "suitable for use" policy. A softening of the duty to serve a notice would result in there being a discretion for enforcing authorities to allow land to remain in a condition in which it was unsuitable for use, and this could not be supported.
A further issue is that we wish to avoid the possibility that a local authority might hold back from serving a remediation notice if the potentially liable site owner appeared to have few resources. It would then serve the notice on any "deeper pocket" who subsequently became owner of the site, unaware that the local authority was lying in a regulatory ambush. That would clearly be unacceptable, and the Government also wish to resist that amendment.
Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northbourne: With regard to Amendment No. 237B I shall await the noble Viscount's new definition of contaminated land. With that comment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 237AA not moved.]
11 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): I must advise the Committee of a printing error in Amendment No. 237AB on the Marshalled List. It should read "line 5" and not "line 4". In addition, the use of italics is incorrect.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilmoved Amendment No. 237AB:
Page 50, line 5, at end insert ("and has sought the advice of the appropriate Agency in accordance with section 78B(2), in particular as to whether the contaminated land poses an unacceptable actual or potential risk to health or the environment such that immediate remediation is required.").
The noble Lord said: In tabling Amendments No. 237AB and 238ZZB I am animated by the most respectable of purposes. First, I wish to understand the mind of the Government and, secondly, I wish to help them to achieve their purpose.
I should be grateful for my noble friend's confirmation that, since the Government themselves—for reasons which I understand perfectly—are not willing or able to clean up all contaminated land (and I avoid the term "remediation" even though I believe it finds favour with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, because I do not like it), they wish to encourage potential improvers to do it for them. That being the case, I take it that they wish to ensure that land is

1453
saleable to those who wish to use it for a certain purpose and that it is made fit for that purpose. I hope that I have construed the Government's mind accurately.
I believe that we all agree that there ought to be a duty to act on all contaminated sites where there is an unacceptable risk to health or the environment. There are a great many contaminated sites which do not at present constitute such a menace. The cost of coping with all sites at once, regardless of risk, would be intolerable. Therefore, I hope that Amendment No. 237AB, which seeks to place some restriction on the freedom of local authorities immediately to identify as potentially dangerous any site as they see fit, will be helpful to the Government.
The second amendment suggests that regard should be had to the intended use of the land. There must be a vital distinction as to the use to which contaminated land is to be put. If it is be used for certain purposes then the land will have to be cleaned. For other purposes such a high standard of cleansing is not necessary. As I said in my opening remarks, it must be the Government's intention to promote a reasonably free and mobile market in contaminated land so that people who are willing to improve it have a chance to buy it on reasonable terms. That is all I need to say. However, I hope that my noble friend will be extremely grateful to me for the understanding that I have shown for his intentions and for the way that I seek to help him forward.
Viscount Ullswater: I hope that my noble friend will be equally grateful for my reply.
Essentially, the amendments go back to the discussions we had on earlier amendments both in terms of the overall definition of contaminated land and the importance of the use of the land in determining any remediation requirements. As I stated earlier, it is the Government's intention that remediation should be based on the suitable for use approach and that the definition of contaminated land should reflect the policy intentions we expressed in our document, Framework for Contaminated Land. The issue of whether any land in fact presents unacceptable actual or potential harm should be covered in the revised definitions which I have already suggested that the Government will introduce at a later stage. I also suggested earlier that any remediation notice also needs to consider those environmental effects which are not dependent on the use of the immediate site, in particular water pollution and the effects on neighbouring sites.
Perhaps on that basis I may ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I wish to consider carefully what my noble friend said, rather quickly. I am not all that quick at picking up the points at this hour of the night. However, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 237B to 238ZZB not moved.]
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 238ZA:
Page 50, line 29, at end insert:
1454
("() A remediation notice shall not be served where the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when the substances were permitted or caused to be present in or on the land was not such that a person who caused or permitted them to be present in or on the land could have reasonably foreseen that their presence there could result in the contamination of that land.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 238ZA refers to what might be called the state-of-the-art defence. I know from reading the Framework document that the Government are not well disposed to this concept.
The argument is that the liability for remediation must be limited by the liability which the owner of the land or the polluter undertook when the pollution took place. If at the time Brussels had not invented the particular contaminant to which the remediation notice relates, how could the person concerned have known that he was doing a wrong thing when he allowed that contaminant or substance to be deposited on the land?
It is worth noting that in its report on the European Green Paper on the use of civil liability for remedying environmental damage your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities argued that there should be a state-of-the-art defence as a matter of equity and people in the companies should be encouraged to make the best efforts to minimise pollution. As drafted, the Bill clearly is in conflict with the principles of equity and natural justice.
In the document Framework for Contaminated Land the Government point out that the common law rule in Cambridge Water Company v. Eastern Counties Leather plc established that a plaintiff must establish that the specific damage complained of was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the polluting act or emission.
I wish to ask the noble Viscount two questions. First, does the rule established in Cambridge Water Company v. Eastern Counties Leather plc apply to remediation notices served by a local authority or by the agency? Secondly, what in practice is the difference between the state-of-the-art defence which is proposed in the amendment and the defence that pollution was not reasonably foreseeable arising out of the common law rule established in Cambridge Water Company v. Eastern Counties Leather plc? I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: This is as good a peg as any on which to hang a question to my noble friend about the meaning of the words "permitting or knowingly permitting". In his reply to me a few moments ago, my noble friend used the phrase "knowingly permitting". I think it is important for us to give consideration to what is meant by it, because it is a fairly loose term. Although, as I understand it, there is no substantive case law dealing directly with lender liability in the context of "knowingly permitting", a number of legal commentators have identified that lenders have a potential liability for knowingly permitting pollution with respect to activities of the borrower. Under the present drafting, therefore, as with the previous amendment, the risk remains that lenders could be held liable as appropriate persons, merely because they "knowingly permitted" substances which have

1455
contaminated land, to be on or under their land. I suggest that that might well be a matter which my noble friend may wish to consider.
Of course, lenders recognise that the environmental performance of their borrower may be one of the important factors when they come to make the loan and one may have loan documents which give lenders certain rights to check up that a borrower is performing his duties in relation to the pollution of the land. There may be circumstances in which a lender has a right to demand payment or immediate repayment or for the borrower to take corrective action if environmental performance is not up to scratch.
The fact remains that most banks and building societies are not experts in the field and they should not be held responsible for the acts or omissions of their borrowers merely because they happen to take what may be regarded as responsible steps to try to assess the quality of a borrower's environmental performance, requiring and monitoring environmental loan conditions. Again, there is the same problem. If the lenders are to be held liable in those circumstances, then lenders will not lend, business will suffer and the economy will suffer in consequence. There is an argument here as to what is meant. How far does the liability go and what do the words "permitted or knowingly permitted" mean in those circumstances?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I wish to follow my noble friend Lord Jenkin, but not quite down the same line as he took. My Amendments No. 238A and 372A, which is consequential, are grouped with Amendment No. 238ZA by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. As regards Amendment No. 238ZA it is, as the noble Lord described it, a state-of-the-art defence. In the circumstances which he described, I can see that it would be apt and fairly reasonable to accept the amendment.
Turning to the "appropriate person" with whom my noble friend Lord Jenkin was concerned, in the Bill the appropriate person is the one who caused or knowingly permitted the relevant substances to be in, on or under the land. But when we come to landfill, we find ourselves in something of a muddle. The waste regulation authority which licensed the site originally and which has monitored it and so on, has knowingly permitted the materials to be deposited. It not only permitted that to take place, but specified the types and quantities. So in a manner of speaking, it is the one who caused or knowingly permitted the contamination. If that is so, clearly the local authority cannot serve itself with a remediation notice. What then is to happen? Perhaps my noble friend will tell us.
A solution may well be, on the basis of the polluter pays principle, to ask who the polluter is. The polluter is probably no one single person. In relation to landfill, it is probably society in general. Therefore, if we designate authorities to administer these strict rules, we have to impose penalties on those who break the rules.
How do we impose penalties upon society at large? One might say that the interests of society at large have to be looked after by the public purse. There are a
1456
number of anomalies, as I read the Bill. We are all polluters. Once we have established the rules and had them properly applied and enforced, any further responsibility should be on society as a whole; that is, of course, on the public purse. I am not quite sure that my noble friend the Minister will accept that argument, but I would be grateful if he could clarify in the instance that I have briefly outlined just who is to be responsible.
11.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I should like to make three points, the first of which has been partly covered by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It raises the question of what might be regarded as contributory negligence. The point that really raises my concerns is the idea of serial legal action between owners of land and those who licensed the previous fill, and lenders, if that be the case. A great many things start breaking down if we set off down that road without having some sort of cut-off point. So, first, there has to be some element of containment of the social and economic (as it were) ill effects of any new legislation.
My second point is that there needs to be some sort of reciprocity of standards when we are talking about "fit for use". By that I mean that material considerations as to whether you have an old landfill site in one location and you want to put a housing estate in another location nearby must cut both ways. In other words, the position of the original landfill site must take into account as relevant considerations the proximity of other interests that could be affected. And by the same token, with the passage of time, new development must take into account the old sites. It cannot be otherwise. Therefore reciprocity of standards is extremely important.
I asked a learned acquaintance of mine the other day about "knowingly permitting" things. He said, "Yes, it has a long heritage in the area of health and safety". But I was unable to get an answer—and I do not know whether the Minister can help me—on this point. It seems to me that health and safety legislation relates primarily to a controlled workplace. By the very nature of the animal, we are dealing with something that is not totally in control. Either we do not have it properly contained, or we do not know enough about it. It is in some way out of control. I would like to know just how "knowingly permit" is to be interpreted in this instance.
Viscount Ullswater: These amendments seek to introduce exemptions from liabilities and defences against remediation notices in particular cases, and to require the local authority to act itself to deal with any contamination where these exemptions apply. The Government do not, as a matter of principle, accept any of these amendments.
These issues were considered on a general basis in our review of policy on contaminated land. It was argued by some that there should be a general regulatory compliance defence whereby polluters would be exempt from liability if they had acted in accordance with the consents and authorisations required for their particular activity. It was pointed out, however, that the general

1457
effect of such provisions could well be positively damaging to industry because it would encourage greater and often excessive caution on the part of regulators simply to protect themselves against potential future financial liabilities.
Introducing exemptions from liability of this kind would run clearly against the widely accepted "polluter pays" principle. As regulatory action under these provisions can be required only to deal with cases of risk to health or the wider environment, the exemption could only have the effect of transferring the necessary costs of remediation to someone else, whether another person or the public at large.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding asked me to go back to basics. He asked what the words "permitting" and "knowingly permitting" meant. There is no evidence that the case law on that phrase, which is taken from previous environmental legislation, such as the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, has led to the kind of interpretation that my noble friend sought to put on it. There is no reason to believe that the use of the phrase in these provisions will be interpreted any differently or as widely as has been suggested by some noble Lords.
Amendment No. 238ZA, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, would prevent a remediation notice being served on the basis that the contamination of the land could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time when the substances were caused or permitted to be present in or on the land, as a consequence of the then state of scientific and technical knowledge.
While this might appear to reflect the same test of "reasonable foreseeability", which was recently established in the common law through the decision in the Cambridge Water case, the Government do not believe that the comparison is justified. Common law and statute law in this area do not have the same purposes. Actions at common law seek to provide remedies for private persons in respect of a variety of tortious acts; this proposed statute seeks to establish a regulatory framework to remove risks to health and the environment without introducing any notion of compensation. Given those essential differences, it is reasonable for the two systems to diverge.
In practical terms, the availability of this exemption would leave almost any attempt by the enforcing authorities to deal with any contamination open to litigation attempting to prove the state of knowledge in the past. Another perverse effect could be to provide an incentive to hold back developments in the state of science, as greater understanding could result in greater future liabilities.
Amendment No. 238A, moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, seeks to introduce into these provisions an exemption from any remediation notice in respect of contamination caused by waste in a landfill for which a certificate of completion has been issued under the waste management licensing regime in Part II of the Environmental Protection Act. The unimplemented provisions in Section 61 of that Act, which we now propose to repeal, did include that specific exemption from the then proposed regulatory
1458
regime for closed landfills. However, that exemption would not necessarily have provided any protection against all potential actions under the statutory nuisance powers. In any case, following our policy review, we no longer consider that an exemption of that kind can be justified.
A certificate of completion for a closed landfill site is granted where it is:
"unlikely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health".
The certificate means that the licence can be surrendered and the operator is no longer subject to the regime of conditions, monitoring and charging which goes with a licence.
It is not, however, meant to be a guarantee that no harm would arise at any stage in the future. Clearly, it is to be hoped that none would occur. But our regime needs to address who should be liable if it does occur. We can see no reason of equity why, in this particular set of circumstances, the liability should pass from the polluter to the public purse. No such transfer of liability occurs, for example, where other potentially polluting land uses come to an end.
Having such an exemption could result in the environment agency (which will take over the responsibilities of the waste regulation authorities) holding back from the grant of completion certificates, as they would have the effect of transferring liability to the public purse.
Amendment No. 372A would, in effect, place a duty on a local authority itself to carry out remediation works at its own cost where as a result of an exemption it was unable to serve a remediation notice. As I have already indicated, the Government do not believe that such exemptions should exist, nor that liabilities should transfer to the public sector in that way. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject these amendments.
Lord Northbourne: I am profoundly disappointed by the noble Viscount's answer to my amendment. I believe that if the Government really want, as they state in paragraph 2.5 of their framework document, an efficient market in brownfield sites, they will certainly need something like the amendment. No business in its right mind will set up on a brownfield site with this sword of Damocles hanging over it when at any moment somebody may find a new contaminant and the company may be up for millions of pounds of remediation.
With that comment and the fact that I shall be coming back to the matter at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 238A, 238AA and 238B not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovilmoved Amendment No. 238BA:
Page 50, line 48, at end insert:
("(5) When an enforcing authority has served a remediation notice in accordance with this section, it shall be the duty of the authority to take appropriate steps to satisfy itself that the requirements of that

1459
notice have been complied with, and, if they have been, to issue and serve on the persons on whom that remediation was served a certificate of compliance with that notice.").
The noble Lord said: The proposed new Section 78(D) of the Act requires local authorities to serve notice on any site requiring restoration and to put a copy on the register. If we are to have a register, it would seem to me to be common sense that it should be kept up to date. Therefore it would be desirable that the same authority which serves the original notice requiring the restoration —I use the word advisedly—should, first, satisfy itself that the work has been done; secondly, put an entry on the register to that effect.
Amendment No. 238BA is a simple one. It does not need a long reply. I hope my noble friend will merely say that he will give it serious consideration.
Lord Northbourne: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 243A. I am happy with the solution to the problem of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and would not press the matter further unless the Government prefer our solution to his.
Viscount Ullswater: I listened carefully to what was said by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. Looking again at the provisions with respect to registers, we feel that something needs to be done with respect to the sites that have been right through the regulatory process. We wish to consider in more detail, in the light of the comments from my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, how we might do that. Though we are not attracted to the idea of deleting the sites altogether, we feel that the register should contain information in addition to that already specified in the provisions, specifically recording the nature and extent of any remediation works. We would look to bring forward an amendment at a later stage to plug that gap.
Included in this group is Amendment No. 244, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. It seeks to make explicit a requirement that a register of regulatory action as maintained by the various enforcing authorities should be available for public inspection and that facilities should be provided for the public to make copies of entries. It is certainly the Government's intention that the register should be public and should be available for inspection in much the same way as envisaged in the amendment. In developing the provisions we believe that that was already implied by the effects of other legislation such as the environmental information regulations 1992. However, if the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment, we will undertake to consider the question again and, if necessary, bring forward our own amendment at a later stage. It shows that sometimes silence is golden.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I think tonight it is platinum gold. I am very grateful to him for the help he has given on my amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am grateful to my noble friend for his assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1460
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 238BB:
Page 51, line 10, leave out ("be in, on") and insert ("come into, onto").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 238BB I shall speak also to Amendment No. 238C. Amendment No. 238BB relates to the question of exactly what subsection (2) means. It refers to a person who has knowingly permitted any of the substances by reason of which the land is contaminated to be in or on the land. It implies that any person who is on land which has at any time in the past had such substances on it or has substances which have come on it in the past is liable. The purpose of the amendment is to put into words what I assume the Government mean, that the person who is liable is he who allows such substances to be brought on to the land, or to come on to it.
Amendment No.238C raises a substantive issue: the innocent party who is asked to pick up the can. I do not seek to argue with the principle that those who have caused contamination, including landowners who have caused or allowed contamination or who have knowingly benefited from a discounted price in purchasing land that has been contaminated, should bear the cost of remediation to a standard fit for use.
However, Clause 78E goes far beyond that. In effect, the landowner becomes the scapegoat or long stop if the agency cannot find anyone else, even if he is completely innocent of blame and has had no benefit from the activity that has caused the contamination. The effect of subsections (2) and (3) is that, where the appropriate person cannot be found, or where liability has been transferred directly or inadvertently—thout necessarily the purchaser's knowledge or consent—the owner or occupier will be required to bear the costs of clearing up the contaminated land. That treats the landowner as a deep pocket, in exactly the way that the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, suggested was inappropriate for lenders.
The deletion of subsection (3) will protect only innocent landowners or occupiers. New subsection (3) says that, where a person who polluted can show that he transferred the liability to the present owner or occupier, it is that person who is liable and the polluter is no longer liable. The transfer must be expressly made. The reference to "directly or indirectly" is deleted. Such a phrase is a recipe for uncertainty and litigation. In (3) (a), if the polluter has explicitly transferred the liability to a person who has failed to transfer it on to the next owner or occupier, it is that person who remains liable, not the polluter or his successor. In (3)(b), where a person refuses entry on to land to do works or otherwise prevents any person to deal with contamination, that person becomes liable.
I should like to ask the noble Viscount two questions. First, how hard will the local authority have to try to find the polluter before it finally falls back on the unhappy and innocent landowner - assuming he is an

1461
innocent landowner? Secondly, what about the case where the polluter can be found but cannot pay? I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: The underlying concern shown by this amendment, and also expressed elsewhere, is that the test of "knowingly permitting" can spread the net of liability too wide, particularly as it can encompass knowingly permitting the continued presence of contaminating substances. Amendment No.238BB moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, seeks to resolve that perceived problem by restricting the application of the test so that it applies only to the original polluting act when the substances came into or on to the land.
We consider that the effect of the amendment is to exempt too many categories of people who should be held responsible. We believe that it would be reasonable for somebody who has had active control over contaminants on a site, for example when redeveloping it, to become responsible for any harm to health or the environment that may result, even if he did not originally cause or knowingly permit the site to become contaminated. This amendment would exclude such a person from liability.
The Government appreciate that there are anxieties expressed about the existing test and are considering the issue carefully but do not accept some of the wider constructions being placed by others on the words "knowingly permitting" since this is not reflected in the judgments of the courts. We recognise, however, that this is a question of potentially great significance and we may wish to return with further clarification at a later stage.
Amendment No. 238C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, seeks to amend the provisions by which liability might pass from the original polluter to the owner or occupier of the land. This, too, is an area in which the Government would wish to consider further the comments made both in this debate and elsewhere, and to bring forward a revised formulation at a later stage. The structure of liabilities set out in these provisions is intended to reflect the polluter pays principle that primary liability falls to the person who caused or knowingly permitted the contamination. In addition to the notion of a transfer of liabilities, the Government believe that where the original polluter cannot be found, it is justified that the current owner or occupier of the land should be held responsible for its condition and for any works needed to deal with the contamination. It is not a new concept. It was the position under the statutory nuisance powers in Part III of the Environmental Protection Act and also reflects principles in the common law. However, this amendment would mean that this principle would not be reflected in the contaminated land provisions. The Government believe that this would be wrong. However, I think I have indicated that the Government would wish to consider further the comments made in this area, and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1462
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 238C to 238E not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderleyhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 238F:
Page 51, line 20, at end insert:
("() Subsection (3) above shall not apply where compulsory powers exist to compel the owner or occupier to grant any interest in the land related to the activity or activities which gave rise to the contamination of the land, whether or not such compulsory powers were used.".").
The noble Lord said: I listened carefully to my noble friend's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Bearing in mind that my noble friend is taking the matter away and looking at it very carefully, at this stage I shall not move my amendment and shall wait until my noble friend comes back, I hope on Report, with an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
[Amendment No. 238F not moved.]
[Amendment No. 239 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 239A:
Page 51, line 32, leave out ("guidance") and insert ("regulations").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 239B, 239D and 242A. This is mercifully the last of my groups of amendments. Amendment No. 239A imposes a more appropriate framework of regulations rather than guidance. It is suggested that it is unconstitutional that onerous liabilities worth millions of pounds should depend on administrative guidance rather than on legal principles.
With regard to Amendment No. 239B, a person who simply appears to have caused or knowingly permitted contamination would be caught but for this amendment as well as a person who had done things. That is tantamount to saying that a person who looks guilty is guilty. The definition of "appear" in new Section 78F(6) makes it clear that the decision is to be an entirely subjective judgment by the authority and presumably not subject to appeal. Amendment No. 239D introduces a defence that the best possible practicable means had been used to prevent pollution. Amendment No. 242A enables appropriate persons to seek a contribution from any other appropriate person who caused the presence of contaminating substances in the land. In other words, where the authority goes for one person, that person can recover an appropriate part of the cost from other polluters, if he can find them. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I rise briefly to address Amendments Nos. 240 and 241, which are intended to be helpful. They suggest that the regulations which relate to appeals against the serving of remediation notices should be subject to regulations which make clear on what grounds those appeals may be made so that people know that information when they appeal and do not make mischievous appeals. The amendments provide that there shall be uniform procedures and generally attempt to tighten the grounds

1463
upon which regulations are made. They are intended to be helpful and to prevent appeals being too widely and mischievously drawn.
Lord Annaly: I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 242A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. In its present form, new Section 78E(4) relies on the Secretary of State's guidance as to whether the enforcing authority should serve a remediation notice on two or more owners. That raises the spectre of joint and several liability under which deep pockets may be unfairly forced to pay for damage caused by others. In order to promote the best investment in remediation, it is important for business to have reasonable certainty about the chain of responsibility where there is more than one appropriate person. At the very least, the principles by which a contribution to the costs can be recovered should be expressly stated in the Bill.
The noble Lord's amendment provides for a reasonable apportionment of costs so that a person is liable only to the extent of the damage for which he had responsibility. That is an equitable principle which is stated in the legislation. The Government's assurance is sought that the principle of apportionment of costs will be stated in the Bill and not left exclusively to guidance.
Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 243 in the names of my noble friend Lord Beaumont and myself is one to which I can speak far more briefly than may appear from the length of the amendment. It is essentially an anti-avoidance provision and seeks to deal with a situation where a disposal site is run through a company which is then wound up voluntarily, for instance as soon as the last load of waste is deposited on the site. It would make the owner liable for any remediation expenses—recovery could be quite expensive—and seeks to deal with the use of a shell company as the owner of a site in similar circumstances.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendments Nos. 239A and 242A, both of which were moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, relate to circumstances where two or more people may be responsible for the contamination on a single site.
Amendment No. 239A would replace guidance from the Secretary of State with regulations. The Government understand the concern that questions of this importance as to the determination of the potential liabilities of individuals and companies should be set out in guidance. That is why the provisions already include the strict requirement that the enforcing authorities act in accordance with such guidance and that it be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in its draft form through a negative resolution procedure, before it can come into effect.
The number of different circumstances which the guidance will have to address is potentially so great, however, that the Government believe that it would be all but impossible to frame it in the form of regulations.
We can at this stage give some indication of the basic principles which will underlie the guidance. First, where different people have separately contributed to the
1464
problems on a contaminated site, liability should be shared among them in proportion to their share of the overall responsibility for the contamination. This would be an explicit rejection of an approach based on joint and several liability, in which all of the liability could pass on to the shoulders of a smaller group of those responsible, or even on to one person. Similar principles could also apply where two or more owners each owned a part of a contaminated site.
The second overall principle would be that, where effective control over the same contamination had passed from one person to another, for example from the person who caused it to be present to another who knowingly permitted it to remain, liability should rest with the person who most recently could have exerted control over the contamination.
Those principles should give some comfort in respect of the concerns which appear to lie behind Amendment No. 242A. That would enable a person who has complied with a remediation notice to recover contributions to his reasonable costs from anyone else who caused the contamination to be present. However, as the provisions currently stand, any of those other persons would in any case be themselves potentially appropriate persons. That would mean that the Secretary of State's guidance would apply, and would govern the apportionment of the liability where that was necessary. If the recipient of a remediation notice thought that the system had not been followed correctly, he would be able to appeal against that aspect of the remediation notice.
Amendments Nos. 240 and 241 relate also to the question of regulations, in this case concerning appeals against remediation notices. Amendment No. 240 would make it a duty on the Secretary of state to make regulations with respect to the grounds for, and procedures on, such appeals. I point out that in any event the right of appeal against a remediation notice is not conditional upon such regulations being made. The effect of the amendment would also be to remove any discretion over whether the regulations had to set out any particular procedures for appeals. In most instances, those would be to the magistrates' courts, and there may be no need for new procedures to be established to deal with such appeals.
Amendment No. 241 would have the effect of making the indicative contents set out in the Bill for the scope of these regulations into required elements. It is important to maintain some discretion, particularly in respect of the contents of the regulations, so that the Government are not required to make regulations which may, at some time in the future, be deemed unnecessary.
The list of items for possible inclusion in these regulations, which is provided in the proposed new Section 78G(5) is deliberately drawn very widely, both to indicate what general issues are intended to be covered and to ensure that problems of vires do not arise. However, it might be neither necessary nor sensible in some circumstances to include provisions in the regulations dealing with all of the areas identified in that subsection. Amendment No. 241 would remove the necessary discretion to make that decision.

1465
Amendment No. 243, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would enable the court to declare that any director or officer of a body corporate which was dissolved to avoid liabilities in respect of contaminated land could himself be treated as the appropriate person to receive a remediation notice. The court could also declare that an enforcing authority could recover its costs or expenses from a holding company where it had set up a subsidiary company to avoid liability for contamination caused or knowingly permitted by the subsidiary company.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the Government wish to ensure, so far as is practicable and reasonable, that people and companies are not able to evade what should be their responsibilities under this clause. However, the Government have severe reservations about the precise effects which would be brought about by this amendment.
The provisions in the first subsection could, for example, place individual directors in an impossible position if potential liabilities in respect of contaminated land were threatening the solvency of their companies. If they kept their companies in business, they could be found guilty of "wrongful trading" under the provisions of the Section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986. But if they put those companies into voluntary liquidation in order to avoid questions of wrongful trading, they could be held personally liable for the costs of any remediation work required under these contaminated land provisions.
The second subsection would clearly "pierce the corporate veil", and run against the fundamental principles of limited liability for company ownership. The effect of the amendment would be to make shareholders, in this case holding companies, legally responsible for some of the liabilities of the companies in which they held shares.
I hope that I can reassure the Committee, however, that errant directors will not escape completely under the existing provisions of this clause. The new powers in respect of contaminated land which we are discussing here will, of course, sit within the wider provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Section 157 of that Act provides that where any offences under the Act are committed with the
"consent or connivance of, or are attributable to the neglect of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer"
those persons shall be themselves guilty of the offence and thus liable to be punished accordingly.
Amendment No. 239B, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is somewhat simpler. It seeks to replace a reference to someone appearing to have caused or knowingly permitted contamination with a stronger test of their having done so. This would reflect the wording used elsewhere in the provisions.
Rather than seeking to dispute the issue, the Government suggest that there may be a small number of other instances in the proposed new Section 78F to which the amendment applies. Having had these brought to their attention, they would wish to bring forward their own amendments to correct them at a later stage.
1466
Amendment No. 239D, also spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is similar. I ask Members of the Committee to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Northbourne: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 239B to 241 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvelmoved Amendment No. 241A:
Page 54, leave out lines 18 to 47.
The noble Lord said: It is with the greatest pleasure that I move Amendment No. 241A, which comes from the Opposition. We have listened to all kinds of arguments from the other side of the Committee and I wish to put forward an argument on our own. The Committee will be aware that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships' House has looked at the Bill and reached certain conclusions. I refer the Committee in particular to paragraph 8 on page 2 of the report. The committee points out that the memorandum from the department justifies the negative procedure under the new Section 78H—which is azx Henry VIII power to increase a fine at random—by stating that the power,
"is necessary to ensure that the real value of the fine can be left constant".
However, the new section does not state that that is the purpose.
The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee accordingly draws the attention of the House to new Section 78H(3) in Clause 54. That committee would be happy if the Minister were to give an undertaking which could be referred to in the courts. As a result of Pepper v. Hart, undertakings by Ministers can be referred to—
Viscount Ullswater: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord but I wonder whether he is addressing Amendment No. 241A, which leaves out lines 18 to 47, or whether he is addressing Amendment No. 242, which changes the resolution of each House of Parliament.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I was under the impression that I was addressing Amendment No. 241A, which leaves out new Section 78H. However, on the advice of the Minister, I shall look at that. Yes, I am addressing Amendment No. 241A. That leaves out, as the amendment on the Marshalled List points out, a clause which is to be inserted, the rubric of which reads:
"Offences of not complying with a remediation notice".
The section is new Section 78H. The subsection of that section to which the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee took exception is Section 78H(3), which the Minister will find at line 31 on page 54. Therefore, my remarks are relevant to the report of the committee and, indeed, to what I have been saying hitherto.
The report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee states that the section as it stands
"does not state that this is the purpose",
that is, to keep the real value of the fine constant,

1467
"and the House may consider that the Minister should be invited to give an undertaking on this issue, which could be invoked by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments if the power were used to increase the real value of the fine".
That is what your Lordships' Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has said. That is why I move the amendment; in order to obtain such an undertaking from the Minister.
The Minister may think that I am referring to something else. The noble Baroness has tabled an amendment which relates to the same report. I am referring specifically to Clause 54 and the words which I say in my amendment should be left out. We need an undertaking from the Minister along the lines which the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee asks for. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 242, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has added his name.
I am making the same point. The amendment seeks to provide a greater safeguard in the application of subsection (3) of new Section 78H and to seek an affirmative resolution in the case of an order to increase the maximum amount of the fine. It would clearly be helpful if the Minister were able to give the undertaking which the noble Lord seeks as to the purpose of the use of the power being to keep the real value of the fine constant. If the Minister were able to give that undertaking, it could be invoked by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, if the power were used.
Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps I may be permitted to address Amendment No. 242 in the first instance. That may answer the question, about which I have become rather confused.
Amendment No. 242, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, would impose an affirmative resolution procedure on any order made by the Secretary of State to increase the maximum level of fine for non-compliance with a remediation notice in respect of industrial, trade or business premises.
The provision which this amendment seeks to change has also attracted comments from the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers, who described it as a Henry VIII clause. In our memorandum to that committee, the Government stated that our intention in providing a power to raise the level of the fine was to ensure that the real value of the fine can be left constant. I am happy to confirm on the record in your Lordships' House that that is indeed the Government's only intention in respect of that power.
However, in the light of the obvious anxieties over the operation of this particular power, I am happy to accept Amendment No. 242, and to have the power subject to an affirmative resolution procedure, although we shall have to come forward with a consequential drafting amendment to Section 161 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 later in your Lordships' proceedings. Having said that, I could address myself to other points contained in the
1468
amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. However, I believe that what I have said may have satisfied the point for him.
12 Midnight
Lord Campbell of Croy: As the only member of the Select Committee on delegated powers present in the Chamber (which has the duty of drawing attention to such matters), I was very glad to hear the response just given by my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I find the situation very odd. The Minister has just agreed with what the Select Committee requested. Indeed, he went further than that: he not only agreed with what the Select Committee asked for, but he went on to say that that should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am perfectly relaxed about that fact. It does not bother me. However, I should have been perfectly happy with an undertaking from the Minister that the point of Section 78H was to keep the real value of the fine constant. But, if the Minister likes to go further, then that is his problem. I am just rather surprised and taken aback by his response.
Nevertheless, if the Minister is willing to go further, I shall wish to draw attention on Report to paragraph 9 on page 2 of the report of the delegated powers scrutiny committee as regards other matters for which the committee might prefer the affirmative rather than the negative procedure to apply. I have not done so to date, but in the light of the Minister's remarks I shall certainly grasp one-and-a-half loaves rather than half a loaf. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 242:
Page 54, line 47, at end insert:
(" (5) No order shall be made under subsection (3) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should like to say a few gracious words to the noble Viscount for having accepted my noble friend's amendment. The fact that he has done so will be widely approved by Members of this Chamber.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 242A to 245A not moved.]
The Earl of Lyttonhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 245AZA:
Page 58, line 45, after ("practitioner") insert ("or as a receiver of land (not being an insolvency practitioner)").
The noble Earl said: I should just like to say that I very much appreciate the response that the Minister gave earlier. On that basis, I shall not move the two amendments tabled in my name.
[Amendment No. 245AZA not moved.]
[Amendment No. 245AZB not moved.]
[Ámendment Nos. 245AA and 245AB not moved.]
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Addisonmoved Amendment No. 245B:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:

1469
("Old mineral planning permissions
After section 22 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 there shall be inserted—
"Old mineral planning permissions.
22A.—(1) For the purposes of this Act "old mineral planning permisssion" means any planning permission for development—

(a) consisting of the winning and working of minerals; or

(b) involving the depositing of mineral waste,

which was deemed to have been authorised after 1st July 1948 and before 22nd February 1982.
(2) Any person with an old mineral planning permission to win or work minerals or to deposit waste shall, within 5 years of the date of the coming into force of section (Old mineral planning permissions) of the Environment Act 1995, apply to the relevant mineral planning authority for approval of the environmental conditions to which the permission is subject.
(3) An old mineral planning permission shall—

(a) if no application for the registration of the permission is made under this section, cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which such an application may be made; and

(b) if such an application is refused, cease to have effect on the day following the date on which the application is finally determined.".").

The noble Viscount said: The above amendment and Amendment No. 247B tackle the environmental problems created by old mineral planning permissions granted between 1948 and 1981, and prior to the 1981 minerals Act. I am aware that these amendments are widely welcomed outside the Chamber and have the support of several environmental groups as well as the Countryside Commission.
I highlighted some of the problems of old mining permissions in national parks at Second Reading, but the issues go much wider than this. It is clear that some of our finest landscapes and wildlife sites are now threatened by minerals extraction which was given the go-ahead 30 or 40 years ago, when concern for the environment was much less than it is today. Many old mining permissions are out of step with the environmental standards now required of new permissions, and also of the pre-1948 permissions—the so-called interim development orders—which have recently been updated as a result of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
These permissions are therefore anomalies in the mineral planning system. They often lack proper working conditions such as noise limits and frequently contain no requirement for the restoration of sites. By operating to lower standards than those applied to other mineral planning permissions, they also introduce distortions in the market. Many of these permissions are currently in operation and it is estimated that around the country 1,600 old permissions currently lie dormant, creating an environmental time bomb waiting to go off. Some of the worst problems lie within our national parks. There are believed to be at least 118 non-active sites across the national parks. In the Brecon Beacons and Pembrokeshire Coast there are 24 million tonnes of rock reserves waiting to be worked at currently dormant sites, amounting to nearly half of all rock reserves in these two national parks.
1470
It is widely recognised that these old mineral planning permissions are in urgent need of review. The Government have already made a number of welcome statements outlining their commitment to tackle the issue and to introduce the legislation needed to improve the situation. This commitment was most recently reiterated in the consultation paper on the review of old mineral planning permissions issued by the Department of the Environment last summer. We should not forget, however, that this issue was recognised as urgent by the Stevens Committee nearly 20 years ago and the Government have promised action since their first environment White Paper in 1990.
Amendment No. 245B would introduce a statutory time limit of five years for mineral operators to register their old mineral planning permissions with the mineral planning authority for the approval of modern working conditions. This issue was originally tackled in the 1981 minerals Act, which placed a statutory duty on mineral planning authorities to review mineral sites in their area. The measures set out in that Act have failed, however, as they establish no time limits on this duty. Consequently very little progress has been made in reviewing damaging permissions.
My first amendment, by requiring mineral operators to register their old permissions with the mineral planning authority for review within five years, would ensure that real progress could be achieved. The Government's recent consultation paper on reviewing old mineral permissions indicated their support for the introduction of a statutory time limit along the lines set out in my amendment. I hope my noble friend the Minister can give this amendment a fair wind.
My second amendment tackles the problem that many mineral planning permissions remain valid for too long. Currently, permissions granted before 1982 are valid until the year 2042, or 60 years. It is widely acknowledged and accepted by the Government that this period is too long. The purpose of my second amendment is to shorten the period until 2012 —30 years. It should be recognised that under current legislation a mineral planning permission granted in the 1950s could be valid for nearly 100 years! During this time the weight of importance attached to the environment, changing attitudes and the needs of society are likely to have altered greatly. In addition, a site could remain dormant for years and years and be reactivated with no notice, much to the concern of local residents and with potentially serious environmental consequences. It is now generally accepted that this is an overly generous period and that 30 years should be ample time to allow any investment to be recouped. Any mineral remaining in the ground after the investment had been written off would not have significant value and could not have significant value until further investment had been committed to mine and process it.
I believe that the amendment strikes the right balance between reducing the time for which damaging old mineral permissions may remain valid and allowing ample time for mineral operators to secure a return on any investment. It is therefore a reasonable approach to

1471
this difficult issue and would greatly help to reduce the lurking environmental threat posed by old mineral planning permissions. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I have put my name to the amendment. My noble friend has explained its purpose admirably.
I am concerned about permissions for extracting ironstone, which is a narrower subject within the terms of the amendment. Those permissions were mainly in Northamptonshire, other parts of the Midlands and Lincolnshire. The permissions are now out of date and superfluous as regards ironstone, which was used in the steel industry but has not been needed since 1979. The local environment is much affected and could continue to be affected if action is not taken.
The ironstone has lain below other minerals, chiefly limestone and clay. Those had to be removed before the ironstone could be extracted. The permissions allowed that, but since ironstone has no longer been needed those other minerals are those which are being extracted. The permissions now have the effect of allowing the extraction of substances which were not the objective at the time the permissions were granted. That time was soon after World War II, when ironstone was essential for our steel industry, especially in the area of Corby. That was 40 years ago and more. Those permissions were reserved for central government, which took the decisions, not local authorities.
In those immediate post-war years, the urgent requirement to assist the development of our industries, including steel, meant that the conditions attached to the permissions did not have as much regard to environmental considerations as would be normal today.
The permissions extended for many years and are not due to expire until 2042—nearly 50 years' time. In the meantime, heavy lorries are causing damage and operations are encroaching on villages. While observing fully and correctly the conditions—which are lax—the mineral companies are causing problems to rural villages and communities. Those troubles are likely to increase. Furthermore, there are few, if any, requirements to restore the land after use. That laxity seems very strange today, but it was not strange in the early 1950s.
I know that the Government's views on ironstone are similar to those which I have just expressed, because they are set out in the press release and discussion document which was issued to local authorities in the spring of last year. I hope that I am pushing at an open door in the case of the past mining of this particular mineral, which is no longer needed or extracted.
I have every wish to encourage and assist the minerals industry, and there is no shortage of suitable sites for extracting those minerals which are still needed. I understand that the local communities are not opposed. It is a matter of bringing the system up to date, especially in respect of the environmental arrangements.
Providentially, last week the CBI sent me its latest publication, Living with minerals. In that document the CBI says that:
1472
"the UK minerals industry is now a creative and sensitive agent in the conservation and restoration of the environment —our common heritage. While mineral extraction by definition involves a permanent depletion of a natural resource, in land use terms mineral working is compatible with the principles of sustainable development. Mineral companies accept their special responsibility to follow best practice. They work to integrate mineral development with conservation, to maintain natural wildlife habitats, and, where desired and practicable, to return land to a natural state".
It seems therefore that the operators will understand what is needed now—it has just been described—as opposed to over 40 years ago and will co-operate.
The simplest reform with regard to ironstone—I commend it—would be to revoke the permissions on a future date giving all concerned plenty of time. However, companies which are interested could apply in the meantime for permission to extract minerals such as limestone, clay and other substances. Their workings would then be re-established on a proper, modern basis. I understand that revocation would require primary legislation. The Bill presents that opportunity; the primary legislation is before us.
The amendment covers a much wider field than the problem relating to ironstone to which I referred. We shall listen with attention to what the Minister says in reply. However, I understand that the Government agree that the ironstone permissions should be revoked. Why wait? It might be two, three or even more years before other primary legislation can be introduced.
I have not found it easy to draft an amendment for revocation neatly and correctly. The Government could certainly draft and table an amendment to the present Bill if they wish to save valuable time. I hope that at a later stage, or in another place, a government amendment will appear in due course.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am sorry to detain the Committee. I know little about ironstone. The subject has been argued persuasively by my old colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. However, the amendment goes much further. I have been approached by the British Cement Association and the British Aggregate Construction Materials Industries to oppose the amendments. I have no doubt that the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and my noble friend Lord Williams have separately received the same information as I have. I shall, therefore, not dwell on it in any detail at this late hour. However, the amendments are the only items among the proposals before the Committee which seek, single-mindedly, to damage an industry—the extraction of aggregates industry.
The permissions already granted to those industries represent their assets. The retrospective nature of the proposals in the amendments are, I believe, out of order. The two proposed amendments are potentially extremely serious for the aggregates industry. In their different ways they both attack the asset base and the economic generation of the quarries. This is an important point. No other land use whatever is subject to retrospective withdrawal of planning permission without full compensation and, as I understand it, no element of compensation is proposed in the amendments before us tonight.

1473
In terms of the asset base of the companies involved in the aggregate extraction industry, the mineral in the ground is the tangible asset, the security against which capital investment is justified. If we reduce the life of the mineral from 60 to 30 years, the asset base of the companies would then be affected, with a likely consequential effect on their ability to undertake the very environmental propositions which are demanded. The removers of aggregates already accept the duty to restore the environment to as near the condition as that in which they found it. It will not be quite the same but will be rather better than a hole in the ground.
All that remains for me to say is that for some time discussions have been in train between the Government and the industry. They are continuing and it would be quite improper to pass amendments of this kind at this stage before they have reached a conclusion. I hope that the Committee will turn the amendments down.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: The Committee would not wish me at this late hour to make a speech, but I wholeheartedly support the amendments of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. Of particular anxiety is the removal of large quantities of stone from some of our most beloved parts of the country for use often in building motorways and other constructions where substitute materials could be used. It is one reason again for welcoming the slowing down in the road programme that perhaps not quite so much in the way of crushed rock and stone will be needed to build up our roads. I merely wish at this stage to record that I wholeheartedly support the amendment.
Lord Desai: I support the amendment and wish especially to correct the impression given by my noble friend Lord Howie on what capital assets and values are about. Earlier today we heard some interesting fallacies about the polluter pays principle. People spoke as if the fact that one cannot identify one polluter or that the polluter did not anticipate consequences lets the polluter off. I do not think that that is true. We must take the view that the aggregate industry and whichever firms exist have in the past polluted and not paid the proper cost, when most of them made excess profits. From that point of view their current asset values are inflated. To the extent that we say that the rules must be complied with, the amendment would force the market to take account of the appropriate costs of correcting for pollution, which have so far been neglected. So rather than being harmful to the industry, I agree that asset values will fall, but the problem is that asset values are currently exaggerated. They will return to their proper values. After all, that is what we want.
Lord Howie of Troon: The last thing I wish is to disagree with my noble friend because he knows much more about economics than I do. However, he has overlooked the fact that the aggregate industry is already involved in putting back into the environment at least as much as it has taken out. The current discussions between the industry and the Government are intended to accelerate and increase that progress.
1474
I hope we are not going to have a dialogue at this late hour. My noble friend is never wrong, but on this occasion he is not wholly right.
Viscount Ullswater: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Addison for raising the environmental issues relating to old mining permissions and to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for raising the problems of the ironstone permissions. The Committee will understand that these are not easy issues to resolve. They have concerned the Government for some time and I should like briefly to tell the Committee of the steps my department has taken so far to facilitate reforms.
After the success of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 in dealing with the problem of interim development order permissions granted between 1943 and 1948, we turned our attention to other old mineral permissions granted in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. We followed the issue of an options paper in 1992 with a series of reform proposals in March of last year. That paper, The Reform of Old Mineral Permissions 1948–1981, attracted a considerable response and a summary of the views of those who wrote to us has been deposited in the Library.
Subsequent to those responses, departmental Ministers and officials have conducted a series of bilateral meetings with environmental and amenity groups, with the different operational sectors of the minerals industry, with the ironstone landowners and the minerals planning authorities. Those meetings have been generally constructive.
These are very important issues which the Government have a long-standing commitment to take forward as indicated by our consultation paper on proposals for change last year. It is a complex matter, as our discussions this evening have indicated. It is complex to get the right balance between the rights of those who hold long-standing valid mining permissions and the proper protection of the environment and amenity. I shall want to give the most careful consideration to these amendments and to the other representations that have been made in response to our consultation exercise and to make a statement on the Government's conclusions on Report. In the meantime, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Addison: I am greatly encouraged by my noble friend's reply. I understand his concerns and other concerns with my amendments as they stand. But I am grateful that he has supported in principle the points that they raise. It is extremely important that progress is made before the Bill goes to the other place. With this in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Abandoned mines: England and Wales]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitleymoved Amendment No. 246:
Page 60, line 40, at end insert:

1475
("() It shall be the duty of the operator of the mine to publish any notice given under subsection (1) above in one or more newspapers circulating in any area that may be affected by consequences of the abandonment.").
The noble Lord said: At this hour of the night we approach the problem of abandoned mines. The matter is extremely serious, as all Members of the Committee will know. It has very great and grave consequences for the environment. The amendment in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Moran, seeks to extend the duties of the operator of the mine in giving notice of his intention to close a mine.
The Bill as presently drafted says that he shall inform the agency, and that is absolutely right. It goes on to say that the agency shall inform the local authorities, and that is right. In that way the matter comes into the public domain. But this matter is so important, and affects so many people who live round about the area of a mine, that it is right that we should try to short-cut the process by making it the duty of the mine owner to give public notice by publishing his intention in the newspapers that circulate in the area. That is the reason for this amendment. I hope that the Government will see fit to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: I rise to support the amendment. This concerns the wider dissemination of information concerning the planned abandonment of mines.
Before the passing of this Bill—that is, at this moment —a mine operator is under no duty to give any notice of intention to abandon the mine. But the wording of Clause 55 will improve the situation in that an obligation is imposed to notify the agency in advance of abandonment. That is helpful but by no means sufficient. Although this particular notification procedure is welcomed, it does not provide a procedure where other interested parties who will be directly affected by the abandonment will be so informed. Of course, I support the amendment to the effect that the local press should be informed.
But what of the owners of fishing rights? Their enterprise may well be adversely affected by a mine abandonment, the pumping of mine water likely to cease, rising mine water levels, the fear of mine water seepage and of pollution. Also, within the area of a mine closure, should not the regional fisheries committees of the National Rivers Authority be informed, thereby being enabled to take whatever precautions are necessary should they anticipate a flooding or pollution problem of the rivers or still waters of their area? I believe too that it is also sensible to alert the national office of the Salmon and Trout Association, so that its branches can be alerted in the vicinity of the abandoned mine.
The Salmon and Trout Association is the senior game angling organisation in Great Britain. It is the governing body of the sport in England and Wales. It is concerned with the wellbeing of all waters, and in particular those that hold stocks of salmon, sea trout, trout and grayling. It is the only organisation in England and Wales that monitors all applications for licences for abstraction and
1476
consents to discharge made to the National Rivers Authority. As a result, branches in all regions are watchful for any pollution problems.
Pollution from abandoned mines is certainly a concern. Valuable salmon rivers and their stocks could be at risk. The Minister will know that the River Wear in the County of Durham is a classic example. With regard to the general area of concern about pollution—that is what everyone concerned with the environment, pollution and pure waters is worried about—I would want the headquarters of the Anglers' Conservation Association, which incorporates the Pure Rivers Society, to be informed in advance of pit closures and abandonment of mines.
The Anglers' Conservation Association is a national organisation of high repute in the angling world. Its individual membership and that of its angling clubs cater for about 250,000 anglers throughout England and Wales. It exists mainly to fight the polluters of our inland waters, rivers, lakes and reservoirs. It is the one major organisation with 40 years of experience of taking the polluters to court and making them pay, having lost only two cases in that time. Therefore, for the benefit of its membership and the wider knowledge of any likelihood of pollution problems arising from abandoned mines, the ACA too should receive prior notification of pit closures and abandonments.
I do not feel that it is sufficient for the agency, having been informed of a proposed abandonment, in its turn to inform the local authority. The matter should not rest there. As I pointed out, there are other interested bodies which need to be notified, with some of whom the local authorities will not be in touch.
The newspapers circulating in the area, having broken the news to the locals—if the Minister accepts this amendment —will help to plug some of the gap of concern. But I hope that some thought will be given to specific organisations being informed, at least those that I have mentioned. The Minister may not be able to give me a full reply at the end of this debate on the amendment, I hope that he will give the matter some thought and give us some more information at Report stage.
12.30 a.m.
Viscount Ullswater: This amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is concerned with the new requirements for mine operators to give the agency at least six months' notice of any proposed abandonment of a mine. It proposes that any such notice should be published in newspapers circulating in areas which may be affected by the consequences of the abandonment.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, exemplified the anxieties that many of the fishing interests, including the Anglers' Conservation Association, would have as regards the concept of the abandonment of mines.
The purpose of requiring mine operators to give prior notice is to allow the agency to assess fully the likely impact on the water environment of a proposed abandonment and to identify any steps which may need to be taken in order to protect water quality. The matters

1477
to be considered will be of a technical nature. I am satisfied that there would not be any reason at this stage for a mine operator to publish a notice in the local press of a proposal to abandon a mine. In addition, this would place a further, unnecessary, burden on industry.
However, we have taken account of the need to inform local authorities in some circumstances of a proposal to abandon a mine. Where the agency receives notice of an abandonment and considers that harm or water pollution will be caused in the area of a local authority by water from the mine, it must inform the local authority of the abandonment.
I should point out that, if a consent is required for a discharge which will be caused in consequence of the abandonment, the Water Resources Act 1991 will require the application for that consent to be advertised in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of State. I know that that does not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, would like me to go. However, I shall consider carefully what he said this evening to see whether further action should be taken. In the meantime, I hope he will agree that adequate notice will be given to those concerned.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: That is an extremely disappointing reply. It does not meet any of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, and myself. When the noble Viscount reads tomorrow what he said in Hansard he will probably agree with me. To say that the publishing of an intention to close a mine in one or more newspapers circulating in the area is,
"a further, unnecessary, burden on the industry",
is ludicrous. It is a most unsatisfactory reply and we shall certainly come back to this matter at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardonmoved Amendment No. 247:
Page 61, line 17, at end insert:
("() any county council").
The noble Baroness said: This is a simple amendment. It seeks to include county councils within the definition of local authorities. It may be that when the Bill was drafted it was assumed that there would no longer be county councils. Of course things have changed since then and the amendment seeks to include county councils within the local authority definition.
Viscount Ullswater: This amendment seeks to add "county council" to the definition of "local authority" in proposed new Section 91B. It is really a technical point. The local authorities to be informed of a proposed abandonment are those which will have functions with regard to contaminated land in Clause 54. There will therefore only be a need to inform a county council when it is the council of an area for which there are no district councils. That is reflected in the definition of "local authority" in proposed Section 91B as currently drafted. I hope that that indicates that if the county council is the council in the area, it will be notified.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Were the noble Baroness to decide to challenge the Minister's view,
1478
there would be no quorum in the House when the Division took place. The Chamber has now been sitting for over 10 hours. The noble Viscount will be aware, as a former Chief Whip, of the discussions in the Procedure Committee about hours of sitting of the House. I must say to him quite bluntly that it is wholly unreasonable that we are discussing matters of this importance at this time of night, particularly when we adjourned consideration of this Bill at 7 o'clock last Thursday evening.
I do not propose to press this matter any further. However, I wish it to be placed on the record that in the future my noble friends and I will not accept procedures of this sort.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I do not intend to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Kintoremoved Amendment No. 247A:
Page 61, line 29, at end insert:
("Mine operators to notify Agency of proposed transfer of ownership.
It shall be the duty of the operator of a mine to inform the Agency of any proposal to transfer the ownership of a mine which is to, or which may, become an abandoned mine at any time after the expiration of the initial period".").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 247A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 247D. These amendments are intended to ensure that the agency in England and Wales, (in Clause 55) and SEPA (in Clause 56) are informed about any proposed change of ownership of any mine as soon as possible after the Bill becomes an Act. We feel that there is a danger of a rogue mine owner trying to evade his future responsibilities by a quick sale or disposal. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: The amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, seeks to place a duty on the operator of a mine to notify the agency or SEPA of any proposal to transfer the ownership of any mine which is to be abandoned, or may be abandoned. The wording of the amendment will require proposals to transfer the ownership of any mine which is, or may become, an abandoned mine at any time from six months after the transfer date to be notified to the agency or SEPA. Such a requirement could add to the bureaucratic workload of the agency and SEPA without materially improving their ability to control water pollution.
I understand the thinking behind the amendment of the noble Earl. However, in our view the provisions already in Clauses 55 and 56 will significantly enhance the powers of the agency and SEPA to anticipate and prevent water pollution from abandoned mines. We do not believe that the proposed amendments make any further contribution of substance to that aim. On that basis, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Kintore: I thank the noble Earl for his answer. At this time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

1479
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
[Amendment No.247B not moved.]
Clause 56 [Abandoned mines: Scotland]:
The Earl of Lindsaymoved Amendment No.247C:
Page 62, line 35, at end insert:
("(4) This Part extends only to Scotland.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this minor technical amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.247D not moved.]
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 [Amendments to sections 89 and 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991]:
Baroness Hilton of Eggardonmoved Amendment No.248:
Page 63, line 38, after ("apply") insert ("to the Coal Authority or").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos.248 and 250 seek to ensure that somebody is responsible when mines are abandoned and by the turning off of pumps water overflows from mine workings and pollutes rivers. At present the situation is wholly unsatisfactory. If a mine is abandoned it is not clear who is responsible. We have asked questions in this House about who will maintain the pumps and keep them running. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Coal Authority is responsible for maintaining the pumps so that polluted water does not escape and run into rivers. The amendment is closely associated with Amendment No.249 and the following one that seek to change the timescale. I shall be addressing those amendments in due course. This amendment is an attempt to pin responsibility clearly on somebody to ensure that mine waters do not pollute rivers or drinking water supplies. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, seeks to remove existing statutory protections from the Coal Authority with respect to water pollution from abandoned mines. The amendment will prevent the existing defence against prosecution for pollution, and the existing exemption from recovery of expenses, where water from an abandoned mine is only permitted to pollute controlled waters, from applying to the Coal Authority. The removal of the defence and exemption would apply to discharges permitted by the Coal Authority from abandoned mines, regardless of when such mines were abandoned, or by whom.
We believe it to be right that the defence and exemption should be ended. Clause 57 would have that effect for all mines abandoned after the end of 1999. We have thought carefully about this change in the course of a lengthy review of the legal framework for discharges from abandoned mines and have reached several conclusions. Discharges from abandoned mines vary widely in their impact on the water environment. Some result in no pollution while others are more serious. Outright removal of the defence and exemption as
1480
proposed in the amendment would require the Coal Authority to seek discharge consents for all discharges, regardless of the degree of pollution, and to comply with them. That would not be justified in many cases and would place a heavy burden on the public purse.
We should not in any case distinguish between different types of mines or discharges permitted by public or private sector bodies. There is no reason to treat such discharges differently. We believe it would be wrong to withdraw suddenly those statutory protections which apply now to all abandoned coal mines for which the Coal Authority has responsibility. The Government have already said that they would expect the Coal Authority to go beyond the minimum standards of environmental responsibility which are set by its legal duties and to seek the best environmental result which can be secured by the use of the resources that are available to it. We must accept that the Coal Authority, like all public bodies, has limited financial resources. The amendments would destroy the careful balance of the Government's proposals between protecting the environment and safeguarding the public purse. Having said that, I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I find that a disappointing response. It is still not at all clear who is responsible for maintaining the pumping from mines, whether they be old coal mines or other mines. We had hoped that the amendments would ensure that responsibility was clearly defined. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but reserve the right to return at the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderleymoved Amendment No. 248A:
Page 63, line 38, leave out ("if the mine in question") and insert ("to the owner of any land unless he was also the operator of the mine in question and that mine").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 249B, 250A and 251B. As I understand the way the Bill is written, the liability for clearing up any contamination and, indeed, stopping further contamination from a mine would rest in the end on the owner of the land. The abandoned mine could well be on adjacent land yet surface on an innocent landowner, with the liability then resting on that innocent landowner. That is clearly unjust. The amendment would exonerate the innocent landowner.
In the great majority of cases the abandoned mine will be a coal mine. As I understand it, there is a danger that it will be extremely difficult—perhaps impossible—to find anyone liable for mines abandoned after 31st December 1999, in which case, unless the amendment is accepted, the innocent landowner may well end up carrying the responsibility. I do not think that that conforms with the statement of the Minister for Energy in the House of Commons on 22nd March 1994. Having referred to the Water Resources Act 1991, he said:
"The legislation is there in that form because when the Bill was introduced and the Act debated it was felt to be unreasonable to place an absolute obligation in respect of environmental damage on

1481
a landowner who may never have been responsible for mining at all and who may have bought the land without being aware that it was undermined".—[Official Report, Commons, 2213/94; col. 207.]
That principle applies equally to contaminated land. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: As I indicated, Clause 57 removes the statutory protections for discharges permitted to flow from mines abandoned after the end of 1999. We have proposed that change because we believe that the existing framework is anomalous and treats discharges from abandoned mines differently from all other discharges. The amendments would maintain the defence against prosecution for pollution of controlled waters and the exemption from cost recovery by the agency where water is only permitted to flow from an abandoned mine in the case of landowners unless they were the operator of the mine and the discharge was a result of the abandonment of the mine.
In putting forward the provisions in Clauses 55 and 57, we have tried to strike a balance between protecting the environment and creating a regime which is workable. My noble friend's amendment would introduce further anomalies and would also make it a simple matter for mine operators to avoid their responsibilities by selling mines on abandonment to another person who could then benefit from the maintained protection. I am sure that my noble friend did not intend that effect, but I think he should consider the wider repercussions of the amendment and I therefore ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: If my noble friend is right, I did not intend that course, but I did intend what I said—I do not believe that an innocent landowner should pay. I shall read carefully in Hansard what my noble friend has said to see whether I should return with this amendment at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardonmoved Amendment No. 249:
Page 63, line 39, leave out ("31st December 1999") and insert ("the transfer date").
The noble Baroness said: This is a further attempt to ensure that somebody is responsible for dealing with pollution from abandoned mines. For some strange reason, although the Government are minded to address the problem, they have inserted a date which is nearly five years hence which gives people the opportunity to abandon mines or in some other way to get rid of them in the meantime without having the responsibility for dealing with the pollution pinned upon them. I do not understand why there should be such a long delay in removing the exemption from prosecution for pollution.
The amendments in the group insert "the transfer date" as the appropriate date and give a date next year. Both provisions seek to make clear who should be responsible and that that should be forthwith rather than in five years' time. I beg to move.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: I rise to support the amendment. It is most important to me, coming as I do from a mining community. The amendments seek the
1482
immediate abolition of the defence available to the owner of an abandoned mine under the Water Resources Act 1991 and are to ensure that that defence should not continue for another five years.
On page xiii of the introduction to the Bill, headed "Abandoned mines", the Government freely admit that the reason for the delay in abolishing the defence is to reduce the possibility of an,
"adverse effect on proceeds to the Government"—
that is, the proceeds of the privatisation. Presumably it is believed that leasing mines would be less attractive to the private sector if the defence were removed immediately. Therefore, a five-year safeguard has been given. That is incredible. It shows a blatant disregard for the environment and the likely pollution problems caused by the abandonment of mines.
Many organisations have already expressed concern. Indeed, the National Rivers Authority in my region of Yorkshire and Northumbria has already informed me that,
"In relation to future mine abandonments, Clause 57 of the Bill removes the existing defence against prosecution for pollution and exemption from recovery of expenses where water from an abandoned mine is permitted to enter controlled waters. However, the change would only apply to mines abandoned after 31 December 1999".
The NRA finds that incredible and supports amendments bringing the date forward to 1st April 1996.
The NRA report Abandoned Mines and the Water Environment which was published in March last year stated that in England and Wales alone 200 kilometres of rivers, streams and brooks are already affected by varying degrees of pollution from abandoned coal-mines. In the Scottish coalfield there are 134 kilometres of surface waters which are polluted from 110 discharges in the Clyde and Forth catchment areas alone. The Coalfield Communities Campaign has been very concerned about this and believes that the timing of the proposed measure is directly related to the Government's intention to maximise the proceeds from the sale of the coal industry and not—I emphasise the word "not"—to the need to protect the environment of the mining areas. It also seems relevant that the Coal Authority, which is at present continuing pumping operations in areas such as Durham and South Yorkshire where mines have already been abandoned, might become criminally liable if it stops pumping, whereas it might not if there is a five-year delay in abolishing the defence.
Neither in the Coal Industry Act nor the Bill have the Government made any attempt to clarify responsibility for environmental pollution that is the legacy of Britain's coal mining industry.
The existing abandoned mine defence ought to be abolished immediately. If existing pumping by the Coal Authority were to stop before 31st December 1999, the length of polluted rivers would increase greatly and threaten rivers of national importance. Looked at in that light, it is again clear that the Government are concerned more with raising revenue than with protecting the environment.

1483
The Bill still fails to address the problem of long abandoned mines where pollution is occurring already. That is a problem, and a worrying one too, facing the mining communities. The legal loophole is to be removed, but only for mines abandoned after the end of 1999. There are about 23 former British Coal mines left, but dozens of pits have been closed in recent years, with all the worries about the continuation of pumping.
On abandonment, the Bill does not demand that mine operators contribute to environmental protection costs for their abandoned mines, or even to take account of the environment when they abandon a mine; £1 billion has been raised from the sell off of the coal industry. Why cannot some of that money be diverted to clear up years of unchecked pollution in the mining areas?
The Bill contains no proposals for co-ordinated action to deal with the legacy of coal mining. I ask the Minister: will the Coal Authority act as the custodian of abandoned mines, and, with the Department of the Environment, prevent and control minewater pollution? Minewater pollution, with its severity, its extent, and its occurrence, is difficult to predict, and so it needs constant monitoring to avert pollution disasters. In the coalfield areas we have had more than our fair share of environmental degradation, burning muckstacks, opencast coal mining, tipping sites and industrial pollution. That of course is where the abandonment of mines and pollution is likely to happen.
I hope that the Minister is prepared to look sympathetically upon the amendments. It is essential that we get the defence removed now, and do not wait another five years.
Viscount Mills: Given the hour, I do not intend to move my amendment. I support the principle of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon.
Viscount Ullswater: The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, and my noble friend Lord Mills seeks to prevent the defence against prosecution for pollution of controlled waters and the exemption from costs recovery by the agency where water is only permitted to flow from an abandoned mine, from applying in the case of mines abandoned after the transfer date, or 1st April 1996 (our current intention is that the transfer date will be 1st April 1996). The provisions of Clause 57, as drafted, would take effect for mines abandoned after the end of 1999.
Our decision to remove the defence and exemption was taken in the knowledge that that would be a step of great significance not just as a means of improving the quality of discharges from mines abandoned in the future, but with the practical and financial implications for the current owners and operators of mines.
The effect on revenue from coal privatisation was only one of a number of issues considered in deciding that the statutory protections would be lifted at the end of 1999. The Government wanted to allow all mine owners time to adapt to the change. In addition, the
1484
agency will have powers to clean up or to prevent pollution if it considers that necessary under the Water Resources Act 1991.
The measures in Clause 55, which define abandonment and require mine operators to notify the agency six months before abandoning a mine, will take effect from the transfer date. They are designed to work as a precursor to the removal of the defence and exemption. However, we have taken the view that it would be right to allow those involved a period until the end of 1999 in which to adjust to the proposed changes in the existing regulatory regime because of the obvious practical and financial implications. In this way, we hope to ensure that the provisions are effective in practice. That intention would not be helped by these amendments and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw them.
1 a.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: That is a deeply disappointing response. It is not at all clear where the responsibility will lie in the next five years. It is not at all clear who will be responsible if pollution occurs. However, we shall return to the matter on Report and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 249A to 251B not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 252 not moved.]
Viscount Millsmoved Amendment No. 252ZA:
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
("Powers to require polluter to "clean up"
After Section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991, there shall be inserted—
Powers to require polluter to "clean up".
"161A. Without prejudice to section 161 above, where it appears to the Agency that any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter is likely to enter, or to be, or to have been, present in any controlled waters, then the Agency may, by notice, require the person on whom the notice is served to carry out the following works and operations, that is to say—

(a) in a case where the matter appears likely to enter any controlled waters, works and operations for the purpose of preventing it from doing so; or

(b) in a case where the matter appears to be, or to have been, present in any controlled waters, works and operations for the purpose—

(i) of removing or disposing of the matter;

(ii) of remedying or mitigating any pollution caused by its presence in the waters, or

(iii) so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, of restoring the waters, including any flora and fauna dependent on the aquatic environment of the waters, to their state immediately before the matter became present in the waters,

and in either case, the Agency shall be entitled to carry out investigations for the purpose of establishing the source of the matter and the identity of the person who has caused, or knowingly permitted, it to be present in controlled waters or at a place from which it was likely, in the opinion of the Agency, to enter controlled waters.
(2) Subject to subsection (5) below, a notice under this section may be served on any person who, as the case may be—

1485

(a) caused or knowingly permitted the matter in question to be present at the place from which it was likely, in the opinion of the Agency, to enter any controlled waters; or

(b) caused or knowingly permitted the matter in question to be present in any controlled waters.

(3) A notice under this section shall—

(a) state that the Agency is of the opinion that works and operations are needed;

(b) specify the nature and location of the matter in question and its point of entry into controlled waters, or its likely point of entry;

(c) specify the steps to be taken by way of works or operations to be undertaken;

(d) specify the period within which those steps must be taken.

(4) Any person who fails to comply with any requirement imposed by a notice under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

(5) A notice under this section requiring works and operations may not be served on a person in respect of water from an abandoned mine which that person permitted to reach such a place as is mentioned in subsection (2) above or to enter any controlled waters unless the mine in question became an abandoned mine after 1st April 1996.
(6) In this section "controlled waters" and "mine" have the same meaning as in section 161 above".").
The noble Viscount said: I do not wish to try the Committee's patience for more than a few moments. However, I should like to obtain a brief response from the Minister to the amendment. It proposes that the agency should be able to require polluters of controlled waters to carry out clean-up works themselves. In my view, the amendment could have two benefits. The first is that it could allow more clean-ups to occur and the second is that it would provide a constant approach to polluters of both land and water.
I believe that there are already powers under the contaminated land provisions of the Bill to require the polluters of land to clean up. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 252ZA would give the agency a new power to serve a notice requiring anti-pollution works to be carried out by a polluter or potential polluter of controlled waters. These works could include the removal of polluting matter, remedying or mitigating pollution, or, so far as reasonably practicable, restoration of the waters to their state before the pollution occurred.
1486
Under existing legislation, the NRA has a power to carry out such anti-pollution works and then to seek to recover from the person who caused or knowingly permitted the pollution to occur the expenses which it incurs. The intention of the amendment is that the agency will have the opportunity to require the polluter to take action before having to undertake and initially pay for such work itself. I am sure that the proposers see this as a way of ensuring more directly that the polluter pays.
In setting up the agency, we are seeking to achieve a degree of consistency in the measures which will be used to control different kinds of pollution. The notice procedure set out in the amendment is, in many respects, similar to the enforcement procedures proposed in respect of contaminated land. However, it departs from those and other measures in some significant respects. I am anxious, for example, because no right of appeal against a notice is envisaged, as it is proposed that a failure to comply with the requirements of a notice should be an offence for which the maximum penalty proposed would be imprisonment. While it may be open to a person upon whom a notice has been served to seek relief from the courts on the ground of unreasonableness, I find it difficult to accept that such a person should have no statutory right of appeal, in particular if his case is that the agency had no power to serve notice on him as he did not cause or knowingly permit pollution to occur.
A notice procedure would also be a significant change to the existing law which would have implications for industry, including the water industry. Those implications, together with some very important issues concerning the precise provisions of any such power, including the right of appeal, require very careful consideration. Therefore, we cannot take the amendment forward at this stage.
Nevertheless, I recognise that the underlying principle that the agency should be able to require polluters to take action to remedy water pollution and pay for that action merits further consideration. In the meantime, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment while we undertake that consideration.
Viscount Mills: I thank the the Minister for his response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at five minutes past one o'clock.

  CASSINI SPACE PROBE: SAFETY
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they have examined NASA's plan to send into space in 1997 a probe, Cassini, powered by 32 kilograms of plutonium and whether they have formed any views on the safety of this project.

  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers)
  The US National Aerospace and Space Administration (NASA) has issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini mission. In this document, NASA has estimated that the risks arising from any potential accidents during the Cassini mission are small and are less than many risks faced by the public from the construction and/or operation of large industrial projects.

  Her Majesty's Government have obtained expert advice on NASA's draft Environmental Impact Statement. This confirms that the risk to an individual member of the public is minimal.

  FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 1986: OUTSIDE INSPECTORS
  Lord Clinton-Davis
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will identify those cases (or, in the event that they are unable to do so, the number of cases) in which the Department of Trade and Industry has appointed outside inspectors pursuant to the powers conferred by the Companies Act 1989 and the Financial Services Act 1986 respectively since 1st January 1992, stating in each case the length of time taken to complete the inquiries or to receive interim reports; and on how many occasions the report of the inspectors has led to prosecution, providing where appropriate the result of each such prosecution.

  Earl Ferrers
  There are no powers to appoint inspectors under the Companies Act 1989. Outside inspectors—i.e. non-departmental inspectors—have been appointed under Section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 in two cases since 1 January 1992; one in 1993 which is ongoing and one in 1994 which was completed in five months—no prosecution was commenced following receipt of the inspectors' report.

  Lord Clinton-Davis
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  On how many occasions the Department of Trade and Industry has decided not to appoint outside inspectors in cases which have been referred to it by the regulators acting pursuant to the powers conferred by the Financial Services Act 1986 or by the Stock Exchange between 1st January 1992 and the present time.

  Earl Ferrers
  Regulators including the London Stock Exchange refer on average 40 to 50 matters a year to WA108
  the department's investigation division. Such references are not for the specific purpose of the appointment of outside inspectors and only one such appointment has resulted since 1 January 1992. In addition, 10 appointments of departmental inspectors have resulted.

  QUANGOS AND THE CIVIL SERVICE: EMPLOYEE NUMBERS
  Lord Barnett
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many officials were employed in quangos and other non-departmental bodies at the latest available date; and how many civil servants were employed at the same, or nearest, date.

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)
  At 1 April 1994, the number of officials employed in non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), formerly known as quangos, was 110,200. The figure includes a number of officials working in NDPBs who are civil servants on secondment from parent departments. It also includes 5,200 staff employed by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive, who, although directly employed by these bodies, are civil servants.

  The total number of civil servants employed in the Civil Service as at the same date was 533,000.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE SETTLEMENT
  Lord Broughman and Vaux
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When they expect to announce the outcome of consultation on the local government finance settlement.

  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)
  We are today laying before the House the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1995/96, the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1995/96 and the Special Grant Report (No.12). These reports establish the amounts of revenue support grant (RSG) and non-domestic rates (NDR) to be paid to local authorities in 1995/96, and the basis of their distribution; specify the amounts which are to be used as the basis of comparison for measuring increases in certain local authorities' budgets in 1995/96 for the purposes of capping; and provide for a special grant to be paid to certain authorities for 1995/96. Two hundred authorities made written representations and Ministers met 90 delegations from local councils.

  We shall be sending copies of these reports to all authorities as soon as possible, together with a table showing each authority's Standard Spending Assessment and its entitlement to RSG, NDR and special grant. We have also placed copies of the reports and the table in the Libraries and the Vote Office.

  PLANNING APPLICATION FEES
  Lord Brougham and Vaux
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What decision they have reached on proposals to allow local planning authorities to set their own planning application fees.

  Viscount Ullswater
  Last summer we issued a consultation paper,Planning Application Fees, which proposed giving local planning authorities the power to set their own fees for determining planning applications. Our intention was to enable authorities to recover the costs they incur in processing planning applications. We envisaged that fee increases would be subject to authorities meeting qualifying criteria—in relation to development plans and development control performance—and establishing, by 1996, an accounting system for identifying costs.

  We received over 300 responses, all of which have been carefully considered. We have concluded that the particular package of proposals we put forward did not attract sufficient support to justify legislating now for the devolution of fee-setting responsibilities within the proposed timescale.

  For the present, therefore, planning application fees will continue to be set centrally. However, we shall be giving further thought to refining the fees regime to see whether a better match can be achieved between the costs and price of the service provided by local planning authorities.

  WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
  Lord Brougham and Vaux
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What progress has been made with the plans for a waste strategy for England and Wales which was announced in July 1994, in response to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's Report on Incineration of Waste.

  Viscount Ullswater
  The Government is today issuing for public consultation a draft waste strategy for England and Wales. The strategy aims to use the WA110
  principles of sustainable development to provide a coherent framework for waste management policy and practice throughout England and Wales. Copies of the document have been placed in the Library of the House.

  However well managed, waste always has the potential to cause harm to the environment. We must give priority to reducing the amount we produce, and to adopting better waste management practices. Much can be done harnessing the power of the market to encourage more environmentally friendly waste management. The Chancellor's announcement in his Budget statement of the introduction of a landfill tax is one, very important, development in this direction.

  Industry can do a great deal, and has a good incentive to do so because, as a number of demonstration projects have shown, better waste management frequently results in reducing operating costs. Good waste management practice is a competitiveness opportunity. Householders also have a major role to play by choosing not to buy over-packaged goods, by reusing goods and materials within the household, and by using the recycling facilities provided by their local councils.

  We hope that this draft strategy will start a wide debate about future aims and direction of waste management policy, and the role of industry, the public sector, consumers and householders; in achieving those objectives. We are allowing an extended consultation period until 28 April 1995 to enable proper consideration of the many significant issues which the strategy raises.

  NATIONAL PARKS: DRAFT CIRCULAR
  Lord Cochrane of Cults
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When they intend to make available the national parks circular which they have undertaken to issue in connection with the national parks provisions in the Environment Bill.

  Viscount Ullswater
  We have today issued for consultation a national parks circular which contains guidance on matters which have arisen in the context of the Government's proposals for the future of the national parks. Copies of the draft circular have been placed in the Library.