Sitting of 11 July 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the effect of a national minimum wage on the employment prospects of unemployed people in other EU countries. [31781]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): Reports by the OECD, the IMF and the European Commission confirm that a statutory minimum wage destroys jobs and job prospects, particularly for young people. That is most clearly demonstrated in France, where youth unemployment is twice the United Kingdom rate, and in Spain, where it is three times as high.
    Mr. Wilkinson: It is welcome that my hon. Friend should spell out so unambiguously the potential consequences to this country of any imposition of a statutory minimum wage. In that regard, would it be only a self-imposed imposition, because neither European Union employment law, nor even the social chapter of the notorious Maastricht treaty itself, could impose such a requirement on this country?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right. A minimum wage will be imposed in this country only if it is imposed by the Labour party if it gets into government. Its policy on the minimum wage is doubly dishonest. First, it pretends to the less well-off that there is some easy, cost-free method of raising their pay. Secondly, the Opposition will not indicate the level at which it will be set until after the election. They are giving the less well-off a menu without prices in the hope that they will not discover the true cost for their jobs until it is too late.
    Ms Harman: How can the Minister justify to the House the fact that more than 1 million people earn less than £2.50 an hour? How can he justify the fact that the taxpayer has to pick up the bill for low pay to the extent of £2.4 billion? Is not the real reason why the Tories are against a national minimum wage that they are in favour of low pay? Is it not a disgrace that they have abolished the Department of Employment and that employment issues, such as unemployment and low pay, are to be consigned to the basement of the Department of Trade and Industry?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Lady is wrong. The pay of the least well-off has increased substantially. The pay of
    730
    a single man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings—[Interruption.]If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) will contain herself and listen, she might learn something. According to the labour force survey, which the Labour party says that it supports, the pay of a single man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings has risen by £27 since 1979—faster than prices. Under the last Labour Government, the pay of the same person would have fallen. Until Opposition Members can tell the country at what level they would set the minimum wage, their policy will have no credibility and will be nothing but a dishonest and cruel deceit on the less well-off.

    Training Schemes
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next expects to meet representatives of East Anglian training and enterprise councils to discuss training schemes for the long-term unemployed. [31782]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I enjoy regular contact with the TEC movement in East Anglia.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will the Minister find time today to pay tribute to the excellent work that the Norfolk and Waveney TEC has been doing for the long-term unemployed? Is it not worth reflecting on the fact that the TECs have been resisted at every turn and undermined by the Opposition, in spite of the excellent work that they have been doing? Does he also agree that, for the long-term unemployed, it is important to ensure plenty of business start-ups? What is he doing to help that?
    Mr. Paice: I am happy to extend my good wishes to Norfolk and Waveney TEC, which has done a good job. Last year, when we published the TEC league tables, there was a substantial improvement in its performance, and I look forward to a continuing improvement next month, when we publish the tables for the past year. My hon. Friend is right to point out the problems of people wanting to start work and to become self-employed. That is why we have amended the rules of the training for work scheme to enable people, through training for work, to receive all the necessary advice, counselling, help and financial support, while they develop their business plans, so that any TEC is able to provide considerable support to such people.
    Mr. Chidgey: Will the Minister confirm the success—I believe that it is right to call it that—of workstart pilot projects, especially in East Anglia, and will he confirm that he is planning to create another 5,000 places at a cost of £7.5 million? How can he reconcile that rather minimal investment with the forecast that there will still be over 1 million long-term unemployed by the year 2000, and the fact that unemployment is costing the country £20 billion a year? Does he think that some of the cuts in training expenditure should be transferred to workstart projects, which will improve training and the chances for the long-term unemployed of getting back into work in worthwhile jobs?
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There will be 5,000 places in workstart schemes this year, which is a considerable increase on last year. He is not right to talk about substantial cuts in the training budget. The fact

    731
    is that TEC budgets this year are almost identical to what they were last year. Yes, training for work has had a reduction; but there has been a substantial increase in other budgets so that the total has hardly changed.
    The most important thing is that the overall number of opportunities for the unemployed has been maintained at last year's figure of 1.5 million, despite the fact that, during that time, unemployment has fallen substantially. There are more opportunities for those who are unemployed today in proportion to what was available a year ago.

    Inactivity Rates
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on inactivity rates. [31784]
    Mr. Paice: The United Kingdom has a lower inactivity rate than any other major European Union country.
    Mr. Milburn: Is the Minister aware that, over recent years, the number of people who are economically inactive and therefore displaced from the labour market has risen to over 7.8 million? Does that figure not give the lie to ministerial claims of success in tackling unemployment and creating jobs? More significantly, is it not symptomatic of a Government approach that is summed up by the decision to abolish the Department of Employment at the very time when there are more, not fewer, people struggling to find work?
    Mr. Paice: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman fully understands what the economic activity and inactivity rates include. He suggests that those who are in the category of looking for work are somehow inactive; they are not. The unemployed are classified as economically active; the inactive figures to which he refers include, for example, the massive increase in the number of young people staying on at school. There has been an increase in the staying-on rate from 48 to 73 per cent. in the past 10 years. That is very good news for those young people's future career prospects, because they will have greater career opportunities and greater earning capacity. That is why the rate of inactivity has not gone down as much as the hon. Gentleman might wish.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree, when we are talking about inactivity, that those in employment who fail to turn up for work for no good reason should be docked that day's pay, and that that should include Welsh Opposition Members who failed to turn up for Welsh questions?
    Mr. Paice: It is entirely up to employers to make their own rules regarding deductions from wages for non-attendance. So far as the House is concerned, that is down to you, Madam Speaker.
    Ms Short: I am afraid that the Minister is far too complacent. He seems to be unaware that one in four men of working age is without a job and that large numbers of those people are discouraged older workers. That is a result of one of the few successful Government policies: the encouragement of low-paid work. Virtually all the new jobs in the past 10 years have been low-paid, and have been overwhelmingly taken up by women living with an earning partner.
    732
    We have a growing crisis of work-rich families on the one hand and, on the other, work-poor families who are trapped in unemployment outside the labour market because the jobs available will not keep a family. We have a crisis and a soaring benefits bill. Have the Government any plans to address that?
    Mr. Paice: Rarely has the House been exposed to such a nonsensical diatribe. The hon. Lady's facts are diametrically opposed to the truth. The simple fact is that in this country, as in every other country apart from Japan, there has been a small reduction in male activity rates, but it is not correct to align that fact with a change in the employment pattern over the past 10 or 20 years.
    The hon. Lady suggests that all the jobs that have been created are part-time jobs for women, but that is not true. The vast majority of jobs in the early part of a recovery from recession are part time but, as recovery becomes more established, they become full-time. That is why full-time jobs are being created at the rate of two for every one part-time job at the moment. That is good news for all those who are unemployed and looking for work.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there has been a substantial rise in economic inactivity over the past 20 years—I believe from 2 to 13 per cent.—among men? Has he noted the especially high incidence of economic inactivity—dropping out of the labour market—among men over the age of 55? Now that the Department of Employment has been merged with the Department for Education, will my hon. Friend give new thought to how we can help to make such involuntary early retirement a dignified condition, and how we can support people who have this experience in developing a satisfying new phase of life?
    Mr. Paice: It is not Government policy to encourage people to become economically inactive. We want everyone who wants a job to have the opportunity to find one, but the only way in which we can create jobs is by having a dynamic economy with low inflation, low interest rates and a competitive currency, which are precisely the criteria that we have. That is why we have a sustained rate of growth in our economy, one that is better than those of virtually all of our competitors.

    European Works Councils
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of European works councils. [31785]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): It is too early to assess works councils and other arrangements being established in response to the European directive.
    Mr. MacShane: I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not know whether he represents the Department just abolished but a range of Front-Bench jobs have been created—perhaps those holding those jobs could form a works council to negotiate with their new boss. Now that Britain's main companies are forming a European works council at the rate of almost one a week and in defiance of the Government's opt-out from the social charter, will

    733
    the Minister join me in welcoming that trend and urge all the other multinationals in Britain to form European works councils as soon as possible?
    Mr. Page: I am from the DTI and proud of it. May I correct a misapprehension under which the hon. Gentleman seems to be labouring? The Government are not against the creation of works councils and voluntary arrangements, but we are against compulsory bureaucratic legislation.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while there is a range of different ways in which employers may choose to organise their bargaining rights with their employees, what is completely wrong and anathema to Conservatives is the idea that bureaucrats in Brussels should lay down in detail what sort of relationship employers and employees should have with each other? Is that not one of the reasons why the Japanese and Americans seeking to invest money in Europe have chosen to invest pre-eminently in this country? Is it not a fact that we have attracted almost half the total inward investment in the European Union precisely because investors do not want to be dictated to about how to organise their working arrangements?
    Mr. Page: My hon. Friend introduces the real world into this question—the real world of jobs, growth and development. It might be useful to remind the House that unemployment stands at almost 18.5 million in the European Union, whereas the figure is down to 8.3 per cent. in the United Kingdom, which is much lower than the European average, and still dropping. Some of our competitors in the European Union, such as France, have an unemployment rate of 12.4 per cent. That is the real world: creating jobs—jobs for British people.

    Recently Unemployed People
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new proposals she has for those who have been permanently employed who have recently become unemployed. [31787]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): We shall continue to follow policies that have reduced unemployment by more than 660,000 since recovery began and enabled nearly 300,000 new jobs to be created in the past year.
    Mr. Flynn: I warmly congratulate the hon. Lady on her promotion to new duties, which is richly deserved, since, on a memorable occasion, she drew the Prime Minister's attention to Rentokil, a company that he has used effectively to get rid of the entire Department of Employment. The employees and Ministers of that Department have alternative employment prospects, but, sadly, many people who lose their jobs in mid-life have no such alternative and their working life ends at 50. When a similar event happens to many Conservative Members, and they then go on the jobseeker's trail, will the hon. Lady tell me what answer she will give to the question on the jobseeker's agreement "What is the minimum wage you would be prepared to work for"? I am sure that she will give the same answer that she expects of all other people.
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome, and might I add how pleased I am to
    734
    see him in the Chamber today—he has decided not to work part-time after all. The hon. Gentleman has missed the point behind the merger of the Departments for Education and of Employment. That merger sends the clearest possible signal that education and training are at the top of the Government's agenda to improve the country's competitiveness. The merger will also offer a real focus to active labour market policies and build on the achievements of recent years in reducing unemployment.
    Mr. Fabricant: May I also take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on getting to the Front Bench and say how nice it is to see someone with such a lovely blond hairstyle, which is so appropriate? There is hope for us all yet.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that the question from the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and the earlier question about works councils demonstrate that the Labour party still believes that it is the Government, rather than markets and industries, that can create jobs? Is it not the case that we have the lowest corporation tax in Europe and that it is that which is securing inward investment and jobs?
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous welcome for my appearance at the Dispatch Box, and I agree with him absolutely. The prospects for the unemployed in the United Kingdom continue to improve and new vacancies continue to be notified to jobcentres—more than 200,000 a month. It is our policies which are helping to put people back to work.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Minister give us some information on when we will next be allowed to ask questions about the unemployment rate, since this is the last Employment Question Time that we shall be allowed to have? Will she confirm when it was decided to abolish the Department of Employment? What is the expected rate of redundancy among civil servants at that former Department?
    Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady is quite ungenerous in her remarks about the merger of the two Departments. In fact, I was reading just earlier this morning that that merger has been welcomed by the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the National Union of Teachers, the Secondary Heads Association and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers—just to name a few. The hon. Lady should re-examine what we doing in those two Departments and generously welcome the Government's brave policy, which will improve education and training right across the board.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people were in full-time work at (a) 1 July 1993 and (b) 1 July 1995. [31788]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): Over the quarters ending August 1993 and February 1995, there were 19 million and 19.2 million people in full-time employment in Great Britain.
    Mr. Dunn: Will the Secretary of State please spell out the implications for those in employment of the introduction of the social chapter, the minimum wage, and

    735
    the loss of inward investment that would result from the policies of the Labour party and the parliamentary part-timers, the Liberal Democrats?
    Mrs. Shephard: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his lovely blond hairstyle. As he well knows, the social chapter would roll back successes made in the United Kingdom in the past decade in modernising our industrial relations and removing the regulation that deters employers from taking on extra people. In the past decade, we have also provided extra help for unemployed people to find work.
    The social chapter would increase burdens on employers. It would raise unemployment. Conservative Members believe that terms and conditions of employment should not be laid down by Government, much less by Brussels, but should be negotiated between employers and employees. Obviously, a national minimum wage would deter job creation. It would deter enterprise and destroy jobs. That is obvious to everyone except the Labour party.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is it not true that nearly 600,000 women in part-time jobs had to stay there because they could not obtain full-time jobs, and that 2.5 million part-timers earn less than the national insurance threshold, thus excluding them from statutory sick pay, maternity pay and a retirement pension? How does the Minister believe those people will live when they get sick and when they get old?
    Mrs. Shephard: It is true that the growth of employment in the early stages of recovery was concentrated among part-timers, but the hon. Lady should also know that full-time employment has now increased at a faster rate than part-time employment, and that only 14 per cent. of people who worked part time this winter did so because they could not find a full-time job. The imposition of a national minimum wage is the wrong way to tackle low pay and unemployment, and women would suffer the worst as a result.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the number of people employed in manufacturing increased by 15,000 in the quarter to March, and that that was the third quarter running? Will she also confirm that many of those jobs are in the east midlands, and most of them are full-time jobs?
    Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the Government's general approach to the labour market—a sound macro-economic policy, open trade and flexible labour markets—has helped the recovery and the creation of jobs, which he so rightly welcomes, in the east midlands as elsewhere in the country.
    Ms Harman: Bearing in mind that, when the Secretary of State was Employment Secretary, she brought in the legislation that abolished the wages councils, thereby taking away low pay protection from 2.5 million workers, will she confirm to the House the figures that are in the latest labour force survey, which show that, in spite of the fact that pay for those in the bottom of those wages council sectors has fallen, and therefore they have suffered from the loss of that low pay protection, there has been no increase in jobs in those sectors and therefore we have the worst of all worlds—losing low pay protection and no extra jobs?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Lady has misread the labour force survey. She should know from that that the wages
    736
    of those who were previously covered by wages councils have increased faster than other wages. I repeat that pay must be a matter for determination between employers and employees. The hon. Lady needs to understand that a national minimum wage would have precisely the effect that she would so much deprecate.

    Youth Unemployment
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the effects of labour market regulation on levels of youth unemployment. [31789]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): The Government believe that labour market regulation damages the level of employment, particularly for young people. Youth unemployment is higher in France and Spain, both of which have a statutory minimum wage.
    Mr. Bottomley: The House will welcome the growing number of teenagers who stay on in education and training. Will my hon. Friend make inquiries to ascertain what rates of pay are agreed for people aged 17 and 16 in the Trades Union Congress, in the CBI, in his own Department and in the House of Commons Commission? I believe that he will discover that regulation is not only what is imposed by Government, but that it can be agreements between managers and unions that exclude young people from obtaining the experience on the basis of which they will be hired and taken on.
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend will understand if I do not answer every aspect of his question. I shall certainly look into the point that he raises. It will assist the House as well as my hon. Friend if I say that, in September 1994, there were 2,313 16 to 21-year-olds employed in the former Department of Employment—56 per cent. of them were paid more than £8,000 a year. I shall come back to my hon. Friend, not only on the equivalent figures with regard to education in the combined Department, but on the other aspects that he mentioned.
    Mr. Burden: Why should young unemployed people have confidence that the Government have any concern for their welfare or the welfare of anyone in work when Ministers have admitted that, on no fewer than 16,000 occasions in the past five years—there are records to show this—employers have broken the law in relation to notification of redundancies to the Department? On not one occasion have Ministers prosecuted an employer for breaking those laws. How will the abolition of the Department of Employment help to resolve that problem? Will the Government now start insisting that employers have to abide by the laws of this land?
    Mr. Squire: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question on the consequences of the abolition of the Department is that there will be no change in terms of the state of the law, which will continue to be implemented as it has in the past. The hon. Gentleman asked his question against a background of a significant improvement in the prospects of young people gaining employment over the past two years. Claimant unemployment for under-25s has fallen by 200,000 over the past two years—a faster rate of decline than for the population in general. As the House knows, but the

    737
    Labour party tends to ignore, the rates for youth unemployment in this country remain among the best in Europe.

    Agism
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received concerning agism in employment vacancies. [31790]
    Mrs. Gillan: I have not yet received any representations myself but, like my predecessor, I am committed to the campaign for older workers. I commend to the House the excellent publication, "Too old … who says?", which provides advice and guidance to those seeking work. Agism makes no economic sense for individual employers or for the nation.
    Mr. Evans: May I add my congratulations to the many other congratulations that my hon. Friend has received on her well-deserved and popular promotion to the Front Bench? My hon. Friend will know that I am extremely concerned about that group of the work force in their 40s and 50s who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs during the recession and are unable to find work. What incentives and guidelines are the Government giving to employers to ensure that they do not turn their backs on that valuable resource?
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous remarks.
    I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in the subject and the issue of agism. He has already raised with me some individual cases in his constituency. My predecessor successfully raised the profile of older workers but, importantly, with inflation and interest rates lower than for many years, our economic policies are improving everyone's employment prospects.
    Dr. Reid: In congratulating—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House is in good spirits today.
    Dr. Reid: In congratulating the hon. Lady on her promotion, may I bring to her attention the fact that many older workers are among the long-term unemployed? Will she explain to us in her first outing today why there are now three times as many long-term unemployed as there were when the Tory Government took over in 1979—and do so without assistance from her pal at the side?
    Mrs. Gillan: I do not intend, even on my first outing, to take lectures on unemployment from the Labour party, particularly as the levels of unemployment rose quite unacceptably under the last Labour Government—if, indeed, there is anyone in the House who can remember that Government.
    I have already mentioned the Government's campaign for older workers, which, with the support of the advisory group on older workers, aims to demonstrate the benefits of policies that allow people of all ages to contribute to their employers' success. The campaign also encourages older workers to be positive about the range of skills and knowledge that they can offer.

    Strike Records
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what comparison she has made between the strike record in the United Kingdom and Germany currently and between the United Kingdom and West Germany in 1979. [31791]
    Mr. Oppenheim: In 1979, the United Kingdom lost 29.5 million days through strikes—more than 50 times West Germany's total of 0.5 million. In 1993, by contrast, the United Kingdom and the unified Germany each lost 0.6 million days to labour disputes.
    Mr. Townsend: I thank my hon. Friend for those interesting and encouraging figures. Does he agree that Britain's improved industrial relations record in the 1980s produced a very good case for abolishing the Department of Employment some years ago?
    Mr. Oppenheim: That is an interesting perspective. Many extremely good civil servants worked in the Department of Employment, which was a very good Department. I think that they will go to other Departments and spread around their good work.
    My hon. Friend makes another good point. The Government's labour market reforms have led to a revolution in British manufacturing productivity. In the 1960s and 1970s, Britain was anchored at the bottom of the G7 league for growth in manufacturing productivity. In the 1980s and in the 1990s, Britain has been at the top of the G7 league for growth in manufacturing productivity. That is the best way to ensure more and better paid jobs for people.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how TEC licensing will improve standards of training; and what assessment she has made of the proportion of TECs currently achieving good standards. [31792]
    Mr. Paice: Three-year licences are awarded to training and enterprise councils that meet rigorous standards for performance and capability. All TECs are required to achieve a licence by 1997.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that training and retraining are vital in today's society and that they must be worth while, of a high calibre and must help the participants? Is he aware that, although some TECs have failed in some areas, the majority have done a very good job? SOLOTEC in my borough of Bexley has done an excellent job in the past few years.
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is correct: training on its own is inadequate unless it is of a high calibre. That is why we have concentrated on a range of measures to drive up the performance of our training courses through TECs and it is why we publish performance league tables for all TECs every August. That demonstrates the rate of improvement in many TECs, including SOLOTEC, which I am pleased to congratulate on its success. There is a further range of measures, including funding according to performance, designed to improve the output of TECs.

    739
    I make it absolutely clear that the licensing process is extremely rigorous. If TECs do not meet the standards necessary, they will not get a licence and they will not get a contract.
    Mr. Barron: The Minister talks about improving standards of training. Did not Coopers and Lybrand's study into the output-related funding of training conclude that the Government have virtually destroyed training provision in this country? Why were the implications of output-related funding not evaluated properly before the scheme went national this financial year?
    In view of decisions taken last week, training providers and training and enterprise councils want to know one thing. When the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) was Secretary of State for Employment, she made a £100 million cut in the training budget. There will be training cuts this year and next year as well. Will the training that the Government abolished just prior to their abolition of the Department of Employment be restored?
    Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend will address the TEC national conference on Thursday. She will reassure it of our total support for the role that TECs play and will continue to play in the provision of training. The hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening earlier when I said that training budgets overall have not changed from last year. He identified one specific sector of the training budget—training for work—but overall it has not changed. The evidence is entirely clear on output-related funding. TECs running output-related pilots improved their training output dramatically, and it was entirely logical that they were the way forward for the whole country.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware of the pick-up in the house building programme recently? Does he share my concern about the lack of basic skills within that industry? What steps can be taken throughout the construction industry, perhaps to reintroduce the traditional apprenticeships of old?
    Mr. Paice: I have good news for my hon. Friend. First, the Construction Industry Training Board is responsible for training in that industry. Secondly, it has embarked on the provision of modern apprenticeships, along with many other organisations and employers who this year will make available nearly 50 different vocational modern apprentice-ships to enable a vast range of people to obtain recognised qualifications based on competence testing. That is the way forward to meet the skills needs of the future.

    Low Pay
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to tackle the problem of low pay. [31793]
    Mr. Oppenheim: Since 1979, the real take-home pay of a single man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings has risen by £27 a week and that of a single woman in the bottom 10 per cent. has risen by £29 a week. We all want pay levels for the less well-off to rise even further but it has to be sustainable, based on improving productivity, efficiency and competitiveness. To suggest that pay can rise just by political diktat without improved productivity is dishonest and deceitful and would undoubtedly cost many people's jobs.
    Mr. Jones: I am glad that the Minister has the same fervour and commitment to his policies as the former
    740
    Secretary of State for Employment, but in the deregulated wage market of the global economy, what determines the base rate without a minimum wage? Malthus would have said that it was the level at which workers can just survive and do no more than perpetuate their own numbers. What would the Minister say the base rate should be? Is it 50p an hour? How low will the Minister go?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's base rate should be, but I am glad that he has bothered to turn up for questions today. The only sustainable way to improve people's earning power is to improve their education and training so that they are more productive and can earn more on a sustainable basis. The Labour party's policies are misguided. Even Sir Gordon Borrie, chairman of Labour's Social Justice Commission, wrote in The Guardian recently—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I insist that the hon. Gentleman stops barracking from a sedentary position. Mindless barracking gets the House nowhere. It does not advance the quality of our debate one bit.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Sir Gordon Borrie wrote in The Guardian:
    "The interesting question is at what level a minimum wage should be set. Too high a figure will cost jobs; too low a figure will not be worth having."
    I could not agree more. No amount of waffle and double-talk can hide Labour's attempts to deceive the less well-off into thinking that there is an easy, cost-free way to raise pay. There is not. Labour is deceiving the less well-off.
    Mr. Forman: In the interests of maintaining Britain's global competitiveness—a very important national interest—does my hon. Friend agree that, in so far as it is necessary to use social transfers to support those on low pay, family credit and similar forms of benefit support are much better than the minimum wage, which could distort and prejudice our competitive position?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best way to improve living standards for everyone, particularly the less well-off, is to improve the productivity, efficiency and competitiveness of the British economy. It is because we are now so much more efficient and productive than we were in 1979 that pay at all levels has risen substantially, not least for the less well-off.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Does the Minister agree that it is waffle and double-talk to oppose a minimum wage while the Government spend £2.4 billion subsidising sweatshop pay through the benefits system? Does the Minister further agree that it is an insult to the people of Dunfermline and west Fife and of many other communities that the Government's only reward, when there is a desperate need for decently paid jobs, is to spend another £75 million on an additional top-up earnings benefit, rather than provide productive work?
    Mr. Oppenheim: One of the biggest myths in the Opposition's campaign for a minimum wage is that it would get rid of all in-work benefits, yet the Opposition spokesman was told recently by Andrew Dilnott, head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that even a minimum wage of £8 per hour would leave many people claiming income support. If it is now Opposition policy to get rid of all in-work benefits, they should say so.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31811]
    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 be having further meetings later today.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study yesterday's debate in Hansard—and not just my speech? Is he aware that, on the very day when the Leader of the Opposition was refusing to put a figure on a national minimum wage, his Social Security spokesman was assuming a rate of about £3 or £3.50 in the House?
    The Prime Minister: I have not yet read Hansard, but clearly I had better look at it very carefully, and I will. I did not know that which my hon. Friend stated, but if it is the case, I strongly suspect that the Leader of the Opposition knows that a minimum wage is economic nonsense but that he regards it as politically expedient. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make clear one day precisely the figure that he has in mind; he certainly owes it to the public to do so. Perhaps he will soon tell us.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree in principle that Members of Parliament should disclose their earnings from outside consultancies?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that a Select Committee is examining that matter. The Committee has reported, and I will do it the courtesy of awaiting its report.
    Mr. Blair: That was the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman's own Committee. Does he accept the principle or not: yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: I told the right hon. Gentleman that I asked a Select Committee to examine the issue. When it has done so, I will deal with the matter.
    Mr. Blair: Is the Prime Minister really saying that the Committee cannot come up with an answer in eight weeks, or is it just a coincidence that the main recommendation on which it cannot agree a definition happens to be the main recommendation to which Conservative Members object? Is it not time that the Prime Minister asserted his authority? The Nolan report is the right hon. Gentleman's report. He commissioned it and said that he accepted it, and he should ensure that the Government implement it in full without further delay.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's attempt to use this report as a political football is pretty transparent and pretty shabby. He knows that the Select Committee has made excellent progress. It has met 14 times in 14 days—more intensively than any Select Committee has met before. It is still considering these
    742
    matters. It will report and then the House will make its decision, as I have said from the outset, on matters relating to Back Benchers.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31812]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that some 10 years ago the newspapers were obsessed with the money supply, trade figures and days lost through strikes? Is it not a tribute to this Government that the number of days lost through strikes last year was only 1 per cent. of the number lost in 1979? Is not the Leader of the Opposition somewhat naive to claim that the unions no longer have an armlock over his party, when old Labour is still waiting in the wings to support strikes and organise "boyocotts"?
    The Prime Minister: As a wise old policeman once said, there is no need for an armlock when the suspect comes along quietly. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has already offered the unions most of what they want—the social chapter, a minimum wage, new trade union rights—while his Front-Bench team enjoys the sponsorship of all trade unions. I think that, almost without exception, his Front-Bench team is sponsored in one form or another.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that, at this precise moment, the United Nations' ultimate will is being tested by the Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica and that, on this occasion, if that will fails the United Nations' mission in the front-line areas of Bosnia is likely to fail with it?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly referring to the situation in Srebrenica. I can certainly confirm to him and the House that the situation is very serious. UN commanders on the ground have asked the Bosnian Serbs to release the UN protection force's troops whom they have been holding and to halt their offensive.
    I can confirm to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman that that has not yet happened and that, at the direct request of UN commanders on the ground, close air support operations have been carried out by NATO aircraft near Srebrenica. It was in their operational judgment that air support was necessary for the protection of the contingent in Srebrenica as a result of the fact that the Bosnian Serbs had ignored the clear warnings given. I believe that the UN commanders on the ground were right. They deserve and will receive the full backing of this Government for their action.
    The situation in Srebrenica is certainly very serious indeed at the moment. Unless the warring parties are prepared soon to indicate that they are prepared to return to some form of discussion to reach a political settlement, there is no doubt that continuing fighting will put the future presence of the United Nations forces at risk.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the widespread dismay among scientists and in universities at the transfer of the research councils to the Department of Trade and Industry? Will he confirm that his Government will continue to value fundamental

    743
    research? Will he confirm that the research councils will continue to sustain the dual support system of university funding? Will he undertake to reconsider this decision, which abruptly overturns a policy developed after widespread consultation and announced in a White Paper only two years ago?
    The Prime Minister: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the role of the Office of Science and Technology is unchanged and that it will continue with the role that it has had over recent years. The transfer implies no reduction in our commitment to fundamental research or to the dual support system, and our policies remain as set out in the White Paper two years or so ago. That will continue, as will the technology foresight process.
    The purpose of the transfer is to strengthen—not weaken, but to strengthen—the contribution of science, engineering and technology to long-term wealth creation. With that in mind, the office is best situated in the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31813]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dowd: Following the sorry spectacle of the Tory leadership election and the worn-out ritual of the reshuffle, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on retaining his post in the Government now run by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)? When are we to be told what the First Secretary of State's responsibilities are? When are we to have an opportunity to ask the First Secretary of State oral questions? Why after five years has the Prime Minister decided that he needs a deputy? If he does need such an insurance policy, why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the First Secretary will support me across the full range of Government policies. He will have direct control over Government policy on competitiveness and deregulation, and he will answer questions in the House. He has a reputation for straight talking, as has the deputy leader of the Labour party. Indeed, both my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have a reputation for robustly attacking the Labour leader, and I expect that to continue.
    Mr. Yeo: May I return to the crucial subject of the minimum wage? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who support it must be so desperate to suck up to their trade union paymasters that they do not care how many British jobs they destroy in the process? Does he also agree that any political party that advocates a minimum wage but cannot agree on what it should be is utterly unfit and unready for government?
    The Prime Minister: There seems to be some uncertainty and dithering about the minimum wage on the Opposition Front Bench. The Labour leader smiles; he may well smile, but I should rather hear an answer to the question "What will the minimum wage be?" than see him smile.
    The Labour leader has said:
    "Econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact."
    744
    What he means is that there will be job losses as a result of a minimum wage. The deputy Labour leader—engaging in the straight talking to which I referred a moment ago—has said there would be a jobs
    "shake-out … any silly fool knew that."
    What he means is that there will be job losses. I know that; the right hon. Gentlemen know that; and the whole House knows that. As soon as we are told what the minimum wage will be—a point on which the Labour leader dithers and cannot make up his mind—we shall be able to calculate how many people will lose their jobs.
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31814]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacShane: Will the Prime Minister join our Commonwealth partners, Australia and New Zealand, in their opposition to the nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific?
    The Prime Minister: No, I will not.
    Mr. Dykes: If my right hon. Friend has time in the course of his busy day, will he send warm congratulations to the RUC in Northern Ireland on the sturdy way in which it has stood up to the wilder elements among the Orangemen? Is it not about time that these provocative and silly historical marches were banned?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate the RUC on its restraint and professionalism in dealing with those incidents—and, indeed, with other recent incidents. I believe that it deserves the whole-hearted support of all hon. Members and all responsible leaders in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31815]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jamieson: Does the Prime Minister recall making a solemn promise in March 1993 to take action in regard to spiralling water charges in the south-west, where prices have doubled in the past two years? After two years of pondering the problem, will he tell the House how he will help consumers in the south-west—or is that another matter that he has referred to the Deputy Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask his right hon. and hon. Friends whether they will cease pressing the Government to maintain the high standards of cleanliness and improvement in those waters that is giving rise to the charges. Perhaps the support given by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for European directives will indicate that he does not wish us to disobey the directives with which we are dealing. We have sought to cut charges by rearranging the speed of

    745
    the capital expenditure that is taking place to assist people in the west country; that is the only way in which it is practicable to help.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31816]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend contrast his policy of improving services on the Northern line through increased investment with that of Jimmy Knapp of disrupting those services?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but there is a wider point. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) spoke up for water consumers. Why do he and his colleagues not speak up for rail passengers? Why are Opposition Members happy to support strikes on British Rail while they parade around claiming to be in favour of the consumer? The reality is that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers' call for a strike on the underground—[Interruption.] I do not know which Opposition Front-Bench Member shouted then, but perhaps he or she is sponsored by the RMT. The RMT's call for a strike on the underground will damage the progress that has been made by London Underground and will cause unnecessary
    746
    misery and disruption to passengers. I return to the central point. How can the Opposition claim to speak for consumers while they ignore rail passengers and leave them to face the strikes without a single word of condemnation from their Front Benchers?

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to visit Ayrshire. [31817]
    The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so.
    Mr. Donohoe: I am sure that the people of Ayrshire will be glad of that. May I turn the Prime Minister's attention to the national health service and, in particular, to Ayrshire and Arran health board's idea of taking all its services into the private sector and allowing companies from the United States to come in purely on the basis of profit? What has the Prime Minister got to say about that? How can he possibly say that the health service is safe in his hands?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows, or should know, of the increased resources for the health service, the 1 million-plus extra patients treated by the health service and the better services being provided by the health service. He seeks yet again to trade politically on a health service that he knows is improving and is providing a better service than at any stage in the past—and a better service than any Labour Government could provide for the people of this country.

French Nuclear Testing
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss a matter of definite public importance, namely French nuclear testing in the Pacific. You will know, Madam Speaker, that this is a genuine and meant request for a debate, and not posturing or flag-waving. I have sent you a copy of a debate from 2 July 1973, in which I moved the motion on behalf of the official Opposition:
"That this House deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to make adequate protests to the Government of France for ignoring the decision of the International Court at The Hague on nuclear testing, and supports the two Commonwealth Governments of Australia and New Zealand in their opposition to impending tests in the Pacific."—[Official Report, 2 July 1973; Vol. 859, c. 47.]
I would have preferred this request for an emergency debate to have come from the Opposition Front Bench, rather than from me as a Back-Bench Member.
As the year 2000 approaches, it is desperate that a western European country should, without consultation of any kind, unilaterally impose a potentially catastrophic act on colonial territory on the other side of the world. In the south Pacific, an indigenous people's opinion has been brushed aside, and a hard-won status quo on the most dangerous of all weapons in a dangerous world has been brushed aside with it.
That France may not care about its image abroad is one thing. It is another thing altogether that a country should defy an international moratorium and, by baleful example, encourage others to do so.
It is this defiance that makes it so urgent that the House of Commons should make a judgment this very week. As one of the four remaining Labour Members who voted to go into the Common Market with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), I am entitled
748
to say that France's European allies have shamefully underestimated the issue, in contrast to the loud and impotent outrage in Australia, New Zealand and Polynesia.
The matter is important. An apologist for France said on the "Today" programme that not one fish would be harmed. That is arrant nonsense. Apart from anything else, those who cause explosions in coral atolls had better be careful what they do. Professor Ghillean Prance, the director of Kew gardens, is only one of the witnesses who says that there is interbreeding between the coral atolls of the entire Pacific area—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now getting into a debate instead of making an application to me, and his time is up. However, I have listened most carefully to what he has said, and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  PARDON FOR SOLDIERS OF THE GREAT WAR
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. John Hume, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Alex Salmond, Sir David Steel, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Paul Flynn, presented a Bill to provide for the granting of pardons to soldiers of the British Empire Forces executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1919 following conviction for offences of cowardice, desertion or attempted desertion, disobedience, quitting post, violence, sleeping at post, throwing away arms or striking a superior officer; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

  Points of Order
  3.35 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to raise a point of order for the second time, but a Minister who admitted in private having misled the House and misrepresented a Member of the House yesterday, has refused to apologise publicly for an offence committed in public. I say that especially because the BBC allowed the untruth to be repeated on the radio this morning. It was suggested that I had acted dishonourably, so it is important to me that the matter be put right publicly. I ask you, Madam Speaker, as the custodian of Back-Bench interests, to remind the Secretary of State for Wales, who is a comparatively new Member of the House, that he should respect the courtesies of the House and tell the truth.
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) knows, I have already written to her on the matter. I received a suggestion yesterday that she would seek to raise a particular matter during Welsh questions. Having looked into the matter, I accept the fact that the suggestion came not from her but from one of her constituents. She is right to expect an apology from me, and I have already given her one. Equally, her constituent was right to expect that she would be in the Chamber to represent his interests. Other constituents throughout Wales were also right to expect their Members of Parliament to be here to represent their interests. Welsh Labour Members have brought nothing but ridicule upon themselves by their failure to be here to do what they are elected to do.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you help me concerning the protocol of giving an apology in the House as the Secretary of State for Wales has just done? Is it appropriate and proper that, having unreservedly apologised, he should then abuse the House by going off into a diatribe about something that has nothing to do with the matter in hand?
  Madam Speaker: We must leave that matter where it is at the moment, but I expect apologies in public if some misunderstanding has taken place, as obviously happened in this case. We must leave it there now.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a member of the Select Committee examining the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, I ask whether you have seen reports in the press today suggesting that Government policy is to be reversed, because Ministers are balking at the notion of increasing public subsidy for Eurorail, which is run by the Prime Minister's friend Lord Parkinson. Those press reports are potentially damaging to the work of the Select Committee. If there is a change in Government policy surely the Secretary of State for Transport should come to the House and explain exactly what the position is.
  Madam Speaker: I make no comments on press reports, but of course I expect that whenever there is an
  750
  important change in Government policy, on whatever issue, a statement should be made from the Dispatch Box so that we are all clear about it.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On a similar matter reported in the press today, there was a suggestion that the change in Government policy—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Ministers may comment on press reports, but since I entered the House more than 20 years ago I have made it a rule, both as a Back Bencher and as Speaker, not to comment on press reports, so the House must not ask me to do that now. If there is a point of order for me as Speaker to deal with I shall deal with it, but I do not want to hear about press reports.
  Mr. Simpson: I intended, Madam Speaker, to ask for a statement to be made to the House about whether there is to be a change in Government policy on the imposition of tax on church bells. The House wants to understand whether that is part of a sleaze story about Government bonging or whether another political clanger has been dropped, so we would like to know whether the Secretary of State will make a statement to the House.
  Madam Speaker: An amusing comment and a good try, but not really a point of order.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it really in order that there should be a statement on press reports that are quite false, because on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, we in north-west Kent asked a question and got a clear answer from the Ministers that these press reports are rubbish?
  Madam Speaker: That is why I never comment on press reports. I think that that is a very good policy to adopt.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I will put together the motions on statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c),

  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND)
  That the Roads (Transitional Powers) (Scotland) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1476) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING
  That the Fishing Vessels (Certification of Deck Officers and Engineer Officers) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1428) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Merchant Shipping (Certification of Deck and Marine Engineer Officers) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1429) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  Question agreed to.

  Railway Communities (Job Creation)
  3.40 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the creation of alternative job opportunities in communities that have lost a substantial number of railway industry jobs since the passage of the Railways Act 1993; to empower Ministers to provide direct assistance to former railway industry employees seeking alternative employment; to encourage inward investment; to promote new business start-ups in railway communities and to provide new infrastructure for business premises in these communities; and for connected purposes.
  I should remind the House that I am sponsored by one of the rail unions, RMT, but I speak today on behalf of many of my constituents in my union and others who are affected by rail privatisation.
  Later today, on an Opposition motion, the House will debate the merits or otherwise of rail privatisation. I hope that I do not need to tell the House where I stand on that matter. My Bill does not argue for or against privatisation of the railways. It simply acknowledges that the House passed the Railways Act 1993, that the Act is being implemented and that it is causing a significant reduction in employment on the railways. My Bill seeks to reduce the impact on railway workers who have been made redundant and on the economies of railway towns.
  There are quite a number of precedents for the Government taking action to replace jobs that have come about as a result of industrial restructuring. In 1984, the Government established British Coal Enterprise Ltd. to bring alternative employment to areas affected by pit closures. Since 1984, British Coal has made 143,300 people redundant. In the same period, British Coal Enterprise Ltd. says that it has created 123,600 new jobs. Some 57,244 jobs have gone to ex-miners, and another 66,000 to other people in mining communities. Similar programmes have been introduced in the steel industry.
  When British Rail closed its Swindon works in the 1980s, the British Rail board invested £1.3 million in establishing an enterprise agency to bring new jobs to the town. I would not argue for a new agency for the railways if there was no need. Rail privatisation is still in its early stages, but already British Rail has made 13,600 workers redundant and thousands of other jobs have been lost in private sector rail manufacturing industries. In my own constituency, for example, since 1992 there have been 2,300 job losses. In 1992 there were 4,700 jobs. Since then, British Rail has declared 650 redundancies, and the private train builder, ABB, has made all 1,650 of its employees redundant.
  Other railway jobs in York are at risk, too. British Rail's York office of the civil engineering design group will be privatised in a matter of weeks. The York office of a BR subsidiary, Signalling Control UK, is also to be privatised this year. So, too, are the two York-based
  752
  infrastructure maintenance units, and the two York-based British Rail track renewal units. The east coast main line franchise is due to be let at the end of this year or the beginning of next year.
  York needs help. We have already lost some 2,300 jobs as a result of rail privatisation. York is not an assisted area. We do not qualify for EU regional grants, for instance, under objective 2.
  On the practicalities of my Bill, since 1984 British Coal Enterprise Ltd. has invested about £165 million. Roughly £100 million of that has gone on economic regeneration in coalfield communities and £65 million on the resettlement of miners in other jobs. In round terms, the 120,000 jobs created by British Coal Enterprise Ltd. have cost £1,350 each. At the present rate of attrition of railway jobs, the railways need to invest £10 million or £15 million a year, assuming that the cost of replacing railway jobs is broadly the same as that of replacing jobs in coalfield communities. It is not a great sum of money compared with the £700 million that railway privatisation has cost already.
  British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is a subsidiary of British Coal. I suggest that the British Rail board could and should establish a subsidiary, which might be called British Rail Enterprise. Of course, there is a chance that this Bill will not reach the statute book, but there is no reason why the Government cannot act without legislation. There is no statutory basis for British Coal Enterprise Ltd.
  Rail privatisation has come about as a direct result of Government policy. Large-scale job losses in the railway industry have come about as a direct consequence of rail privatisation. The Government have an obligation to do as they have done in other industries that have been restructured as a result of Government policy, which is to invest in alternative employment in the areas most affected by the Government's rail privatisation policies.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugh Bayley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Malcolm Wicks, Mr. Alex Carlile and Mr. Keith Hill.

  RAILWAY COMMUNITIES (JOB CREATION)
  Mr. Hugh Bayley accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the creation of alternative job opportunities in communities that have lost a substantial number of railway industry jobs since the passage of the Railways Act 1993; to empower Ministers to provide direct assistance to former railway industry employees seeking alternative employment; to encourage inward investment; to promote new business start-ups in railway communities and to provide new infrastructure for business premises in these communities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July 1995, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]
  Opposition Day
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY]

  Rail Network
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.47 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the impact of the privatisation threat on investment in the rail network and on deteriorating staff morale; and reiterates the need to retain Railtrack as a crucial public service in order to maintain and develop a co-ordinated national transport policy.
  This debate is intended as a triple opportunity. First, it is an opportunity for the new Secretary of State, whom I very much welcome to the debate, to state his position on the privatisation of the rail system and on Railtrack in particular. Clearly, the House will want to know whether he shares the enthusiasm and optimism—indeed, the over-optimism—of his predecessors. I note with interest his contribution to a debate on public transport on 23 March 1990, which was introduced by his late colleague Mr. Robert Adley, whose views on privatisation we all recall. The Secretary of State said:
  "more people are writing to their Members of Parliament—certainly those in London—complaining about conditions … they expect part of the greater wealth that has been created to be diverted to the improvement, modernisation and expansion of public transport in London, the south-east and in other parts of the country."—[Official Report, 23 March 1990; Vol.169, c.1395.]
  In a few moments I shall be able to demonstrate that that simply has not happened. Let us hope that, now that he is in the elevated position of driver in the cab, he may be able to change the way in which British Rail and the rail system are driven.
  Secondly, of course, this is an opportunity to help the Labour party off the fence, not just on the subject of strikes, on which they will no doubt want to make a statement, but on the future of the rail network. It is an opportunity to get them on board for a proper policy for the public ownership of the rail network.
  Thirdly, and most importantly, the debate is a wonderful opportunity for Back Benchers on both sides of the House to express the concern, frustration and anger that our constituents are expressing to us about the way in which our great rail network is being dismantled before our very eyes.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: My constituents are annoyed and frustrated about the rail unions, which are determined to wreck their travel arrangements. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about that, or is he an apologist like Labour's Front Benchers?
  Mr. Tyler: Of course not. I am sure that hon. Members understand the frustration and anger of the staff in all parts of the rail system who are seeing their industry being dismantled. They are also seeing a huge waste of money which could be invested in better conditions for them, including better pay, as well as in improving the service. However, that is no excuse for taking industrial action and
  754
  I agree that it is not helpful to the rail system, the rail customers or rail staff to take precipitate action—as, indeed, some other staff have made clear in the past few days. No doubt the spokesmen for the Labour party will wish to dissociate themselves from this industrial action as clearly and precisely as we do.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind me asking whether it occurs to him that, when negotiations between employers and employees are taking place, the most useless and unhelpful thing that someone can do in the House—especially when he is not party to those negotiations—is to express his views in the terms that the hon. Gentleman has just used?
  Mr. Tyler: When the hon. Lady's party was in government, I recall many previous occasions on which Labour Ministers did precisely that. I see no reason not to now.
  We believe that a publicly controlled, publicly directed public service is not inherently inefficient. It can be extremely efficient. In particular, I pray in aid the Post Office. As a student of history, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that the Post Office was taken into public ownership by that great radical Charles I in 1635. After the disturbances of the civil war, it was re-established as a public service by Charles II by Act of Parliament in 1660.
  There is no inherent reason why a useful public service should not continue to be of very considerable use to the public if it remains publicly controlled. However, what we cannot do with a modern railway system is to play trains with it. At present, our rail network in the British Isles is being disintegrated in a socially, economically and environmentally damaging way. No other country in western Europe would dream of doing that at this juncture because there are great opportunities on offer to an efficient public rail system. If it is to become a wholly private concern, even if regulated, we can look to what has happened in the other former utilities as a guide to what would inevitably happen to the railways.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on what British Airways was like—a sheer embarrassment to this country—while it was nationalised? Does he think that it is purely coincidental that, as a privatised entity, it is now considered to be the world's favourite airline?
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman selects but one previous utility. He should consider what ICI says about the cost of electricity. Privatisation does not necessarily result in greater competition or more effective management of a great public service. What is clear about British Rail is that the substantial improvements that were made in the 1970s and 1980s are being put at risk. I know that a number of hon. Members wish to contribute to this short debate, so I should like to make some progress.
  Clearly, under the Government's present plans, the franchising director is only partly accountable to the public. Indeed, it is only when there is uproar in the House and among all the parties over issues such as through ticketing, that one is able to influence the way in which the passenger service requirements are implemented.
  The role of Opraf is not to be a servant of public policy; it simply provides an opportunity for Ministers to pass the buck and put at arm's length their responsibility to the

  755
  travelling public. No one is confident that standards will be met, let alone improved. Similarly, the price cap is hardly an effective and sensitive influence on the rail system.
  We recognise that the core of an effective rail network is the track—the infrastructure—and therefore Railtrack. I shall concentrate for a few minutes on the role of Railtrack because I and my colleagues believe that it is the secret to the success of our future public transport system. The core must be publicly controlled and directed, and there must be a guarantee of homogeneity in the whole operation.
  Privatisation has placed intolerable burdens on Railtrack. They include the corporate plan, which was due this summer—indeed, now—but which is still not forthcoming, and the timetable for modernisation of the west coast main line and the contract for signalling which are to be in place by the end of the year, which is highly unlikely; and enabling European Passenger Services to operate a public service to Manchester and Scotland through the channel tunnel by 1 January 1996. Again, that is a strain. It is asking the impossible while steps are being taken to create new structures throughout Railtrack and the operating companies.
  If Railtrack were in private hands, which would be a fundamental fault because it would split the infrastructure from the management of trains and divide responsibility for their operation among many operators, it would fly in the face of the experience of all other member states in the European Union and, indeed, most other developed countries. Accountability would disappear.
  Meanwhile, customers and staff are bewildered and confused by the way in which the system is being carved up. As the House knows, there are already some 100 bits to the jigsaw. The little green book, which some hon. Members may have seen, contains the most amazing array of maps which it is extremely difficult to follow. I had occasion to wish to write a complaint about a delayed train a couple of days ago, and it took several minutes to wade through the document to find out to whom I should complain.
  Let us consider Gatwick, which is the means of entry into this country for a large number of visitors. Gatwick Airport Services Ltd. runs the station on a lease from Railtrack but there are five train operators going in and out of the station—Gatwick Express, InterCity Cross Country, Network SouthCentral, Thames Trains and Thameslink. Anyone who has been there recently and shared the experience of some visitors who are unfamiliar with our curious signs and curious language and our curious lack of anyone else's language will have discovered that it is impossible to find the appropriate train. Staff simply do not know what services are being provided by other companies. Hon. Members should test it for themselves—I bet that Ministers have not done so recently, unlike one of my colleagues.
  The plethora of different information at Gatwick makes it impossible. One enters an apocalyptic world. For example, indicators are non-existent at platform level, and if one goes up to the higher level, one is in danger of missing one's connection. Nobody knows what is happening. With two sets of loudspeakers and conflicting information, it is impossible to know what is going on.
  756
  Let us consider another example. I have here a note on the railway services serving a particular constituency in the north-west of England which I visited yesterday and this morning—Littleborough and Saddleworth. The services provided in that constituency are, according to British Rail, partly
  "a joint venture between Regional Railways North West and Greater Manchester PTE … and also between Regional Railways North East and West Yorkshire PTE".
  The number of companies is so confusing that even the staff do not know who is responsible for the various services. In the past few days, my colleague in that constituency has conducted a survey of passenger opinion and he was not surprised to find that the huge majority of the travelling public in that area believe that services are getting worse as a result of the threat of privatisation. They do not share others' enthusiasm for that change. That survey revealed that nine out of 10 passengers believe that rail privatisation will cause services to deteriorate still further.
  It is not just a question of reliability or punctuality, but, of course, of safety. As has been apparent from last week's report from British Rail and Railtrack's answers to questions put in previous weeks, the disintegration of the rail system is causing a reduction in concern about safety. Sadly, recent examples of that may underline that point.
  I have already referred to the low morale of the staff. I am not suggesting that that is the sole reason for the current industrial unrest, but it is an important factor. That sense of frustration is not improved by the swathe of consultants, lawyers, accountants and merchant bankers who are picking over the intended structure of the RT operation.
  We believe that the cost so far of privatisation is well in excess of £0.5 billion, about £550 million, and others have suggested today that that cost will increase to £700 million by the end of the year. How much better for that investment to be put into improved rail services—perhaps the channel tunnel rail link, which is of considerable importance to many hon. Members who represent the south-east, let alone to the future of freight services all over the country. I note that several Conservative Members have nodded in agreement.
  As I said earlier, the background to the problem is that in 1992–93, investment in British Rail, excluding channel tunnel investment, stood at just over £1 billion. In the current year, that investment has fallen to £600 million. The danger is that, once that slide becomes even more exaggerated, it will be extremely difficult to make that investment level, let alone increase it.
  Like that other monstrosity, the poll tax, rail privatisation will have to be dismantled, but at a great cost to the taxpayer. That will be a disgraceful waste of resources, which should be spent on investment in a better service.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman, who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, is speaking against rail privatisation in almost an evangelical way. I would like to know when the change took place in the Liberal party's approach to rail privatisation, because some of us were opposed to it in principle long before we came to the House. We all know that the Liberal party was in favour of rail privatisation before the general election. The hon. Gentleman has given the impression that his party has always been against that policy, but when did that change take place? When did the Liberals discover the reality of privatisation?
  Mr. Tyler: After that diatribe, I am not sure that I should accept the hon. Gentleman's compliment about evangelical fervour. If the hon. Gentleman had attended other debates on transport, he would know only too well that we have always supported the retention of the Railtrack infrastructure.
  Mr. Skinner: No.
  Mr. Tyler: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not understand the difference. If he travelled as often by rail as I do perhaps he would understand it. Railtrack controls the major infrastructure of the system and the Liberal Democrats have always supported it as a public service. If the hon. Gentleman ceases to heckle me, I will repeat that we see an opportunity—
  Mr. Skinner: Accept the truth.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to hear the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) who has the floor, and not others who do not have it.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Liberal Democrats have always welcomed the possibility of private investment in individual services because we believe that such private finance will offer real benefits to those services. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bolsover may like to stay for slightly longer in the debate than he usually does and hear what the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have to say, because he will find that they support me on that subject.
  Mr. Skinner: I was here yesterday; you were missing.
  Mr. Tyler: Railtrack is being sold off as an afterthought of the Government. As Christian Wolmar said in The Independent a few days ago, that was
  "a sharp—and unannounced—change in policy. Railtrack privatisation did not even figure in the 1992 Conservative manifesto".
  I do not know whether it figured in the Secretary of State's election address; perhaps he will tell us later. Mr. Wolmar continued:
  "It also ties the Government to the type of rail privatisation … which has been widely criticised as unworkable … it seems the quick buck has been too much of an attraction—it may be a fatal one."
  I suspect that that will not be the case immediately, but in the long run it will undoubtedly be one of the ways in which the public will regard the Government as more interested in private profit than in public service.
  Mr. Skinner: Like you were.
  Mr. Tyler: There is an argument, which no doubt Conservative Members will suggest is at the root of the issue, that other privatisations have worked, and they may quote examples. Neither assertion is correct.
  In the first place, there has been no privatisation of a rail system in the world on that format, and certainly none that has been successful. Indeed, as I said earlier, there is considerable doubt about the effectiveness and the profitability, in terms of the overall public profitability, of the privatisation of many of the other utilities. I quote, for example, the opinion of Mr. Edward Brady of Imperial Chemical Industries in the Financial Times only 10 days ago. He said:
  "We are paying … £50 million a year for electricity at Runcorn, compared with £30 million in April 1991, before the privatisation".
  Tell him that privatisation is a wild success.
  758
  Similarly, the argument that other countries have taken that route is simply untrue. Ministers may have been deluded by comparisons made by Conservative central office, but unfortunately, Conservative central office remains woefully behind the times until the new incumbent reaches his desk. I hope that no hon. Members will quote the last brief prepared by Conservative central office; it is woefully out of date on all subjects, including the opinions of Opposition parties. No doubt, now that the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) is there, there will be a shake-up.
  Sweden does operate a rail network with separate track and operators, but both halves are publicly owned and publicly controlled. It is we who should learn the lessons from abroad. At a recent channel tunnel initiative seminar organised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, Professor Reid of Birkbeck university described how French planning uses private and public utility projects, and he described how 51 per cent. publicly owned Societe Economie Mixtes—forgive my French—operates. It is obviously a good model that we could follow in this country with advantage.
  We Liberal Democrats have a non-doctrinaire acceptance of mixed public and private investment partnerships. We believe that we should have a non-sectarian interest in seeking secure, well-planned, well-prioritised investment in railways, and we shall have no misgivings about maintaining a 49 per cent. private investment if that is found to be useful in the long term in a publicly owned and publicly controlled Railtrack.
  However, I do not understand, I do not believe that the House will understand and certainly the travelling public do not understand, where the Labour party stands on that matter. There appear to be varying theses. The gospel according to St. Dunfermline, St. Holborn, St. Oldham and even St. Sedgefield appears to vary day by day.
  I notice that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has joined us. I am delighted to see him, because I can quote back to him something that he said on BBC Radio 4 on 10 January 1995:
  "If you're asking me to set out at this moment in time exactly what we would do, I cannot sensibly give that answer".
  I hope that this afternoon he may give that answer, either sensibly or insensibly. I shall return to the Labour party later.
  The Tories are obviously split too. Many of them share and have expressed the misgivings of the late Robert Adley, who, as the House will recall, described privatisation as the poll tax on wheels. The enthusiasm for his Conservative successor in Christchurch resulted in a huge Liberal Democrat swing and victory.
  Our plans for Railtrack are simple. We want to see the basic railway infrastructure in public hands. Once that statement has been made and once the Labour party come on board, we believe that it is highly unlikely that the Government will be able to pursue, helter-skelter, their present plan to privatise Railtrack by April next year. It will not be an attractive proposition for the City, as there are far better things for the institutions to invest their money in. Why should they take on the liabilities of Railtrack when they can see much more interesting projects in which to invest their money?
  The trading value of Railtrack has plummeted since it was first suggested as a privatisation plum. It was originally suggested that it might be £6.5 billion, but now

  759
  the figure has fallen way down and is more in the region of £1.5 billion—even before the declaration of principle from the Labour party, which I hope and expect this afternoon.
  If Railtrack is privatised before the next election, we would support any steps necessary to re-acquire a majority holding at the issue price or the market price, whichever was the less, so there would be no profit to anyone who invests on that risk basis. If the sell-off is postponed, as it is likely to be, there is no cost. The cost to the nation and the Government is nil. That is why it is so important to make that statement now.
  The repurchase can be spread over a number of years by means of a bond so that it would not suddenly be a blip in the public sector borrowing requirement over the first year or two of the lifetime of a Parliament. It will then be open to the Government—generally, nationally, regionally and locally—to determine access charges and investment priorities in furtherance of other priorities.
  I hope that the Labour party's position will be clarified by today's debate and we are glad to give Labour Members the opportunity to do so. The Labour party's current plans are confused, confusing, and certainly counter-productive to achieving progress. We know that the Labour party faces dissention from among the ranks of its traditional supporters in the unions. A few days ago the RMT president said:
  "The Labour Party should understand and commit themselves in government to a railway, publicly owned, publicly accountable and run in the public interest.
  Proper forward planning and an expansionist budget would
  "achieve the fully integrated transport system this country needs."
  However, the Labour party's transport policy has yet to be hammered out. As "Rail Privatisation News" recently reported:
  "When Rail Privatisation News suggested to Party insiders that a commitment to keep Railtrack in the public sector would be both electorally popular and appease the Party's left wing membership, the response was that 'these things are settled in the Leader's office'".
  The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is listening intently—I hope that he is taking due note as he may need to make representations.
  Mr. Skinner: As I was earlier trying to explain to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party has a long tradition of being in favour of public ownership of the railways. When we get back into power, we shall take back the railways. If it was left to me, I should take them back without compensation, and would not give a penny piece of compensation.
  Mr. Tyler: I see that the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who is listening intently to the rebellion in his ranks, is amused by that statement.
  I believe that this afternoon, by endorsing our guarantee to the travelling public to retain Railtrack as a public service, the Labour party could give one signal and, by so doing, avert the derailment.
  I know that other hon. Members wish to contribute, so I shall be brief. In conclusion, let us heed the words of John Welsby, the chairman and chief executive of British Rail, who, last week, in his statement at the front of the annual report, said:
  760
  "investment in the existing railway is not at a satisfactory level, and will not sustain the industry in the long term."
  We should mark his words. He continued:
  "It is important that fragmentation is not allowed to become an obstacle to worthwhile investment".
  I submit to the House that they are wise words from the people who carry real responsibility for the rail system in this country. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support us and them tonight.
  4.14 pm
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'believes that privatisation offers the best opportunity for reversing the historic decline suffered by the railway system under nationalisation; and further believes that the privatisation of Railtrack offers the best future for Railtrack, and for passengers and freight users, by making greater use of private sector skills in managing the network and in providing greater scope for private capital investment in the upgrading of the railway system.'.
  It is interesting to watch the Labour Front Bench gradually fill up as the debate develops. That is obviously occurring because of the severe challenge to the Labour party's position from the Liberal Benches. If I were the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I would be shaking in my shoes in view of the skilful way in which the Liberal party's stance has changed. While the right hon. Member has been learning Tory phrases, pretending to adopt Tory values and borrowing—I could say "stealing", but that would have no place in the modern Labour party—our clothes, he is being outflanked on the left by the Liberals.
  It used to be said that the centre ground was the battlefield of British politics. But as the Labour party has grabbed at our coat tails and tried to scuttle to the right, the Liberals have occupied the vacant turf to the left. The Liberal Party is now the only party that is prepared to stand up for nationalisation. Perhaps it is merely paving the way for even closer union between the Labour and Liberal parties, or perhaps it is simply nostalgia for the halcyon days of the Lib-Lab pact—I leave it to hon. Members to judge.
  The motion moved by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) refers to
  "the privatisation threat on investment in the rail network".
  Let us examine the facts, as we have done in the past. During the period in office of the last Labour Government—who were sustained in office by the votes of the Liberals—investment in the railway averaged £924 million per year in current prices. In a comparable four-year period from 1990–91 to 1993–94, investment averaged £1,350 million—no less than 46 per cent. higher than under the investment policies supported by the Liberals when they last had an opportunity to contribute to sustaining a Government in office.
  Mr. Michael Meacher rose—
  Mr. Watts: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I know what he will say.
  Mr. Meacher: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman knows what I intend to say. In looking at the record of recent years, he ended significantly at 1993–94. Would he like to give the House the figure for investment in the rail network—excluding the channel tunnel—in 1994–95?

  761
  Will he confirm that that figure, at £617 million, is far and away the lowest investment figure in real terms since the war?
  Mr. Watts: I am happy to confirm that, following the years to which I have referred, investment last year and in the current year continues at around £1 billion. I will not accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to ignore the substantial investment in international rail services. Is he suggesting that they are not part of the rail network?
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: As to investment by British Rail, and therefore by the Government, is my hon. Friend aware that the people of Kent are extremely grateful for the hundreds of millions of pounds that are spent on new Networker rolling stock—as my constituents who commute to London prove every day?
  Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend makes a very strong point.
  I will not be tempted by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to ignore the substantial investment in international rail services any more than any other business, in announcing its performance, would say, "We've invested X billion pounds, but let's forget about all of our investment in developing a new business. Let's forget about the £400 million spent on upgrading track to provide better freight services through the channel tunnel, which is allowing rail freight to compete with long-distance road haulage—for example, runs from Glasgow to Milan now take 36 hours by rail and 72 hours by road. Let's forget about all of the investment in our new business, and let's pretend that the old business is all that matters and that that is all we must contend with".
  In his concluding remarks, the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred to the comment by the chairman of British Rail in his last annual report, that, in his opinion, the level of investment in the year on which he was reporting was insufficient to sustain the rail network. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the chairman of British Rail was referring mainly to investment, which will remain the responsibility of Railtrack, but let us leave that on one side and consider the regime within the arrangements that we have established for the privatised railway to ensure that there is sufficient funding for the necessary investment to sustain the core network.
  Mr. Tyler: Is the Minister somehow suggesting that investment in Railtrack's responsibilities is a lesser priority than investment in British Rail? If that is the case, it is in direct contradition to what Railtrack is saying, which is that it now has a major problem with the hiatus in investment in basic maintenance to ensure that speed and weight restrictions do not have to be imposed on services, and to maintain safety standards.
  Mr. Watts: No. On the contrary, Mr. Welsby and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the major investment priorities for the railway are now in the infrastructure. That is why the regime approved by the regulator provides for access charges to provide funding for Railtrack's investments to run at around £600 million a year—the level judged necessary to maintain the existing core network.
  If the hon. Gentleman were to discuss Mr. Welsby's comment with him, he would not suggest that British Rail needs more funding for investment. Indeed, he has told us on many occasions that there is currently no business case
  762
  for further investment by British Rail in rolling stock, and that the need for investment is in the infrastructure. That is where the major part of the investment is going.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: The manager of the Network SouthEast service that would have got the York trains, had they been ordered, argued strongly with the British Rail Board that there was a business case for investment. The Prime Minister's motion says that privatisation will provide
  "greater scope for … upgrading the railway system."
  If the Minister believes that to be true, will he explain how the nationalised railway has managed to invest £800 million in electrifying the east coast main line, but the private sector has not been able to bring on stream the channel tunnel link?
  Mr. Watts: First, I find it gratifying that, in the new atmosphere running through the rail industry, the directors of train operating companies strongly advocate the needs of their passengers. I am sure that, when passenger operating companies are in the private sector, that advocacy of the standard of service that they want to deliver to their passengers will be heard even more strongly.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman picks up some points from misleading articles in the press today that the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) sought to raise with Madam Speaker as a point of order. That speculation is totally without foundation. It is far from the case that the private sector will prove incapable of delivering the channel tunnel rail link, but the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the competition currently under way to be brought to a conclusion. I accept that the hon. Gentleman will probably wish to be a doubting Thomas until I can show him proof.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: As the Minister is dealing with current issues, and particularly as the newly promoted Minister of State, Scottish Office, is on the Front Bench, will he explain the position vis-a-vis the new Secretary of State for Scotland?
  In Edinburgh today, the Scottish Office has been briefing the press that the new Secretary of State is to call in John Ellis, director of ScotRail, in a fresh political intervention over the future of Scottish-Anglo sleeper links. Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State for Scotland has made that intervention? Is there a change of policy? What discussions, if any, have there been between the new teams under the Secretaries of State at the Department of Transport and the Scottish Office?
  Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Scotland has picked up on the close interest in the future of Scottish rail services shown by his predecessor, who is now President of the Board of Trade. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is having discussions with ScotRail. I doubt that the hon. Gentleman is surprised, knowing my right hon. Friend.
  I was referring to the regime of track access charges approved by the regulator, which will provide Railtrack with the funding necessary to invest about £600 million a year to sustain the quality of the existing network. In the current year, Railtrack expects to invest more than £700 million—an increase of one fifth over its expenditure in

  763
  the past year. The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned the west coast main line. This Friday, Railtrack intends to invite tenders for the development of a new state-of-the-art signalling system that is the key to the £900 million project to upgrade the west coast main line.
  I have been trying hard, but I have not yet detected where the so-called
  "privatisation threat on investment in the rail network"
  is having an impact. If Railtrack were left as a nationalised industry, as the Liberals clearly want and as some members of the Labour party might want—and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) undoubtedly and definitely does want—Railtrack would continue to be subject to the constraints of public expenditure controls. It would have to compete year after year with bids from health, education, social services and so on. We all know that, whichever Government are in power, they never have a bottomless purse. If Governments act as if they do, that has a deleterious effect on our fellow citizens as taxpayers.
  One main advantage of a privatised Railtrack is that it will be freed from those constraints, be free to make commercially driven investment decisions and have much wider access to private capital for investment in the upgrading of the railway system.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall expressed doubts about the structure that we have chosen, saying that the pattern was not well received or likely to be adopted in other countries. When I attended the recent European conference of Transport Ministers in Vienna, considerable interest was shown by our partners—to the extent that the Austrian Minister who hosted the conference invited me to give a paper on railways restructuring. It is clear that we are the market leader in setting the structure for a railway system for the 21st century.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall gave his party's views on the future of Railtrack. Our policy is crystal clear. Railtrack is to be sold by stock market flotation within the lifetime of this Parliament. The national railway network will remain as an integrated system, providing the train paths required by passenger and freight train operators.
  The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) started his assault on traditional Labour territory, in a recent speech in Perth.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: It was not that recent.
  Mr. Watts: It was not that long ago. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Unlike the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats won't just criticise the Government for its plans".
  There is the challenge for the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). He knows what he must say in his reply, because the hon. Member for North Cornwall told him. The right hon. Member for Yeovil continued:
  "We will guarantee that, if privatisation goes ahead, we will put our rail infrastructure back under public control."
  There were no empty, uncosted promises. He named his price. He is obviously a much more confident forecaster of the stock market than I would want to be. Although he did not use the word, he said that the cost of fulfilling that promise would be a snip:
  "£200 million a year for five or six years."
  Mr. Kennedy: He did not say that.
  Mr. Watts: He said £200 million a year. If the hon. Gentleman would like to read his leader's speech, I have it here. I accept that "snip" is my word, but I think that it indicates the right hon. Gentleman's attitude. He said that such action would cost £200 million a year for five or six years, and he went on to say:
  "Given that the government's total spending bill is £300,000 million a year, £200 million is perfectly affordable. Indeed, it is cheap".
  There we have it.
  Mr. Tyler: I do not think that the Minister heard my point. If Railtrack does not go into the private sector before the general election, does he concede that the price of buying it back would be nil?
  Mr. Watts: In the unlikely event that the right hon. Member for Yeovil formed a Government, and we had privatised Railtrack—as we intend to—the Treasury would have received the money. The net cost in either event would be nil.
  In the spirit of conciliation, I shall try to agree with the right hon. Gentleman on one point. He was right to say—I heard his hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall repeat it—that the key to an integrated rail network is the track. Of course we are maintaining an integrated national system of track in our privatisation plans for Railtrack.
  The right hon. Gentleman's reasoning is flawed because of his belief that it is necessary for the state to own the network. Why does he consider ownership such an essential ingredient in delivering integrated transport, whenever he might mean by that phrase? If ownership is the key, why does he stop at the track? Why does he not extend his principle to train operations? Indeed, in hearing the hon. Member for North Cornwall explaining how confusing he found it to be offered a choice of services at Gatwick, operated by five different companies, surely the logic of his argument is that he wants to nationalise train operators as well.
  Mr. Kennedy: This is very interesting logic—let us pursue it. From the Government's point of view, if this is the direction in which one wants to go in this hypothetical argument, surely, if one is to privatise at all, one would want to privatise the track alongside the operators who will run the track, instead of splitting it up and making it an accountants' and lawyers' paradise, which is what we have turned it into.
  Mr. Watts: I want to privatise the track; I want to keep it as a national system. I want to privatise operators who will run their services over the track and, in some instances, will be able to provide choice for passengers and freight customers, who will make use of their services.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Watts: Not at the moment, but I might later.
  The logic of the argument of the hon. Member for North Cornwall about the confusion that he found in having a choice of services at Gatwick and at Littleborough—I wonder what he was doing there—must be that he would want those services nationalised as well. Why stop there? If ownership and control is essential to the provision of an integrated transport system, whatever

  765
  that means, do the British Airports Authority and British Airways need to be renationalised so that they can be integrated? Do buses and coaches need to be renationalised? What about the National Freight Corporation?
  The logic of the arguments of the right hon. Member for Yeovil leads to the reincarnation of the British Transport Commission, and for every aspect of transport by land, sea and air to be owned and controlled by the state. Having been bold enough to adopt the orphaned policy of nationalisation, abandoned by its Labour family, why is the right hon. Gentleman shy of going the whole hog? This new commitment to state ownership and centralised control sits very uncomfortably alongside his other commitments to local decision-making.
  Mr. Tyler rose—
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Watts: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
  Mr. Spearing: Irrespective of ownership, does not the Minister's plan hinge on finance? If the rail service is to be as good—or bad—as it is now when it is under private operation, and if Railtrack is to be privatised with some notional return on capital, how will the financial surplus, or rather the deficit which is covered by the nation as a whole, be met? Will it be met entirely by the alleged efficiency of the operators and the alleged efficiency of Railtrack, which does not currently operate? How can the Minister square the financial matters, irrespective of ownership?
  Mr. Watts: By continuing public subsidy to support socially necessary services, to which the Government have a strong attachment. But a new structure in which the parts of the railway industry that can operate on a proper commercial footing do so, and in which subsidy is targeted on securing services for passengers—replacing the miasma of cross-subsidy and lack of transparency—will ensure much better value for money for taxpayers.
  Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Watts: I will give way one last time; then I must finish my speech.
  Mr. Tyler: I now understand better why the Minister's colleague in the Austrian Government is so fascinated by the intricacies that the Minister obviously enjoyed presenting to him.
  Why does the Minister say that it is impossible for the infrastructure to be in public control as part of a public transport policy, and for different operators to be allowed to use it, when that is precisely what happens on the roads?
  Mr. Watts: I do not say that it is impossible. Indeed, when I spoke in Vienna I said that I believed that substantial benefits could be gained from restructuring so that the functions were separated. We go further, however, believing that there are further efficiencies to be gained from transferring businesses to the private sector.
  Nationalisation has not proved a conspicuously successful model for our railways. Over the last 45 years or so, Governments of all persuasions have poured money into British Rail—over £54 billion in current values. Despite all that, the railways have continued to decline.
  766
  In 1953, 17 per cent. of journeys were made by train and 24 per cent. of goods were moved by rail. Today both figures are about 5 per cent., and they have been dropping.
  Why is that? It is because state ownership, and thus state management, has failed the railways. The monolithic monopoly did nothing for the passenger; it did nothing for the freight customer; and it did nothing for the owners—the taxpayers. Because of the structure, the old-style British Rail management was not in a position to be responsive to customers' needs. It had no incentives to improve performance. A giant unitary organisation cannot hope to supply services as well as a competitive private sector operating commercially.
  Something had to be done. Someone had to be bold enough to grasp the nettle and create a new approach and a new framework for rail services in the United Kingdom. That is what we did with the Railways Act 1993. We did it for three reasons. First, we wanted to improve the quality of service to the customer. That comes first, because it must: it is the most important thing for everyone connected with the railway industry to remember. Secondly, we wanted to improve the efficiency of the railways. Thirdly, we wanted to halt and reverse the decline in the use of railways.
  I cannot believe that more of the same—the failed structure and operation of nationalisation—is the preferred option among Opposition Members, especially given the example of the outstanding success of privatisation in other transport sectors. Let us compare privatised British Airways with loss-making nationalised continental flag carriers such as Air France; or let us consider BAA, which, in the private sector, invests on average three times as much each year as it did as a nationalised industry.
  Privatisation will provide passengers with new guarantees that nationalisation has never delivered. Passenger service requirements will protect every station and every route on the network. Competitive bidding for franchises will ensure better value for taxpayers. Subsidy will be targeted more effectively. The fares regime announced by the franchising director will ensure that passengers share in the greater efficiency that privatisation will bring. Controls over key fares on every route will deliver fares 4 per cent. lower in real terms over seven years.
  It is because of the outstanding achievements of privatisation in other transport sectors that we can be confident that rail privatisation will deliver for rail passengers what airline privatisation has already provided for airline passengers. That is why we have no fear of the future, and no nostalgia for the failed doctrine of state ownership and state control.
  4.39 pm
  Mr. Keith Hill: Hope springs eternal, as they say, and it is evident from the somewhat unconvincing performance of the Minister of State that this is one privatisation too far. Despite the twists and turns of a Government increasingly desperate to proffer some crumbs of comfort to a sceptical public—most recently, for example, the highly misleading fare capping announcement and the so-called service guarantee, which is simply a myth—the public remain unpersuaded about the case for rail privatisation, and indeed deeply hostile to it.
  Privatisation is undesired by rail passengers, and its structure—the separation of track, signalling and operations—has been condemned by virtually every

  767
  railway professional at home and abroad. Its passage though Parliament was both time-consuming and profoundly contentious. The great rail sale has been greeted with almost total indifference by the private sector. Meanwhile, however, the uncertainty created by the privatisation has had a devastating affect on the rail manufacturing industry, and has placed a question mark over the 35,000 jobs associated with that industry.
  The Railway Industry Association, the representative body of railway equipment manufacturing companies, has pointed to significant shortfalls in the expected investment in both the track and signalling since the inception of Railtrack. There is still no prospect of the urgently overdue modernising of the west coast main line, which will require major new investment in both infrastructure and rolling stock. Rolling stock orders for the west coast main line are dependent—if the Government survive for that long—on the granting of a franchise for that line, and that is unlikely to occur until 1997 at the earliest.
  The worst effects have been felt in the rolling stock manufacturing sector as a result of the uncertainty created by privatisation. As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) has pointed out, 1,800 jobs in York have been lost as a result of the hiatus in rolling stock orders. That is nearly 2,000 blighted lives and families as a direct result of rail privatisation.
  Still, it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good, so let us not forget the real beneficiaries of privatisation. We have heard various estimates of the cost of rail privatisation, but let us go with the modest estimates of the Department of Transport. The Department now estimates that the cost of privatisation to date—for the work of legal experts, property and marketing consultants, accountants, tax specialists and merchant bankers—amounts to a still colossal £240 million. Privatisation has been a gold mine for the Government's mates in the City of London. The City slickers have made a mint from the great rail sell-off, and that is a scandal which must not and will not be overlooked during the whole sorry saga of the railway privatisation.
  In all likelihood, rail privatisation will cost us all as taxpayers an extra £500 million a year to run the same level of service—if we are lucky. In 1993–94, before the so-called restructuring of the railway finances, the cost of railway grants to the taxpayer were just over £1 billion. In 1994–1995, after the restructuring, the final outturn figure is £1,560 million.
  By 1996–1997—on the basis of the Government's estimates of the likely spending of the rail franchising director and the projections of current costs and revenues of the railway—the total cost to the taxpayer of running the same level of services is likely to stand at £1. 7 billion per annum. If the Minister has any doubts whatsoever about these estimates, I suggest that he consults the trends set out in figures 16 and 17 of the Department's "Transport Report 1995".
  There will be an increase of at least £500 million in the cost to the taxpayer for a railway that will in all likelihood deliver the same level of services as before privatisation. It is difficult to see the benefit to the taxpayer or to the rail passenger of that massive growth in costs. What of the other proclaimed benefits of privatisation to the rail passenger?
  Mr. Peter Luff: I have considerable affection and some respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I
  768
  may have missed him refer to this matter earlier on. He is talking about the potential benefits of privatisation to the passenger. I believe that I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman is sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Could he be more concerned about the benefits to the members of that union?
  Mr. Hill: I hardly think so. The members of that union perceive few benefits under the existing conditions on the railway, never mind in the future. I shall anticipate the hon. Gentleman, who may continue by attacking—as is traditional with Conservative Members—the strikes declared in the railway industry. I find those attacks only too typical.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that Members who address the House should declare their interests before speaking in a debate?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I must make it clear to the House that it is incumbent upon each individual Member to decide whether it is necessary to declare such an interest. If an hon Member so decides, he must, of course, declare that interest.
  Mr. Hill: I declare an interest in my south London commuter constituents, who are profoundly fearful of the consequences of rail privatisation, for reasons that I am about to spell out in yet further detail.
  What of the other proclaimed benefits of privatisation to the rail passenger? The Government's most recent and desperate effort to paper over the cracks of rail privatisation has been the franchising director's commitment to cap fares at the level of inflation over the period of the initial franchise agreement. So far, so good. That is, on the face of it, good news for the captive commuters of London and the south-east, who have suffered fare increases well in excess of the rate of inflation for too long.
  Unfortunately, all is not as it first appears. The wrinkles are already showing through the rouge. Individual fares may increase above or below the target range, provided the weighted average remains within it. That depends critically on the basket of fares being truly representative, which it will not be if below-average increases are concentrated on tickets which are, in practice, rarely sold. We must monitor that development very carefully indeed.
  Mr. Spearing: I understood that that average was weighted according to the actual volume of transactions, as I believe is the case with the retail prices index. Is my hon. Friend saying that the average is not truly weighted in terms of expenditure?
  Mr. Hill: I understand that the average is extracted from a basket of fares over a period. In that context, it is certainly possible—unless we are extremely careful—that the overall average will not be representative of the true level of fare increases.
  The key leisure fares for my south London constituents—the one-day travelcard and the cheap day return—are specifically exempted from regulation by the franchising director. The key fare for my constituents, and for most of the constituents in London and the south-east, is the period travelcard. That card, which is indispensable to most London commuters, appears also to be exempted

  769
  if London Transport and the franchisees can reach an agreement on its price. The temptation to collusion to fix a price for the travelcard at any level they want is obvious. So where is the benefit in that?
  From an analysis of the franchising director's "Passenger Rail Industry Overview", which set out the details for the first three franchises, we know four things. First, there will be no protection for existing child fare reductions. Secondly, provision at stations of timetables showing all the services that call there will be required only
  "as far as is practicable".
  Thirdly, operators will be free to use any type of rolling stock that they like. Fourthly, if VAT were to be levied on public transport, the franchising director would reimburse franchisees, with no provision for passing the relief on to passengers. Again, where is the benefit for rail passengers in all that?
  Finally, there are the two jewels in the crown of the announcement by the former Secretary of State on passenger service requirements. The first was his commitment on overcrowding. On 7 February, he said:
  "Because the passenger service requirement specifies maximum load factors for peak services, they"—
  that is, commuters—
  "will receive a guarantee that the operator will have to put on extra trains if demand for services increases, instead of simply cramming more people into existing trains."
  However, from the franchising director's detailed guidelines, we now know that peak period overcrowding limits will be based on timetabled services rather than on the services that are actually run. In other words, the operator can run as many short-formed trains as he likes, and can even cancel as many as he likes. Provided that the trains are on the timetable, he will be deemed to be achieving his loading targets.
  The detailed guidelines also tell us that, in any case, overcrowding limits are set at a level lower than that currently achieved by most sectors of Network SouthEast. Contrary to the previous Secretary of State's firm expectations, there is no incentive whatever in the guidelines for franchisees to put on extra trains. What benefit does rail privatisation bring there?
  In his speech on 7 February, the former Secretary of State also said:
  "Our plans for the railways offer something new for passengers; they offer guarantees. For the first time there will be an absolute guarantee of service levels."—[Official Report, 7 February 1995; Vol. 254, c 210, 211.]
  But in his guidelines issued in early June, the franchising director said of himself and the franchisee:
  "Either party may propose a change to the passenger service requirement at any time during the course of the franchise".
  If that can be done at any time, there is no guarantee. What is the point of a guarantee if it can be changed at any time?
  Many of the Government's promises on rail privatisation, including guaranteed service levels and reduced rush hour overcrowding, are now seen to be worthless. Rail privatisation is a fraud and a shambles. What is more, it is a more expensive fraud and shambles. If the Government had an ounce of common sense or decency, they would scrap the whole daft lot of it.
  4.53 pm
  Mr. Richard Tracey: I have a sneaking suspicion that we have just been listening to the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers' brief, or part of it. It would have been a little more honest of the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) if he had confessed to being sponsored by that union and to being a long-term member of it.
  This is a Liberal day of debate on railways, which are clearly the flavour of the month for that party. I am sure that all my hon. Friends found it interesting to see 12 Liberal Democrat Members in the Chamber at one point, which must be something of a record. Even the leader of the party popped in for a moment or two, although he did not stay to confess to his Perth speech, which was mentioned by the Minister.
  It is good that the Liberals have raised the subject of the railways, because clearly the Labour party will not make much of a contribution. I am not sure whether Labour Members have all dashed off, as their Welsh colleagues did yesterday, or whether they are drinking tea somewhere in London.
  I have noticed that, in various parts of London, Liberals are now indulging in a fair bit of scaremongering about rail privatisation. I have even seen one or two of the famous questionnaires that they hand out. Out of seven questions, I counted six leading questions that would never have been allowed in a court of law. There were questions such as, "Do you believe that rail privatisation will be a disaster for the railways?" What is one supposed to say?
  One questionnaire claimed that £700 million was being spent on legal fees for railway privatisation, and then asked, "Do you think that that money should have been spent somewhere else, such as on the railways?" How is one supposed to answer that? The Liberals always get the answer "yes" from the people they so regularly canvass on the railway stations of London and elsewhere.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) may say that this is a central office research department plant, but what fascinates me about the Liberals is the fact that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Isle of Wight welcomed the privatisation of rail services there. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) told me that. He has heard that from the Liberal council there, and read it in the local paper. So what is so wrong with rail privatisation according to the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his 11 colleagues, who are not speaking for the Isle of Wight this afternoon?
  Mr. Tyler rose—
  Mr. Tracey: Does the hon. Gentleman want to put the record straight or to twist it a bit more?
  Mr. Tyler: I warned the hon. Gentleman not to use out-of-date Conservative research department briefs. If he had attended several previous debates, he would have heard his extraordinary statement repeated again and again, and specifically answered each time by my hon. Friends. We support the privatisation of individual services. I went to the Isle of Wight and specifically supported the initiative there, so why does the hon. Gentleman go on about it? The only possible reason is that, unfortunately, the new chairman of Conservative central office has not yet torn up those outdated briefs.
  Mr. Tracey: I can easily say in response to the hon. Gentleman that all my hon. Friends and I support the

  771
  privatisation of every single railway service in this country. As I shall explain, that seems to be working rather well.
  Liberals are anti-privatisation—and anti-car too. They do not like too many cars on the road, or any cars that burn petrol and cause fumes, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has told us many times. The Liberals also oppose road building, except when the bypass in question happens to be in a part of the world where they control the council, or hold one of the seats. It is not long since we heard about a little fracas concerning a bypass in Berkshire that the Liberals as a party support, although they often say the opposite.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Is not another example of Liberal hypocrisy the way in which they tell environmentalists how much they favour a carbon tax to cut noxious emissions, yet tell pensioners that they do not approve of VAT on gas and electricity?
  Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those of us who have ever had much to do with the Liberal Democrats, especially in the south of England, know only too well that there is often a slight shift of policy between one street and the next, or even between one front door and the next. If neighbours are not at their door at the same moment, it is convenient to tell a different story.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, is almost in danger of sounding embittered. As he is talking about different policies, will he say which ones he supported in the privacy of the ballot box last week? Did he vote for the Prime Minister—the least worst option, as the Minister for Transport in London described the victory—or did he vote for the alternative Conservative policies?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot see how that can be relevant to the debate.
  Mr. Tracey: I am grateful for your lesson on that, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman had been watching the television last Tuesday night, he would have discovered how I voted, because most of the British nation seemed to do so.
  My hon. Friends and I are seeking to show that there are elements of hypocrisy in the Liberal party and in its motion. I fear that, because of its hang-up about rail privatisation, it is seriously misleading the public and, indeed, my constituents. Some Liberal Democrat councillors in the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames have been claiming that railway lines will close because of privatisation. That has been consistently and categorically denied by the managers of South West Trains, the franchising company in the area. Indeed, the passenger service requirement, which has been imposed by the franchising director, shows that there is now scope for an excessive number of trains compared to what we have at the moment.
  I very much welcome the development of the franchising director and the PSRs, because it means that my constituents, and everybody else's, will for the first time have guarantees on services, whereas, as we all know only too well, in the heady old days British Rail could change services without telling anybody, without apologising and without doing anything to assist the travelling public.
  Mr. Keith Hill: I have in front of me the guidelines for the first three franchisees, in which the franchising director says quite explicitly:
  "Either party may propose a change to the passenger service requirement at any time during the course of the franchise."
  Where is the guarantee in that?
  Mr. Tracey: The point is that either party may propose a change. That does not mean that the franchising director will accept the change. [Laughter] We can listen to the hypocritical laughter from Opposition Members, who are such great friends of the old British Rail, but, as I said earlier, it regularly changed services; it cut services, and very often it did not have the courtesy to tell the travelling public. That situation will not exist in future. I believe that there is a guarantee.
  The Liberal Democrats, who at grass roots level are scaremongering about passenger services, are making residents and everyone else sick and tired of it all.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for generously giving way a second time. He should not rely on out-of-date Conservative central office briefs but do a bit more homework, because those of us from Scotland, who have been ahead in terms of the impact of privatisation, can assure him that the categorical, and no doubt sincere, ministerial assurances that were given about service provision were completely undermined by pre-emptive decisions based on subsidy, which is within the remit of the franchising director. I fear that the guarantees that the hon. Gentleman thinks he has are not worth the paper that they are not actually written on.
  Mr. Tracey: I have a great affection for the hon. Gentleman. He, of course, represents a Scottish constituency; I represent a London constituency. I have had my guarantees from South West Trains, the franchising company running the trains on those lines.
  I do not want to delay the House much longer, but I must share with it my experience of what is happening where Railtrack and South West Trains operate. I have, for a long time, been asking for refurbishment of Surbiton station, which is in my constituency and which is well known to commuters in south-west London and Surrey, because it is heavily used and was quite clearly in need of it. The greatest success that I had in three or four years was simply to get the clock there working again, which nevertheless was a great success to constituents who rely on it to tell the time. Now, as a result of Railtrack and South West Trains being in operation, £750,000 is being spent on refurbishment of the station. I very much welcome that; I do not believe that anybody can carp about that.
  Secondly, on one of my lines, we have had a considerable problem with vandalism, and, indeed, with threats to passengers travelling alone. South West Trains put considerable investment into closed circuit television and into anti-vandal measures on the station concerned in response to the complaints of local residents, including the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who sits opposite in rather a different role.
  Railtrack is investing £27 million in signalling and track work on the main line between Wimbledon, running through my constituency, and Woking. I have had discussions with Railtrack's managers, who now say that they are quite convinced that they have far more

  773
  flexibility and freedom to invest in the necessary infrastructure improvements than they ever had when they worked under the control of British Rail.
  We have had the successful privatisations of British Telecom, British Airways, the British Airports Authority, the freight companies, Sealink and so on—the successes that we all know so well. That is what we are aiming to achieve with British Rail and the privatisation of the railway companies.
  For too long, British Rail was a music hall joke in this country—something that would not have changed if the Labour party had been in power for the past few years. The Government are making progress and we shall continue to do so.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: I welcome the new Secretary of State for Transport to his challenging position, and in his absence might I suggest that his first main challenge is to dump privatisation of the railways? It is alleged that he is on the centre left of the Conservative party and that he is interested in transport. He could do nothing better for the nation than to scrap what is now becoming a farce and a fiasco throughout the length and breadth of Britain. I suspect that his predecessor, who has moved on to the chairmanship of the party, will have the profound disappointment of being chairman for two years with the party in government and then for five years with it in opposition. What an ordeal for anyone to have to suffer for the next seven years.
  Crucially, the Government will not accept that they are tearing the heart out of the railways. In the past 18 months, issue after issue has shown that they are not achieving any of their privatisation objectives but are destroying much of the morale, the network and initiative that have been built up in the past 30 or 40 years. It seems ludicrous that the Conservative party will not accept that policy, not personalities, lies at the heart of their deep unpopularity.
  The Prime Minister involved himself in a vote of confidence and started off by saying that there were a few nutters in his party of whom he had to take care. After 12 days, he had managed to firm them up to 30 per cent. of the parliamentary Conservative party opposing him—a real achievement. [HON. MEMBERS: "What has this to do with the railways?"] It is relevant to the policy issues that are facing the country. If the Opposition have some patience, the relevance will sink in even with them—
  Mr. Simon Burns (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): We are the Government, not the Opposition.
  Mr. McLeish: If I want to practise for the future, it is not incumbent on the Whip to intervene.
  In the reshuffle, the new Secretary of State for Transport was brought in and we welcome that change, but the nation is not interested in shuffling heads on the deck of the Tory Titanic. The problem is the crucial policy issues in which it is immersed. Conservative Members may laugh, as the Government Whip is, but we will have the final laugh within 22 months.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: My constituents are already laughing at the pleasure and comfort of travelling in the brand new Networker rolling stock with which the Government have provided British Rail.
  Mr. McLeish: I admire the bravery of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). Anyone who voted
  774
  for the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) deserves some credit. His intervention was not predicated on the fact that he is a consultant for Thomas Cook Group Ltd.
  Mr. Arnold: I am not.
  Mr. McLeish: According to the Register of Members' Interests, the hon. Gentleman is a consultant to Thomas Cook Group Ltd. If my hon. Friends can be challenged on their contributions, it is right for the House to appreciate that an interest may be involved.
  Mr. Arnold: For the hon. Gentleman's information, I am not a consultant to Thomas Cook. I worked for the company for a number of years and carried out a consultancy for it not so long ago, but I am not at present a consultant.
  Mr. McLeish: You may want to give us some guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the Register of Members' Interests dated 31 January 1995, it states Thomas Cook—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As I have explained to the House before, it is incumbent on a Member to declare an interest, if there is one, but matters change. My recollection is that an interest must be recorded in the register within a month. Clearly there will be changes whenever the book is published.
  Mr. McLeish: I am grateful for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker. Until about six months ago, the hon. Member for Gravesham was a consultant to Thomas Cook Ltd., but I will move on.
  It is important to identify the key issues. Despite the contributions of Conservative Members, they will not accept that privatisation is deeply damaging to the fabric of the rail network. We constantly hear this nonsense about rail privatisation being the same as any other privatisation. Was British Airways chopped into 95 pieces and sold off? Of course not. Even if one were prejudiced and ideologically committed enough to privatise British Rail, one could not have picked a more monumentally stupid way to undertake the process.
  That is the essential difference between the Government's arguments about this privatisation as compared to previous privatisations. They talk about integration but what a sick joke that is as regards the 95 pieces that the Government are trying to pretend would be a comprehensive and integrated national rail network.
  On the timetable for privatisation, as the legislation was enacted in November 1993, why has not one of the 25 franchises been sold off? Who is dragging their feet? Is it the Front-Bench conspirators who are against what the Government are doing? Does the hon. Member for Gravesham want to intervene now? The Government have a target of selling off 51 per cent. by April 1996. Does any Conservative Member think that that can be achieved? I would like to be persuaded. Clearly, the timetable is in disarray, and it is creating tremendous problems for the railways.
  The second issue is cost. My hon. Friends have mentioned the serious costs involved. The amount has been estimated at £500 million, £1 billion or more, but the real point is the opportunity that we are losing by squandering taxpayers' money on this futile exercise. Of course, no one mentions the fact that the public service

  775
  obligation grant was virtually doubled in a year, not to provide extra services or any extra investment but simply to fatten up Railtrack and the rolling stock leasing companies for sale.
  My hon. Friends are right to point out that, if privatisation goes ahead, in 1997–98 a privatised Railtrack will be £600 million to £700 million more expensive every year as far as one can see into the future. Will any Conservative Member defend that—a privatisation that costs the taxpayers an extra £600 million to £700 million? I do not see Conservative Members queuing up to intervene. Why not? This is a taxpayers' issue. Are we not always being lectured by the Government that we must be prudent with the nation's taxes and finances? I do not think we will get any volunteers to argue for the sheer lunacy of that policy.
  Investment is the basis for this debate. Why is 30 per cent. of rolling stock more than 30 years old? Is that not a criterion on which one would base an investment decision? Not at all. Conservative Back Benchers are now quiet. The argument has hit home. Of course we need investment. Why should people have to endure 30-year-old coaches in the south-east and throughout the network? Modern coaches do not prevent accidents, but one's chances of survival and the chances of minimising threats to passengers will be that much better in a coach that was constructed last year than in one constructed 30 years ago. Investment is crucial for safety, and the Government are running away from their responsibilities.
  We have also heard much about the west coast main line. A tragedy is unfolding because the Government promised that that would be a prestigious flagship project costing £1 billion. What are we getting now? We are getting apologies, because all that they are going to spend is £18 million on restructuring the signalling system. Words escape me, but the word "scandal" comes to mind. Are the Government merely breaking their promises, or is a link that would take people from the north of Scotland through the centre of England and on to Europe being abandoned? That is what is happening. Despite the protestations and the fine words from Railtrack chairman Bob Horton and from Ministers, the fact is that £18 million is becoming a substitute for a £1 billion project that is disappearing into the mists of time.
  Why are everyone's energies tied up in this most useless of privatisation exercises? Constituencies on the west coast main line want improved passenger safety and quality in our train network. What they cannot stomach is the fact that the Tories are reneging on a promise to reconstruct the line, and the taxpayer is paying hand over fist towards this monumentally stupid exercise. It is difficult to understand how the Government could get it so wrong. Is it because they are dominated by prejudice and ideological extremism, or did they genuinely think that smashing a railway into 95 pieces and starving it of investment was the way forward? Those points must be on the consciences of Conservative Members.
  The final point about the state of disarray of the railways concerns freight. The battle for freight is about the survival of the rail freight industry. It is not about building on an industry which is doing spectacularly well—it would be wrong to suggest that—but about working on an industry that has potential. What did the Government do? They created an artificial internal market
  776
  and turned the rail freight industry into three companies. When will Ministers appreciate that the battle for freight is not within the railways but between rail and road? [Interruption.]
  I hear an hon. Gentleman say, "Of course it is," from a sedentary position. I should like that constructive comment to be passed on to Ministers. The capacity of Ministers to pursue dogma through internal market competition is nothing to do with the real battle. They should think again about the three companies. [HON. MEMBERS: "That has nothing to do with it."] It has everything to do with it.
  The situation is clear. The Government, like us, are surely committed to creating a better environment beyond the year 2000. One small way in which they can contribute to that is to shift road freight on to the railways.
  The key issue should be the competition that we should be generating between rail and road. The Government are not doing that. [Interruption.] Whether the hon. Member for Gravesham likes it or not, he might like to take a more active interest in the issue by persuading Ministers that the real struggle concerns the environment and competition between road and rail, not internal competition within the railways, which is absolute nonsense and merely reinforces the prejudices of Conservative Members and does nothing for the industrial economy in Britain.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that, through all the years of nationalised railways, there has been a steady shift—not least by the Post Office—from rail to road freight? Why could not British Rail compete effectively under nationalisation? Surely a number of British Rail franchisees competing to pick up business are highly likely to get it, because they will have the private enterprise ethic to guide them to be successful, to get business and thereby to profit from it.
  Mr. McLeish: The realities of the railway do not reinforce the hon. Gentleman's points. It is clear that there has been a decline in respect of both passengers and freight in the usage of rail. No one disputes that.
  The Government's answer to problems always involves prejudice and ideological extremism. Their every utterance is about nationalisation and bad management of the national rail network. That is indicative of one of the reasons why the country is in the state that it is. For 16 years, it has been public bad, private good. The hon. Member for Gravesham can sit back in his seat and relax but when confronted with reality at the next general election the smile will be wiped off his face.
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman talked of the state that the country is in. This country is now the leading economy in Europe, with profitable and successful businesses; it is not the sick man of Europe that the Labour party left in 1979.
  Mr. McLeish: I am encouraged by the hon. Gentleman's anger. His intervention bears no relationship to the reality in Britain or to reality for our European Union partners. His comment was important. I hope that it will be well circulated to his constituents.
  It is clear that this whole process is in a state of disarray. I welcomed the new Secretary of State for Transport. His main challenge is to persuade a number of his colleagues in the Cabinet that the whole process should be dumped.

  777
  I want to finish on two points that sum up this fiasco. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will deal with the issue of sleeper services to Scotland. The Government and the British Railways Board were dragged into the courts in Scotland to be exposed for what they had shown to Scots—utter contempt for their rail network. They thought that, through stealth and the incompetence of the director of franchising, Mr. Roger Salmon, they could close services under the guise of consultation on a draft passenger service requirement. They were found out. Is it not a disgrace that railway policy is now going to be partly dictated in the courts of England and Scotland? That is a fiasco and the Government know it.
  The second issue is trans-European networks. It is an important issue for Britain because it involves integrating the major routes in Britain with those in Europe. It is absolutely right that that should be done. What did Ministers do when they went to Brussels? They sabotaged the proposals. We find that the European Union is giving no priority to schemes. It has thrown out environmental impact assessments and of course no cash is being provided by the European Union for such developments.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: That is appalling rubbish.
  Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman says that that is appalling rubbish, but I put that comment on record. The hon. Gentleman, as part of his education and to gain the knowledge that he clearly lacks, should read the Council of Ministers, report from the Cannes summit, from which he will clearly see that I am correct.
  Mr. Tyler: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he proposed to conclude in a minute. Before he does so, could he comment on this statement by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair):
  "I am not going to spray around commitments as to what we are going to do when the Government carries through its proposals, if it carries them through. I am not going to get into a situation where I am declaring that the Labour Government is going to commit sums of money to renationalisation".
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not sit down without telling us precisely how his party stands and whether he is prepared to give a commitment, alongside ours, to retain Railtrack in the public interest.
  Mr. McLeish: The essential difference between us and the Liberal Democrats is that we will form the next Government. As a consequence, we have to take the issues seriously. There is a great contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's contribution. In one breath he says that we do not know what the nature of the sale will be or even whether it will be sold. Will it be 51 per cent. that is sold? What will be the nature of the Government's involvement? It is wise and prudent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to say that. There is no point in a party that will take over Government in less than 20 months making specific financial commitments on any issue that affects every Department.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the Government have been going across to Brussels and somehow obstructing environmental statements on European infrastructure projects. Surely he knows that an
  778
  environmental statement was produced and published on the channel tunnel rail link last November. Has he not read it?
  Mr. McLeish: I can dismiss that comment by pointing out that anybody who voted for the right hon. Member for Wokingham is not in a position to speak about Europe in a positive manner.
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I do not want to intrude on private grief, but before the hon. Gentleman sits down I would be interested to hear his reply to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I admit that it is an unlikely eventuality but it might help us to know whether the hon. Gentleman is prepared to go down the rash and extraordinary road that the hon. Member for North Cornwall is prepared to go down and announce now that he is prepared to take Railtrack back into public ownership, for there is no doubt that it will by then be in the private sector. Will Labour take back into public ownership the train operating companies which will by then be in the private sector?
  It would help the House to know, given the interest of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) in sleeper services, what subsidy the hon. Gentleman believes it is appropriate for the Government to inject into such services. A figure—some real commitment and not just waffle—on such matters would be extraordinarily helpful.
  Mr. McLeish: It is invigorating from our point of view to be put in the position of a Government—we have the Liberals on the one hand and the Minister on the other. To be fair, the Minister should be congratulated because he survived a remarkable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Here we go."] I think that the Minister would like to hear what I have to say. I speak to him outside the Chamber, although I do not know whether that helps his career. However, despite his remarkable comments about the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "They were an endorsement."] They were an endorsement, in a way. In any event, the Minister is back in the transport team—he is a survivor.
  However, it would be ludicrous for me to rise to the bait and to get involved in the tension between the Conservative and Liberal parties. At the next election, two parties will be fighting for their political skins—the Conservatives and the Liberals. The natural tension and enmity between them is something to behold.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: The hon. Gentleman is like a little worm wriggling.
  Mr. McLeish: I hope that Hansard caught that, as it is quite an enlightened comment from the hon. Gentleman, who is not known for such comments.
  The point is that the Labour party will form the next Government and the Conservatives will be in opposition. We shall have the policies not only to put the country back on its feet but to put the railways back together.
  After a series of interventions, I must conclude my remarks by dealing with the trans-European networks.
  Mr. Norris rose—
  Mr. McLeish: I shall not give way. The Minister will be winding up, and I have been reasonably generous in accepting interventions.

  779
  The trans-European networks are hugely symbolic of the direction that a modern railway should be taking beyond the year 2000. It is a huge disappointment to people who care about the rail network and want a prosperous economy that the Government are dragging their feet on participation in and support for such an innovative venture. However, it illustrates the malaise that affects our railways and which is solely the responsibility of a Government who will not face their investment responsibilities for the next century, but who instead want to indulge in a privatisation which will not be good for Britain or any part of Britain, and which will clearly not be good for passengers who currently use the rail network.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: The people whom I want to benefit from the Government's plans for the rail network are the passengers, not the rail unions which so dominate the Labour party's thinking or the apologists or second-class socialists on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
  Mr. Stephen: My hon. Friend does the Liberals an injustice by calling them second-class socialists. Will he accept that they are first-class socialists? The evidence for that is that they are making a commitment to renationalise the railways, whereas the Labour party is not.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. I have always been wedded to the idea that the Liberal Democrats could not be first-class anything, but perhaps my hon. Friend is right.
  It was no surprise to hear the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) defend the traditional, entrenched producer culture of the public sector unions. I notice that his office benefits from Unison, formerly the National Union of Public Employees, which funds a research officer in his department. I notice that, before entering the House, the hon. Gentleman's history included a period as a researcher for the social work department of Edinburgh university and periods as a university lecturer and planning officer. He does not understand the private sector, because he has never worked in it. Like almost all his colleagues and almost all the Liberal Democrats, he has no idea about private sector business. He and those like him do not understand customer service; they are in the pockets of the public sector unions. Labour and Liberal Democrat policies are all bought and paid for.
  Let us consider Labour's position on previous privatisations and the accuracy of its predictions. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) claimed in 1983:
  "The public telephone box could be threatened with extinction".—[Official Report. 18 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 41.]
  Would any Labour spokesman wish to go back to the days of a public sector British Telecom?
  Labour's record is equally deplorable on other issues. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) claimed that bus deregulation and privatisation
  "will not improve the lot of the bus passenger".—[Official Report, 22 May 1985; Vol. 79, c. 1096.]
  What has happened since deregulation and privatisation went ahead?
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the warning in lavatories and sleepers on British Rail trains, which states that one should not drink the water? I fear that he may not have heeded that advice, judging by his condition this afternoon. I am really intervening to give him a break so that he can catch his breath. Does he agree that the singular practical and fundamental difference—not a difference of political philosophy—between rail privatisation and all the others that he has mentioned is the difficulty caused by having an infrastructure and operators who pay an access charge to it? The hon. Gentleman is comparing apples with oranges.
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman has failed to understand that I am going through the history of Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen and their inaccurate predictions about privatisation. I promise that I shall deal with the issue that he has raised because it is also important for my constituency.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was proved wrong, because bus mileage outside London has increased by almost a quarter since deregulation and operating costs—crucially—have come down by a third.
  Mr. Keith Hill: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to how bus privatisation has benefited the 13 million bus passengers a year who have ceased to use the buses?
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman's intervention does not relate to the quotation that I read out. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that bus deregulation and privatisation would not improve the lot of the passenger, but bus mileage has gone up and operating costs have come down by a third.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) that passengers who no longer travel on the buses now travel in their personal cars which, thanks to the prosperity created by the Government, they can afford?
  Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. However, I must return to the catalogue of incorrect predictions made by Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) described British Airways as the "pantomime horse of capitalism" in November 1979. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) said earlier, British Airways is now the world's favourite airline. The Opposition were wrong about buses, wrong about British Airways and wrong about British Telecom. They have been wrong about every privatisation.
  Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and his colleagues were to set up in business as clairvoyants, they would risk prosecution under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968?
  Mr. Hawkins: I agree with my hon. Friend. I represent one of the towns that has rather more accurate clairvoyants, and I suggest that some could advise Labour Front-Bench spokesmen in future.
  Mr. McLeish: I hate to split up the double act, but will the hon. Gentleman consider the most important difference between the various privatisations, which is

  781
  that British Rail is going to be axed into 95 bits and then sold? Does not that alter slightly the frame of reference within which he might wish to evaluate his comments?
  Mr. Hawkins: What my constituents want out of privatisation is an improvement in their rail services. I am interested in the lot of the passenger. Many of the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues were claiming that privatisation would not benefit the passenger—[Interruption.] I am seeking to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Long before privatisation, and before pre-privatisation work started, British Rail axed the direct through services between Scotland, part of which he represents, and my constituency, and between London and my constituency.
  The hon. Gentleman cannot claim a link between privatisation and the cutting of services. British Rail axed those services at the beginning of a Labour party conference some three years ago. I said then that, when the private sector had the opportunity to be involved in the railways, we should get back those through services. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a private sector operator is proposing to reintroduce direct through services, which will benefit the passenger.
  The result of the Government's policy, and the method that they have used, is bringing back to passengers services that the nationalised system got rid of. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. In part, it is also the answer to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy).
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) spoke about the £200 million—a mere bagatelle—that it would cost to take part of Railtrack back into the public sector, as is suggested by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The Liberal Democrats propose imposing that cost on the British taxpayer for up to six years. If the hon. Member for North Cornwall believes that the pursuit of that Liberal Democratic dogma represents good value for the taxpayer, I beg to differ. The problem with the Liberal Democrats, as I think Winston Churchill previously said about another Liberal, is that
  "he has sat on the fence so long the iron has entered his soul."
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting his historic allusions mixed up. At the next general election, the public will obviously have a political choice to make, based on what we have to offer and our list of spending priorities. No one in the House should take any lecture from any Conservative, when a Conservative Government have presided over the billions of lost public money which was the poll tax—its invention, destruction and replacement. We will take no lectures about the Conservatives' prudential fiscal approach, given that track record.
  Mr. Hawkins: The most important current factor about the rail network, and what is best for its customers and passengers, is the damaging proposals of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen to disrupt rail services yet again. That will cost the taxpayer even more money and damage services to passengers, just as last year's signal workers' dispute led to the loss of £173 million.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I was not in the Chamber for the early part of the debate, so can my hon. Friend
  782
  please remind me whether any member of the Labour Front-Bench team took the opportunity to condemn the proposed rail strike?
  Mr. Hawkins: No such opportunity was taken, but that is not surprising, because the Labour party has always been an apologist for the rail unions, which dominate it. Every member of the shadow Cabinet receives research help or sponsorship from a trade union, so it is hardly surprising that they simply support their union paymasters.
  Mr. Keith Hill: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Conservative party always defends the right of workers to strike in a free society yet invariably condemns them when they make the effort to do so?
  Mr. Hawkins: The point about the proposed strike is that many of the train drivers and ASLEF members either did not vote, or voted against a strike. Well under half of those entitled to vote supported the strike. The proposed dispute is damaging not only to passengers' interests but to those of the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman's friends in the rail unions support that strike call, as they have others on many occasions, because they see it an opportunity to fight a political, ideological battle. It has nothing to do with anyone needing any more money.
  The train drivers are being offered a 3 per cent. pay increase while many of my constituents, who are struggling in the private and the public sectors, have been offered nothing like that. Many people have taken a pay cut to keep their businesses going. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the 3 per cent. offer is inadequate, I invite him to stand up as an apologist for the train drivers. I note that he does not want to accept that invitation.
  We have sensible rail workers, including many who learned lessons from last year's dispute involving the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. When the leader of that union recently called on his members to support the proposed strike, 9,503 staff voted against industrial action and just 8,980 voted in favour. I am sure that all the passengers who were delighted with that result are disappointed that ASLEF drivers, despite being offered a 3 per cent. pay increase, are calling for an unrealistic increase of 6 per cent. That is double the rate of inflation. They plan to damage passenger interests and to bring the rail network to a halt.
  We need to provide continuing opportunities to attract private sector companies to the rail network because they would offer good services to passengers by introducing competition and investing in the rail infrastructure and new rolling stock. That is in the interests of the customers and the passengers, and that is why I support the Government's policy of privatising the rail network.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: As this is a Liberal Democrat Supply day, and reference has been made already to a by-election in another constituency, it is worth recalling what happened during the 1986 Ryedale by-election. The then successful Liberal candidate—in the old days of the Alliance—made it clear during the campaign that the privatisation of the buses would be a complete and utter disaster. What has happened since? The bus service in the Greater York area is now

  783
  recognised, even by Labour-controlled York city council, as the best it has been for years. That is the consequence of that successful privatisation.
  People may say, "Oh well, there are few rural bus services," but that was always so, and just a few passengers use them. At least people are aware of the commitment to continue the public subsidy of those socially desirable rural bus services. Those same principles underpin what the Government are seeking to achieve with the railways.
  I am a strong supporter of privatisation generally, but it must be recognised that it is difficult to accommodate and accomplish it in some industries. Without doubt, privatisation has been a success in the transport sector. One need only consider long distance coaches, the road haulage business, buses, the British Airports Authority, National Freight and British Airways—an undoubted success—to recognise that. Those companies have done considerably better in the private sector than in the public sector, to the point where they have become world leaders, which is undoubtedly true of British Airways. We must ask whether that same success could be achieved for the railways. What benefits would privatisation bring to the railways'? Is it even reasonable to compare the success of those other transport operators with the railways?
  Even the most avid enthusiasts of British Rail would acknowledge that the railways do not work as well as they should. That was even truer before the Government announced their privatisation policy five years ago. It is a paradox, but, if anything, the most notable improvements in railway performance have occurred in the past four years, since the Government's commitment to privatise the railways was established.
  Many of those improvements were achieved after significant increases in investment, especially in new rolling stock. My part of the world, Yorkshire, has benefited from the successful completion of the electrification of the east coast main line, which now provides far better services than those to which we were used. Sadly, that does not mean that the trains always run on time, but the service has improved and it is recognised as an international leader.
  If there is a link between investment and improvement in railway performance, it suggests, as many hon. Members, particularly those from the Opposition, have sought to do today, that if we could only attract more investment, all the problems would be solved. I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Cornwall is not in his place, but I am sure that his colleagues will recount my following remarks. He referred to the annual report of British Railways Board, published just a few days ago, in which Mr. John Welsby, the chief executive, said that the current level of investment was not satisfactory.
  Mr. Welsby is in a good position to know that as he is the chief executive of the British Railways Board. He has told us that there is a need for more investment. Yet in January, as recently as six months ago, as the House heard earlier from the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), the British Railways Board said that there was no commercial case for replacing old rolling stock on South Eastern Railways, especially in Kent, despite the fact that some of the trains are more than 30 years old.
  784
  I believe that part of the reason why there was no commercial case was the constraint of trying to meet Treasury rules, in order to make out a case for leasing new trains, even by a private finance initiative. The House knows from previous debates that the decision by the British Railways Board, on one hand saying that there is not enough investment but on the other effectively rejecting a privately funded opportunity to acquire new trains, has had devastating consequences for the people of greater Yorkshire, in the form of the announcement in May that the ABB carriage works in York is to close.
  I remind the House that, even though the chief executive of the British Railways Board said that there was no commercial case for new rolling stock, as recently as December 1994 the head of South Eastern Railways told Conservative Members who represent Kent constituencies that new trains could be expected to be ordered fairly soon.
  As you are probably aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have taken a great interest in that matter because the carriage works has been local to many of my constituents, and I have tried, as has the hon. Member for York, to save the carriage works in his constituency from closure. We have considered carefully the possibilities of using private finance to get new trains on the railway by means of the private finance initiative, but, sadly, it has not come to pass. I am left with the overall conclusion that, the railway remaining in the public sector, the rules of public finance by the Treasury are too stringent.
  The British Rail chief executive, Mr. Welsby, said in his annual report that the current demand and emphasis should be on infrastructure. Despite the fact that I would much prefer more new rolling stock to have been built and ordered from the York carriage works, I believe that he is right about that. Indeed, the success of the electrification of the east coast main line is an example of what can be done when we are bold and when the funds are available to bring our railways up to date and make them the modern infrastructure that they need to be. The news that the west coast main line is to be re-electrified and modernised is very welcome.
  I was an avid train spotter as a young lad, and I remember when the first electrification took place. It is staggering to consider that it is probably the best part of 35 or 40 years ago. All the steam trains disappeared, and we did not believe that there was much fun in watching the electrics go by; they were not the same.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, when we speak about infrastructure, please do not neglect the need to repair and renovate some of the rural lines, because they provide an extremely important service to local people. A privatised railway will continue to require a subsidy for those services from Government.
  That argument for more capital investment—the debate has partly been characterised by that—always appears to be based on the assumption that only more public money can succeed in achieving that. The Government are blamed for not having invested enough money in the railway, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in his opening remarks, the Government's record on rail investment in recent years is very good. We should do more, but I fail to understand where in the public purse that new money will come from.
  The fact that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) could not, in answer to my hon. Friend the Minister, answer directly what a Labour Government,

  785
  God forbid, might do if they were in office about, for example, renationalising Railtrack or making a further commitment to capital investment in the railway as a public sector operation—the fact that no amounts can be pledged—is a clear recognition that the Labour party knows that money does not grow on trees for that type of investment.
  The House must face up to the reality that, if we want a truly modern railway, the amount of moneys that we need to make that a reality will come only from the private sector, not the public sector.
  Any successful business reinvests out of retained profits or it seeks capital, whether by borrowing or in the form of share capital on which it expects a proper return. That is the basic economic fact of life. However, the key to the problem that we have with our railway is that, in the past 40 years, there has been a steady, gradual decline in rail passenger numbers. That has come in parallel with a dramatic increase in the use of the motor car and of road freight.
  Mr. Stephen: They are more prosperous.
  Mr. Greenway: That has been accompanied, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) said from a sedentary position, by many people having greater prosperity and the opportunity to buy their own cars and exercise their freedom. As my hon. Friend the Minister said recently, they can exercise their freedom to get into their own car and go where they want to in their own transport.
  There is, however, the opportunity for a dramatic change of public attitude and public behaviour, an opportunity to reverse that trend—to have more rail passengers, not fewer, and to get some of those cars off the road, especially for long journeys.
  I shall always regard this period in the House as one of great sadness, because that opportunity to reverse passenger numbers must mean more railway trains, more carriages on our railway and more newly built modern trains, such as the Networkers, which are now being built in York for the Kent coast, and it is tragic, and sad for ABB York, that all that will happen too late.
  I invite any Member of the House who is in the York region in the next few months to go and watch the gleaming new trains in the sidings being finished off—they will be running on lines in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) before too long—and to realise that, by Christmas, the carriage works will be silent and, just as we are about to embark on a period when we need more new trains, that modernised carriage works will be closed.
  I mentioned earlier the need for more infrastructure investment and the fact that, in my eyes, that can come only from the private sector rather than the public sector. There is a parallel with what has happened in other privatisations in the past 10 years.
  The water industry is perhaps the best example to draw attention to because, undoubtedly, for 25 to 30 years there was chronic under-investment in the water industry by successive Governments. That has not meant that putting that right has been popular with customers, who now must pay greater water charges for the improvement in infrastructure that must take place. However, had we left the water industry in the public sector, we should not have had the investment programme currently in place through
  786
  the private sector, which is now so necessary. Those hon. Members who scream and shout about the extra charges to customers must recognise that there is a public demand for higher standards in water and in sewerage.
  The same argument applies to the railways. The public want a better rail system—of that I am in no doubt. But the funding for it will not come out of the Treasury, whichever party is in Government.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting comparison between British Rail privatisation and the water industry. Does he agree that a more accurate comparison would be with the deregulation of buses? During the deregulation of buses, there has been little evidence of huge investment in better and improved buses, and no evidence of extra passengers on those buses.
  Mr. Greenway: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I began my remarks, and I am not sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were listening at that time. I was saying that, in the Greater York area, the privatisation or deregulation of buses has led to the best bus service that York has had for years. There has been an increase in the number of passengers and there have been new buses—big, medium and small. The Labour-controlled York city council is now proud of the service that is being provided. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument stands up.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I was at one with the comments on the Treasury made by the hon. Gentleman before the intervention of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones). There is no doubt that, whichever political persuasion holds power in this country, the Treasury sees its remit as being to release as few funds as humanly possible, and it always will do.
  I do not understand another aspect of the approach of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. By all means we can give the management of the railways more commercial freedom and flexibility to raise money and invest—I see no difficulty with that and it is not an ideological issue. The problem is that hiving the railways off into a multitude of individual companies and separating them from Railtrack goes way beyond the rational realisation of the policy that I think the hon. Gentleman, as a constituency Member, would want to see, and on which I agree with him.
  Mr. Greenway: I am not totally out of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. If he waits until the end of my remarks, which I am coming to shortly, he may hear me say what he has been saying, but in a different way.
  We have a structure which has been agreed upon, whether or not it is the right one or could have been better. I am not an expert in such matters and am not in a position to make a judgment. However, the hon. Member for York and I set up the York Railway Forum. In the early stages of that forum, it was clear to us, certainly to me, that a great deal of work and effort by British Rail employees, from board level to shop floor workers, had been put into creating the new structure. To stop it now and tear it up would create an even bigger hiatus than the hon. Gentleman alleges has resulted from privatisation.
  Many of the present problems, such as the closure of the ABB carriage works, have occurred because the process has taken far too long. It is six years since we

  787
  privatised the British Rail engineering carriage works. There is no question—even ABB itself says—that, three to five years down the line, there will undoubtedly be a huge increase in demand for new trains in the private sector. I should like to have seen the process speeded up, which is why I feel that the situation at ABB is so sad.
  I have taken up quite enough time, but I want to make one more point. In essence, far from blaming the current difficulties on the privatisation process on which the Government have embarked, the House and Parliament as a whole should now, as they should have done before, recognise the inevitability of what is happening and embrace it with far more enthusiasm. Even in this debate, the House cannot obtain a clear message from the Opposition about what they would do with the railways were they in Government. That is a clear recognition that they know that, were they to form the next Government, there is no blank cheque for the railways or for any other public sector industry.
  To conclude and to put the final cherry on the cake of my argument, I referred a minute or so ago to the York Railway Forum, which we established three years or so ago to talk about York's future as a railway centre. York city council commissioned a report from railway consultants Steer, Davies and Gleave. The report's chief recommendation was that York—the city council, the chambers of commerce and all the industries represented in that great city—should embrace privatisation with enthusiasm. The report suggested that York should be promoted as a railway centre, but we are not doing that.
  I can only commend that philosophy to the House, because I fervently believe that if we want a railway in the future of which we can be proud, we can achieve that only through private sector finance. I simply say to my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, "For goodness, sake, let's get on with it."
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: This afternoon's debate has been interesting for at least two reasons. First, I thought that it was a Liberal debate, but Government Members have made all the constructive contributions—indeed, virtually all the contributions. One Back-Bench Labour Member has spoken and no Back-Bench Liberals—there have been only three of them in the House throughout the debate. It must be a Government debate after all.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Had he been longer in the House, he would know that, in a three-hour debate such as today's, we are not entitled to more than one speech at the beginning and one at the end. We could not intervene even if we wished to do so.
  Mr. Luff: At least the Liberal Democrats could have come to listen to the hon. Gentleman, but they did not even do that.
  The other interesting feature about this debate was the disappointing speech of the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). It was long on waffle and short on facts. His speech consisted largely of a series of assertions in which he suggested that the reason for the debate was the Government's ideology. I should remind him that the
  788
  reason for the debate is not the Government's ideology, but an attempt to correct the failures of the Labour party's ideology.
  As I said in the House in April last year, it was the Labour party whose approach to the nationalisation of the railways created all the difficulties in the first place. The Labour party created that ugly monster, the British Transport Commission, on 1 January 1948. Under Labour's Transport Act 1947, it had a duty to provide an integrated system of transport in Britain. But, as "The Great Western Railway History"—the official history, published in 1984—reveals:
  "Sir Cyril Hurcomb, Chairman of the BTC … made the mistake of organising rail, road and water in five separate Executives and … selected incompatible people for the Railway Executive, which left him with no hope of integrating road with rail, and no chance of integrating the four railways."
  Nationalisation destroyed the hope of an integrated transport system in this country. The Government are setting about trying to correct that, which I welcome.
  Declaring interests seems to have been the flavour of this debate. My interest is rather modest: I am a shareholder in two private railways, in which I take pride. The first is the Severn valley railway, in which I am a founder shareholder and where I recently took my first course in learning to drive a steam locomotive. The second is Eurotunnel, which is the most dramatic example of the contribution that can be made by private capital towards providing transport infrastructure for the next century.
  I am a reasonably regular rail user and have benefited from the investment made in the Worcester to London services, which has transformed the use and quality of that line. I also look forward to benefiting from the upgrading of the west coast main line, which will be brought about by this Government's policies, using the private sector in imaginative ways. I believe that the railways should be allowed to benefit from privatisation in just the same way as all the other privatised utilities have benefited.
  I recently gleaned intelligence from a journalist that the Labour party intends to target me because of my support for rail privatisation. I look forward to deriving some benefit from that in my constituency. I welcome anything that the Labour party can do to stimulate debate about rail privatisation in my constituency. We will win that debate, because the services will improve while Labour Members continue their foolish policy of support for industrial action that will only undermine the railway's long-term future.
  My real concern is the interests of my constituents—particularly those who do not have access to private transport. The interests of the passengers are at the forefront of my mind when I offer the Government my unqualified support on rail privatisation. We have heard the figures about the declining usage of the railways, but they are worth repeating. In 1953, 17 per cent. of all passenger journeys were by rail; in 1963, the figure was 12 per cent.; in 1973, 8 per cent; and in 1995,5 per cent. Something is going wrong, and the problem must be corrected. We need a new policy approach; not more of the same tried, tested and failed policies of the Labour party.
  The same decline has occurred in the transport of goods by rail. The percentage of goods carried by rail has declined from 28 per cent. in 1953 to only 5 per cent. in 1995. That is not good enough, and we must do something to correct the imbalance.

  789
  I am not one who believes that everything is wrong with our railways; I believe that we have many reasons to rejoice in the way that our railways are functioning at present. The railways have an excellent record of coping with the needs of disabled passengers. There is no legislation in place, but ours is probably the best railway in the world in terms of the accessibility of its rolling stock to the disabled. All InterCity coaches are now accessible to people in wheelchairs, and I am told that there are more toilets for disabled people on British Rail trains than on all the trains in Europe combined. We should recognise that good things are happening on our railways.
  There is much talk about trains in this country running late. If I could arrive as reliably at my destination by car as I can by train, I should be a happy man. We think nothing of adding half an hour or three quarters of an hour to our estimated journey times by car, but the same thing is viewed as an abject failure when it occurs on the railways. The Eurostar receives appalling treatment whenever its service fails. It does not happen often, but it receives an incredible amount of press coverage when it does. How often do those who travel to Paris by air—I do not do it often, Mr. Deputy Speaker—face an hour or two-hour delay from air traffic control? There is no coverage by the tabloid press in those circumstances, but it is a scandal whenever a train breaks down. We do not serve our railways well, and they deserve better treatment.
  InterCity is the only main-line railway in Europe that makes a profit and I think that it still has more trains running at more than 100 mph than any other railway in Europe. I concede that there is a lot to be done if we are to build on existing strengths. Labour Members referred extensively to through ticketing. I do not think that the marketing of our railways is adequate. The ticketing structure is extremely complex—it is so complex that Labour Members obviously do not understand that through ticketing does not exist at present—and interoperability is a real problem.
  There is a complex framework of savers, supersavers and awayday tickets. One can see the notices at Paddington which say that a certain ticket is not allowed on this or that train; it is a complex issue. I do not believe that the railways are getting their marketing right, and that is one of the central reasons why I strongly support privatisation.
  We have heard about the track record of other privatised industries, each of which has improved the quality of the service that it offers to customers. The same thing will happen with the railways. On 23 January 1994, the Financial Times wisely said:
  "If the railways were working well, there would be an argument for leaving them alone. As it is, even with some of the highest fares in Europe they are under invested; passengers are still too often made to feel as though they are an incumbrance to the running of the railway, rather than the reason for it; and the trains do not run on time."
  I think that the Financial Times is being a little hard on British Rail with that last remark. The railways need the injection of enterprise, flair, marketing expertise, management skill and new sources of capital that privatisation will bring.
  In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) talked about accountability. The accountability that matters for the railways is its accountability to its passengers. That accountability is
  790
  sadly lacking at present. I believe that privatisation will make the train-operating companies accountable to their passengers.
  I believe that the passenger service requirements and brand-new contractual conditions on operators will also play a vital part in improving accountability. At present, British Rail can run down its services on a line without being accountable to anyone. Now we have guarantees of service—I know what the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) said, but I still see them that way—never before enjoyed by the people of Worcester.
  When the PSRs were initially put out to consultation, scare stories were circulated by people who claimed to be friends of the railways but who only undermined them. They said that the service would be reduced from three to two InterCity trains per day. That is nonsense; for the first time, we will have a guaranteed InterCity service. Someone living in Worcester who wants to travel to London reasonably regularly will now know that a rush-hour train will travel in each direction. That is guaranteed under the PSR, and it is a huge step forward.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's logic. Is he saying, as a Member of Parliament and a rail commuter, that he is happier knowing that there will definitely be one fewer train per day than having one more train per day? He seems to be applying some bizarre logic.
  Mr. Luff: There they go again. Two trains are guaranteed, the existing trains will still run and the Great Western managing director has said that he plans to run more services, not fewer. I will quote from the press release. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a question, so he should at least have the decency to listen to the answer. The Great Western Trains press release of 31 January this year states:
  "The timetable plan for May 1995 maintains the current level of services and consideration is being given to the introduction of additional ones".
  It may come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman, but these things must be planned. I know that Labour Members do not understand the private sector, but it is a little embarrassing when they reveal their ignorance so spectacularly.
  Levels of service are important, but the small things matter as well—they show that the railways care about their passengers. The standard of service is improving locally as the rail network prepares for privatisation. The new Thames timetable for the service operating between Worcester and London is a radical improvement on everything that went before it. It lists the stations and states what facilities are available at each. It sets out the route very clearly and, most interestingly—Labour Members would do well to listen to this—it lists the times of buses connecting with the rail service. The so-called fragmented railway has produced an integrated timetable which bears testimony to the success of the Government's plans.
  There have been other improvements, such as better on-board service on the 125s—all first-class passengers are treated as though they are actually wanted on the train, and receive newspapers and a free drinks trolley service. The new timetables that are on display at my local stations enable people who do not understand how the railways operate to learn what trains go where. Those improvements are a direct result of the Government's plans.

  791
  Things will only get better. Some problems need to be addressed, but the Government have fostered a creative tension in the railways, rather than a complacent, monolithic bureaucracy. It means that individual companies are fighting for market share and for customers—and hopefully they will fight Railtrack from time to time. Railtrack still has a lot to answer for locally. The weeds at Shrub Hill station are a disgrace.
  Mr. Keith Hill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Luff: No, I will not give way again. I am winding down my remarks and I wish to allow my hon. Friends time to speak in the debate.
  Visitors to Worcester would not know that Shrub Hill is a railway station because there is no sign outside it. That will not be good enough for the new train-operating companies, and they will demand improvements to Worcester Shrub Hill station. That is one of the reasons why I welcome rail privatisation.
  Investment and the alleged failure of investment has been discussed. I believe that the Labour and Liberal parties must bear a heavy share of the responsibility for that problem. Their attacks on the privatisation process are creating uncertainty and frightening passengers, and they should cease. We have the policies necessary to revive the railways, and those policies have my unqualified support.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The debate is fascinating because the enthusiasm for the future of the railways among Conservative Members is conspicuously absent among the Opposition, even in getting Back-Bench Members to speak. The other fascinating aspect of the debate is the fact that the Liberal party has at last managed to crawl to the left of the Labour party. We heard a diatribe against privatisation from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), while the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) sat on the fence, giving no commitment and no policy. There is not even a Labour amendment to the motion on the Order Paper. Almost all Labour Back Benchers appear to have fled the field of battle during the debate, and we have heard nothing from them.
  We should put the privatisation of the railways into context and the best way to do that is to compare it with the last great transport privatisation—that of British Airways. I went to the Library and looked up the Second Reading debate on the Civil Aviation Bill on 19 November 1979. It was the first step towards privatising British Airways. On that occasion, the Labour spokesman had something positive to say. Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis wound up the debate and it is instructive to examine what he said on that occasion:
  "The Bill is yet another example of the Government's doctrinal spasms. It is an ill-conceived scheme. It does nothing to engender confidence in the airline, it provokes great anxiety and puts a question mark over the future of British Airways. It does not ensure that the investment programme of British Airways can be satisfactorily completed, which should be a condition precedent to any sensible aviation policy."—[Official Report, 19 November 1979; Vol.974, c. 153–54.]
  What has happened to British Airways in the 16 years since then? It has expanded its network and its services, and it has gained the accolade of being the world's
  792
  favourite airline. It has carried out a vast multi-billion-pound investment programme. One has only to look at the dozens of Boeing 747s and brand new airbuses that it has taken on to provide improved services to its customers. It is now the first European airline to have taken delivery of the new Boeing 777. So much for Labour's predictions. It is not surprising that the hon. Member for Fife, Central did not dare make any predictions today.
  Mr. McLeish: Will the hon. Gentleman address the fundamental point about how British Rail is being privatised? Does he agree that, if an organisation is privatised as a single entity, it will differ in a number of ways from an organisation that is chopped into 95 pieces and then flogged off to the highest bidder? Let us have a specific answer on that point.
  Mr. Arnold: I shall turn to precisely that point, having first commented on the great Liberal speeches in the debate in 1979. I searched through Hansard for that date, and what did I find from the Liberal party, as it then was? I found no speech, and no vote. Not one Liberal Member spoke or voted. The Liberal Democrats are absent from the Chamber this afternoon. Then, as now, they were part-time Members of Parliament, with not too much to say about privatisation.
  Mr. Tyler: Even the hon. Gentleman should be able to calculate that a far larger proportion of the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party than of the Conservative party has been here throughout the debate.
  Mr. Arnold: That does not say much for the number of Liberal Democrats who are elected—which is not surprising, in view of what we have just heard.
  In 1979, the Labour party went flat out against privatisation and the Liberals sat on the fence. Today, the Liberals are flat out against privatisation and the Labour party has not much to say of any significance.
  As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, British Rail is being carved up into more sensible chunks, so that it can be managed better and deliver a better service in the private sector. To draw the analogy with British Airways once again, more than 100 airlines come into Heathrow and Gatwick. Each one is a separate company. When the railways are privatised, a multiplicity of franchisees will provide a service, some of them on exactly the same lines and passing through exactly the same stations.
  All the airlines land at airports which represent yet another successful privatisation. British airports are managed not only by the British Airports Authority, which also manages other airports, but by other private companies. Railtrack will operate the railway stations and the signalling and lease them to appropriate operators. The same has occurred in air transport, where air traffic control is another separate agency.
  What about ticketing? Only a few months ago, the Labour party put out the most magnificent scare stories about ticketing. Almost immediately after privatisation, British Airways set up Galileo, the computerised ticketing service, so that outlets for information and the purchase of tickets on different airlines increased in multiples by hundreds and thousands. The idea that private railway

  793
  operators would not make the greatest effort to increase the outlets for tickets shows how much a part-time lecturer understands about private enterprise.
  Mr. McLeish: As the hon. Gentleman is developing that argument, he should address the fundamental flaw in its foundations. When he talked about British Airways, did he mean the British Airports Authority? The simple premise of the argument that must be addressed is that British Railways is being broken up into 95 parts, whereas British Airways was not.
  Mr. Arnold: That is the whole point. I was comparing the rail industry in Britain, which is traditionally one vast monolith, with the civil aviation industry, part of which was nationalised in British Airways and BAA.
  In civil aviation, equipment is owned or leased. Likewise, the franchise operations for rolling stock will either get rolling stock from the rolling stock leasing companies or they will buy it.
  A singularly important aspect is the prospect for the transfer of traffic from road to rail. I have always thought it extremely odd that we have a wide and integrated network of railways managed by one entity, but it has been unable to provide an infrastructure of freight farms for moving freight around the country. Despite all the advantages of the wide scale of the network, the nationalised British Rail has completely failed to get its act together to move freight around the country, and it failed to do that during a period in which the Government have put £54 billion into the railways since nationalisation.
  Why has that not been achieved? British Rail argues that it is impossible to achieve it in such a small country as Britain, because the distances are so short that there is no point in loading freight on and off the railways. However, the channel tunnel makes that excuse no longer valid. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, freight can be carried from Glasgow to Milan by rail through the channel tunnel within 36 hours whereas it would take 72 hours by road. I believe that there will be a massive switch from road to rail, particularly for international traffic, harnessing the channel tunnel. However, any suggestion that that could be achieved by the nationalised monolith that is so fondly considered by the heart of the Labour party is absolutely hopeless. We need the flexibility of the private sector.
  Another aspect worthy of rapid consideration is the channel tunnel rail link. My constituency has suffered from this ghastly business for the past eight years, but recently the rail link has passed from being a figment of the imagination of rail enthusiasts to a viable proposition. At the moment, we have rail capacity across Kent, but early in the next century we shall not. It is therefore sensible to build a brand new railway line which can carry high-speed traffic. If that is done, it should remain a passenger-only service and not extend to freight, which should stick to the lines that travel through southern Kent, which the Government rightly invested more than £1 billion in upgrading in recent years.
  One Opposition Member mentioned a rumour that he was glad to put about, that Ebbsfleet station and the channel tunnel rail link onwards into London St. Pancras is not to be built. I have quizzed my hon. Friend the Minister, and I shall be grateful if, when he winds up, he will confirm yet again that the Government view Ebbsfleet station and the line onwards into St. Pancras as absolutely vita! and will not be cut. Ebbsfleet station would be most welcome. It would cut commuting time
  794
  from 50 minutes to 19 minutes. It would mean new developments which will create thousands of jobs in the area and new roads—if only Kent county council will get on with them. Scaremongering by Labour about Ebbsfleet station is extremely unhelpful and damaging.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Stephen: The other day, a constituent of mine stopped me in the street and said, "I've got a bone to pick with you. I travelled on the railway to London recently. The train was slow, the carriages were dirty, the service arrived late and the staff were rude. You should never have privatised the railways." I had to remind him that the railway of which he was so critical was the good old nationalised railway that we all know and love. If it worked as well as it could and delivered the service that our constituents expect, there would be no need for the House to consider the matter—but clearly that is not the case.
  I was not surprised to hear the usual negative speeches from Opposition Members, who have criticised every one of our privatisations—British Airways, the British Airports Authority, British Steel, British Telecom and British Gas. They were all wonderful industries, but they were costing the taxpayer £60 million a week before we started to privatise them. Today they deliver the same amount of money to the Exchequer every week.
  The trouble with Labour is that it always sees things from the side of the producer, not the consumer—particularly if the producer happens to be a unionised worker. Labour Members criticise shareholders but do not seem to realise that most shareholders in today's privatised or nationalised industries are the pension funds of their own constituents. They complain about the family silver being sold off, but they were put up to that by a mischievous old gentleman from the Conservative side of the House: in fact, the family silver is still there and working for us better than ever before.
  One is surprised to note that this is a Liberal Supply day, as two Liberal Members are all that can be mustered.
  Mr. Tyler: Three.
  Mr. Stephen: I apologise, but the Liberal leader has not been in the Chamber during the debate. No doubt he has been off studying the railways in Bosnia, and we shall have a full report from him when he returns. The Liberals have come out in their true colours as a first-class socialist party. It is they and not Labour who are threatening to renationalise the railway.
  I had the privilege to spend a year as an Industry and Parliament Trust fellow with British Rail, so I can tell the House that we have a very good railway. I do not agree with the constituent who criticised that nationalised industry, but we can make it better. None of the managers I met is afraid of the private sector techniques and capital that will come to the industry—they want them. Managers told me that, in a nationalised industry, one can never manage or plan ahead, because one has to wait for the man from the Ministry to make up his mind: he does not often say no—the trouble is that he will not make up his mind at all. One cannot manage a business with such restraints. The managers said that, when they went to the Department for money to invest in new trains, track and stations, they were told to get in the queue behind the national health service, the schools and everyone else.

  795
  Strikes are another reason that the railway has not delivered as a nationalised industry. The latest shenanigan by the rail unions that is about to disrupt the lives of the travelling public is a good example of the unrestrained and irresponsible use of national union power, which must be broken in the public interest. That is a good reason, if there were no other, for privatising the railway and breaking it up into the 92 parts of which the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) constantly reminds the House.
  As for subsidy, Opposition Members are trying to scare our constituents by suggesting that uneconomic lines will be closed. In fact, the opposite is true: the uneconomic lines are most likely to be attractive to private sector operators because they will be paid for operating them, whereas they will have to pay for the privilege of running economic lines. Opposition Members claim that we are pursuing privatisation out of pure political dogma, but it is they who are being dogmatic in refusing to put privatisation to the test. They refuse to give our constituents the opportunity to ascertain whether private sector capital and management techniques can improve Britain's railway.
  The Opposition regale us with silly ideas of private sector operators cramming our constituents into cattle trucks and sending ticket prices through the roof. Do the Opposition not realise that private sector operators will want the public to ride the railway and pay for the privilege of using their trains? That is all I have to say.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: It has been an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) said it all, in a prophetic statement. He was referring to this debate, but his remark could apply equally well to the Government. He said that we were running out of time.
  That is very much the case, because the Government are running out of time in terms of both the parliamentary calendar as the next general election approaches, and their leadership options, which the Conservatives semi-resolved last week with the "least worst option"—as the Minister who will be winding up described the Prime Minister in ringing tones. The Government's privatisation policy, which a number of Conservative Back Benchers have endorsed to various extents, will prove an increasing nightmare for the Government as the next general election approaches.
  I will begin with a friendly sideways comment on the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). He and I have been happy to share a number of public platforms in Scotland on rail anti-privatisation issues. I have also shared platforms with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), and we have had some political effect in the broad-based campaign that we have fought.
  I was a little disappointed at the paucity of contributions from Labour's Back Benches. It is a sad reflection on the procedures and customs of the House that a Liberal debate on the important issue of rail privatisation is considered a lower-grade affair. If the issue is important, Labour Members should be campaigning on it, and not leave so much of the debate to Conservative Back Benchers.
  It is also a shame that the problem for Labour is not north of the border, where our positions have been clear and robust. I suspect that the difficulties or constraints
  796
  confronting the hon. Member for Fife, Central emphatically arise south of the border. I have no doubt that mainstream Labour opinion would endorse the Liberal Democrat motion. If there was an unambiguous political signal from the Opposition parties that a golden share or a controlling public interest would be secured if and when Railtrack disappears completely into the private sector, that would have an important business as well as political effect on Railtrack's saleability.
  Although Labour was unable to be unequivocal in its support for us tonight, I hope that the fact that Labour was not wholly dismissive of our arguments is an encouraging sign for the future, and that we may yet see Labour's leader being rather more emphatic than he has felt able to be hitherto. I believe that that is one case that we could win.
  It is not the fault of the hon. Member for Fife, Central, because it is not his remit, and I know that he will be relieved by that, but the one transport issue—that of London taxis—into which the Labour party has ventured and boldly gone, proved to be an unambiguous fiasco. The leader of the Labour party intervened, and the entire policy had to be turned upside down. I think that the Labour Front-Bench team are endorsing that view.
  Mr. McLeish indicated assent.
  Mr. Kennedy: I say in a friendly way to the Labour party that we live in hope. Clause IV still lives in the hearts of some people, and perhaps the Front-Bench members of the Labour party should remember that.
  I comment on where, as usual, most of the entertainment came from this afternoon: the Conservative Back Benches. The most friendly thing that I can say to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) is that there seemed to be some philosophical confusion in his arguments about the merits of privatisation. He seemed to argue that, because direct services to his constituency had been withdrawn and there was no guarantee that they would be restored, the uncertainty that at least one day they could be restored was in itself an emphatic endorsement of rail privatisation.
  Mr. Hawkins rose—
  Mr. Kennedy: I shall give way, but I am terribly tight for time.
  Mr. Hawkins: The matter that I raised was that—already—a private sector company plans to reintroduce direct through services from Scotland to my constituency and from London to my constituency as soon as it is able to do so. That would replace a withdrawal of service from the old nationalised British Rail.
  Mr. Kennedy: We will watch that space with interest—as, I am sure, will the hon. Gentleman's constituents. They may be looking to fill a space with a different personage at the next general election. There might be a triumph of hope over experience.
  The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) has accepted lock, stock and barrel all the assurances issued by the Regional Railways managers, but he does not seem to appreciate how the system works. The one prediction that I shall risk is this: as this Parliament goes on, we shall see at Prime Minister's Question Time, Transport questions and other occasions such as this debate, more and more Conservative Back Benchers getting to their feet

  797
  to protest about the fact that effective local consultation has been short-circuited by the rail passenger franchising director, and that they, as local Members, do not have the opportunity to put the case vigorously and rigorously, as their constituents will want them to, for the retention of rail services. The penny is just beginning to drop with some Conservative Members, but clearly, judging from the speeches, not with as many as it will do in due course.
  I commend the hon. Member the Worcester (Mr. Luff) for his practical support for the railways, both private and public. He speaks with great enthusiasm and passion. I agree with him about the need for better marketing and promotion. There is an attitude problem in this country towards our railways, and a debate such as this provides an important opportunity to underscore it.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) spoke with great, burning support and enthusiasm for the Government. I can only assume that that is why he resigned as a member of it last week. So enthusiastic is he that he voted for the person who stood against the present leader of his party.
  We now have a ray of hope, because the hard man who was in charge of the Department of Transport has been moved to the hard place of Conservative central office and been replaced by the bicycling baronet himself. I regret that we did not hear from the Secretary of State for Transport this evening, but he is present.
  The right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has commendable independent spirit, which is why he got himself sacked under his previous leader and then reappointed. All of us interested in the future of our railways hope that he will follow what appear to be the discussions that he was having with the Secretary of State for Scotland earlier this afternoon, not least because the consultation on the passenger service requirement for Scotland ends tomorrow.
  The franchising director, Roger Salmon, and Ministers must be impressed by the quality and the quantity of the submissions—which include one from the likes of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which is, after all, a Government agency—that the threatened services should be reprieved. It is healthier at the end of day for such strategic, political decisions to be taken by politicians and Ministers. They should not be farmed off and taken by bureaucrats.
  Although we have had to resort to the Scottish courts, it is scarcely ideal either that such decisions are taken by judges on the bench. As somebody with a sense of the constitution, I think that the Secretary of State for Transport will share that view privately. I hope that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland can therefore come to a sensible arrangement as a result of discussions which have already taken place.
  At the centre is the question of responsibility. There is no doubt that the Government, as in some other areas—the health service being an obvious example—have sought to move the stigma of rail rundowns or closures away from Transport Ministers and, indeed, the Scottish Office or territorial Ministers generally.
  It is now farcical when one wants to complain about a threatened reduction or withdrawal of service. One raises a question in the House and asks the Minister concerned, who says that it is an operational matter for British Rail or ScotRail management. When one talks to them, they say that it is a question of subsidy, which is decided by
  798
  the franchising director. When one talks to Roger Salmon, he says that the budget is decided by the Ministry of Transport.
  It is chaotic, circular nonsense, in place of what used to be something approximating coherent decision making and a sense of ministerial accountability, for what is, after all, something still emphatically in the public domain. That is the great contradiction and weakness at the centre of the entire privatisation process.
  In the course of this short debate, we have not learnt a lot more about what the Labour party stands for, we have learnt a little more about the Liberal Democrats' view, and we know that there is a variety of opinion on the Conservative Back Benches. I shall end on an optimistic note, because inevitably in such a debate the focus is on the negative.
  The channel link is a marvellous engineering achievement. Any hon. Member who has recently used either the Paris or the Brussels link for business or parliamentary activity could not have failed to be impressed by it. The days of being stacked above Charles de Gaulle airport or stuck on the M4 going out to Heathrow are behind us because of the convenience and the quality of travel that the rail link affords. It is therefore something to celebrate, and it is an important signal for the vibrant future of this country's railways, especially as we are plugged into the continent of Europe.
  There is also an awful metaphor at the centre of that achievement, as any hon. Member who has travelled on the service will know. It is galling to trundle through the south of England's green and pleasant land at a certain rate, only to cross the channel and accelerate to a fantastically greater rate as one passes through France, Belgium or wherever.
  In the words of our motion, that is surely the central point. On this side of the channel, under this Government's policy, there has been a fundamental lack of investment in a rail infrastructure. That will not be improved by privatisation, and I hope that wiser counsels may yet prevail, given the change in ministerial personnel.
  6.47 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I want to start where the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has just left off. His last statement demonstrated the patent absurdity of the motion. He seems to have forgotten that the channel tunnel rail link is being constructed by private sector finance, and that a Labour Government cancelled a channel tunnel project which was to have been taken forward by the taxpayer. It is precisely the inadequacy of the state in such circumstances that leads Conservative Members to their fundamental belief in the advantages of privatisation.
  I congratulate all my hon. Friends, who followed the excellent lead of my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads, on making this an interesting debate. My hon. Friends the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) and for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) all made valuable contributions to the debate. I shall comment on them later, but first I want to deal with a few detailed points.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye referred to Anglo-Scottish sleeper services. As he knows, the consultation period ends tomorrow. All the

  799
  representations which have been made will be carefully considered by the franchising director. I know that he is aware—I want to make it clear, as the House should also be aware—that, in the intervening period, those services will continue. I should also make it clear that—beyond sleeper services—the PSR for ScotRail as a whole essentially protects the entire May 1995 timetable. That is a new guarantee of services for the next seven years.
  Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is intruding on his own time—which may be why he wants to intervene.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister. I think that this point is important.
  The Minister just said that all sleeper services to Scotland would continue. Does he include the sleeper service from Plymouth, which has already been withdrawn?
  Mr. Norris: I understand that services that are not in being will not continue. My statement was straightforward: I made it clear that, while the franchising director is considering the representations that he has received in relation to Anglo-Scottish sleeper services, existing services would continue.
  The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) is a great transport buff, and always makes an interesting and, indeed, emotional speech; but he really must not let hyperbole run away with him in support of an already thin argument. He presented an extraordinary notion of fees and the cost of privatisation. That is one of the great fairy tales of British political life: the hon. Gentleman decides on a figure, and then doubles it.
  Mr. Keith Hill: What figure?
  Mr. Norris: I will tell the hon. Gentleman the exact figure: indeed, that was my purpose in referring to his remarks. The hon. Gentleman should not worry about doubling the figure, however; the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) multiplied it by four. Whatever the figure advanced as the cost of this extraordinarily complex exercise, the Opposition parties generally add a nought and know that they will be on the safe side.
  In fact, the figure is neither £240 million nor £700 million. Between April 1991 and May 1995, Department of Transport consultancy fees amounted to £29.9 million, costs of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising to £16.9 million and the rail regulator's costs to £4.4 million. That gives us a total of £51.2 million.
  It is fair to include the costs borne by British Rail and Railtrack, which will probably account for some £72 million. My maths tells me that the figure is around £123.2 million, not the £240 million mentioned by the hon. Member for Streatham or the £700 million that the hon. Member for North Cornwall implied would be spent by the end of the year.
  Opposition Members, however, roll into the extraordinary figures that they present every part of the restructuring of an industry that is desperately trying to drag itself from the nationalised mess of the last half century into the modern world. Conservative Members, who made that point themselves, were perfectly clear about the value of the exercise.
  800
  The hon. Member for Streatham mentioned the travelcard. He really should know better. He is aware of the value that Conservative Members have consistently placed on the card, but he has allowed me to say just one more time that we remain entirely committed to its value and to the millions who benefit from it in London. He knows that, during the time—more than three years—that I have been Minister for Transport in London, I have made it clear that that commitment will continue. We have no hidden designs on the travelcard.
  The hon. Gentleman also knows perfectly well that there can be no change to the PSR without the franchising director's approval, and that any proposal for a significant alteration in the level of service would have to be subjected to consultation with the rail users consultative committee and local authorities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham mentioned Ebbsfleet in connection with the channel tunnel rail link. I can confirm that the Government's position has not changed; they continue to regard Ebbsfleet as an important part of the rail link project. My hon. Friend also raised an important point, provoking the hon. Member for Fife, Central to his feet several times: he spoke of the great socialist belief in the monolith—the idea that, universally, bigger must somehow be better.
  In some businesses—aviation is arguably one—size is indeed a virtue, but I believe that my hon. Friend was entirely right. In British Rail, the monolith has too often proved inflexible, unmanageable and unresponsive to customer demand. We must deliver the system into manageable units that offer a specific, focused, user-friendly service, maximising value for money and seeking out new markets and investment opportunities and more effective management.
  Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Norris: No, I do not have time.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall presented an extraordinary sight. As several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, we are now faced with the remarkable prospect of the Liberal party rushing far to the left of new Labour—as I believe we are now entitled to call it. The Liberal party is now the only party that calls for renationalisation. I noted, as the House will have noted, that the hon. Member for Fife, Central squirmed to avoid the very commitment that Liberal Members invited him to make. What an extraordinary proposition.
  Just when we thought that a Conservative might be speaking, however, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) intervened in his own pithy way: "But you lot were in favour of it a few years ago, weren't yer?" I can assist the hon. Gentleman. Earlier today, I turned to a speech made in 1990 by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), in the aptly named Empress ballroom in Blackpool. He was extolling the virtues not of nationalisation, but, on this occasion—for goodness knows which way the weathervane of Liberal opinion was swinging on the afternoon in question—of privatisation.
  The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "In some parts of the US, citizens who use, for instance, solar panels to generate electricity have the right to put any excess they generate back into the grid, reversing their meters"—
  and odd phrase, that, but we will not dwell on it—
  "cutting their bills and providing power for industry.
  So free competition there makes each citizen a power generator"—

  801
  my, there is a Liberal phrase to conjure with—
  "saving costs, capitalising on the potential of alternative energy and protecting the environment—all at the same time.
  And if we bring competition to the utilities, why not to British Rail?"
  I have the words before me. They are in a Liberal press release, so I suppose the party was proud of them at the time.
  In the words of my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State, however, there is more. The right hon. Member for Yeovil went on to say:
  "Nothing would increase the volume of rail freight more than allowing private industry to compete on the same basis as road freight."
  Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Norris: No.
  The right hon. Member for Yeovil went on:
  "Competition … is not an ideological talisman, still less an economic gimmick. It is simply a way of ensuring that the customer—the citizen—comes first."
  Amen to that, say Conservative Members.
  As we all know, however—I suspect that Labour Members know it too—the Liberals will say whatever they consider appropriate and convenient at the time. We are now confronted by the extraordinary spectacle of a Liberal leader—a man who has, on occasion, suggested that he might actually take a rein or two of office—saying that Liberal Democrats will buy back 51 per cent. of shares in Railtrack at the issue price, or the market price. How much will it cost? Half the value of Railtrack: a little more than £1 billion, or probably a good deal less.
  Given that the Government's total spending bill is £300,000 million a year £200 million is perfectly affordable, according to the right hon. Gentleman. It is cheap, he says. The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of the noble Lord Healey, who once said, "A billion here, a billion there, and soon you are talking about quite serious money."
  The reality is that the leader of a party which seriously pretends to office is so cavalier with public funds as to produce such an extraordinary statement. That is the leader of the Liberal Democrats' commitment, which he believes to be is clear, costed and responsible. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I quibble with that last description.
  The Government support the privatisation of the railways because we know the benefits that privatisation has brought, particularly to transport. Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the historic change which has been brought about in the fortunes of British Airways, a company which was a basket case but which has been transformed into a world leader. What is more, BA is operating in the harshest environment of all—that of free international competition—and still manages to out-perform its rivals, who often receive literally billions of pounds of state handouts.
  BA's performance owes considerably to its privatisation, as does the performance of the British Airports Authority. The BAA is wreaking a huge change in the environment of airports, and is now winning contracts in the United States.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to move that the question be now put.
  Mr. Norris: That was an interesting intervention from the hon. Gentleman, and seems to suggest that the Liberal
  802
  Democrats have decided that perhaps this debate was not a good idea after all. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman hoped that we might glide smoothly into the area of health policy, so that the Liberal Democrats could then grab every shroud and follow every ambulance they can as they think up yet another farrago of nonsense which they can dress up as some commitment to policy.
  The truth may hurt, but the reality is clear. Whether we are referring to BA, BAA, National Express, the privatisation of ports or—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale properly said—bus privatisation, the reality is that, in every case, privatisation and deregulation have brought substantial advantages.
  It is extraordinary that we are debating this issue tonight. No serious economy anywhere in the world would move the kind of motion that we have seen from the Liberal Democrats tonight. The Russians are now perfectly clear that they believe in privatisation. In Nicaragua and El Salvador, one can hear the virtues of the free market expounded. But in Yeovil and in Ross, Cromarty and Skye, it is back to nationalisation and all its evils. One of my right hon and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher's greatest achievements was to set in motion a move towards the liberation of state industry which has been followed the world over, and with good reason.
  We will go on to deliver the privatisation of rail services because that will liberate investment opportunities in a way unfettered by the public sector borrowing requirement. Privatisation will liberate management and will allow it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South suggested, to offer rail services that have been removed by the nationalised railway. Private operators are keen—not just in Blackpool, but in many other areas of the country—to restore such services, and they know how to run them profitably.
  A change is already happening in terms of the way in which the train operating companies are showing concern for customers—which is, of course, at the heart of the private sector. They are building a modern railway that is efficient and responds to customers' demands, and is not dominated, as the nationalised railway has been, by the producers rather than by the consumers. If hon. Members from both sides of this House want to see the development of a railway fit for the 21st century, they must reject the motion and support the Government amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
  The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 262

  [7.04 pm

  AYES

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Harvey, Nick

  Barnes, Harry

  Home Robertson, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Lewis, Terry

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Chidgey, David

  Loyden, Eddie

  Corston, Jean

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dafis, Cynog

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Madden, Max

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Maddock, Diana

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Mahon, Alice

  803

  Marek, Dr John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Timms, Stephen

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Tyler, Paul

  Parry, Robert

  Wallace, James

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rendel, David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Salmond, Alex

  Simpson, Alan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.

  Spearing, Nigel

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Alexander, Richard

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Faber, David

  Amess, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Forman, Nigel

  Ashby, David

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  French, Douglas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bates, Michael

  Gallie, Phil

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gare-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Booth, Hartley

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowis, John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorst, Sir John

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hague, William

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Cash, William

  Hannam, Sir John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Harris, David

  Clark, Dr Michael

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hayes, Jerry

  Colvin, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Congdon, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Conway, Derek

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hicks, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Couchman, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cran, James

  Horam, John

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

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

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

  Dicks, Terry

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Dover, Den

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Duncan, Alan

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dunn, Bob

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jack, Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Jessel, Toby

  804

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robatnan, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Key, Robert

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Leigh, Edward

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lidington, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Stem, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stewart, Allan

  Malone, Gerald

  Streeter, Gary

  Mans, Keith

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marland, Paul

  Sykes, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thomason, Roy

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  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

  Trend, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trotter, Neville

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Walden, George

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Norris, Steve

  Watts, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Whitney, Ray

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Paice, James

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wilkinson, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wilshire, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Pickles, Eric

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rathbone, Tim

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. David Willetts.

  Richards, Rod

  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.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House believes that privatisation offers the best opportunity for reversing the historic decline suffered by the railway system under nationalisation; and further believes that the privatisation of Railtrack offers the best future for Railtrack, and for passengers and freight users, by making greater use of private sector skills in managing the network and in providing greater scope for private capital investment in the upgrading of the railway system.

  General Practitioners (Night Service)
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move,
  That this House shares general practitioners' concerns as to the continuing provision of a high quality service by night as well as day, given increasing demands; seeks to facilitate improved methods of work so that general practitioners can provide a more flexible, clinically appropriate and more modern way of providing emergency care outside normal hours which is right for patients, fair on the taxpayer and manageable by family doctors; believes there should be a right for general practitioners to transfer responsibility for out of hours care to another general practitioner without unnecessary interference by the Family Health Service Authority; supports the need for substantial, ongoing patient education campaigns on the appropriate use of the out of hours emergency service; and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to avoid industrial action by general practitioners.
  It is a matter for regret that I have neither the attention—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Can we have some quiet on the Front Bench, please?
  Mr. Carlile: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is a matter for regret that we do not have the benefit of the presence of the new Secretary of State for Health on the Government Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman would not be coming fresh to the situation, because he was once a junior Minister in the Department of Health, and should have a ready understanding of the issues that we shall discuss.
  If the Secretary of State had come here, we might have been reassured that he had reviewed the stubborn attitude of the Minister of State, who as usual is grinning from his position on the Front Bench. Had he been born in Cheshire, he would not have needed transmogrification. Of course, it is still open to the Secretary of State to wind up the debate, but I think that we shall find that he does not like working out of hours, and so has decided to send his junior partner out on this call.
  It is worrying that we should have a dispute of the kind that now exists on out-of-hours provision between Ministers, representing the Government, and general practitioners. It is extraordinary how the Government have managed to make fervent opponents out of a traditionally moderate profession. It is perhaps a pity that the Minister of State, who is present tonight, did not follow the slogans of his own patient education campaign in relation to this issue. One of those slogans, which one sees on surgery walls, reads, pithily, "Be nice, think twice." I realise that, for this Minister, that would have presented a formidable triple challenge.
  Perhaps the Minister might take advantage of another of the slogans of the Government's rather weak patient education campaign: "Help us to help you." That is a bit bland but, if he repeated it when he got up each morning, he might find it easier to review this desperate issue between general practitioners and the Government. The leaders of GP professional groups could not be considered, even in the wildest of imaginations, to be revolutionaries set in a political cause against a Conservative Government.
  I doubt whether Dr. Sandy Macara has a poster of Che Guevara on his wall; or that Dr. Ian Bogle has a poster of Danny Cohn-Bendit—or that they did even in their

  807
  student days. Knowing those two gentlemen, I suspect that they were more likely to have been inspired by the likes of Winston Churchill and R. A. Butler, yet we find them challenging the Government because of their attitude towards the most basic part of the national health service—primary medical care.
  For more than two years, the Government, led by the right hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), the Minister of State and their colleagues in the Department of Health, have managed to reduce morale among GPs to a new low, to the very brink of industrial action. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues want to avoid that, as do the majority of GPs, but there is a real danger that, unless the Government change their attitude now, the dispute will escalate. If it escalates, it will be to the disadvantage of patients. If it is to the disadvantage of patients, let it be known that, although the Government might try to blame the doctors, the Government will be to blame, not the medical profession; for it is plain that it is within the Government's capability to end this dispute successfully, if reluctantly.
  If the Minister of State goes contrary to form and displays a change of mind tonight, we will hail that change. One always hails a good premiere. What one is rather bored by is a tedious repetition of past poor form.
  Let us consider the problem, for there is a problem, that faces GPs. I have to confess—if it is a confession—to being a GP's son. I remember when we lived in Burnley in Lancashire, in the old house that contained the surgery, that, occasionally, the telephone used to ring at night and my father would go out to make a call. He had a big practice, but night calls were a rare occurrence in those days. Times have changed and demands have increased. By the time my father retired, the number of night calls had increased significantly, and the partners who succeeded him in his practice have been subjected to a burgeoning demand for night services.
  By 1989–90, some 936,148 night visits were made by GPs. By 1993–94—albeit the statistics cover a two-hour longer period than in the year I have just mentioned—some 1.832 million night visits were made by GPs. The latest estimate that we have been able to obtain from the British Medical Association is that, in the past year, 2.3 million night visits were made. These are visits demanded of doctors by patients. A doctor turns down a night visit at his peril—if he does not attend and something goes wrong, he is in trouble. Doctors—or at least the health service—have to be able to meet that demand. The number of night visits has increased more than six times in 25 years, and it has doubled since the introduction of the new GP contract.
  I should say that I am delighted to see that the new Secretary of State has joined the debate for a short time. I congratulate him on his appointment. As I said earlier, he comes to the Department of Health for a second time, I believe, and therefore with some experience. I shall repeat the hope that he might decide to wind up the debate himself rather than leave the out-of-hours provision to his junior partner, the Minister of State. It would certainly be helpful—I repeat this in his presence—to hear that the Secretary of State has immediately reviewed this very worrying dispute, which must have been taking up significant space on his desk when he arrived in his new office.
  808
  I shall now return to the problems faced by doctors. An average of six night visits a month are made by doctors, and an average of 36 patient consultations per month are made out of hours. Many of those consultations, of course, are not night visits. There is much anecdotal evidence of greater weekend demand than many people think exists. It is clear that weekend demand has risen as quickly as night visits. Patient expectation, but not always patient responsibility, has risen. It is right in a debate such as this—I hope that hon. Members on both Front Benches share this view—to be quite robust about the attitude of patients and to ask them to be far more considerate than they sometimes are towards their GPs and out-of-hours provision.
  In our consumerist society, legitimised by the patients charter, patients are expecting more at all hours from their doctors. For what should be an emergency service, the anecdotal evidence of misuse is striking. One doctor tells of a call for a home visit only to find when he got there that the family he was called to had gone out for a walk. Another tells of a man who complained that his hands had gone blue and that he feared a serious circulatory problem, only to be told, when the doctor arrived on the emergency call, that he had received some blue dye from the overalls that he had washed earlier that evening. One woman even woke a doctor in the middle of the night to ask him to deliver sleeping tablets because she could not sleep.
  Doctors are at times victims of the inconsiderateness of their patients, but they also find themselves picking up the pieces of a society broken by Government policy. They constantly have to deal with misplaced, often seriously psychiatrically ill, community care patients. They are often the only people to whom chronic schizophrenic patients, who have been dumped in loneliness in society, can go. They often have to deal with the drug and violence problems of inner cities and are at physical risk when they go out on night calls. In rural areas, doctors have to provide almost all the emergency medical cover. Indeed, they are often called out to do what turns out to be emergency dentistry, which they are not able to complete.
  The situation is fraught with problems for GPs. In May of last year, after many months of negotiation, the BMA and the Government agreed on changes to GPs' terms of service. It had taken months to clarify whether GPs could use their own judgment to decide whether a patient required a home visit, which seems an extraordinary issue for the Government to argue about for so long, and it took many more months to decide how to implement a very small amount of flexibility in how out-of-hours care was provided.
  Now, negotiations on the payment scheme have run into the sand, but it is not principally an issue about money. Doctors are not simply holding out for more money. The real issue that concerns the BMA is the form of the out-of-hours system. Doctors want to move away from a scheme that positively encouraged—perversely encouraged—GPs to undertake out-of-hours provision themselves, whatever the effect on their work, rather than use other people to do it for them, because they were paid more for doing it themselves, which seems irrational.
  An offer of £2,000, plus £9 for each visit, was rejected as, for many doctors, it would be a direct pay cut. It is extraordinary how the Government believed that they

  809
  could offer doctors a pay cut as an incentive to accept a new contract. The offer was increased to a lump sum of £2,000 and a £20 fee for each night visit. That offer was also rejected, not on money grounds, but as a crude approach to the far more complex problems of the structure of and demand for out-of-hours care.
  The Minister groans audibly when I say that the dispute is not mainly about money, which shows that he has not begun to understand the issues that the British Medical Association is trying to put to him. I suggest that he or, preferably, the Secretary of State, should meet Dr. Bogle and Dr. Macara shortly—I believe that the Secretary of State might well be intending to do so—so that a new view can be taken of what the dispute is really about.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): It is not the British Medical Association that I have some difficulty understanding, but the hon. and learned Gentleman. In one voice he says that he is against what he says are the perverse incentives in the scheme. If I paraphrase him correctly, they are perverse incentives that mean that doctors are encouraged to do their own visits. What has happened is that, in the new fee structure, a different incentive reduces the perverse incentive that he criticised, yet he is criticising what we have proposed as well. Which does he prefer?
  Mr. Carlile: I am afraid that I find that intervention totally incomprehensible. I suggest that the Secretary of State reads the submissions—if he will listen for a moment—presented to him by the BMA, start with a clean sheet and ignore the prejudices of his Minister of State, which have become the major obstruction to resolving the dispute. Sometimes it helps to take a new look. Perhaps the Secretary of State will do that.
  Of course, money is part of the question. Indeed, Dr. Brian Hope of Salford suggested that not many Conservative Members would leave their lovers' beds for that sort of money unless it was to ask a parliamentary question. That was a rather unfair gloss on the real issue. It is not simply a pay dispute between a profession and its paymasters, but a dispute about realistic provision of high-quality patient care. The Minister can put his finger in the dyke, but the hole will grow unless the Government are prepared to study the structure of out-of-hours provision and produce a resolution for the future.
  There is a way forward on six issues. The Government are right to support the development of GP co-operatives. They offer a good solution to out-of-hours care. Such co-operatives, however, cover only 17 per cent. of patients, and the National Association of GP Co-operatives would, I think, recognise that it will take a considerable time for them to be suitable for all types of area, particularly some inner-city practices and rural areas.
  The whole profession, including the co-operatives, is united in the belief that the Government's £45 million offer has been made in a way that provides no equity between practices and areas of different types. My first suggestion to Ministers, therefore, is that they consider the way in which the £45 million has been offered and find out whether they can re-tailor it into a more equitable offer for general practices throughout the country.
  In due course, I should like to hear from the Minister that the Government's door is open on the issue of distribution at least. It would be interesting to hear from him where that £45 million is to come from, however. Is it new money? That is a simple question and the Minister
  810
  can answer yes or no. Is it new money? Perhaps the Minister would like a couple of hours to think about that question before winding up—so that he can give the sort of obfuscatory answer to which we are accustomed to hearing from him.
  It is my suspicion, and that of many connected with the medical profession, that the £45 million is about to be lopped off other health service budgets, which will suffer as a consequence. That cannot be tolerated. If it is to be lopped off other budgets, the Minister should tell us where it is being taken from. We look forward to hearing an answer to those questions at the end of the debate.
  My second suggestion for Ministers is that payment for out-of-hours calls should be available to all doctors who are qualified to practise as general practitioners. The present system is ludicrous. Only general practice principals can receive the £20 fee for a consultation, which means that, if a principal arranges for an on-call service to do his out-of-hours calls, the £20 fee is not payable. That seems manifestly unjust and militates against the provision of efficient out-of-hours care that does not put too much pressure on doctors.
  Despite the amusement with which the Minister evidently regards this debate, my third suggestion is that the Government should set about redefining the contract. It is unclear to GPs how much of their contract covers in-hours work and how much covers out-of-hours work other than night calls. There is separate provision for night calls, but doctors deserve, and are entitled, to be told what proportion of the payment that they receive is intended to cover working during the evening, on Saturdays after lunchtime and on Sundays, all of which are out of hours.
  How much of the capitation fee and the other allowances notionally covers evenings, Saturday afternoons and Sundays? The importance of having that information separately is that there is absolutely no reason why doctors should not be given the flexibility to arrange their practices and their activities by taking into account the answer to that question. It would enable some of them to manage their practices differently. It would enable some to hive off all their out-of-hours work and it might lead to the burgeoning development and rapid acceleration of GP co-operatives to cover more than merely the night calls that they cover at the moment.
  Just as doctors are told what part of their earnings comes from night calls, so they should be able to negotiate their working arrangements to take into account other out-of-hours provision. That would also enable doctors who are inclined and able to do sessions in hospital to broaden their experience and provide more specialist services, to do so in a more manageable way.
  My fourth suggestion for the Minister is that technology could be improved. Obviously one cannot use distance technology to deal with night calls. Computer facilities are not yet in every home. Technology can help the management of practices, however, and many general practitioners' practices now have significantly improved computer systems. The use of telecommunications technology, and its being made available to doctors in a cost-effective way through the national health service and the family health services authorities and their successors, would mean that they could work more efficiently, especially in rural areas and heavily populated inner cities.
  My fifth suggestion relates to rural areas. I represent a rural area in which the population is widely spread, the largest town has about 11,000 inhabitants and there are

  811
  many small settlements. In such areas, the provision of out-of-hours services is very different from that in a suburban environment. I invite Ministers to take the view that a special settlement is needed to ensure that facilities can be provided properly in rural areas.
  My sixth suggestion concerns the efforts that have been made in patient education. They are commendable so far as they have gone, but they have footled around the edges of the matter. There is prime time advertising for all sorts of Government-sponsored campaigns. In my view, patient education should be such a campaign. The message is a simple one: caring doctors need caring patients. Getting that message across requires a fairly hard sell. We have yet to see that hard sell from the Government.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman suggests that there should be television advertising and a big campaign to support the Government's plans for GPs. He may or may not be right, but is not that rather at odds with what has been said by his colleagues in the Liberal party who have criticised every advertising campaign the Government have carried out, whether successful or not, and used bogus figures to say that money is being wasted? He cannot have it both ways. Perhaps he can; he is a Liberal.
  Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. The Liberal Democrats have always been happy to support campaigns that have not trailed the Government's party politics. Of course, we now know how the Government behave. We have a Cabinet of 24 in which two Ministers are there to serve not the country but the Conservative party. That is the political world in which we live.
  We are prepared to give the Government the credit of our support if they are prepared to go in for non-partisan campaigns of patient education. The sort of campaign that has been run on drink-driving might well be effective in educating patients to be considerate towards their doctors.
  I make a further suggestion to the Government. It would be worth looking, on a pilot project basis, at some different models for certain aspects of primary care provision. For example, provision of health care for the elderly chronically sick can make great demands both on GPs and on hospitals. Many hospitals have experience of, and excellent departments that specialise in, care for and diseases of the elderly. In some of the more populous areas, it might be worth considering modelling primary care so that it is provided using the hospital as a base rather than via GPs or in the hospital. I have received representations, not from the BMA but from individual doctors, suggesting that such an approach might help to take some of the strain from them.
  The danger is that doctors will take the view that there is no point in co-operating with the Government and that the Government will have to solve the problem themselves. We could get a system in which some doctors just shut up shop at 5 pm and do not want the payment because it is not worth the effort. As a result, as in some continental countries, we might make patients reluctant to approach their doctors even when they need them. We have to try to find a balance. I believe that what the Government have offered falls far short of a balanced
  812
  system. Indeed, the demoralisation of the medical profession is surely evidence enough that the Government have failed to find that balance.
  There is a shortage of new doctors. One in eight places on general practice training courses is vacant. The shortage of new doctors is especially evident in practices that do their own out-of-hours cover. The recent vote by the BMA surely demonstrated the extent of demoralisation. There was a turnout of 77 per cent. of doctors—which would do many constituencies credit in a general election—and 82.6 per cent. of those who voted said no to the Government's offer; only 17.4 per cent. said yes.
  The Government's response has been extremely poor. Thus far, they seem to have chosen to challenge the GPs. It might have been better for the profession and for the public if the Minister of State, who seems to have made the running on this issue, had joined the right hon. Member for Surrey, South-West, now the Secretary of State for National Heritage, in that attack of fugue, in the psychiatric sense, that sent her off deluded to another job which has put her in charge of fugue in the musical sense. I am not sure how the Minister of State would have done as a Minister of Music, but at least we might have had other new Ministers at the Department of Health singing in harmony rather than in the discord with which the Government are approaching doctors.
  If we are to avoid a disaster for out-of-hours provision, the Minister must become a fugitive from his usual intransigence. It is perhaps a vain hope, but nevertheless it is a hope, that we might at last, at the end of tonight's debate, hear something positive from the Government.
  7.45 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I beg
  to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "notes that the Government has continued to meet the recommendations of the independent pay review body for general practitioners' pay, which is for a 24 hour commitment to their patients; welcomes the Government's constructive approach to addressing the profession's concerns, which includes an extra £45 million to support general practitioners' out of hours services, makes it possible for general practitioners to transfer responsibility for providing out of hours cover to another doctor and restructures payments so that the average general practitioner will receive an extra £800 per year for night visits; supports the approach of the Patient's Charter, which stresses to patients that with rights come responsibilities; and believes there is absolutely no case for general practitioners to take industrial action which would inevitably harm patient care."
  If that is the sort of the stuff that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) comes out with on behalf of his clients in court, I hope that he does not have the nerve to charge them anything for it. It was a mixture of relatively pompous and personal points, which I did not mind.
  I think it is good that a Minister should sit on the Front Bench happy with his lot and that he should grin occasionally—with his supporters firmly behind him, backing the Government's cause—moving onwards to destroy the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments. Of course I am happy with my lot; the hon. and learned Gentleman will have to put up with that. He will see that I smile from time to time as he makes the odd bon mot, with which I intend to deal in my remarks.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman offered a poor agenda for change and failed to acknowledge the substantial way in which the Government have moved on the issue and

  813
  have listened to GPs and to the arguments advanced by the British Medical Association over a considerable period, not least since I joined the Department last July. In my own defence, I must say that it is entirely wrong to say that we have not listened; we have. We have responded a great deal and in detail to the concerns, many of which were set out by the hon. and learned Gentleman and some of which I will be able to respond to fairly positively this evening.
  Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if I put firmly on record the Government's current offer. Our offer is designed to meet the concerns about work load and about pay for out-of-hours work. The two go together. I notice that the hon. and learned Gentleman fell into the trap of saying that, of course, it was not about money and then in the next breath that it was something to do with money. The truth of the matter is that it has to do with both. That is why the Government's offer has been constructed carefully to meet both the work load argument and the out-of-hours pay argument.
  Let me go through the essentials of the offer currently on the table. An extra £45 million has been provided for GPs within the overall health budget. Its purpose is to support alternative out-of-hours arrangements and to give GPs more flexibility and choice in managing their work load. As I said, that money comes from the total national health service budget, which in England is more than £30 billion per annum. It is not from—and this must be the concern of GPs—funds that would otherwise have been devoted to general practice. As far as GPs are concerned, it is new money that was intended to be brought to bear on a specific problem. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong to suggest that the Government have not been specific about that. We have been specific from the outset and I endorse what we have said on that point before.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman asked how the arrangements will work. The offer was put on the table not in a prescriptive sense but in the hope that we could reach an agreement in principle with GPs and talk through the detail.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a number of schemes, including 24-hour primary care centres. Such schemes will be in our mind when spending the £45 million on the arrangements that we want to put in place to guarantee and underpin quality out-of-hours cover.
  Since I was appointed, I have made a point of spending a great deal of time in general practices to see what the problems are and how out-of-hours care is provided. In particular, I have made a point of talking to GP co-operatives and to those who represent them in their national association. Anyone who takes an interest in such matters will understand that a number of basic arrangements are in place, such as GP co-ops. Some have been established in Kent, and I visited one in Reading. Interestingly, the one that I visited in Reading also dealt with rural areas.
  It is important to dispel the myth that co-operative arrangements cannot by their very nature deal with the problems of rural areas; in certain circumstances, they can. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned rural areas specifically. I recognise that they can have special difficulties, which is why we said that we would consider special arrangements whereby some of the £45 million can be devoted to locum arrangements for GPs in rural areas if it is not possible to form a co-operative. The
  814
  Government's mind is open on that point, and the Secretary of State's door is open not only on that point but on others too.
  I take this opportunity to make it clear to the House and to the hon. and learned Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be meeting GP representatives about that very issue: the date is set for Thursday this week. Of course, he will be extremely keen to listen to all that they have to say, and it is right that he should do. As I have said before, I hope that the meeting will provide an opportunity to take matters further.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a fundamental issue but did not examine it in detail. Where the Government part company from those who are arguing about this issue is the separation of the 24-hour contract. It is vital for the quality of primary patient care that someone must have custody of that care. The way in which the system developed in the health service—before the 1990 contract and after the 1990 contract, which reinforced it—is that the GP principal closest to the patient must have custody of that patient's care. Of course, that GP cannot be expected to provide care 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days a year. That is why there are other arrangements for cover, such as sharing within a practice, joining a GP co-operative, using deputising services or making more permanent arrangements to transfer the responsibility from one GP to another.
  I reiterate the Government's determination not to undermine that element of patient care but to examine reasonable mechanisms under which doctors' work loads can be shared as long as there are permanent quality arrangements in place. We have made it clear in the negotiations that we are happy to examine the regulations, and have offered to do so, so that doctors who want to move more permanently out of out-of-hours work will be able to do so.
  The original offer for night visit payments was a flat rate of £2,000, which would enable a number of doctors to employ deputising services up to that amount. In addition, there was a £9 fee if the visit was to be undertaken by a GP principal. We have moved a long way on that issue, and the fee now being offered is £20—more than double the original offer. The average general practitioner will receive an extra £800 a year for night visits compared with the arrangements currently in place. It is therefore entirely wrong for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that, even with that specific mechanism delivering a part of the payment due to them, doctors will be worse off under the Government's proposals.
  I must set out the Government's record on pay in general. The hon. and learned Gentleman told the House that morale was at an all-time low. The implication of his remarks was that the Government have behaved badly towards the profession for a long time. Since 1979–80, pay for general practitioners has increased in real terms by 40 per cent. That is a record of which the Government can be proud. It underpins the importance that we attach to general practice, and I hope that it is a record that the medical profession recognises.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister say why increasing numbers of GPs are now retiring in their early fifties to avoid the burden that they believe is involved in working in the national health service?
  Mr. Malone: If the hon. and learned Gentleman scratches the surface, he may discover that quite a few

  815
  retirals are followed by a return to a temporary practice or a move to another sector of health care. It is ludicrous for the hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that, by paying doctors an average of 40 per cent. more, we are encouraging them to leave the profession. In overall terms, doctors have been extremely well treated by the Government and well served by the independent review body system. The implication of the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments is that the work load is too great. The work load has changed, and the very structure of the way in which GPs provide services is very different from what it was even a few years ago.
  One hears the stories that go around, but I must set them in their proper context. I wish to put the facts firmly on the record. There is an average of 70 night visits a year per general practitioner. That means six a month. The work load survey is the best available overall evidence about work loads and it is far more reliable than the odd individual and sometimes unsupported anecdote that we sometimes hear. The British Medical Association participated in the survey that was submitted to the independent review body.
  The 1992–93 survey revealed that doctors work an average of 31.9 normal hours a week, 6.9 out of hours—including two hours on night visits—and 19.2 hours on call. The problem is that the anecdotes on which much of the general debate on out-of-hours care is based are not supported by the work load study. The study also revealed that, between 1989–90 and 1992–93, working hours increased by 2 per cent. but remuneration increased by 8 per cent. in real terms. By any national indicator and across the system as a whole, which is what the independent national review body must consider, doctors have been well supported in cash terms. They have also been well supported in terms of their work load.
  Listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman and other Opposition Members, one would think that the changes in the role of the general practitioner had occurred unsupported. Let us run through the figures relating to GP support. The number of all-staff support in general practice is up from 37,000 in 1989 to 51,000—a 38 per cent. increase. The number of nursing staff has risen from 4,600 to 9,099, a virtual doubling of their number. The number of non-nursing staff is up from 32,000 to 42,000, a 30 per cent. increase, and the direct cost of providing those increases in staff has risen from £242 million to £510 million. That is not an unsupported system, which is how the hon. and learned Gentleman chose to portray it.
  It is clear that there have been changes and developments in what GPs do. More care is rightly provided in the primary sector. Indeed, it is the purpose of a primary care-led national health service, but the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that all this has happened with GPs picking up the burden unsupported, either in terms of those who work within practices or in terms of the Government's cash commitment to ensure that they are properly paid, is quite wrong. It is an argument that I refute absolutely.
  The Government have responded to the concerns that have been expressed over some time in a variety of meetings between the British Medical Association and me and between it and my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State. Part of the difficulty has been that, as we have made progress in a number of areas, the
  816
  goalposts have occasionally been shifted and new arguments put. That is what has happened now, and the hon. and learned Gentleman will be well aware of a call, on the record, to look at the total separation of the 24-hour contract into two parts.
  Before that proposal is considered, we must consider its implications. It would mean, for example, that a patient would have to look to two GPs for their services through a 24-hour period. What would out of hours mean? Would it still be an option for a GP to do some out-of-hours service and merely to relinquish the responsibility for night calls? Would the split operate from 6 o'clock in the evening, or at 10 o'clock? To whom would the patient look?
  That separation is a dangerous road to travel and would be against the history of the way in which primary care has developed since the NHS came into being. It would be bad for the quality of patient care and it would be a retrograde step. When the hon. and learned Gentleman starts to embark on that path, I wonder whether he has really considered all the implications.
  I understand what GPs' leaders are telling us: family doctors are finding it increasingly difficult to balance the demands of their out-of-hours work and their home life. We do not underestimate that strength of feeling. We recognise that GPs work extremely hard, and we are determined to address those concerns not just for the benefit of GPs but to safeguard the quality of patient care.
  The importance of underpinning that quality of care was brought home to me recently in an Adjournment debate. A difficulty had arisen in a case of out-of-hours cover. The important thing was that at least the patient knew to whom she could turn. It is important to continue to encourage the high patient satisfaction that is delivered through primary health care, which is one of its greatest assets. We must be extremely careful not to build into that system the potential for demarcation disputes and uncertainty about to whom the burden should be passed. They would cause great difficulties and would not do the profession any good in the long term.
  I reiterate that, within the context of the present system, we wish to make progress and explore what has been said recently by the profession to see whether we can build further on our initiatives. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned one extremely important initiative: how patients address and use their GP service. I must say to him that it was slightly fanciful—I do not know whether he thought it through—to suggest that we should launch a multi-million campaign, with me, as the Minister, on television instructing patients on how they should behave. It appears that that would be compelling and would result in patients changing their practice. My hon. Friends might be rather interested to see such a demonstration, but I am not sure that it is one that I would support.
  If patient practice needs to be changed, the people to lead that must be medical practitioners, because it is important for them and their professional futures that they do nothing to undermine their relationship with their patients. In many cases that lead has already been taken. I recently visited a practice in Essex where a patient education campaign was vigorously under way. Details of how it operated were contained in the patient practice brochure, which had been issued to all patients. Out-of-hours calls had reduced significantly as a result.

  817
  The Government are prepared to help and build upon that sort of initiative, and I hope that we can move forward on the issue.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I am glad that a practice has been able to achieve something with a patient education campaign. Does not the Minister agree, however, that there is a serious problem with the view that some patients have of the NHS, exemplified by the 11 million-plus hospital appointments which were not kept in the last year for which statistics were available? Does he also agree that many GPs are not as skilful in managing their practices or patient relations as the example that he gave, particularly those hard-pressed, single-handed GPs who are attempting to function in some inner-city practices? Does not he think that the Government should bear the responsibility for patient education for the great mass of patients?
  Mr. Malone: I have already said that we are prepared to help and support schemes, but I would wish to talk through with the profession how one could do that in detail. We are engaged in that process. The hon. and learned Gentleman should know that evidence exists of best practice and good practice around the country. I have told the medical profession that, if we can reach common ground on the out-of-hours issue, we can then proceed with patient education. The thought that such a programme could proceed against the background of the proposed industrial action of the medical profession is somewhat fanciful. That would undermine the process from the start. To embark on such a programme now would not represent a sensible use of public funds, nor would it achieve the result that everyone is seeking.
  We have heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman many of the arguments that have surrounded the issue over time, but not much that illuminates the initiatives that he and his party would take and that would go much beyond what the Government are doing.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I offered six new ideas.
  Mr. Malone: I listened to those six ideas, and quite a few of them happen to be precisely what the Government are already doing. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned rural areas, and I have set out precisely what we are doing in that respect. He mentioned patient education, and I said that the Government are prepared to respond to that proposal. He mentioned a range of novel ideas about providing out-of-hours care. I have explained that we prepared to look at such care and innovate and have set aside £45 million for that purpose. Much to my regret, as long as the problem with out-of-hours work continues, that £45 million lies unused either for the benefit of GPs or their patients. It could be used to improve the services from which patients would benefit.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about increased use of technology. I do not know what he meant by remote technology in the home. I suppose that even the Liberal party has caught up with the introduction of the telephone around the country. In extremely good practices, especially in 24-hour primary care centres, a lot of consultation can be carried out by telephone to reduce the burden on GPs. I am on all fours with the hon. and learned Gentleman on that practice.
  The only point on which I disagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman related to the separation of the contract. Were he to follow a route towards a double structure of primary care, he would be wrong.
  818
  We have moved some distance in the past few months in response to what doctors have said to us about two key areas. First, we must not compromise the quality of patient care in reaching a new arrangement for out-of-hours work and, secondly, we must strive to reduce the worst of the work load burden, and I am happy to consider whatever arrangements could be introduced by GPs to assist.
  Substantial progress on the new arrangements has been made, which must be recognised by the House, not just on its own merits but especially in the context of the way in which the Government have underpinned their commitment to general practice in words of encouragement and in deeds, cash and commitment over a lengthy period.
  I hope that we can put the current problems behind us soon. I hope that, when my right hon. Friend meets the profession later this week he will be able to make further progress, because it is in the interests of patients that we resolve that matter quickly.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: This is the first parliamentary occasion that I have had to congratulate the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) on his appointment as Secretary of State for Health, and I congratulate him on my own behalf and on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), unreservedly. I welcome him to his appointment and congratulate him on his merited promotion.
  I also take careful note of the fact that the Minister of State is still with us. He said that he was happy with his lot, and if he is happy with his lot we are all happy for him.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)—rather churlishly, I thought—regretted the absence of the Secretary of State for the opening minute and a half of the debate. That was rather to overlook the much more welcome, and I hope permanent, absence of the previous Secretary of State.
  The Liberal Democrats in their motion tell us, among other things, that we should aspire to a pattern of out of hours services
  "which is right for patients, fair on the taxpayer and manageable by family doctors"
  and appropriate for 21st century health care. Opposition Members would certainly aspire to that, and I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on phrasing their motion in that way.
  The words were not original; I guess that that will not come as a surprise to the House. They were lifted from something that the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) said in 1993 when he was Minister for Health. So that is a part of the Liberal motion that can unite both sides of the House.
  The case for debating the increased demand for out-of-hours service is well made. Demands have increased by five times in the past 25 years and doubled in the past three years. The hours worked by general practitioners during the out-of-hours period—as was at least implicitly conceded by the Minister of State—have increased. They have increased by 49 per cent. since 1985–86, the middle of the last decade.

  819
  GPs undertake twice as many night visits now as they did before the new contract was introduced. The number now is 2.3 million visits per year, and that compares with 1.1 million in 1989–90. Twenty-three per cent. of doctors spend 80 hours or more a week providing services to patients and being on call, and the cost of out-of-hours service to the national health service has quadrupled in recent years to £82 million a year. That follows the renegotiation of the general practitioner's contract in 1990.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer can hardly fairly complain about that quadrupling of the cost, because the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was the Secretary of State for Health who renegotiated the contract.
  It is right for the House to pause and ask itself why demand for out-of-hours services from general practitioners is growing, and appears to be growing disproportionately. There are several possible reasons.
  The research on that subject is quite thin, so, although the Minister of State rightly deplored relying on anecdotes, to some extent we have to, because his Department either has not done the research or is not sharing the research with the rest of the House. I suspect that the latter, rather than the former, is more likely.
  There is a growing consumer culture—a culture that is encouraged by the patients charter, which has brought the language of consumerism into the health service. People are told of their entitlement or right to be seen by a GP at any hour of the day or night, and I notice that, in the Government's amendment to the Liberal Democrat motion, they refer to supporting
  "the approach of the Patient's Charter, which stresses to patients that with rights come responsibilities".
  You would expect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the rights and responsibilities would be expressed even-handedly in the patients charter, so I thought I should check that that was so, because that was not the impression that I received on first reading the document. I decided to thumb through my copy, looking, not for the rights—the document is full of what it describes as "rights" and "expectations"—but for the word "responsibilities", to note where responsibilities were mentioned.
  A paragraph on page 10, right at the bottom, says:
  "You can help the NHS by only calling out your GP at night if it cannot wait until the next day",
  which is a perfectly fair thing to say. Later in the document, at page 24, there is another duty as opposed to entitlement, where the document says:
  "Warning—don't keep old medicines around the house. Please return them to your pharmacist for safe disposal."
  The rest of the document is full of, "you can expect this, you can expect that; you are entitled to this, you are entitled to that". I read on, in search of the section that mentioned responsibilities, which the amendment to the motion suggests that I might find. It is not until one reaches page 28 that the word "responsibility" appears at all. It does say that if you must use the services,
  "you can help the NHS by using its services responsibly"
  and it suggests that patients
  "return equipment such as wheelchairs"
  and
  "crutches … when you no longer need them"
  820
  and become a blood donor and always carry an organ donor card and so on.
  Right at the bottom of page 28, the last page of the document, it says:
  "remember that you benefit if your GP has a good night's sleep, so please only call your doctor out at night if it cannot wait until the next day."
  I believe that the Government are pushing it somewhat to describe the construction of the document as stressing
  "that with rights come responsibilities".
  The patients charter does no such thing.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I too have a copy of "The Patient's Charter and You", and I have been looking through it. In fact, the mentions of out-of-hours treatment are all on page 10, and there are two statements. One is:
  "when it is and is not appropriate to call on your GP for out-of-hours treatment"
  and the other is the line that the hon. Gentleman read:
  "You can help the NHS by only calling out your GP at night if it cannot wait until the next day."
  That seems to me to be an especially balanced approach to out-of-hours visiting. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to play games with his computer or count through manually when responsibility is and is not mentioned, but it is not fair to say that that is a reflection of what the charter is all about.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I exercised enormous skill and spent an enormous amount of time checking how many times the word "responsibility" is used in the patients charter. As the word occurs only once, it did not take me long.
  Mr. Fabricant: You had to read it.
  Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman fairly says from a sedentary position, it put me to the obligation of reading the patients charter, but, as I am the shadow Minister of State and therefore required to take an interest in such things, that is perhaps no bad thing.
  As I have diligently done my bit to prove my point, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of now going through the document and telling me how many times the word "expect" occurs. He will no doubt have completed his research before 10 o'clock, and can perhaps intervene on another speaker to tell me what he has discovered.
  Mr. Matthew Banks: So this is what you use Short money for, is it?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman, as he intervened from a sedentary position, appears to suppose that I am using his hon. Friend as an unofficial deputising service. I am sure that he can serve in that capacity as long as he starts counting now.
  It is obviously also the case that, in a society in which people are used to consuming services late at night—taxis, chemists, late night shopping, fast food delivery—it will occur to them to try to consume medical services late at night. Indeed, the universal availability of the telephone, which the Minister mentioned, has meant that people are now used to telephoning for things that they certainly were not used to telephoning for when the original terms and conditions of the general practitioner's contract were set, because people did not have telephones when the

  821
  service was first structured as it now is. There is an expectation that general practitioner services will be available at night, that they can be summoned up as of right and that an entitlement exists. The Government's patients charter has done much to underpin that way of viewing the service. I also believe, although it is difficult to find hard evidence to make the point precisely, that, to some extent, emergency services—there is a parallel with the ambulance service—are used as a substitute for the more conventional provision of primary care.
  Having said all that, it would be wrong for the House to overlook the fact that much of the out-of-hours work performed by general practitioners is genuinely needed. It would also be wrong of us to overlook the fact that most of our fellow citizens consume the national health service in a responsible way. There can be no doubt—there is no quarrel over the issue between myself and the Minister—that pressure on the service has increased. I am certain that it has an effect on general practitioners' work load and morale.
  There has been a drop in the number of people coming forward to train as GPs—a 15 per cent. drop since 1990. There has been a similar drop in the number of more senior doctors coming to general practice having been hospital doctors, having worked abroad or even having left the service temporarily for family reasons. There is also an increasing trend towards early retirement, as we discussed earlier. That is facilitated by the early retirement package for GPs, which allows general practitioners to quit at 50 with a lower pension. General practitioners still find that attractive and avail themselves of the package. The issue will not go away, and it clearly has to be addressed.
  I am certain that the solution is not to be found in ending negotiations. I am equally certain that the solution will not be found in industrial action in the national health service, which I oppose. The issue is not primarily about money, although money is involved. It is a little rich for the Government amendment to refer to
  "payments so that the average general practitioner will receive an extra £800 per year".
  The figure is arrived at through the complexities of the GP contract and the complexities of the way in which general practitioners are paid.
  I believe—I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—that within the figure of £800 the Government include money that would be carried forward from last year's underspend. The money would be paid to general practitioners in any event and is not new money specifically to be paid to general practitioners for the out-of-hours service. If I have misunderstood that or have misrepresented the Government's position, I shall happily give way to the Minister. I think that I am broadly right in saying that the figure of £800 is as high as it could be and includes money that would fall to GPs anyway.
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the mechanisms in place do not always deliver the money to GPs. The point about the change in the fee structure mechanism now proposed is that it will deliver money. When compared with the present structure, GPs will be, on average, £800 better off.
  Mr. Brown: I rather thought that I had got it right. If I ever get into terrible trouble and if the Minister of State is in private practice I shall almost certainly employ him to represent me in the courts—I certainly would not employ him as a doctor. The Government are clearly inflating their
  822
  £800 figure to get it as high as they can. It does not represent new money given to general practitioners that they would not otherwise receive. That is what the Government seem to be trying to imply, but it is not true.
  Mr. Malone: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, because it is a fairly abstruse point.
  It is of course the case that the global pool of money that the independent review body recommends is delivered in a number of different ways through different fee mechanisms. What the hon. Gentleman says is right: the money is part of that funding. But it is funding that may not have been drawn down, and will now be delivered. What the review body will recommend in succeeding years will depend upon what is paid this year. It is important to draw the money down at an earlier stage rather than leave it there untouched. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it does not matter because the GPs would have got the money anyway is wrong. It is a figure that they will receive, on average, in addition to what they would otherwise have received this year.
  Mr. Brown: If the Minister is now saying that there was some prospect that the element that stood to be carried over would not have been carried over, he should say that to the GPs rather than to me. He would be announcing a new concept. I do not think that it is for the Minister to withhold the money—the Minister shakes his head and confirms that the position is as I understand it.
  If the solutions are not to be found in industrial action, which the Minister and I oppose, it logically follows that negotiations must continue. That is clearly the right way to proceed. The solutions will not be found in simplistic statements. I was slightly surprised to hear a leading Conservative intellectual, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), say on the "Today" programme in early June, when stating the position on behalf of the Government:
  "If someone rings up a GP and says I've got a sore throat come and see me, you tell them to get lost, don't you."
  Such simplistic solutions will not help, and I do not think that the solution lies in that approach.
  There is merit in a public education campaign. Although the Minister clearly disqualified himself from playing a leading role in it, I do not think it would do any harm if the Minister went on television and explained what the out-of-hours service was for and what it was not for. Those are not points about which the major political parties are quarrelling, so why not spell out how the service should be used responsibly and, perhaps, give some examples of irresponsible or inappropriate use of the service? I do not believe that a public education programme will solve the problem, but it has a part to play.
  The solutions lie in a co-operative way of working in general practice. The internal market exacerbates the problems. The Labour party's policies, with the emphasis on public service rather than the internal market, go a long way to resolving the problems. In our new policy document, we advocate closer co-operation between GP practices and local health authorities, both in the commissioning of hospital services and in the planning and development of primary care.
  A successful solution to the problems faced by general practitioners providing out-of-hours service has been the formation of local GP out-of-hours co-operatives. One such example is the out-of-hours co-operative in the

  823
  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority. Under that scheme, local GPs can sign up with the co-operative and divert all out-of-hours calls to the co-operative switchboard. In return, the GP agrees to participate in a duty rota for taking calls and making home visits organised by the co-operative.
  As well as that excellent example of co-operation, the co-operative goes further and employs drivers to take the general practitioners to the patients' homes. That relieves the GP of the stress of navigating and driving alone to different parts of London. The scheme fosters a welcome team spirit among GPs on night duty and reduces the likelihood of GPs being attacked while making home visits—the more so as they have the driver with them. It is a more efficient way of dealing with out-of-hours calls and it significantly reduces the burden on individual GPs.
  Another example—again, wholly in line with the health policies recently launched by the Labour party—is the one-stop shop such as the one in Norwich, which provides advice and information to local people. The scheme is intended to change the pattern of primary care delivery to meet the needs of today's population. Out-of-hours services are certainly among the range of services that the Labour party is keen to see improved in order to benefit patients and to relieve the pressure on GPs which, it seems, will remorselessly increase as they have to carry out their out-of-hours services.
  Our proposals for co-operative working between GPs in the commissioning and planning process lend themselves to the possibility of locality groups of general practitioners setting up out-of-hours co-operatives and one-stop health shops. That is in complete contrast to the Government's approaches, which are underpinned by the national health service reforms. In many instances, fundholding has forced GPs into competitive relationships with their professional colleagues.
  We want to replace competition in the health service with co-operation. We believe that all health care professionals will want to co-operate with each other, with the aim of delivering ever-higher standards of patient care. The competitive requirements of the internal market work against co-operation and hinder the development of innovation which brings with it efficiency in the health service and, dare I say it, greater benefits to the patients.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I had intended to welcome the Secretary of State to his new post and to wish him well within his new terms of reference. However, as he is not in the Chamber, I shall not do so.
  When the Liberals hold their weekly meeting and examine the success of the two half-day debates, I think that they will conclude that they have been an utter waste of time. In the last debate, the Minister for Transport in London successfully duffed up the Liberal party on its proposals for the railways, and I think that we are about to see a repeat performance in this debate, as I have heard nothing so far to convince me that the Government have got it wrong with regard to out-of-hours patient care. In fact, my support for the Government is reinforced by what I have heard from the Liberal Benches today.
  I am sorry that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), and his parliamentary minder the hon. Member for
  824
  Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) are the only Liberals present, as it would have been of benefit to all their colleagues to listen to the debate and understand why the basis on which they applied for it is wholly misguided.
  Mr. Matthew Banks: If the parliamentary minder, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), had not been present, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) would not have realised that the words of the motion that we are debating this evening were those of our parliamentary colleague, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). That was clear from the exchange that took place when the matter was referred to earlier. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Dunn: I will try to speak above the outbreak of frustration from the Liberal Benches. I am happy to respond to my hon. Friend's point. He is entirely correct: it is a very strange debate on a very strange day.
  When I was much younger, I remember reading the history of the Liberal party—it is always wise to read about the history of one's opponents. The Liberal Democrats were once a great party. In our constituencies we probably have—as you do, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a Grenville street, a Gladstone road and a Rosebery gardens, but will we find an Ashdown street on the new housing developments in our constituencies?
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dunn: No, but I shall give way shortly. I want to finish this important point.
  I suspect that we shall not see an Ashdown street, a Carlile road or a Beith gardens in the new housing developments in our communities. It is more likely that we shall find an Ashdown tip or an Ashdown recycling plant, because that would be appropriate to the once great party that is now reduced to a parliamentary sect.
  The Liberal Democrats are no longer a party because, according to my definition, a political party has to be based on a philosophy; it must have principles. The one thing that the Liberal party has shown itself to be to date is a wholly unprincipled party without a philosophy. It is no longer motivated by philosophy, but by opportunism—as we can see at all levels of government, from parish to Parliament.
  I wish to make an important announcement to the House, if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier this week, we heard that a Mr. Steven Stenton, who was until the weekend a Liberal Democrat member of Kent county council, decided that his future no longer lay with the Liberal Democrats, and on Monday he applied to become a member of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dunn: I am in full flow. I will give way in a moment. That now increases—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am not sure whether the gentleman referred to is a patient or whether he attended out of hours. Either way, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will assist the Chair by returning to the motion.
  Mr. Dunn: I mentioned the incident because the defection took place out of hours, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It took place at the weekend.
  Mr. Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his "full flow" simply confirms what a dry summer it has

  825
  been? Does he accept that all political parties, including the Conservative party, have their loonies and that we are happy to see the odd loony go to the Conservative party rather than somewhere more sensible? Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he is prepared to vote today against the very deliberately chosen words of the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney)?
  Mr. Dunn: I will certainly pass on the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments to Mr. Stenton. I am sure that Mr. Stenton's decision will be reinforced by what has been said today.
  I shall vote for the Government amendment because the Government are doing exactly what I want them to do. I am here to support the Government and to advise, caution and warn them on those occasions when they get things wrong. So far, I have heard nothing from hon. Members on either side to cause me to change my mind. I came to the debate with an open mind; I wanted to listen and to learn from the debate. I am a genuine parliamentarian of the old school.
  I welcome the Minister's announcement that talks will continue between the British Medical Association and the Government. That is right and proper. No one in the House wants to see general practitioners take industrial action. There was a perceived loss of professionalism on the part of teachers when they went on strike. I hope that the doctors have learnt from that incident and I am sure that they do not want to go down the same route. There has been a diminution of the perceived professionalism of the Royal College of Nursing since it decided recently to abandon its 80-year-old strike ban. Clearly, the Royal College of Nursing no longer deserves the description "royal"—and it is no longer a college, but a nursing trade union.
  Mr. Carlile: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Dunn: It may be disgraceful, but it also happens to be true—it is amazing how I can throw my voice and speak twice. The hon. Gentleman must enter the real world. If he spent more time in the House, he would understand the genuine concerns of our constituents. The Royal College of Nursing is no longer royal and it is no longer a college; it is simply a trade union. The BMA, to which hon Members opposite have referred, is probably the same thing.
  Dr. Macara may not have posters on his wall of Daniel Cohn-Bendit—I am probably one of the few people present who remembers Danny the Red—or Che Guevara, another hero of the pot-smoking left, but Dr. Macara is no Conservative.
  Mr. Carlile: He was.
  Mr. Dunn: Well, he is not now.
  Mr. Carlile: You have driven him away.
  Mr. Dunn: Am I to be protected from such outbursts, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Dr. Macara is not a Conservative; he might have been a Conservative once for the wrong reasons, but he is not a Conservative now—and that is all that matters.
  I have received only one letter about the subject of out-of-hours patient care, and that worries me. Some 80 per cent. of my constituents in Dartford are covered by fundholding general practices. It may well be that the
  826
  people I represent are satisfied with that arrangement and with the provision and dispatch of services to them and to their families. If there were a tremendous groundswell of concern, as reported by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, I suspect that I might have heard more about it from my local GPs, who often write to me about their concerns. However, they have no concerns about this issue.
  I wonder, therefore, why the Liberal party chose to debate the subject today. I read the Liberal motion with great interest. The motion about out-of-hours patient care in the name of the leader of the Liberal party refers to the need for a method of work that is manageable by family doctors. The proposals by the Minister of State on 20 April confirm that that is also the Government's view. They want a manageable system and they hope that the public who use GPs' services will differentiate between genuine and non-genuine calls. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery mentioned some examples earlier.
  Anyone who has been a parent knows the anxiety and stress that parents face when a small child is ill. Sometimes it a balance of judgment between being concerned and frightened about the health of one's child and ringing the doctor, or waiting until the next day, hoping that it will not matter too much. There will always be a balance between wasting the doctor's time and asking the doctor to come round because one is frightened out of one's wits because one's child is so ill.
  The motion
  "believes there should be a right for general practitioners to transfer responsibility for out of hours care to another general practitioner".
  That was also proposed in the offer on 20 April 1995, so what is the problem? The motion also
  "supports the need for substantial, ongoing patient education campaigns on the appropriate use of the out of hours emergency service".
  No one in the Chamber has disagreed with that so far. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said as much a few moments ago, but that was also in the offer.
  There is a need to make patients aware of the stress that they can put on doctors and, more importantly, doctors' families. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery gave an account of his own family, with a father who was a GP in my native Lancashire.
  Inevitably, there will be occasions when the implications will not get through to those who waste time. We have heard nothing about what should be done about irritant patients who continue to waste time because there is something wrong with a little finger, the plasters have run out or they cannot get headache tablets. We must also be aware that the stress on GPs is huge and when they become tired because of out-of-hours work, their judgment may be affected. As society is increasingly litigious, it is necessary to protect doctors from what may be called the American syndrome, and that concerns every Member of Parliament.
  I firmly believe that everything that the Government have done to date is right. I have no doubt that the Minister will listen to what has been said by hon. Members in all parts of the House before replying to the debate. I am sure that the BMA will also listen carefully to the words of hon. Members. One can wave the wand of disruption only once or twice before it becomes devalued and the BMA must be concerned about its long-term image in the community.

  827
  We all know that society makes many more demands on public servants, whether they be Members of Parliament, local councillors, therapists, social workers, doctors or anyone in the public eye. There must be a balance and GPs must be protected. That is why I am wholly in favour of the Government amendment.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): It is indeed an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) who is a parliamentarian of the old school, as he said and I am now happy to endorse. He said that he had received just one letter from a constituent. I, too, have received only one letter regarding this matter and that was from my own general practitioner. He is my personal general practitioner, Dr. Barry Jones, a fundholder at the Minster practice in Lichfield. Not only did we discuss the matter in his surgery, but we also discussed it in the Eastern Eye Indian restaurant in Lichfield, where from time to time I hold my surgeries.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford spoke about plasters running out. My general practitioner was telling me that one patient phoned him up saying that his cotton wool had run out and he needed another prescription. He had cotton wool on prescription for a number of years following a prostate operation. When my doctor asked why he still needed cotton wool, the patient said that he required it because of the prostate operation. My doctor asked why he still needed it after four years. It transpired that he was using the cotton wool to stuff soft toys and he was doing it on the national health service. That gives some idea of people's expectations when dealing with the national health service.
  I listened to the advocacy from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). He was certainly no advocate in respect of general practitioners. When he began his speech, seven Liberal Democrat Members were in the Chamber. He made some puns about fugues and one Member left halfway through. He then proceeded to contradict himself as to whether or not it was an issue of money and I noted that another Liberal Democrat Member had walked out. He then made a joke as to whether the Secretary of State was present. His supporters went down to three and at one point there was only one. I see that now there is only himself and the ever-present Liberal Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), sitting silently and noting the lack of support from his own side.
  Mr. Dunn: The minder.
  Mr. Fabricant: As my hon. Friend says, he is the minder, the silent and ominous one noting what has been said.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that out-of-hours care should not be an issue of money. He went on to talk about the redistribution of wealth, but he made absolutely no practical suggestions, except for the one about advertising, to which I will return later. At that point there was absolutely no one else from the Liberal Democrat party in the Chamber.
  He said that there should be remote control diagnosis and I wondered what he envisaged. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will intervene and tell me whether
  828
  there should be remote control diagnosis by means of the latest technology. Is he suggesting that the Government should provide everybody in the country with remote-control ECG and EEG machines or other paramedic technology that we should all have in our homes so that we could hook up should a diagnosis be required? That is an example of Liberal Democrat muddled thinking.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State rightly pointed out that some £45 million in additional funds will be made available for out-of-hours patient care. He spoke about 24-hour primary care centres and GP co-operatives. Incidentally, it was interesting that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said that the Labour party supported co-operatives and one-stop shops. In his typically amiable way, he advocated everything that already exists and has been introduced by the Conservative Government, but he chose not to mention what the Labour party would do to fundholders or trusts because there is no clear Labour policy on that.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically unfair. I said that I felt that the Government fundholding structures set neighbouring general practices against one another and that such a competitive way of working was not the best way to solve the out-of-hours problems. I said that our co-operative model was a better way to proceed, so I dealt with the points to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is reiterating the points that he made in his speech, but he did not say whether he would abolish fundholding overnight if Labour came to power.
  Mr. Brown: Yes, it is our intention to phase out individual practice fundholding as currently structured over a period which may be as long as three years, but hopefully will be shorter and certainly in the first period of a Labour Government.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is being untypically mealy-mouthed. He spoke about phasing out, he then said it would be abolished over three years and then he said that abolition would happen in any event, possibly within the five years of a Labour Government, should one come to power.
  Mr. Malone: I would not like my hon. Friend to be under any misapprehension that Labour would do other than offer a fatal threat to GP fundholding. It is not mealy-mouthed—Labour is planning to abolish fundholding and to do away with all the benefits that it brings patients.
  Mr. Fabricant: If that is the case—although one would not think so listening to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, who presents a confused picture about the amount of time that phasing would last—there would be a problem. Every general practitioner in Lichfield is a fundholder, including many who told me that they always vote Labour. Hearing the hon. Gentleman, I wonder whether they would ever vote Labour again.
  Mr. Brown: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. I did not say that fundholding would probably go but that it would go. The Minister and I disagree on whether or not that policy is right but there is no disagreement between us, for once, as to Labour party policy. GP fundholding will go.
  Mr. Fabricant: That is sad news. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has any policy on trusts. He shrugs.

  829
  It appears that members of Labour's Front Bench are now conferring and making policy on the hoof. I await a further intervention, to learn what would happen to trusts. There seems to be some confusion. In fact, there seems to be an argument between Labour Front-Bench members.
  Ms Estelle Morris indicated dissent.
  Mr. Fabricant: Nevertheless, we await Labour's suggestions with interest.
  The offer is clear—an extra £45 million within the overall health budget to support alternative out-of-hours arrangements. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, that extra funding would not otherwise be available to general practitioners. There would also be additional help for rural doctors within that £45 million.
  Mention has been made of studies of GPs' work load, and it is worth reiterating the hours that they work. I take my hon. Friend the Minister slightly to task, in the sense that there is no such thing as an average practitioner. Nevertheless, the average GP works a normal 31.9 hours per week and 6.9 hours per out-of-hours, making a total of 38.8 hours—plus 19.2 hours on call.
  There is a requirement for a re-education programme. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East talked about the patients charter, which is an excellent publication. The hon. Gentleman, or perhaps one of his assistants, has spent the last few days counting the number times that "expect" and "right" appear in the charter. That is rather amusing, because one can well imagine that if the charter included no expectations or rights, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain. The existence of the patients charter provides patients with a clear guide to what is expected of them and of practices, which cannot be a bad thing.
  Difficulties have, however, arisen—primarily because of patients' expectations. It is not just the relationship between patients and doctors that demands re-education. I well recall my first surgery after I entered Parliament. One gentleman talked to me for five or six minutes, leaving me wondering what point he was trying to make. It eventually transpired that he was concerned that his wife was, to use his words, playing around. I wondered whether he expected me to raise that matter in a parliamentary question. Clearly, he had come to see me simply to express his worries and to talk them over with someone. That sort of thing is becoming increasingly common in the relationship that the public have with Members of Parliament and general practitioners. Perhaps the accessibility of politicians and of general practitioners on television creates an image that is not always helpful.
  My discussions with my own GP included one this afternoon, after I decided to take part in this debate. He told me about some of the problems that have confronted him out of hours. This evidence may be anecdotal and, as I said, there is no such thing as the average GP.
  A few weeks ago, Dr. Barry Jones was telephoned at 3 in the morning by someone who had toothache, wanting to know whether it would be all right to take aspirin or paracetamol. On another occasion, he was telephoned at I in the morning by a very drunk lady who asked whether he could provide a morning-after pill because she had committed an indiscretion some hours earlier—whether drunk or sober, we do not know. In another incident, Dr.
  830
  Jones was telephoned at 3 in the morning by the parents of a child with a runny nose, who were concerned that their child might have meningitis.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman has described some of the frivolous reasons for which GPs are telephoned in the middle of the night, but how will the Government's proposal to throw money at the problem reduce the number of such calls? Should not the Government consider instead ways of reducing pressures on general practitioners, possibly by involving people other than GPs in the provision of out-of-hours medical services?
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is not necessarily right in suggesting that people other than GPs should be brought in. That would not solve the problem. I am flabbergasted—and I am rarely flabbergasted in the Chamber—to hear a Labour Member say that the Government are throwing money at the health service. If throw money at the health service we must, then we must—because the Government have a commitment to the NHS. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of that commitment. He asked whether something else could be done. Earlier, I mentioned re-education, and I will develop that point shortly.
  I will cite a few more examples of calls to my doctor because they are not just frivolous problems; they are educational, too. If anyone is listening to this debate, such examples might even strike a chord and hold them back from telephoning their doctor unnecessarily.
  Another patient who telephoned my doctor was suffering from diarrhoea and vomiting—apparently such calls occur frequently—following a two-week holiday. The illness had lasted for a whole week; yet nothing was done about it while on holiday. Instead, the patient rang at 2 am for the doctor's advice. That is not only frivolous but an especially selfish use of the national health service. On another occasion, my GP was telephoned at 4 am and asked whether he could produce a sick note to say that an individual, who had been arrested earlier that evening for breach of the peace, was not fit to attend court. The list of such calls goes on and on.
  My general practitioner—who is clearly not average judging from the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Minister—says that in the past five years his out-of-hours work has quadrupled and he reckons that at weekends the work out of hours has increased some tenfold.
  I do not think that there is an easy answer to the problem. If there are answers, they will vary depending on whether they apply to rural, urban or inner-city practices. Of course primary care centres can help and the Government are already supporting them. The situation is particularly difficult in rural areas, but again my hon. Friend the Minister is throwing money—to quote the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley)—at the problem. Throwing money at it might be appropriate occasionally.
  My doctor reckons that he generally works a 47.5 hour week and, on average, he is on call for nine hours each working week—not including disturbed sleep. As he said rather wryly, since Members of Parliament work long hours but have begun to introduce Jopling reforms, perhaps there needs to be a similar reform of the hours of GPs. Without weakening the services and, indeed, the Hippocratic oath taken by general practitioners, implementing such reforms would not be easy.

  831
  There is no question but that the patients charter benefits patients. However, it has also increased patients' expectations and we should address that problem. I mentioned the pastoral role of Members of Parliament when I described someone coming to my surgery to talk about his wife playing around. Too many GPs are also expected to play such a role. One wonders whether the church could play a greater pastoral role rather than its being expected of GPs.
  There is a clear role for re-educating patients in what they should expect of GPs—and what should be expected of Members of Parliament. In Staffordshire, we have a very good commercial radio station called Signal Radio. The local family health services authority put out a commercial which, to me, stated the obvious. Clearly, however, it needed to be done. It explained that every time someone does not turn up for an appointment at a hospital, it costs the NHS money and it could mean a longer waiting list for an appointment next time. I would have thought that people would realise that if they could not attend an appointment they should telephone beforehand to allow others to fill the slot. It is a sad indictment that a commercial needs to be put out asking people to think of someone else and to "love thy neighbour as thyself".
  The Government have introduced the excellent "Help Us To Help You" campaign, yet it could go a little further and need not involve great expense. Television advertising is expensive and I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that the money could be better spent. However, I think that a radio campaign, which is on average about a tenth of the price of a television campaign, could be very effective, especially compared with other forms of advertising and promotion.
  My hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right when he says that GPs have a role to play too. I quoted from the patients charter, as did the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. The line on page 10 referring to
  "when it is and is not appropriate to call on your GP for out-of-hours treatment"
  should be included in the practice's own charter. So far, well over 50 per cent. of GPs and their practices have produced such charters, but the roles of both doctor and patient in out-of-hours treatment need to be more clearly stated in them.
  We must provide better patient care. One of the great aspects of medical provision in Lichfield, and in mid-Staffordshire in general, is the ability of fundholders such as Dr. Barry Jones to send their patients to hospitals: the money follows the patient rather than the patient following the money. That is one of the most important changes that we have made over the past few years.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East laughs, because he thinks that I am merely quoting a slogan. For the first time, however, the Victoria hospital in Lichfield has a dermatology centre, a new paediatric centre, physiotherapy, an ophthalmic centre and a new surgical wing. That is all due to money following the patient: fundholders such as Dr. Barry Jones can direct their patients to the Lichfield hospital and consultants from Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield must now come to Lichfield. Previously, patients from Lichfield had to go to those cities.
  832
  What would the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East do? He said that perhaps in a year—or three years, or five years; he was not sure of the time involved—Labour would phase out fundholders. My only criticism of fundholding is that we have not introduced it universally; although it is universal in Lichfield, and virtually no GP in mid-Staffordshire is not a fundholder, unfortunately not every GP has become a fundholder nationally. It is through fundholding, however, that GPs are empowered to provide funds for patients as and when they are needed.
  The NHS is safe in Conservative hands. It would clearly be in a very rocky state if it were in the hands of the Labour party—I would mention the Liberals, but as they are an irrelevance it hardly seems worth while. There should be more fundholders. GPs are a family practice, and they too will be safe in our hands. I have no doubt that, with a Minister of State like ours—caring, sharing, listening and co-operative; GP co-operatives were introduced by a Conservative Government, not by the Liberals and certainly not by the Labour party, which advocates them—the NHS will survive and continue to go from strength to strength.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims: Some GPs complain that they work long hours, that they are on call at all hours and that their social life is often in danger of being disrupted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) said, they will find no more sympathetic audience than those of us who are present now. Being a doctor is rather like being a Member of Parliament: it is not simply a job, but a way of life, subject to the vicissitudes that I have just described.
  Whether some of us are at our best after a late-night sitting is an open question. Some of us occasionally are, but I suspect that some are not. Certainly, if I were unwell, I would not wish to be attended by a GP who had had only two or three hours of interrupted sleep. Accident, illness and disease are no respecters of the clock. Patients expect and need the 24-hour availability of GP services, and the Government should ensure that such services are available. The question is, of course, how that can be done.
  The British Medical Association has stated that the issues are not about pay but about restructuring. The structure suggested by the Government, of a lump sum for each GP, payment for calls and substantial development funds for out-of-hours arrangements, seems to be entirely reasonable. My hon. Friend the Minister has deployed the Government's case, while the BMA has deployed its case. The differences are not great, and it should be possible for men and women of good will to sit around a table and agree.
  The BMA states that it believes that,
  "With willingness on the Government side,"
  the differences between them could be settled. That may well be right, but only if there is also willingness on the BMA side. I am bound to say that threats of industrial action such as the BMA is making do not help the atmosphere for such discussions, and the BMA does itself and a respected profession no credit by waving that particular stick.
  The BMA has listed various requirements which would need to be met for the differences to be resolved. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Minister earlier in the

  833
  debate, I think that very nearly all the requirements are being met, although one or two seem a little unreasonable. The BMA says:
  "The Government's recent offer tied up the so-called right to transfer responsibility in so much red tape—by requiring FHSA approval—as to render the proposal impractical. It should be sufficient for GPs to make proper arrangements for the transfer and simply inform the FHSA."
  The FHSA is responsible locally for ensuring proper provision of GP services. It would not be good enough for GPs just to make arrangements that they thought were in order and then tell the FHSA. It is entirely proper that the Minister should require the FHSA to approve any arrangements for the responsibility of the right to transfer.
  The BMA also pleads that the Government should commit themselves to a public education campaign, a point that was made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and reiterated strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). I must say that it is a plea with which I have considerable sympathy.
  I am very much in favour of the patients charter, but I can also understand why some doctors have asked "What about a doctors charter?" The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to specific incidents in which doctors had been called upon unreasonably, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire has just quoted similar examples. That is a real dilemma, and every GP could cite similar cases, because I am afraid that some people make unreasonable demands on their doctors.
  Such treatment is not confined to doctors. As a member of the Health Select Committee, I was involved in the inquiry and report on the London ambulance service. One feature that emerged from the evidence before us was the fact that people will telephone for an ambulance for the most trivial complaints. That means that an ambulance is often out on the street dealing with such calls when a genuine emergency call comes through.
  Doctors are faced with similar calls. It is one thing to take a telephone call in which somebody asks about something rather trivial that can be dealt with by telephone, but it is a good deal worse if a doctor receives a somewhat garbled message, a few comments and a plea for him to go out and answer the call, only to find when he gets there that the problem is something that could easily have waited until the morning—if, indeed, his services were required at all.
  Like the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, I am a member of the General Medical Council, so I see what sometimes happens if doctors do not respond to calls which prove to be genuine. The consequences of a failure to respond can be serious, so one understands the dilemma of doctors who find themselves obliged to respond to almost every call, just in case. There is a real case for some sort of public education campaign to help people to realise in what circumstances it is right and proper to send for a doctor, but also to know what other steps they could take when the case is not so urgent.
  As I have said, the differences between the Government and the BMA are capable of resolution around the table—but surely not across the Floor of the Chamber. The Liberal Democrats have not put their valuable parliamentary time to the best use tonight.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: It is a bit much if the Liberal Democrat spokesman who opened the debate, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), cannot be bothered to stay for three hours to listen to his own debate—but I guess that the Liberal party never had much staying power.
  I could describe the reaction in the Chamber to his speech as "general satisfaction" with what he said. That may surprise some hon. Members, but I say it because he had so much self-satisfaction that that made enough satisfaction to go round for everybody. We were treated to the stuff that he no doubt dishes out by the yard in the courts, and for which he is well paid. Frankly, it did not cut much ice here.
  Once again, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery showed us that there is nothing that the Liberals think too important to play party politics with. His was a trivial approach to the issue, trying to pretend that the complex issues did not exist or that we could wish them away. That was in stark contrast to the serious speeches from the Minister and from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman. Naturally, I agreed much more with the Minister than with the Labour spokesman, but they both made serious speeches about a serious subject that should not be trivialised.
  I noticed several other features of the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, the first of which was his patent dishonesty about money. The cry went up, "Is it new money?" Lots of new money has gone into the health service, we all know that. But of course it sounds good to ask the question, and that is all the Liberals care about. It sounds good to ask, "Is this new money?" and then to say that it is not, because it is not new since the beginning of the year. "Will it be taken from other services?" It sounds good, makes people attracted to what the Liberals say, but does not add up to anything substantial.
  Once again, when the Liberals say that they want more money to be spent on something, they will tell us, "Well, this was in our proposals at the last election. We were the only people honest enough to say that there should be an increase in income tax." They did say that there should be an increase in income tax—of one penny. But they seemed to have forgotten how much one penny in income tax raises. It is less than £2 billion. When one adds up the sort of things that they say would be paid for from that one penny of income tax, one will see that it comes to about £8 billion or £9 billion. It is a patently dishonest approach.
  The Liberals have the absolute cheek to say that there should be a large-scale advertising campaign about the responsibility that patients have in using GPs. Of course more responsibility should be shown. I shall come to that in a minute. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) pointed out some of the examples of abuse of the system. It was my experience last summer of having to answer attacks from the Liberals about the advertising campaigns that the Government are carrying out. The Liberals tell us, "It is only the Government trying to use them to their own advantage."
  One area that the Liberals attacked was the newspaper campaign for people to carry the form—I believe it is the E1011—that one takes to European Community countries to claim medical services. The Liberal spokesman at the time told us that it was a complete waste of money, because

  835
  of the number of clippings that were sent back from the newspapers. That was a deliberate misrepresentation of what that campaign was about. I have taken my family abroad, and it was seeing the Government's advertising campaign that made me think that I must go and get the form and ensure that I had it with me.
  The Liberals have the cheek to suggest that they want more advertising, because they could then attack us in next year's fanciful parade. I shall make one prediction: this year, another Minister will have to answer more attacks from the Liberals on Government advertising. They did last year and the year before. Liberals are creatures of habit. Doubtless they will try it again.
  Mr. Fabricant: Ironically, is it not the case that the Liberals enjoy an almost enviable position? They can make commitments to spending. They can attack Government policy one moment and then advocate it the next, simply because they know—not even deep in their heart of hearts, but quite openly—that there is no chance of them ever becoming a party of government, so they can take that irresponsible stance.
  Mr. Hughes: Indeed. I shall come to some of the inadequacies of the Liberals in government—as we see in local authorities—in a minute.
  Those of us who use the NHS, who are customers of the NHS, know how important this part of the health service is. I ask doctors to reflect on what they are threatening. They are not low-paid workers. They are paid 50 per cent. more than Members of Parliament. I am not complaining in any way about what GPs are paid—of course it is right that they are paid well—but they have to clarify in their own minds whether they are talking about money.
  There have even been suggestions that the BMA has taken the stance it has because of the BMA elections that are going on at the moment. I hope that that is not true. We are dealing with people's lives. We are talking about people who use the out-of-hours service because they are frightened. Anyone who has had a child screaming and being sick in the middle of the night—as a parent, one is worried about what will happen, and one cannot take the child to a casualty department, and that is not the right use of a casualty department, anyway—knows how important that service is.
  I cannot believe that the very good GPs it has been my experience to come across—our own family GP, GPs in my constituency, and those mentioned by my hon. Friends—those responsible and caring people, would have any truck with industrial action that would inevitably hurt patients. However it was dressed up and however people pretended that it was merely an administrative matter, it would hurt patients, and they have to understand that.
  I must comment on a couple of the things that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said on the subject. He made two statements that I would regard as a threat. First, he suggested that we should charge for out-of-hours service calls that turn out to be hoaxes. I do not understand how that is supposed to work, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire pointed out, Liberal Democrat suggestions are not supposed to work, but merely to sound good.
  836
  How would one collect the money? What is it supposed to mean? He is suggesting that the Liberal Democrats are not in favour of a service that is free at the point of use.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Nonsense.
  Mr. Hughes: It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has just wandered back into the Chamber, to say that that is nonsense, but I am reading what he said. He has suggested a charge, and it is no good him sitting there with a puzzled frown on his face. He must face up to what he has said. He suggested that there should be a charge, and perhaps he will now tell us what he meant by that.
  Mr. Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that 11 million appointments are broken in national health service hospitals is a problem? Does he agree that, to ensure a national health service that is free at the point of delivery to the patients who use it properly, we must consider ways in which we can ensure that patients attend meetings? It may not be feasible to charge patients 50p for a broken appointment, but if that is not feasible, would he like to suggest how he would ensure that patients do not miss 11 million hospital appointments? Has he anything constructive to say?
  Mr. Hughes: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman now has the figure right, because he mentioned 5.5 million appointments in The Independent of 6 July. At least he has got it right this time.
  Mr. Carlile: Now answer the question.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. and learned Gentleman made a point, and suggested that there should be a charge, but in his intervention he recognised that that was nonsense. I expect him to speak nonsense—he has been doing it all evening.
  Mr. Carlile: What is your answer?
  Mr. Hughes: This is a serious problem, but hectoring from a sedentary position does not provide an answer. I accept that I do not have an answer, but I do not make the sort of stupid suggestions that we hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  I will continue with the cutting from which I was quoting. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery also suggested that he would take away the right of elderly people to have their GP as their first point of call. Again he is looking pained, but that is what he said, and it is more proof that the Liberal Democrats simply do not have a proper policy. They say one thing, but when one questions them, they say, "Oh, no. Goodness me. That's not what I meant. Are you talking about that policy document? We are talking about now."
  He said:
  "Perhaps also, the elderly could be treated primarily in hospitals and not by GPs."
  He would be prepared to deny the elderly the right to use their GP in the first instance. If that is not what he meant, he should apologise to the House.
  Mr. Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to apologise, I will. If it is going to be the same

  837
  rubbish that we heard earlier, I will not. But I do not think that I will take time from his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
  I have one final point about fundholding GPs and the ability of those GPs in particular to run new services. I want to praise the Elliott Hall medical centre in my constituency, and in particular its patients' association. This is a wonderful GP service, providing a range of new services, which have not been thought of by others—so much so that people want to leave other GPs to join their books.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East was wrong to say that he wants to take away that ability to experiment, run new services, compete and enable others to do see they are doing. To do so would take away many of the improvements in the health service, and that is not a move that my constituents would welcome.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Matthew Banks: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye briefly in this debate, which has, at times, bordered on the bizarre. However, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) made an excellent and powerful speech. So did my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who has momentarily had to leave the Chamber. I particularly enjoyed the remarks of that great parliamentarian, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who I know will be returning in a few moments.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) referred, rather more flexibly than the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), if I may say so, to the possibility of GP fundholding ending under any future Labour Government. I detected something of a discrepancy between what he said and what his right hon. Friend said, when she made it clear not long ago that GP fundholding as it currently stands is unacceptable, to use her word, and that she would put a stop to it in the first year of a Labour Government. [Interruption.] I notice that the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying something else. In my characteristic fashion, I give way to him.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Minister and I uncharacteristically agreed that I was not saying something else. For once there is no disagreement between my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and the Minister of State.
  Mr. Banks: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt we will be able to compare what the hon. Gentleman said with what his right hon. Friend said on 29 June on the BBC's "Newsnight" programme, because there is a discrepancy. No doubt we will return to it on a future occasion.
  Of course, this is a Liberal Democrat debate and I should point out to some of my hon. Friends that they are Liberal Democrats, not Liberals. There is a Liberal party in this country, which did not throw in its lot with the Social Democratic party. Its national headquarters is in Southport, and long may it remain so. They are a splendid lot. They did not renege on everything they believe and
  838
  on their principles to join the SDP in a sort of mark 2 Labour party. At least with the Labour party, we know where we are—
  Mr. Brown: A minute before, the hon. Gentleman said the opposite.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman suggests that we do not know where we are with the Labour party. I was drawing a fast veil over the hon. Gentleman's discrepancy with the right hon. Member for Derby, South.
  Due to the shortage of time, I would like to make only a couple of quick points in relation to this Liberal Democrat-inspired—if that is the right word—debate. I am aware that Liberal Democrats say one thing at one end of a constituency and another thing at the other end. On the one hand, they propose retention of a modified GP fundholding scheme—having, of course, changed their minds twice—and on the other hand they support a system in which GPs could choose to manage funds themselves, or as part of a locally-based consortium, or could ask the local authority to manage funds on their behalf. That would create the sort of politicised system within a local authority which the British Medical Association totally opposes.
  I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) appreciates that but we should bear in mind that he did not seem to know that some of the words of his party's motion were the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. It is clear that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had to tell him that. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has had little support from his side in this debate.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: The hon. Gentleman has not had any.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) helpfully makes a sedentary intervention. Nowhere among the Opposition is there a better example of someone who says one thing at one end of his constituency and another thing at the other—one thing to one person and another thing to another. He has been absent for most of the debate, but the least said about that the better.
  This has been a poor debate. My colleagues have drawn attention time and time again—and had longer than I in which to do so—to the shortcomings of the policies advocated by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. The debate has been a waste of good parliamentary time. It is a great pity that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not supported by a few more of his colleagues, but I have no hesitation in supporting the Government amendment.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to the debate, which I want to bring back to reality. In the time available, I want to make a number of points to which it is important that the Minister has the opportunity to reply.
  I want to refocus the House's attention on the words of the motion that occasioned this debate. The motion states that the House "shares general practitioners' concerns" and refers to the need to

  839
  "facilitate improved methods of work so that general practitioners can provide a more flexible, clinically appropriate and more modern way of providing emergency care".
  Those words were carefully chosen, and we knew exactly where they came from—they are the words of the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), but I suggest that they are none the worse for that.
  The motion goes on to talk about
  "a right for general practitioners to transfer responsibility for out of hours care".
  I carefully took note of the fact that the Minister gave some support to that notion. The motion then talks about the need for "ongoing patient education campaigns" and ends with an exhortation to the Government to
  "take all reasonable steps to avoid industrial action by general practitioners."
  It is a very measured motion. If Conservatives vote against it, they will be voting against not only the sentiments expressed some years ago by the right hon. Member for Peterborough when he was responsible for health matters in a previous incarnation, but almost everything else that every Tory Member who has contributed to this evening's debate said about the need for education and for changes such as the transfer of responsibility for out-of-hours care. Far from being wild or irresponsible, the motion is very measured.
  We are in a serious position. It is very unusual for the Government of the day, after two years of negotiation, to be confronted with potential industrial action by doctors. In fact, it is quite unprecedented—a point ably made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). Something is seriously wrong.
  It is no use Conservative Members saying that the British Medical Association is out of control or that it comprises a bunch of radical or irresponsible people; it is the BMA's members who are driving forward its policy on this issue. They are frustrated and dismayed, and wholly out of sympathy with the way in which the Government have handled the matter. That is certainly the message they have put to me loud and clear.
  I shall refer to some of the contributions to today's debate and then—I hereby give notice to the Minister—deal specifically with rural problems. It will come as no surprise to the House to learn that my colleagues and I were very mindful of the particular problems confronting rural areas when we chose this important subject for debate.
  Will the Minister answer the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend about the £45 million? Can it be better targeted? Where has it come from, and what services in the NHS will suffer as a result of its being redeployed? Will the Minister also deal specifically with the matter that arises in relation to one of the six constructive points made by my hon. and learned Friend about the transfer of responsibility and education? Those issues in particular are important ones, where there is a real prospect of progress.
  The Government claim to have listened, and that was the main thrust of the Minister's argument, but he offered no succour to practitioners in rural areas. He talked about the £45 million provision. I understand that capital investment is needed for certain new services and facilities when developing co-operative or depute doctor services.
  840
  The Minister went on to argue, however, that some of the £45 million could be deployed in the payment of locum services. If one spread the £45 million throughout the GP population, it would be equivalent to £1,500 a head. It costs £175 a head for one night's locum cover in my constituency, so that £1,500 would provide 10 nights' locum cover in a year. If the Minister has founded his argument on that possibility, he has forgotten that there have been many losers under the new flat rate scheme, which provides £2,000 plus a £20 payment.
  GPs in my area are currently paid £48.45 per night visit, but of course they have other out-of-hours responsibilities as well. People generally do not understand that there is a difference between night visits and the other burdensome responsibilities that GPs must face during the rest of the early evening and at weekends from, Saturday morning through to Monday.
  Throughout the debate, I have had the sense that the Government do not understand the strength of feeling among individual doctors and their organisations about the problems from which they are suffering. The BMA has suggested to me that the average GP's working week is 62 hours, despite talk in the debate about a week of 47.5 hours. The BMA has also calculated that 23 per cent. of GPs spend 80 hours or more a week on call and providing services to patients, while just 8 per cent. work less than 40 hours a week—many of whom are part-time doctors.
  Doctors face many problems, not just because of out-of-hours work but as a result of the 1990 contract. They have seen their independent contractor status eroded. They have had to bear the extra duties placed upon them because of screening and health care checks, as well the additional bureaucracy that the Government have loaded on their backs, which they greatly resent. Evidence suggests that those changes have led to much disillusion, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery adverted.
  On education, I noted that the Minister said that he did not think that there was much between us. That may be true. Leaving aside the rather trite remarks of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) about our previous attacks on the Government, I want to make it clear that we would support a nationally sponsored organised education campaign. It would not need to cost an absolute fortune, but it could provide a framework within which local practitioners could conduct their own campaigns.
  That campaign could get across to folk that it is in no one's interest to have a tired GP, who has had no sleep the night before, attending to people's needs and diagnosing their illnesses. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) made a good speech about that. I am sure that the House could agree on that. Were we to get some assistance at the right level from the Government towards such an education campaign, it would send an important signal to doctors and suggest to them that the Government were taking their concerns seriously.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
  It is important to underscore the pressure that doctors feel they are under. An article in The Independent last month reported that an independent survey carried out by

  841
  Alcohol Concern between 1979 and 1990 ranked doctors with sailors and publicans as the people most likely to develop alcohol-related liver disease. That is a measure of the desperation to which doctors are being driven.
  Secondly, there is evidence, which was adverted to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery, that early retirement is increasing. In 1987, early retirement accounted for 16.6 per cent. of the total retired doctor population; it now accounts for 22.8 per cent. Forty per cent. of women doctors and 10 per cent. of newly qualified male doctors leave the service within five years of qualifying. Those are all signs of the increasing bureaucracy, the increasing expectation of patients and the increasing work load. The Government ignore that at their peril.
  When I checked with a practice in Hawick, in my constituency, I was told that a vacancy in the Hawick practice had recently been advertised, and that, five years ago when a vacancy in the same practice was advertised, there were 75 applicants; this year, there were 11. That is a measure of the difficulty of encouraging people to work in rural areas against the background of the out-of-hours commitment.
  Ministers simply have not recognised that times have changed, and that it is now impossible to provide the proper level of service that GPs need to provide to meet the requirements of the moment.
  I am surprised that there was not a greater input by Labour Members. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) made a sensible speech—sensible because of the emphasis he placed on the need for education. It was interesting that he supported that idea, although I notice that his new document did not come up with any great solution.
  Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I honestly do not have time.
  Mr. Brown rose—
  Mr. Kirkwood: I do not have time. [Interruption.] I was trying to be nice to the hon. Gentleman.
  All the Conservative Members who spoke were from relatively built-up areas. We heard from the hon. Members for Winchester (Mr. Malone), for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). The latter is a bit of a rural area, but the vast majority of the speeches came from people who had no appreciation of the problems that confront practitioners in rural areas.
  We must acknowledge that the demands have increased by five times in the past 25 years, and doubled in the past three years, as has been said. In 1993–94, a GP was paid on average 2.8p per patient per week to provide that service. The service is an emergency service, and the Government have not succeeded in communicating that message to the general public. Increasingly, patients expect to be able to call on GPs to provide non-urgent care at any time of the evening, night or weekend. That forces local GPs to work night and day in a way that might impair their professional judgment. That position is not healthy, as I have said, or in anyone's interests.
  Rural practitioners are at a much greater disadvantage than their colleagues who live in communities with deputising services or co-operative practices. There are no options available to them, nor will there be after the
  842
  Government's package is introduced. They are determined, in rural areas, to try to provide a high-quality service over a wide and sparsely populated area, and I urge the Government to try to ensure that special consideration is given to those problems in rural areas in their current negotiations with the BMA.
  The Government must be more flexible. Much is at stake in those negotiations. Something must be sorted out in the next nine days. I hope that the new ministerial team at the Department of Health will take advantage of that new opportunity to have a completely fresh look at the position, so that we can have more flexible, clinically appropriate, modern ways of delivering care outside normal hours that, as the motion says, are
  "right for patients, fair on the taxpayer and manageable"
  for GPs.
  9.48 pm
  Mr. Malone: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I am sad to tell the House that I believe that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has about as much knowledge of the subject as he revealed he had about my constituency, when he described a large tract of rural Hampshire as a built-up area. My constituents will be astonished, as will those of several of my hon. Friends.
  I do not know where the hon. Gentleman was when I followed his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) at the beginning of the debate. I specifically went through each of the six points, and I do not intend to use the short time available to me to do so again.
  Yes, of course we are prepared to look flexibly on arrangements which we have said we shall be happy to put in place, especially for rural practices. It is obtuse of the hon. Gentleman to say that one simply divides the sum of money and spends it entirely on locums. I was making the point that we can make it available as a support system in rural areas—I would not expect to see it used exclusively.
  I shall now address a number of important points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) asked an important question about research. Research is important, and there has probably not been enough into the subject. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the National Primary Care Research Centre in Manchester—which is sponsored by the Government to the tune of £15 million over 10 years and which I had the great pleasure of opening a few weeks ago—will be studying the issue, and will be holding a conference in the autumn on the subject of 24-hour primary care.
  The subject will include considering innovative ways of providing out-of-hours care through GPs and others. It will inform us and help to formulate the future research programme.
  The hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and for Newcastle upon Tyne, East mentioned the problems of recruitment for general practitioners. I do not think that it is a sign of a shortage if, in Hawick, there are 11 applications for one practice place. The hon. Gentleman has a way of turning the arguments to suit his party. If there were 75 applications, he would say that there were

  843
  not enough places, and that there was an unemployment problem among doctors. As usual with the Liberals, they want it both ways.
  Although recruitment is often raised as a current difficulty, there is no firm evidence that it is a substantial problem. The average number of applications for advertised vacancies in GP partnerships ranges from three to 34 and, in most cases, the figure is, oddly enough, 11—the same figure as that in Hawick. Perhaps the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire can take some consolation from the fact that, on this occasion, Hawick appears, unusually, to have the same figure as the national average.
  It is also true that the number of GP principals has been increasing steadily under this Government. The number is currently increasing at the rate of 1 per cent. per annum. The last survey of GP training places showed that, overall, vocational training schemes were still being filled with good-quality candidates, notwithstanding a fall in the overall number of applicants.
  We keep a careful eye on that issue. It is important for the long-term benefit of primary care that excellent people continue to come forward for recruitment, are retained in general practice and take up posts in general practice when they are advertised. There is no suggestion that the Government are complacent about that.
  There are still sufficient numbers of people coming forward to apply for single-handed practices, which are often highlighted as a particular area of difficulty. The last figures I can give the House show that, for the year ending 30 September 1994, the figure was 19.
  A number of points were raised by my hon. Friends, who sustained the debate. It is astonishing that, in a debate in the Liberal party's time on what they clearly consider to be an important subject, that party chose to put up two speakers. [Interruption.] The Greek chorus that has now arrived certainly was not present for the debate. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is usually good at getting his points across from a sedentary position, even when he is not recognised by the Chair. I should have thought that he could have made a bit more effort to do so during the debate.
  Mr. James Wallace: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Malone: Now that the hon. Gentleman has arrived, I shall give way so that he can make an original point.
  Mr. Wallace: The Minister is descending to unusual depths. He usually knows better than to try to make cheap points. If he had ever attended debates initiated by the Liberal Democrats—it is probably stretching things too far to suppose that he has—he would have known that it was rare for more than two of us to have the chance to speak. That is something that is wrong with this place and the way it operates.
  Mr. Malone: I dare not criticise the Chair, as you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that at least the hon. Gentleman has agreed to turn up for the final moments of the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) made a speech peppered with personal anecdotes and tales of his constituents who had consulted
  844
  GPs. I advise the House that those tales would have made hon. Members' hair stand on end. There are clearly a number of problems in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  However, both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) pointed to the fact that they had had few letters about the issue in their constituency mailbags. Perhaps that is because there are thriving co-operatives in their constituencies, with excellent innovative arrangements in place. That may go some way towards explaining why my hon. Friends have heard little about the subject.
  A theme of the debate was general practitioners' concern about the burdens they bear. I hope there can be a meeting of minds on the issue when the medical profession meets my right hon. Friend. I received a letter today from the local Hampshire medical committee—I must inform the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire that it is a rural committee—which expresses dissatisfaction and makes the point:
  "GPs want changes in their out-of-hours arrangements to provide emergency night care more effectively and efficiently, while ensuring that all patients continue to get the best quality care".
  I quibble with none of those words. We are talking about a method of delivering that care and making sure that firm arrangements are in place to secure the interests of patients. We share common objectives, and I hope that I can agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire—
  Mr. Bayley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Malone: No, I will not give way. I hope to agree with the hon. Gentleman that those matters can be resolved.
  There have been a number of rather spectacular suggestions about how to deal with the problems that GPs face today. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the great plan of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) for dealing with problems of patient abuse in the national health service. I had read it earlier, and it is an interesting plan.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman plans to charge patients 50p each time they break an appointment. I would be interested to see the collection framework that would be put in place. I have no doubt that the threat of 50p each time would strike terror in people's hearts. I have no doubt that the collection system would not be bureaucratic. I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman considered allowing the right of appeal, and whether one would receive legal aid for appealing against a 50p fine. I thought that Liberal Democrat policies were invented on the Benches opposite and not in Montgomery's local libraries, which would probably have to collect those small amounts.
  There are many ways of effectively ensuring that there is no abuse of the health service. When it comes to cancelled appointments, the hon. and learned Gentleman should visit hospitals which have robust pre-admission arrangements in place, and where cancellations have been reduced to zero. I did not see many 50p pieces in those hospitals when I visited them.
  It has been a typical debate from the Liberal Democrats; they change their tune all the time, don't they? On this issue, it is important to remind the House what Liberal Members have said in the past. On fundholding, in 1992 they said:
  "There is no case for GP fundholding".

  845
  In 1994 it was a case of, "Hang on a minute, it might be popular." They agreed that GP fundholding
  "does seem to have brought benefits".
  On 3 July 1995, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery gave us the simple answer when he said:
  "We would encourage the development of joint commissioning groups. One has to be realistic, and it is not realistic to abolish all fundholding at a stroke. I do not believe that the Labour party would regard that as realistic either.
  The development of joint commissioning groups … would ensure that fundholding would wither on the vine. Indeed, fundholding has always been a kamikaze policy …The Liberal Democrat view on fundholding is absolutely clear."—[Official Report, 3 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 48.]
  That view has changed on a number of occasions.
  I do not think that what was said from the Liberal Democrat Benches today has enlightened us about how to solve the problem of out-of-hours practice. It is important that we do, and it is in the interests of the patients. While guaranteeing the quality of their care, we must also lessen the burdens on the medical profession. That is the purpose of our policy, and I believe that, with good will, it will succeed.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
  The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 229

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Lewis, Terry

  Barnes, Harry

  Loyden, Eddie

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Maddock, Diana

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Mahon, Alice

  Chidgey, David

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Clapham, Michael

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Rendel, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Simpson, Alan

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Dafis, Cynog

  Tyler, Paul

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Wallace, James

  Flynn, Paul

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Graham, Thomas

  Harvey, Nick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Don Foster.

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Alexander, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Amess, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Butcher, John

  Atkins, Robert

  Butler, Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cash, William

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bates, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coe, Sebastian

  Booth, Hartley

  Colvin, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Congdon, David

  Bowis, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  846

  Couchman, James

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

  Cran, James

  Knox, Sir David

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

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Day, Stephen

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Legg, Barry

  Dover, Den

  Leigh, Edward

  Duncan, Alan

  Lidington, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lightbown, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Luff, Peter

  Elletson, Harold

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Evennett, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Faber, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Malone, Gerald

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Mans, Keith

  Forman, Nigel

  Marland, Paul

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Forth, Eric

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Fowler, Fit Hon Sir Norman

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Merchant, Piers

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Mills, Iain

  French, Douglas

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gallie, Phil

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Garnier, Edward

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gill, Christopher

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Nelson, Anthony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gorst, Sir John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Norris, Steve

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Page, Richard

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Paice, James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hague, William

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Harris, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hayes, Jerry

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Heald, Oliver

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Richards, Rod

  Hendry, Charles

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hicks, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Sackville, Tom

  Horam, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sims, Roger

  Jack, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jessel, Toby

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Key, Robert

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Knapman, Roger

  Sproat, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  847

  Steen, Anthony

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stephen, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Stern, Michael

  Ward, John

  Stewart, Allan

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Streeter, Gary

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Whittingdale, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thomason, Roy

  Wilkinson, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Willetts, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wilshire, David

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Wood, Timothy

  Trend, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Trotter, Neville

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Derek Conway.

  Walden, George

  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.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that the Government has continued to meet the recommendations of the independent pay review body for general practitioners' pay, which is for a 24 hour commitment to their patients; welcomes the Government's constructive approach to addressing the profession's concerns, which includes an extra £45 million to support general practitioners' out of hours services, makes it possible for general practitioners to transfer responsibility for providing out of hours cover to another doctor and restructures payments so that the average general practitioner will receive an extra £800 per year for night visits; supports the approach of the Patient's Charter, which stresses to patients that with rights come responsibilities; and believes there is absolutely no case for general practitioners to take industrial action which would inevitably harm patient care.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c),
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCE) SCOTLAND
  That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Special Grant Report No. 1 (House of Commons Paper No. 517), which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

  INCOME TAX
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Belarus) Order 1995 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th May.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Bolivia) Order 1995 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th May.

  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  That the draft Employment Protection (Increase of Limits) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENT
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

  ECONOMIC GROWTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10911/94, relating to economic growth and the environment; and supports the Government's view that environmental considerations should continue to be taken into account in determining economic policy, as well as other policy areas, as part of its overall commitment to furthering sustainable development.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Question agreed to.

  PUBLIC HEALTH
  Ordered,
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 4) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1611), dated 26th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

  MERCHANT SHIPPING
  Ordered,
  That the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 (Commencement No. 12) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1426) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the names of:

  (1) Mr. Tony Blair relating to the Social Security (Income Support and Claims and Payments) and Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1995 not later than one and a half hours after the first such Motion has been made;

  (2) Mr. Douglas Hogg relating to the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) and (Decommissioning) Schemes 1995 not later than one and a half hours after the first such Motion has been made; and

  (3) Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Appropriation (No. 2) Northern Ireland Order 1995 not later than three hours after it has been made;

  and the above Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Wood.]

  MEMBERS' INTERESTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. James Clappison be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests and Mr. Quentin Davies be added to the committee.—[Mr. Wood.]

  BROADCASTING
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Greg Knight be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Timothy Wood be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day

  Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)
  10.13 pm
  The Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
  That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  As the short title of the Measure indicates, it contains a miscellaneous collection of provisions relating to the Church of England. Their effect is described in the comments and explanations of the General Synod's legislative committee, which are annexed to the report of our own Ecclesiastical Committee. Hon. Members will have ready access to that report, if they do not have it before them now.
  Two provisions in the Measure were the subject of special scrutiny in the Ecclesiastical Committee. Clause 2 permits Christ Church college, Oxford—which contains the cathedral of the Oxford diocese—through its constitution and statutes, to depart from earlier practice by acquiring the power to appoint up to two lay canons. The regius professorship of ecclesiastical history in the university of Oxford is annexed to a canonry in the cathedral, and the holder of that professorship must currently be a clerk in holy orders of the Church of England.
  After discussion, the university and cathedral were both of the opinion that the present rules unduly restricted the range of candidates eligible for appointment as regius professor, requested the inclusion of clause 2 in the Measure. The Crown appoints the regius professor, but, obviously, only after taking soundings at Oxford. It has been consulted about the clause, and is content with it. The amendment had to be embodied in a clause in the Measure, because the changes have a bearing on the function to be performed by the regius professor and the residentiary canon of the cathedral.
  Clause 6 amends the Church Commissioners Measure 1947, concerning the composition of the commission's assets committee. When the Measure was considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee, it became clear that the provision was regarded as premature by a majority of the Committee, in view of the recent report of the Select Committee on Social Security—under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is also Opposition spokesman on Church of England and Church Commission affairs—on Church Commission and Church of England pensions, and the impending report of the Archbishops' commission on the organisation of the Church of England, the so-called Turnbull commission.
  In view of the misgivings expressed in the Committee, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have said that they do not intend to exercise their power under clause 16 of the Measure to bring clause 6 into effect—clause 15 being an "appointed day" clause—pending consideration of the Social Security Select Committee's report, which has been studied closely, and the Turnbull report when it is available.
  850
  Against that background, the Ecclesiastical Committee has reported that the Measure is expedient, with—I am glad to say—the support, tacit or otherwise, of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). When the draft Measure was finally approved by the General Synod itself in November 1994, it was approved by 229 votes to one.
  10.18 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: This is a miscellaneous Measure, which contains issues of considerable importance. I hope that what we say tonight will prove to be relevant to the members of the Turnbull commission who, while they are at a late stage of their considerations, have not yet reported.
  Is it proper for Parliament to be presented with this miscellaneous Measure when clause 6 makes such fundamental reforms to the assets of the Church Commissioners that the archbishops have promised that, if it is passed, they will not implement its provisions? That is hardly a sensible state of affairs, and it arises for the simple reason that, under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Ecclesiastical Committee and this House can only accept or reject—it cannot amend—Measures that come over from Synod.
  Many members of Synod are hooked on the idea that, if the House begins to amend Measures, cries of Erastianism will be abroad. That is a total misreading of history, as there was an interlock between Church and state during the period in which the Church of England as we know it today was formed. There is surely a role for this place to say that, on reflection, part of the Measure might be withdrawn, but that we find the rest of it expedient. We are not allowed to do that at present. Either we reject the whole Measure, or we accept the whole Measure.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The hon. Gentleman is making an enormously important point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said yesterday that a quarter of the population went to church on Christmas day. That must be a larger minority than almost any other minority whose affairs the House feels free to discuss.
  Mr. Field: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am hesitant to make these points, because they are read differently by members of Synod who look at our debates. They somehow manage to conjure up all sorts of conspiracies that they think are going on here. They cannot accept the most obvious point—that a large number of Members of this House are interested in what happens to the Church of England, are concerned about its future and want to contribute to that future. They consider that all sorts of plots are abroad.
  Newman once made a marvellous point about the school of history which interpreted Lord Burleigh's nods. Instead of recording Lord Burleigh's nods, those involved would go into a rigmarole about why he nodded, why he nodded at that particular time and what was the significance of each nod. Newman dismissed that school of history by saying that it was irrelevant and that one had to judge people by other criteria. I hope that members of Synod judge the House of Commons' contribution by the spirit of our debates. Hon Members want to contribute to the well-being of the Church of England, either because

  851
  they are members of the Church or because they believe that the prosperity of the country will be helped by its survival.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Could the hon. Gentleman share with the House why he feels that Synod has put the Measure before us as it is? Why has it not put forward only that part of the Measure that clearly has overwhelming support, and not the part about which there are rightly considerable reservations and upon which the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have stated that they have no intention of acting now?
  Mr. Field: The answer to my hon. Friend, as I shall call him tonight, stems from the nature of the Measure and from the procedure that governs Synod. The deliberations of Synod were ambushed at a late stage. The wishes of the standing committee—the equivalent of a Government's Cabinet—and the archbishops were deliberately disregarded by a minority of Synod who wrote in this part of the Measure.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) was kind enough to say that, in a sense, Synod was holding back while others considered the impact of the Social Security Select Committee's report on the Church Commissioners' assets and pensions, but the big report for which the Church is waiting is that of the Turnbull commission, which is trying to consider carefully the structure of the Church and the changes that should be made, including changes to the structure of the Church Commissioners' organisation.
  Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that one does not try to pass piecemeal reforms affecting the Church Commissioners while waiting for a major commission to report on the structure of all Church organisations, including the Church Commissioners.
  Given the present procedure of Synod and the other clauses that should be implemented quickly, the only alternatives were either to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby explained tonight—he told us that, if we passed the whole Measure, clause 6 would not be implemented—or to lose the rest of the Measure, many aspects of which contain necessary reforms that people want to be implemented quickly.
  I hope, therefore, that we shall pass the Measure without a Division, but that the Turnbull commissioners will examine our procedures carefully. It is important that they make recommendations for changing the procedures of the 1919 Act because, for reasons that I explained earlier, our suggestions for reform would be misinterpreted.
  I hope that the Turnbull commissioners will come to the conclusion that business could be expedited more effectively if the House had the chance, on occasion, to reject aspects of a Measure without endangering the rest of it. We should not then find the archbishops in the slightly absurd position, which has been explained tonight, of having to say, "Please pass the Measure, but like boy scouts we give you our promise not to implement clause 6." That is not a satisfactory way in which to undertake legislation.
  I hope that the Turnbull commission is considering the sense behind grouping often major reforms under the guise of "miscellaneous Measures". Synod reads the
  852
  House wrongly if it thinks that we shall not provide sufficient time to consider Measures. They do not have to be grouped. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby, who always steers Church business through the House well, is never refused time to debate a Measure that he wants to put before the House, and the issues could be broken up into separate subject matter. I hope that the commission will consider that idea.
  I hope that the commission will also consider the advisability of giving the House the right of veto, not according to our own wishes, but when the standing committee and the archbishops have said, "That amendment was carried against our wishes. We should like you to strike that aspect down, but to maintain the integrity of the rest of the Measure." That would improve our procedure and the way in which we look after and safeguard Church interests in the House.
  As I have said, I hope that nobody will oppose the Measure simply because clause 6 is so unsatisfactory. There are other clauses that represent long overdue reforms—I believe that my right hon. Friend drew our attention to clause 2 in particular. I hope that we shall agree the Measure without a Division, but I also hope that the members of the Turnbull commission will prove themselves eminently more sensible than some members of Synod, who dislike our having a say over Church matters as we are doing tonight, and resent our having the power to approve or not to approve Measures.
  I hope that we will be seen by the commission as friends who can improve Measures and who do not want in any way to overturn the enabling Act of 1919 or to put ourselves in the driving seat. We should be seen as a group of friends anxious for the well-being of the Church of England, either because we are members of it or because it is impossible to understand English history without understanding the role that the Church of England has played in our affairs. We know that, although there is increasing secularisation, many people look to the Church as being on their side and as their Church. That being so, they expect Parliament to be involved.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. William Powell: Not for the first time, it gives me real pleasure to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on the way in which he introduced the Measure. I shall put him out of his misery: I do not propose to divide the House tonight.
  I wish, however, to take this opportunity to protest about the Measure and some of its provisions. I do so because I feel that it is completely unnecessary. It is symptomatic of the way in which the Synod feels it has a duty to legislate, whether or not legislation is necessary or, indeed, urgent.
  We were told during the Measure's consideration in the Ecclesiastical Committee that there is some urgency about it. The fact is, however, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) so clearly made plain, that one of the consequences of our passing the Measure would be to enact, after it has received Royal Assent, some thoroughly bad law that neither the majority of the Synod, during the early passage of the Measure, nor the archbishops of Canterbury and York regard as necessary or desirable.
  The House, alas, has become all too used to passing bad law. I can certainly recall one occasion during the past decade on which the Government felt it necessary to

  853
  make a similar announcement to that which the archbishops of Canterbury and York have made. The Government said that they would not bring into operation a particular section of a statute, which was then before the House and was going through its last stages, because they felt that it was easier not to do so than to ask the House to reject it altogether.
  I want to take this opportunity to protest also about clause 2(3). The hon. Member for Birkenhead says that it is necessary and overdue, but I could not disagree more. Its effect would be to provide in future that the regius professor of ecclesiastical history of Oxford need no longer be an ordained clergyman of the Church of England—as Mr. Thwackham would have said, by law established. With that position has gone a canonry in the cathedral church of Christ at Oxford—Christ Church. Christ Church is at the very heart and centre of the university of Oxford, and although I have no particular affection for that institution, I have to say that I regard the traditional ties of the ancient universities with the Crown and the Church as necessary and worth preserving.
  Those of us in the Commonwealth who listen each year to the annual service of nine lessons and carols from King's college in Cambridge will recall that the bidding prayer mentions the two royal and religious foundations of King Henry VI, here and at Eton. I regard those royal and religious foundations as of lasting importance, and in no way should the traditional ties between the Crown, the Church and our ancient universities be lessened.
  I also regard the position of professor of ecclesiastical history—particularly a Crown appointment, the regius professorship—as a very important chair in the university. It has been held down the years by some very distinguished men, including men who have gone on to be bishops in the Church of England—not least, of course, the great Bishop Stubbs, the famous ecclesiastical historian whose charters some of us were privileged to study when we were rather younger than we are today.
  Cambridge has a chair of ecclesiastical history—the Dixie chair. The holding of that chair is not confined to ordained clergymen of the Church of England. I regard it as very important that the Church of England has within its ranks a large number of scholars, not merely of divinity and the ancient languages, but of ecclesiastical history.
  To eliminate the requirement that the holder of the chair be an ordained member of the Church of England is retrograde and unnecessary. It was vaguely suggested to us that the number of candidates for any forthcoming appointments might not be sufficiently large—a contention that I reject as incorrect, but also, in principle, entirely wrong. Clergymen of the Church of England should be encouraged to be scholars of the history of our Church, which, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead suggested, has played a central part in the development of this nation over the centuries.
  This morning, I was reading from a volume that I hope hon. Members will consider taking with them on their summer holidays during the long recess—"Retrospect on an unimportant life", by Bishop Hensley Henson. It is a remarkable, thoroughly readable and scholarly document of memoirs, which contain some of the most caustic comments about those with whom Bishop Hensley Henson—one of the most outstanding ecclesiastics of the 20th century—served his academic and episcopal life.
  854
  Bishop Hensley Henson was chaplain to the Speaker. He was a canon of Westminster and vicar of St. Margaret's church. When he was vicar of that church in 1908, the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, wrote to him offering him the regius chair of ecclesiastical history. Bishop Hensley Henson, as he became, felt that he was not up to the task and made a counter-recommendation to the Prime Minister, which, alas, was rejected.
  I say that because, although I do not wish to bring blushes to his cheeks, the Speaker's Chaplain is one of the people who is qualified to occupy that chair. He is an ecclesiastical chaplain of considerable distinction and, although his tenure were he to be appointed might be more limited than some of the holders of the post, he would hold it with at least as great a distinction.
  My point is important. It is vital that the Church of England is aware of, and remains deeply committed to, its history and its heritage. If we say that the holder of the most important chair in ecclesiastical history in this country should no longer be an ordained member of the Church of England, he could be a member of the Roman Catholic Church or of the nonconformist Churches.
  Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend said that the Measure provides that the holder of the chair must not be a member of the Church of England. Surely it is proposed that the range of choice be widened, but that it would be perfectly in order for the successful candidate to be a member of the Church of England and, indeed, to be the Speaker's Chaplain.
  Mr. Powell: Not as Speaker's Chaplain, of course. If I said that that would no longer be in order, that would not be the correct way of formulating it. The Measure says that the regius professor need no longer be an ordained clergyman of the Church of England or an ordained member of that Church. I am protesting about the signal that that sends out.
  I want ecclesiastical historians as clergymen and scholars in the Church of England, and I want them to hold prominent roles within the Church of England itself. There always used to be at least one outstanding scholar of ecclesiastical history on the Bench of Bishops. The last one to hold that post was Bishop Moorman, the Bishop of Ripon. It is now some 20 years or so since his retirement and there has been no one of anything like his scholarly distinction since, or indeed, judging from the Church of England today, is that at all likely or in prospect. I regard that as undesirable, and I believe that there should be incentives for scholarly men who are ordained to hold major professorships at the university of Oxford.
  To people who say that, of course, there are those who are not members of the Church of England but who are qualified, I can but mention the Dixie professorship at Cambridge. That has been held with great distinction by Professor Rupp, who was a nonconformist. It can, of course, be held by others, but I do not see the need to break a link that goes back hundreds of years, which has been valuable and important to the history of our Church—and, therefore, to the history of our nation—and which has been held by some outstanding people. Too often, we dispose of the old links, and do so in a way that I regard as unfortunate. Often, such moves are rushed, and I take this opportunity to protest that the Measure was unnecessary.
  A professor of ecclesiastical history would be able to be promoted beyond that position in due course. As I have said, it is necessary that those on the Bench of Bishops in

  855
  the House of Lords are scholars of the history of our Church. Of course, their main function is to attend the House of Lords, support the Government of the day and preach improving sermons, especially before Parliament on occasions of national importance such as the delivery from the gunpowder plot.
  It is necessary that those on the Bench of Bishops recall the history of our Church and do so by remembering that the Church of England is in danger, as it always has been. It is necessary that they are also able to preach about the great sermon delivered before the Lord Mayor by Dr. Sacheverall, which reminded the nation that the Church was always in danger and remains so. Too often, such matters are overlooked and forgotten, and I regard that as highly undesirable.
  We are passing into law a Measure that is another retreat from the traditional position of the Church of England. That is a wholly undesirable development. Although I shall allow the Measure to be passed without a Division, I take this opportunity to protest.
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Alison: With the permission of the House, I shall speak a second time. In doing so, I am conscious of the fact that the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) is having to be on duty this evening and is not necessarily very much in sympathy with Church of England affairs keeping the House up too late. I shall therefore do my best to be brief. I concede, however, that the hon. Gentleman was helpful in his earlier interchanges with me about Church Commission housing in Easington. If there is anything that we can continue to do to help him, I shall be glad to do it.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who spoke for the Opposition, kindly told me that he would have to leave early. I shall in his absence make a quick response to the points that he made, and he will no doubt take note of them through the Official Report. I take seriously his criticisms of the offending clause 6, to which he specifically referred. Indeed, I was party to the device by which its effective non-implementation was secured—the archbishops undertook not to implement it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) offered trenchant criticisms of the procedures of Christ Church, Oxford. The fact is that such a Measure is not likely to come before the House again precisely for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Birkenhead—the gestation and birth of some fundamental proposals for reform along the lines that would appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). The so-called Turnbull committee will examine the relationship between the General Synod and Parliament and questions such as whether we should have more of an opportunity to make amendments. Such proposals are being made, and I hope that some of the misgivings expressed this evening will themselves be the subject of reform.
  856
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Corby will be interested to know that I am advised that Lord Bridge of Harwich, an early chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, is chairing the synodical government review, which is looking at the Measure procedure. At least he knows from his experience of chairing the Ecclesiastical Committee how frustrated we have been in the past. At least he knows the kind of anxieties that Parliament has about the Measures.
  I do not think that the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby about the changes proposed for Christ Church would command universal support or assent in the House. I suspect, for example, that there are colleagues who feel that England may have invented cricket, football and rugger, which we did—
  Mr. William Powell: Or regius professorships.
  Mr. Alison: And clerically ordained regius professorships—but that the fact that Wimbledon was won by an American combating a German, that the All Blacks have proved to be extraordinary rugger players and that England does not always win the World cup has enriched those games.
  Let us therefore enjoy the extra richness that will come to the university of Oxford by the throwing open of the regius professorship, as happens at Cambridge, to members of other Churches with other status. It is, after all, a competitive environment in the university world nowadays and it is precisely because Cambridge is able to appoint a Professor Rupp that Oxford is feeling a cold draught and feels that it should be enabled to develop its scope and range of appointments more widely. I hope that there will at least be some sympathy with the "Oxford" approach, if not with the "Corby" approach.
  With relief that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Corby nor the hon. Member for Birkenhead—nor, I hope, the hon. Member for Easington—will seek to divide the House, I hope that the Measure will be passed.
  10.46 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: Because my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) spoke on historical matters, I would make a minor plea to him. He might have a look at the text of his speech. The report of his rendering to the Ecclesiastical Committee reveals that, whenever he mentioned a proper name, there is a question mark after it, as though the writer was not absolutely certain of whom he was speaking. Bishop Moorman is a notable exception to that observation. In at least one case I believe that the writer has spelt the name wrong, although I do not blame him or her for that.
  In the interests of historical accuracy, given that these matters will be read by PhD students in 200 years time, it would be helpful if my hon. Friend would supervise the record taken in Hansard tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

  Haemophiliacs (Hepatitis C)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.)
  10.47 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: There is always a risk with an Adjournment debate held at this hour that the attendance does not reflect the support for a particular point of view. I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) would have been here if they could have been. Early-day motion 1219, which relates to this issue, has attracted 230 signatures.
  I pay tribute to the Haemophilia Society—whose chairman, Rev. Alan Tanner, is a constituent of mine—which does so much for sufferers from haemophilia. I also pay tribute to the dedicated staff of the haemophilia centres around the country, who seek to treat those suffering from that disease, and particularly the staff of the centre at the Royal Free, which treats a number of sufferers from my constituency.
  I have a sense of deja vu because, on 15 October 1990, I instigated another Adjournment debate on the plight of haemophiliacs who had been infected with HIV. The Minister who answered on that occasion was none other than my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Health, then Under-Secretary of State. He said:
  "The judge's argument is based on the proposition that the Government have a moral obligation to the victims in this case. The Government accept that moral obligation"—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 1033.]
  Within a few weeks of that speech, the Prime Minister, in answer to a question of mine at Prime Minister's Question Time, announced that the Government were to give an ex gratia payment to haemophiliacs infected with HIV. The Secretary of State for Health who persuaded the Government to do that was none other than our right hon. Friend the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I therefore suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that his career has a chance of going right into the stratosphere if he can reveal a generous scheme today. He certainly deserves that boost as he was a first-class pairing Whip—the definition of a first-class pairing Whip being one who gives people a night off occasionally.
  It is right to remind the House of the sequence of events in the 1970s and early 1980s. In 1974, the Medical Research Council, worried about the spread of hepatitis through infected blood, recommended that the United Kingdom should become self-sufficient in blood products. In other countries, individuals sell their blood, and among those who do so are drug addicts and others who are the origin of risk.
  In 1975 Lord Owen, then Minister of Health, said that Britain would become self-sufficient in blood in two to three years. It is a chilling indictment of the locust years of the late 1970s that, if that promise had been kept, this debate would not need to be held and some of those who have died would be alive today.
  There was a history of warnings in the early 1980s, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) would confirm from his wife's specialist
  858
  knowledge of that issue. The first death of a haemophiliac as a result of infected blood products took place in January 1982 in Florida. In July 1982, the director of disease control in Atlanta published the first warning. There was a further warning in 1983 in The Lancet, but it was not until April 1985 that the NHS heat-treated factor VIII became available—10 years after the pledge by Lord Owen.
  In January 1995, my hon. Friend the Minister announced a look-back exercise to try to find out how many people had been infected with hepatitis C. It is not yet known exactly how many people were infected with hepatitis C as a result of receiving infected blood products and infected blood, but it is obvious that about 3,000 haemophiliacs have been infected with hepatitis C and some of them have also been infected with HIV.
  Although the position of those infected with hepatitis C is not the same as that of those infected with HIV, the parallels are close. It is wrong to ignore the financial plight of the latest batch of victims. The cause of infection is the same in both cases—infected blood products administered through the NHS. The consequences for many will be the same. For many, although obviously not for all, hepatitis will be just as sure a sentence of death as HIV.
  The economic difficulties will be similar. Life insurance will be expensive, if not prohibitive, and mortgages will be difficult. The emotional problems will be the same. The incidence of hepatitis C varies with individuals and the timing of complications varies over a substantial period. We know, however, that, of the 3,000 haemophiliacs who have been infected with hepatitis C, about 600 will develop cirrhosis of the liver. When that happens, their chances of survival will be slim.
  Whenever we debate such an issue, the Treasury talks about cost. If the onset of cirrhosis of the liver were to be the trigger for payments similar to those given to individuals infected with HIV, payments would be spread over a number of years and we would not face a huge bunching of payments in, for example, the current financial year.
  The circumstances of those infected with hepatitis C vary greatly. Many will live for many years. Some—perhaps 25 per cent.—may be cured completely through interferon alpha. Others, however, will die, and already more than 50 have done so.
  The current position is illogical. There was a family of three brothers: two died through having HIV and were, of course, compensated; the third, who died because he had been infected with hepatitis C, received no payment. How can one say to the mother of those three sons, "Your three sons have all died prematurely due to treatment received through the NHS. The two who died in one particularly unpleasant way were compensated, but the third, who also died in an unpleasant way for a similar reason, received no compensation whatever." The mother believes that the third son should receive not a penny more, but not a penny less, either.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I entirely sympathise with the case that he is putting to the Minister. Am I not right in saying that the House has a moral duty to represent these people who, through no fault of their own, have been infected with hepatitis C? Am I not also right in saying that, overwhelmingly, the people of this country—as they

  859
  did in the case of those infected with HIV—would be only too happy for the House, which represents the people and which has a moral duty, to provide compensation for those people who through no fault of their own have contracted what is, in some cases, a killer disease?
  Mr. Marshall: Having served under my hon. Friend on the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill, it is a pleasure to agree with him again, as I did so frequently during the passage of that Bill.
  We are in a position that most people would regard as illogical and immoral. It has been claimed that haemophiliacs who become infected with hepatitis C would have died if they had not had the benefit of factor VIII. That is not so: factor VIII was designed to enhance the quality of life—it was not a life-saving treatment.
  The Macfarlane trust has administered the scheme for haemophiliacs infected with HIV with care, dedication and skill. When the Government decide to give payments to those infected with hepatitis C, they should use the well established machinery of the Macfarlane trust rather than create a new body to do so.
  Of course, we shall be told by my hon. Friend the Minister—if we are not told by him, he will certainly be told by the Treasury—that there is a risk of setting a precedent. That is what we were told in 1990. We were told that we would open the floodgates if we allowed haemophiliacs who suffered from HIV to be compensated. What happened was that, after much effort, another group were compensated—from memory I believe that there were fewer than 100 people—who were non-haemophiliacs and who had also been infected with HIV. Clotting factor concentrates have been heat-treated since 1986 and blood has been screened for HIV since 1991. I therefore do not believe that, if we concede this fair and right case, there will be a flood of cases thereafter.
  It is always the weakest of weak arguments to say that something cannot be done because it creates a precedent. If patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel, the argument about precedent is surely the last resort of mean-minded scoundrels in the Treasury. We have to ask ourselves whether there is a problem and whether that problem is the responsibility of the individuals concerned. The Government must not act like the Pharisee of old; they must help those people who are in an unfortunate position through no fault of their own.
  In April 1995, the chief medical officer sent a circular to doctors about the treatment of hepatitis C, in which he stated:
  "Interferon alpha is the only licensed therapy for chronic hepatitis C".
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that the drug is successful in only a minority of cases. After three months of treatment, 50 per cent. of patients will have responded to the treatment and, of that 50 per cent., only 50 per cent. will be cured after 15 months of treatment. Interferon alpha can successfully treat 25 per cent.—one in four—of the individuals infected with hepatitis C.
  It is also true that the earlier the treatment is applied, the more likely it is to be successful. I was upset to learn from the Haemophilia Society this morning that some haemophilia centres do not have sufficient supplies of
  860
  interferon alpha to treat all those who need treatment. That seems quite wrong. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure us that there will be no shortage of interferon alpha at haemophilia centres and that the Government will provide central funding if that proves necessary. While interferon alpha is expensive initially, it will allow one in four of those infected with hepatitis C to lead a full, healthy and active life. It is a much less expensive treatment than a liver transplant or vaccinating infants against hepatitis C.
  In the late 1980s, some viewed the issue as a legal matter; others said that it was a clinical matter and that the individuals concerned had received the best possible clinical treatment. I do not believe that it is a legal or a clinical issue: I believe that it is essentially a moral issue. I think that the majority of British people believe that those who receive unfortunate treatment and who become critically ill and, in some cases, economically inactive through no fault of their own should be compensated.
  11.2 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) that the relatively small number of hon. Members present in the Chamber does not indicate any lack of concern about the subject—a concern that I share.
  My ministerial colleagues and I have great sympathy for those patients who may have become infected with hepatitis C through blood transfusions or blood products, as we do for anyone who is inadvertently harmed through medical treatment. Despite the recent well-publicised problems with allegedly defective equipment in the blood transfusion service, this country's record of blood safety is among the best in the world.
  The debate reminds us that, alongside the great benefits to patients, medical procedures rarely come without some risk. It is important to remember that it is not always possible fully to appreciate the risk at the time or to avoid suspected or known risks. In the case of each individual patient, a balance must be struck between the benefit to be gained versus any possible risk.
  Let us look at the facts of hepatitis C. Most haemophilia patients infected with hepatitis C were so infected before blood products were treated to destroy viruses in 1985. That was well before the first hepatitis C tests were available in 1989. Those patients received the best treatment available in the light of medical knowledge at the time. When those patients were infected, little was known about hepatitis C, or non-A, non-B hepatitis as it was then known, and even today a lot more information is needed.
  The House will be well aware that, notwithstanding the subject of the debate, the availability of factor VIII concentrate has brought great benefits to patients with haemophilia. Previously, only about 5 per cent. of patients with severe haemophilia reached the age of 40, whereas by 1980 the life expectancy was very close to that of normal males. There was less need for long periods of hospitalisation and boys had a better chance of achieving a reasonable education. Additionally, the convenience of patients being able to keep concentrate in a domestic fridge and treat themselves at the first sign of a bleed meant a considerable reduction in long-term disability.

  861
  Before there was any test for non-A, non-B hepatitis, the only way to safeguard blood was to limit those from whom blood was taken by a system of self-deferral. It excluded, among others, those known to be suffering from hepatitis or any other liver disease; drug misusers; and men who were sexually active with other men.
  No one should underestimate the effects of hepatitis C. The point that I am making, and this is at the heart of the debate, is that, contrary to views that have already been expressed in another place, patients who tragically contracted HIV through NHS treatment were in a different category. Their exceptional circumstances caused us to make special provision for them.
  Many people infected with hepatitis C, as has already been said by my hon. Friend, may live for a long period without any symptoms appearing. However, 50 per cent. of sufferers may progress to chronic hepatitis with varying degrees of good or ill health. Perhaps 20 per cent. of infected patients will develop cirrhosis, a progressive destruction of the liver that may take 20 to 30 years. The majority of those years will be trouble-free in terms of ill health and, as I have mentioned, only a small proportion will die of liver disease, but every death is a tragedy for the family concerned.
  In the case of those who contracted HIV through NHS treatment, special payments were made and trusts established to help sufferers or their families in cases of hardship. Those arrangements were put in place in recognition of the very special circumstances of those who contracted HIV. Those affected were all expected to die very shortly, although it has since become clear that, fortunately, that is not always the case. It meant that there might also be significant numbers of young children who had lost one parent or perhaps both if the disease had been transmitted also to their partner.
  Sufferers were also subjected to stigmatism and a whole range of other social problems. There were cases of doors daubed with graffiti, lost jobs and children not allowed to mix with other children at school—in short, people were denied any normal family life.
  I would in no way wish to minimise the physical suffering of those who have been infected with hepatitis C through blood or blood products—the suffering which may result or the worry which they or their family may experience—but each case has to be examined on its merits. I have to recognise that those who have contracted hepatitis C are not also subject to all the additional problems experienced by HIV sufferers, who were accepted as being a very special case.
  Many people infected with hepatitis C may live for a long period without any symptoms appearing or may never experience any. In any case, some people would argue that although individuals were infected in different ways, they are entitled to payments—even though no fault on the part of the NHS was proved. The Government have never accepted the case for a no-fault scheme of compensation for medical accidents. There are sound reasons. Proof of causation would still be needed. It may be just as difficult to establish that medical treatment has caused injury as to prove that someone has been negligent. It also has to be demonstrated that the outcome was not a foreseeable and reasonable result of treatment.
  It would be unfair to others if individuals whose plight was the result of a medical accident would be compensated, whereas those whose condition stemmed, for instance, from disease from birth would not. Health
  862
  negligence is not considered fundamentally different from negligence in other walks of life, where claims for compensation are resolved through the courts.
  The experience of other countries that have tried to follow the compensation path has strengthened the Government's view. The costs of the New Zealand scheme have proved extremely high—some 1 per cent. of gross domestic product, which is equivalent to £6 billion in the United Kingdom. In addition to practical difficulties, that scheme effectively denies access to the courts.
  I understand that payments under Sweden's no-fault compensation scheme are much lower, but the authorities have found it necessary to make additional payments to individuals infected with HIV. I am not aware of any country in Europe that has made payments to patients with haemophilia infected with hepatitis C through blood products.
  Every individual case in which a medical accident has occurred is a personal tragedy for the individual and his or her family. If the NHS is proved negligent in a court, of course the service accepts its liability to pay damages. It remains the Government's view that the most effective use of available resources is to seek to improve the understanding, management and treatment of the condition. Only in that way can the disease's impact on individual patients and their families be effectively minimised.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend said that one way of trying to meet the problem is to improve treatment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) told the House that some patients are not receiving supplies of interferon alpha. We know that medication is not cheap but it offers relief—and in some cases a cure. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the cost of supplying interferon alpha will be born by the Government, so that affected patients can be properly treated?
  Mr. Sackville: I was about to assure the House that I will investigate the issue of medication supplies raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South to see what can be done to ensure that the treatment promised is provided.
  The Department is already supporting an initiative by the Haemophilia Society to undertake a study of the best way to support those of its members who are infected with hepatitis C. The Department has made available substantial funding in 1995 and 1996, with a commitment to further funding over a number of years. We are also discussing with haemophilia centres what must be done to ensure good practice in the treatment of people with haemophilia who also have hepatitis C.
  If I may, I shall summarise what I have said. On behalf of the Government, I would like to express the greatest sympathy for those who have contracted hepatitis C through NHS treatment. We are taking a number of measures designed to enable them to receive the best possible advice and treatment. But it remains the Government's view that, in the absence of proven negligence on the part of the NHS, there is no case for using moneys which would otherwise be used for the care and treatment of other NHS patients to make special payments to those affected.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Repossessions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) proceedings were commenced to repossess homes and (b) homes were repossessed in (i) Darlington and (ii) each county in northern England in each year since 1990. [33783]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked him to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 11 July 1995:

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about repossession proceedings.

  The following charts show the total number of mortgage possession actions commenced in Darlington County Court, and the county courts in the counties of Cleveland, Cumbria, Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, since 1990. As not all orders result in repossession, I am unable to tell you how many properties were repossessed in this period. I have therefore included in the tables the number of possession orders made. I should add that the figures for 1994 are provisional and are consequently liable to revision to take account of any late amendments.

  Darlington County Court

  Year

  Actions commenced

  Orders made

  1990

  411

  214

  1991

  565

  471

  1992

  431

  390

  1993

  313

  302

  1994

  396

  286

  County Courts in Cleveland

  Year

  Actions commenced

  Orders made

  1990

  1,149

  824

  1991

  1,578

  1,347

  1992

  1,377

  1,254

  1993

  1,086

  1,094

  1994

  796

  832

  County Courts in Cumbria

  Year

  Actions commenced

  Orders made

  1990

  700

  535

  1991

  965

  745

  1992

  848

  969

  1993

  670

  676

  1994

  506

  589

  476

  County Courts in Durham

  Year

  Actions commenced

  Orders made

  1990

  1,165

  727

  1991

  1,661

  1,504

  1992

  1,187

  1,173

  1993

  920

  791

  1994

  918

  659

  County Courts in Northumberland

  Year

  Actions commenced

  Orders made

  1990

  219

  157

  1991

  413

  261

  1992

  250

  210

  1993

  208

  210

  1994

  128

  159

  County Courts in Tyne and Wear

  Year

  Actions commenced

  Orders made

  1990

  1,710

  1,303

  1991

  2,300

  1,703

  1992

  2,378

  2,672

  1993

  1,755

  2,266

  1994

  1,394

  1,903

  In some years the number of orders made was greater than the number of action commenced. This is because:

  (a) some orders were made on cases which commenced in the previous year

  (b) a number of cases were adjourned in the previous year but restored in the current year.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Fees Office (Computer Breakdown)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what was the cause of the House of Commons Fees Office computer breakdown; how many(a) staff, and (b) right hon. and hon. Members did not receive their June salaries on the correct date; when the fault was rectified and payments made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  I understand that the failure to make June salary payments on time was caused by operator procedural error in the Fees Office in producing the relevant disc for clearance by bankers automated clearing service, and not by a computer breakdown. The error affected 644 hon. Members, but did not affect any staff.

  Non-payment was identified on Monday 3 July and remedial action was taken immediately to credit hon. Members' accounts on 5 July. Investigations are currently being held within the Fees Office and I am assured that all possible steps are being taken to prevent a repetition of the error, which the Fees Office greatly regrets.
  477

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Road Accidents (Police Vehicles)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policies his Department has to reduce the number of road accidents involving police patrol vehicles. [32923]

  Mr. Maclean
  Action by police forces to reduce the number of police vehicle accidents is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police, but the incidence of such accidents is closely monitored by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, HMIC. We are working with HMIC and the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers to find ways in which to achieve a reduction.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations his Department makes into the prior driving convictions of police officers involved in road traffic accidents while driving police vehicles. [32924]

  Mr. Maclean
  None. Consideration of police officers' driving records, and investigations relating to driving offences and convictions which occurred after entry to the police service, are the responsibility of individual chief officers of police.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he gives to chief constables and deputy chief constables in permitting police officers to return to driving police vehicles after they have caused a fatal accident due to careless driving while carrying out police duties. [32926]

  Mr. Maclean
  All decisions on the allocations of police driving duties, including action taken following an accident, are a matter for individual chief officers.

  Book Signings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the police operation at the book signings held at(a) Hatchards, Piccadilly on 12 June, (b) Harrods on 13 June, (c) W. H. Smith, Holborn on 14 June and (d) Selfridges, Oxford street, on 14 June; and if any contribution towards costs is to be made by the book publishers. [33283]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is a long-standing practice not to reveal the costs of security operations.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the change in asylum seekers to the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, in 1994; what has been the change in such applications in(a) Denmark, (b) Finland, (c) Germany, (d) Norway and (e) Sweden; and if he will make a statement. [33152]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: The available information on asylum applications in western European countries for 1993 and 1994 is given in the table. The number of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, rose from 22,400 in 1993 to 32,800 in 1994, an increase of 45 per cent.
  478
  The figures in the table show that asylum applications to this country have been rising when most of our European Union partners have been experiencing reductions. The United Kingdom has a duty under the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees to consider asylum applications made on our territory, but it has no obligation to encourage would-be asylum seekers from around the world to come here. I can confirm that the Government are considering taking measures, in addition to the major increase in resources for the asylum determination system and wider use of powers to curtail leave announced in my right hon. and learned Friend's written answer on 15 February, Official Report, column 693, to enable us to deal more effectively with the growing number of undeserving and abusive asylum applications and reduce the factors which may attract such applicants to this country.

  Applications received for asylum in selected European countries, including dependants1, 1993 and 1994

  1993

  1994

  Difference

  Percentage Increase

  Belgium

  26,900

  14,300

  -12,600

  -45

  Denmark

  14,400

  6,600

  -7,800

  -55

  Finland

  2,000

  800

  -1,200

  -60

  France

  27,600

  26,000

  -1,600

  -5

  Germany

  322,600

  127,200

  -195,400

  -60

  Italy

  1,300

  1,800

  +500

  +40

  Netherlands

  35,400

  52,600

  +17,200

  +50

  Norway

  12,900

  3,400

  -9,500

  -75

  Spain

  12,600

  10,200

  -2,400

  -20

  Sweden

  37,600

  18,600

  -19,000

  -50

  Switzerland

  24,700

  16,100

  -8,600

  -35

  United Kingdom

  28,000

  42,200

  +14,200

  +50

  1 Except for Spain which excludes dependants, and France which excludes minor dependants.

  Shotgun Certificates
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children aged under 16 years have held shotgun certificates in each of the past five years. [33245]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Firearms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded crimes involved the use of(a) replica firearms and (b) reactivated firearms in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [33248]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: The available information relates to recorded notifiable offences in which imitation firearms, including replicas, were used.
  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales where an imitation firearm was reported to have been used:

  1989: 365

  1990: 420

  1991: 481

  1992: 419

  1993: 411

  479
  The information recorded by the police about offences in which firearms were used does not identify reactivated weapons. Some information is available, however, on the weapons used in shooting incidents and I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 6 July 1995, Official Report, column 349.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 29, when the advertisements aimed at recruiting 30,000 special constables were first placed;' when the first responses were received; and how many have thus far been recruited. [33242]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: A pilot exercise was undertaken in the Granada region in April 1994, and the campaign was launched nationally in October. Advertisements first appeared on television and in the local press on 27 October 1994 and there was an immediate response. In the first two days —27 and 28 October —1,839 inquiries were received and more than 38,500 inquiries have been made to date. Feedback from police forces on the number of special constables recruited as a result of the advertising is incomplete and we are currently considering what steps need to be taken to improve our information. I shall write again as soon as I have the numbers.

  Drugs Prevention Initiative
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish a report on the progress of his Department's drugs prevention initiative. [34125]

  Mr. Maclean
  We are today publishing the drugs prevention initiative's fifth annual progress report, which records encouraging progress in developing a range of drugs prevention work in various local communities in the nine months from 1 July 1994 to 31 March 1995. As part of "Tackling Drugs Together", the Government's new drugs strategy, the drugs prevention initiative is now expanding its operations in England for a further four years. I have placed a copy of the report in the Library.

  Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 92, what percentage of the total prison population was judged to be mentally ill in each of the past 10 years; and of these what percentage (a) had been diagnosed as mentally ill before arrest, (b) had been homeless before arrest, (c) was imprisoned for serious offences, (d) was subject to the care programme approach and (e) was sent to private hospitals. [31222]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 27 June 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 11 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about mentally ill prisoners.
  Information is not available centrally on the nature of the offences committed by prisoners who are in receipt of care and treatment for mental health problems. Neither is information available about
  480
  whether such prisoners were subject to the Care Programme Approach or on their histories before arrest.
  The information which is available is as follows. From December 1991, Prison Service establishments have carried out regular medical monitoring exercises. To monitor the assessed needs of mentally disordered prisoners, of whom the mentally ill form one category, information is centrally collected on a periodic basis. On a given day prisoners who are considered by prison doctors to need some form of mental health care are categorised as follows:

  (a) prisoners requiring removal or transfer to a psychiatric hospital under Mental Health Act provisions and who are awaiting such transfer. This figure includes remand prisoners awaiting disposal by the court;

  (b) prisoners who are sufficiently ill to be occupying in-patient beds in prison health care centre.

  (c) prisoners requiring some form of mental health care but not removal/transfer to psychiatric hospital or in-patient treatment in a prison health care centre.

  These single day surveys can be used to calculate a figure for the average number of prisoners requiring transfer to a psychiatric hospital or some other form of mental health care on any one day in the years 1992, 1993 and 1994. This gives the following results, expressed as a percentage of the average prison population, including those in police cells:

  1992 –5.4 per cent.

  1993 –6.0 per cent.

  1994 –5.6 per cent.

  Prisoners transferred to hospital under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 cannot be taken directly from prison to a private psychiatric hospital. Arrangements can, however, be made for prisoners to be transferred on to such hospitals immediately after they have first been taken to a National Health Service hospital. information on transfers to hospital in 1994 is still provisional and subject to revision. The current provisional total number of transfers from prison to psychiatric hospital under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is now 792, which is greater than the provisional figure included in the table enclosed with my letter to your of 18 April. The provisional figure for transfers to private hospitals for 1994 is 57, which represents 7.2 per cent. of the total. This particular information was not collected centrally before 1994.

  Scarman Inquiry
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of the local inquiry, established in 1981 pursuant to section 32 of the Police Act 1964, to investigate the Brixton disorders; how long the inquiry took from being established to reporting; and what criteria persuaded the then Home Secretary to appoint such an inquiry. [33294]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 10 July 1995:] Home Office records show that disbursements of about £207,000, at 1981 prices, were made in association with the Scarman inquiry. They include administrative and legal costs, but do not include the staff costs of the secretariat of the inquiry or the costs of the Metropolitan police. The inquiry commenced in April 1981 and reported in November 1981. The factors that persuaded the then Home Secretary to establish the inquiry would have included the extent, seriousness and duration of the disturbances.

  Mr. D. B. Guisso
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the hon. Member's letters dated 22 March, 24 April and 31 May concerning her constituent, Mr. D. B. Guisso. [33596]
  481
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: I replied on 5 July.

  Farm Thefts
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the number of burglaries on farms and farm outbuildings in England and Wales for each of the past 10 years; [33138]

  (2) what was the number of cases of thefts of produce from fields in England and Wales for each of the past 10 years; [33137]

  (3) what was the number of cases of livestock theft in England and Wales for each of the past 10 years. [33136]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to reduce burglaries from farms and farm outbuildings; and what reports his Department has produced. [33139]

  Mr. Maclean
  Decisions about policing priorities are matters for chief officers of police. They attach a high priority to measures aimed at tackling burglary and many initiatives are successfully reducing the number of burglaries. There are, for instance, over 500 farm watch schemes across the country.

  The Home Office has no plans to produce a report on farm burglaries but will continue to support the police through its crime prevention training, publicity and research programmes.

  Criminal Records (Care Workers)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make it easier for prospective employers to check the criminal records of those seeking employment caring for vulnerable groups. [33222]

  Mr. Maclean
  We will be setting out our proposals in a White Paper on new arrangements for access to criminal records, which is to be published later this year.

  Non-European Community Students
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the charges made by the police for the registration of non-EC students and visitors for the(a) London, (b) Birmingham, (c) Manchester, (d) Cambridge and (e) Northumbria areas; and what service is provided in exchange for the charge. [33165]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The fee, which is set nationally, is £30. It covers the cost of administering the scheme.

  Prostitution
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of children, under the age of 16 years, charged with prostitution in each of the past five years. [33104]

  Mr. Maclean
  As detailed information on the number of persons charged is not collected centrally, cautioning and court data are given in the table:482

  Total number of females aged 10 to under 16 years cautioned and prosecuted for prostitution offences under Section 1 of the Street Offences Act 19591 1989–1993

  Age

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  England and Wales

  10

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  2

  4

  2

  —

  13

  3

  3

  5

  1

  5

  14

  9

  14

  10

  7

  33

  15

  38

  22

  40

  51

  40

  10–15

  50

  41

  59

  62

  78

  All ages

  15,498

  14,646

  14,005

  13,102

  11,520

  1 Common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution.

HEALTH

  Rights of the Child Convention
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has taken to promote the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. [33105]

  Mr. Bowis
  Copies of the convention were sent to local authorities, health authorities and major voluntary child care organisations in England and Wales.

  AIDS
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what considerations led his Department to decide not to provide any funding for the Europe against AIDS summer campaign 1995; and if he will make available funding for the 1996 and 1997 summer campaigns. [33099]

  Mr. Sackville
  Ministers were originally approached to support the Europe against AIDS summer campaign in 1994. At that time, some Governments, including ours, decided that they did not wish their health promotion agencies to be involved in the work. The reasons included a view that the campaign image itself was inappropriate and that a range of domestically funded campaigns such as the travelsafe initiative and the Health Education Authority's summer travel campaigns were already in existence. The reasons underlying the decision remain the same.

  Primary Care Centres
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will fund the establishment of primary health care centres at strategic locations to deal with out-of-work calls by patients for medical advice and assistance; and if he will make a statement. [32999]

  Mr. Malone
  We recently offered a package of proposals designed to encourage family doctors to organise together to provide their out-of-hours care. As part of this package, we offered to make available an extra £45 million to support general practitioners' out-of-hours services, including primary care centres. Discussions with the profession are continuing.

  General Practitioner Fundholding
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take action to ensure that general practitioner fundholders(a) hold regular meetings in public, (b) consult

  483
  the public on their purchasing intentions, (c) submit their contracts to quality monitoring at least as rigorous as for health authorities and (d) establish relationships with community health councils comparable to those already existing with other purchasers and providers; and if he will make a statement. [33000]

  Mr. Malone
  The Accountability Framework for GP fundholding requires general practitioner fundholders to make their plans and performance reports available for public scrutiny by sending them to community health councils, making them available to patients at the practice and involving patients in service planning. GP fundholders are also required, as part of the process for monitoring and reviewing performance, to submit to the health authority an annual report of their performance including quality improvements achieved.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will withdraw his Department's decision to amend the funding formula for health authorities and implement a system of capitation-based funding for GP fundholding practices at the earliest opportunity; if he will base budget allocation on an equitable allocation of resources between the patients of fundholding and non-fundholding practices; and if he will make a statement. [33002]

  Mr. Malone
  The fair allocation of resources is a fundamental principle of budget setting in the national health service. This applies irrespective of whether practices are fundholding or not.

  Copies of EL(94)79, "Developing NHS purchasing and GP fundholding", EL(94)84, "General Practice Fundholding: guidance on setting budgets for 1995 –96" and FDL(94)68, "Revenue allocations 1995 –96" are available in the Library.

  Children's Nurses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to increase the number of registered sick children's nurses training places and ensure that local plans for children's services within the national health service are effectively implemented; and if he will make a statement. [33001]

  Mr. Bowis
  Training commissions for registered sick children's nurses have increased from 776 in 1989 –90 to 1,612 in 1993 –94 —an increase of 108 per cent. This indicates the commitment of health authorities and trusts to trained children's nurses.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33460]

  Mr. Sackville
  No part of the Department of Health or its agencies has been privatised since 1980.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the past five years. [33563]
  484
  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health and its agencies have spent the following amounts from running costs on consultancy.

  1990 –91: £18,398.000

  1991 –92: £24,258,000

  1992 –93: £18,399,000

  1993 –94: £15,933,037

  1994 –95: £18,479,405

  Information on the number of contracts the Department has had with consultants over the past five years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  General Practitioners' Premises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will during the current revision of the Community Health Council Regulations ensure that CHCs are given the right to monitor those services provided on general practitioners' premises; and if he will make a statement. [33667]

  Mr. Malone
  We have no present plans to extend the statutory role of community health councils to monitor services provided on general practitioners' premises.

  Specialised Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will fund centrally the cost of extensive funding for individual patients needing specialised care; and if he will make a statement. [33673]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is generally for purchasing authorities to buy health care for their local residents. Central funding is, however, provided under the supra-regional service arrangements for a small number of services which, to be clinically effective, need to be concentrated in a limited number of centres.

  Tower Hamlets
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown of population in Tower Hamlets by the age groups up to four, five to 10, 11 to 16, 17 and 18, 19 to 21, 22 to 30, 31 to 60 –65 and 60 –65 and over by enumeration district. [33654]

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest resident population estimates which are available relate to mid —1993. The figures for Tower Hamlets, which allow for under-enumeration in the census as well as for changes since 1991, are as follows:

  Ages

  Thousands

  0–4

  15.0

  5–10

  16.9

  11–16

  13.9

  17–18

  4.2

  19–21

  7.8

  22–30

  30.2

  31–64/59

  57.3

  65/60+

  24.3

  All ages

  169.6

  A listing of the 'all ages' populations recorded in the 1991 Census for each of the 365 enumeration districts in Tower Hamlets will be placed in the Library.
  485

  Grommets and Dilation and Curettage
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations for the insertion of grommets and for dilation and curettage have been conducted by region for each year since 1992. [32114]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about the number of these operations will be placed in the Library.

  Illegal Employment (Children)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the incidence of illegal employment of young children. [31799]

  Mr. Bowis
  I am not aware of any significant evidence that the illegal employment of children is a widespread problem.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of nurses he estimates will receive a 3 per cent. pay award this year. [33162]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for local negotiation. Nearly 80 per cent. of trusts who employ nurses have offered 3 per cent. or more. I fully expect the pattern of offers yet to come to be along similar lines.

  Human Embryos
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many living human embryos are currently held in stock by licensees of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; in how many of those cases the parent of those embryos is no longer known; if he will give a breakdown of the number of such embryos by their age in years since fertilisation; if he will indicate the maximum age beyond which storage of such embryos becomes illegal; how many such embryos will reach that age in each of the next three years for which figures are available; what means will be authorised for the killing of those embryos which are not used by that date; what plans he has to bring forward proposals for allowing the adoption of such living human embryos; and if he will make a statement. [33796]

  Mr. Sackville
  Section 14(4) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which came into force on 1 August 1991, states that embryos may be stored for a maximum of five years unless regulations provide for a shorter storage time or specify the circumstances in which they may be stored for a longer period. The statutory five-year period for those embryos in storage on 1 August 1991 ends on 31 July 1996.

  Information about the number of stored embryos is not collected by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority as a matter of routine. The number of embryos stored by individual licensed centres changes daily.

  The Government are fully aware of public concern about stored embryos. The authority has been asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to
  486
  make a report on the issues surrounding the statutory storage period for embryos. It is understood that some information on the number of such embryos is being collected in connection with that report. When the report is received, Ministers will consider whether any action by Government is necessary.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if it remains his policy that payments to women for their ova for use in research or in infertility treatment should not be allowed; [33794]

  (2) what plans the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has to review the ban on payment to women for their ova for use in research or infertility treatment; and if he will make a statement; [33795]

  (3) if he will list the legal provisions which regulate payments to women for their ova for use in research or infertility treatment; and if he will make a statement. [33793]

  Mr. Sackville
  Section 12(e) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 states that no payment may be made for gametes or embryos except in accordance with directions. Section 23 authorises the giving of directions by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  The direction issued in 1991 regularised the position which prevailed when the HFEA assumed its powers. It allows payment of up to £15 per donation or benefits in the form of free treatment or sterilisation.

  The authority is currently reviewing its policy regarding the payment of egg and sperm donors. It recently held a conference to discuss issues concerning payment. Licensed centres will be notified of any changes in policy as soon as the authority has considered the various arguments for and against payment.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33453]

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish the text of his Department's response to the European Commission's Green Paper on tourism. [32027]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have placed copies of the response in the Libraries of both Houses.
  487

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list(a) details of all overseas trips made by her or ministerial colleagues in her Department, paid for wholly or partly from public funds and (b) the purpose, destination and duration of such overseas trips, which officials accompanied her and the

  Dates

  Minister

  Destination

  Purpose

  Number of officials1

  1992

  21 January

  Right hon. Tim Renton MP

  Madrid

  Audience with King and Queen of Spain

  1

  6 February

  Right hon. Tim Renton MP

  Paris

  Cultural visit

  1

  13 May-15 May

  Robert Key MP

  Greece—Rhodes

  Council of Europe Conference of Sports Ministers

  1

  18 May

  Right hon. David Mellor MP

  Brussels

  EU Culture Ministers Meeting

  1

  4 June

  Robert Key MP

  Luxembourg

  EC Formal Council-Tourism Action Plan

  1

  14 June

  Right hon. David Mellor MP

  Malmo

  England v. France World Cup

  1

  23 July-26 July

  Robert Key MP

  Barcelona

  Olympic Games

  1

  31 July-1 August

  Right hon. David Mellor MP

  Barcelona

  Olympic Games

  1

  5 August-6 August

  Robert Key MP

  Barcelona

  Olympic Games

  1

  11 September

  Robert Key MP

  Seville

  Expo '92

  1

  12 September-16 September

  Robert Key MP

  Madrid

  Paralympics

  1

  15 October-16 October

  Robert Key MP

  Paris

  Council of Europe Ministers Meeting

  1

  11 November-12 November

  The Viscount Astor

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  0

  1993

  19 February

  Right hon. Peter Brooke MP

  Paris

  Visit Pavilion de L'Arsenal and Musee de Louvre

  1

  12 March-13 March

  Robert Key MP

  Madrid

  Meeting of Offices of National Lottery

  2

  26 March

  Robert Key MP

  Brussels

  Office opening ceremony of Antwerp European City of Culture '93

  1

  7 April-8 April

  The Viscount Astor

  New York

  New York Landmark Preservation Foundation Lunch

  0

  21 April-22 April

  The Viscount Astor

  Copenhagen

  EU Informal Culture Ministers meeting

  0

  15 May-17 May

  Robert Key MP

  Cannes

  Film Festival

  0

  17-May

  Right hon. Peter Brooke MP

  Brussels

  EU Culture Ministers Meeting

  1

  19 September-21 September

  The Viscount Astor

  Antwerp

  EU Informal Cultural Affairs Committee meeting

  1

  22 September-23 September

  Right hon. Peter Brooke MP

  Paris

  Opening Ceremony of BTA's Maison de la Grande Bretagne

  1

  22 September-23 September

  Iain Sproat MP

  Monte Carlo

  International Olympic Committee

  1

  4 October-5 October

  The Viscount Astor

  Brussels

  EU Audio-Visual Ministers Meeting

  0

  1994

  4 January-8 January

  Iain Sproat MP

  USA

  Tourism visit

  1

  19 February-22 February

  Right hon. Peter Brooke MP

  Norway

  Winter Olympics

  1

  25 February-26 February

  Lady Trumpington

  Lisbon

  Official Inauguration of Lisbon '94

  1

  30 March-3 April

  Right hon. Peter Brooke MP

  India

  Cultural visit

  1

  4 April-10 April

  Right hon. Peter Brooke MP

  Japan

  Cultural visit

  1

  17-June

  Right hon. Peter Brooke MP

  Luxembourg

  EU Culture Council meeting

  1

  25 June-27 June

  Iain Sproat MP

  Vienna

  Spanish Riding School

  2

  15 July-17 July

  Lady Trumpington

  Wurzburg

  EU Informal Culture Council Meeting

  1

  18 August-19 August

  Right hon. Stephen Dorrell MP

  Canada

  Commonwealth Games

  1

  23 August-27 August

  Iain Sproat MP

  Vancouver

  Commonwealth Games

  1

  30 October-5 November

  The Viscount Astor

  Japan

  World Conference of Tourism Ministers

  1

  10 November

  Lady Trumpington

  Brussels

  EU Culture Council Meeting

  1

  22 November-23 November

  Lady Trumpington

  Lisbon

  Culmination of Lisbon '94

  0

  1995

  21 January-27 January

  Iain Sproat MP

  Australia

  Australian Sports Academy

  2

  13 February-14 February

  Right hon. Stephen Dorrell MP

  Bordeaux

  EU Informal Culture Ministers meeting

  1

  28 February

  Right hon. Stephen Dorrell MP

  Brussels

  Meeting with European Commissioners

  1

  3 April

  Right hon. Stephen Dorrell MP

  Luxembourg

  EU Culture Ministers meeting

  1

  3 April-4 April

  Lady Trumpington

  Luxembourg

  EU Culture Council Meeting

  1

  10April-11 April

  Lady Trumpington

  Annecy

  European Tourism Days

  1

  17 May

  The Viscount Astor

  Switzerland

  European Incentive Business Travel Market

  1

  21 May-22 May

  Right hon. Stephen Dorrell MP

  Cannes

  Film Festival

  1

  17 June-25 June

  Iain Sproat MP

  South Africa

  Rugby World Cup

  1

  1 Where these details are not available, it has been assumed that one official was in accompaniment.

  488
  total cost in each case, including that of officials to public funds for each year since 1992. [32278]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Details are set out in the table. Total travel and subsistence costs for Ministers and accompanying private secretaries were £15,807.57 in 1993 –94; £46,125.09 in 1994 –95; and £4,760.84, so far, in 1995 –96. Figures for 1992 –93 are not available.
  489

TREASURY

  Tax Yield
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of(a) income tax (b) capital

  Income tax

  1Capital gains tax

  Inheritance tax

  1Corporation tax

  At 1995 Ql prices2

  As a percentage of general government receipts

  At 1995 Ql prices2

  As a percentage of general government receipts

  At 1995 Ql prices2

  As a percentage of general government receipts

  At 1995 Ql prices2

  As a percentage of general government receipts

  1985–86

  55,120

  23.3

  1,420

  0.6

  1,370

  0.6

  16,690

  7.1

  1968–87

  58,270

  24.1

  1,610

  0.7

  1,500

  0.6

  20,430

  8.5

  1987–88

  59,500

  23.6

  1,980

  0.8

  1,550

  0.6

  22,610

  9

  1988–89

  58,510

  22.7

  3,130

  1.2

  1,440

  0.6

  24,970

  9.7

  1989–90

  61,440

  23.5

  2,330

  0.9

  1,550

  0.6

  27,060

  10.4

  1990–91

  64,420

  25.3

  2,160

  0.8

  1,470

  0.6

  25,050

  9.8

  1991–92

  63,060

  25.9

  1,250

  0.5

  1,420

  0.6

  20,030

  8.2

  1992–93

  59,870

  25.5

  1,040

  0.4

  1,280

  0.5

  16,640

  7.1

  1993–94

  59,810

  25.3

  730

  0.3

  1,360

  0.6

  15,230

  6.5

  1994–95

  63,370

  25.3

  930

  0.4

  1,420

  0.6

  19,500

  7.8

  1 Tax on capital gains realised by companies is included in corporation tax.

  2 Using the GDP deflator at market prices adjusted for the abolition of domestic rates.

  Seizures of Alcohol
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of seizures of alcohol intended for re-sale in the United Kingdom for each of the last three years at(a) Dover, (b) Folkestone, (c) Portsmouth, (d) Southampton and (e) in total; and what was the estimated value of the seizures. [32732]

  Seizures of Alcohol by Customs and Excise

  Financial year

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Collection

  Number

  Revenue value £

  Number

  Revenue value £

  Number

  Revenue value £

  South East England Collection

  30

  32,042

  64

  180,584

  182

  465,793

  Southern England Collection

  96

  5,543

  84

  102,390

  97

  164,525

  Whole Country

  1,473

  238,494

  1,340

  922,666

  1,398

  2,171,213

TRANSPORT

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the Health and Safety Executive has reported on the Forth rail bridge. [31794]

  Mr. Watts
  The assessment is continuing.

  Number of HGVs involved in injury road accidents, by severity and gross weight: GB 1990–1994

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  HGV

  3500–7500 kg

  206

  1,041

  3,481

  177

  900

  3,277

  172

  826

  3,132

  119

  732

  3,166

  109

  676

  2,763

  7501–16999 kg

  171

  673

  2,161

  114

  491

  1,839

  94

  449

  1,606

  88

  383

  1,496

  56

  331

  1,315

  17000 plus kg

  523

  2,045

  6,223

  544

  1,865

  6,027

  580

  1,801

  5,837

  474

  1,710

  6,247

  468

  1,917

  6,931

  Total

  900

  3,759

  11,865

  836

  3,256

  11,143

  846

  3,076

  10,574

  681

  2,825

  10,910

  633

  2,924

  11,009

  490
  gains tax, (c) inheritance tax and (d) corporation tax for each of the last 10 fiscal years expressed (i) at April 1995 prices and (ii) as a percentage of total Exchequer income. [32330]

  Mr. Jack
  [holging answer 4 July 1995]: The information is in the table:

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This information is retained by Customs on a collection basis rather than port by port. There are two collections involved, south-east England collection, covering Dover and Folkestone and southern England collection, covering Southampton and Portsmouth. The number and revenue value of seizures of alcohol from both the European Union and third countries for the financial years 1992 –93, 1993 –94 and 1994 –95 are given in the table.

  Heavy Vehicles
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of trucks over 7.5 tonnes involved in(a) fatal crashes and (b) serious injuries in each of the past five years. [33599]

  Mr. Norris
  Estimates based on available information to 1994 are shown in the table. Information for vehicles other than heavy goods vehicles within these weight bands is not available.
  491
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will give the number of prosecutions and convictions in each of the past five years for(a) mechanical faults and (b) hours offences in magistrates courts and sheriff courts in Scotland; [33602]

  (2) how many (a) prosecutions were brought and (b) convictions were obtained in magistrates and sheriffs courts for (i) tachograph and hours offences and (ii) mechanical illegalities since 1984; [33580]

  (3) how many vehicles were involved in (a) fatal, (b) serious injury and (c) minor injury crashes between the weights of (i) 3.5 tonnes and 7.5 tonnes, (ii) 7.5 tonnes and 17 tonnes and (iii) 17 tonnes plus for each of the past ten years. [33579]

  Mr. Norris
  The information as contained within the Home Office and Scottish Office statistical records is in the tables:

  Vehicle or part in dangerous or defective condition1 Magistrates (England and Wales)

  Work record and employment Offences2 Magistrates

  Court Action

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1984

  146,547

  133,410

  25,310

  20,447

  1985

  131,903

  120,004

  26,320

  21,312

  1986

  121,226

  108,577

  29,866

  23,201

  1987

  97,396

  82,035

  23,456

  18,348

  1988

  101,808

  84,407

  27,074

  20,658

  1989

  97,351

  79,701

  34,955

  26,621

  1990

  89,419

  70,838

  35,324

  26,497

  1991

  91,809

  69,650

  36,609

  27,022

  1992

  93,504

  67,793

  34,114

  24,284

  1993

  87,354

  62,336

  28,445

  19,712

  1 These offences broadly represent offences under the Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. The offences are: defective brakes; defective steering gear; defective tyres; using a vehicle in a dangerous condition; other offences relating to vehicles in a dangerous or defective condition.

  2 These figures relate to the drivers' hours and tachograph offences. The specific offences covered area: driver/employer failing to keep or produce proper records or to install and use recording equipment; failing to observe limits on hours or driving and duty, or rest requirements; other work record and employment offences (except falsification offences).

  Offences under the Construction and Use Regulations and Lighting

  Motor Vehicle Records of Work Offences, including tachograph offences

  Regulations Sheriff (Scotland)

  Sheriff

  Court Action

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1989

  6,126

  5,343

  1,800

  1,525

  1990

  5,629

  4,818

  1,971

  1,649

  1991

  5,119

  4,284

  2,115

  1,774

  1992

  4,772

  4,551

  2,519

  2,070

  1993

  3,844

  3,068

  1,866

  1,534

  Information on offences in Scotland before 1989 is not immediately available. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Inquiries
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many inquiries there have been under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedures; and in each case how long they have taken. [33535]

  Mr. Norris
  Two inquiries have been completed: the River Usk Barrage Order, which took 14 weeks, and the East London Line Extension rder, which took seven weeks. A third inquiry, into the Greater Manchester 492
  (LRTS) (Airport Extension) Order, is in progress and is expected to take nine weeks.

  Channel Tunnel Link (Stratford)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government remain in principle in favour of an intermediate station on the channel tunnel rail link at Stratford. [33533]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government have an open mind on this question. They will reach a decision on whether there should be an intermediate station at Stratford in the light, inter alia, of the bids from the consortia bidding to construct the channel tunnel rail link.

  Road Traffic Act 1988
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will repeal sections 157 to 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to ensure that road traffic users are not charged for treatment following accidents. [33661]

  Mr. Norris
  These sections of the Road Traffic Act are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health.

  I understand that there are no plans to repeal them.

  Travel Facilities (Railway Workers)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the protection of residential and leisure travel facilities on the rail network for employees and former employees of the National Freight company, Freightliner, the British Rail hotel group and other existing and former subsidiary companies of British Rail, who currently enjoy such rights. [33678]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government have given a clear assurance that residential and leisure travel facilities for those employees and former employees of the railway industry who currently enjoy such rights will be safeguarded.

  Contracts of employment provide the protection for such entitlements as a condition of service. Franchised rail service operators will be obliged, through the terms of the contracts that they will have with the franchising director, to provide travel facilities on their services for entitled staff.

  The benefits and obligations of agreements which the British Railways Board has with the employers of such staff will be transferred to a company, Rail Staff Travel Ltd., specifically established for the purpose of maintaining residential and leisure travel facilities to all those entitled.

  Night Flights (Heathrow)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many flight landings and take-offs there have been at Heathrow airport between the hours of midnight and 6 am since 1 January. [32858]

  Mr. Norris
  Flight movements are monitored during the night quota period, 11.30 pm to 6 am. From 1 January to 1 July there were 2,862 movements, including exemptions and dispensations.
  493

  Railtrack
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his estimate of the proportion of Railtrack's current access charges that reflects the cost of depreciation and the amount in pounds that this represents; and if he will give his estimate by train operating unit for the current financial year; [32686]

  (2) what is the intended relationship between depreciation of Railtrack's assets as measured by the modern equivalent asset value convention and future replacement expenditure plans; and if he will place in the Library the written guidance given to Railtrack on that relationship. [32682]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack's access charges are subject to the approval of the rail regulator. The way in which they were set is explained in the policy statements on charges he issued earlier this year.

  It is not possible to disaggregate the amount allowed in access charges for asset renewals between train operating companies.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate for the financial years 1994 –95 and 1995 –96 of the proportion of total subsidy to the train operating companies returning to Railtrack as track access charges, and the amount of pounds that this represents. [32683]

  Mr. Watts
  Grant from the franchising director to the train operating companies in respect of services provided in 1994 –95 was £1,748 million. It is estimated that the grant will be £1,610 million in 1995 –96. This represents just one of the sources of revenue with which train operating companies cover their costs, including track access charges levied by Railtrack.

  Track access charges levied by Railtrack in 1994 –95 were £1,923 million. Final access charges for 1995 –96 have yet to be approved.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what categories of asset have been excluded from valuation under the modern equivalent asset valuation convention employed in determining depreciation costs for Railtrack; and what is the current market value of those assets. [32684]

  Mr. Watts
  The estimate of current cost depreciation used by the rail regulator when he set Railtrack's access charges took account of the accounting policies adopted by the British Railways Board. These policies are set out in BR's published accounts for 1993 –94.

  M5 (Resurfacing)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the maximum tailback, resulting from the resurfacing of the M5 between junctions 16 and 18; what steps he is taking to shorten it; and on what grounds the planned timing of these roadworks was decided. [31851]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 30 June 1995]: This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency.
  494
  I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 11 July 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what is the maximum tailback resulting from the resurfacing of the M5 between junctions 16 and 18; what steps he is taking to shorten it; and on what grounds the planned timing of these roadworks was decided.
  The Agency does not keep detailed records of tailbacks resulting from roadworks.
  All possible action to minimise the delays caused to motorists was taken. Instead of the more normal contraflow layout which has 2 lanes of traffic in each direction this scheme included an extra lane through the works area making a total of 5 lanes open to traffic. The contract was of the Lane Rental type whereby the contractor is given an incentive to complete early and penalised for poor performance.
  The work was carefully itemised. It was started after the Easter Bank Holiday. Restrictions were removed completely for the Late May Bank Holiday and scheduled for completion by 30 June, before the school holidays. I am pleased to confirm that the contract finished on time.

  Signalling (Rail)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the cost of replacing a typical semaphore signalling system with a replacement system with the same service capability, allowing for any differences both in the quality of the output and in operating costs. [32681]

  Mr. Watts
  I have made no such estimate. It would be for Railtrack to decide whether such a comparison were necessary.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Land Mines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals were put forward by the United Kingdom to the United Nations conference on land mine clearance in Geneva, on 5 to 7 July; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting. [33059]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: The proposals made by the United Kingdom include:
  strengthening of the 1981 UN weaponry convention, particularly its protocol II on the use of land mines;
  the introduction of measures to complement a strengthened weaponry convention, in particular the UK-US proposal for an anti-personal land mine control programme;
  improved co-ordination of international support for mine clearance programmes; and
  the promotion of research into mine detection techniques.

  The meeting was a pledging conference and raised more than US $20 million for the UN voluntary trust fund for assistance in mine clearance.
  495

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he is giving to United Kingdom citizens in respect of visits to Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [33354]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 10 June 1995]: The current travel advice for Sri Lanka is as follows:
  Peace talks between Sri Lankan Government and the Tamil Tigers broke down on 19 April. There has been subsequent fighting in the north and east. Do not visit these areas. The south and centre, including all the main tourist areas and the cultural triangle, remain for the most part unaffected. There was an attempted major car bomb attack, almost certainly by the LTTE, near the arrivals terminal of Katunayake airport late on 5 June, followed by a threat of further attacks on KIA. Security at the airport and elsewhere has been greatly increased. This may result in delays. The recent small bomb explosions in Colombo were not thought to target foreign visitors but exercise caution in public places as there is a risk of further bomb attacks. Visitors may contact the British High Commission in Colombo, tel 437336, fax 430308, for further information.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given by Her Majesty's Government to rejoining UNESCO; and what plans he has for the United Kingdom to rejoin during 1995. [33704]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We are continuing to keep this issue under review.

  Miss O. A. Bamgbose
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the report from the Home Office immigration officer at Becket house on Miss O. A. Bamgbose was received by the entry clearance officer in Lagos, Nigeria. [33597]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have asked the embassy at Lagos for details and will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit as soon as possible.

  Ascension Island
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will cause the ordinance of 18 May 1990 concerning Ascension Island to be amended to add to the categories of people exempt from entry permit requirements those EU citizens awaiting onward travel to St. Helena and similarly on their return. [33538]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Immigration legislation on Ascension Island is the responsibility of the Governor of St. Helena. There are no plans to instruct the Governor to amend existing legislation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Staff Shareholdings
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff in his Department or its agencies have(a) declared any company shareholdings they hold or (b) been advised
  496
  to dispose of shareholdings in the last five years, including the companies concerned. [33428]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 10 July.

  Oil Platforms (Disposal)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will transfer responsibility for the approval of the disposal of disused oil platforms at sea from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office. [31692]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The Department of Trade and Industry consults relevant Government Departments on all abandonment proposals.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [32188]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  to ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [32189]

  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.

  Deputy Prime Minister
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the salary of the Deputy Prime Minister. [33684]

  The Prime Minister
  The Ministerial salary of the First Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister is £42,834, in addition to his reduced parliamentary salary.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister which Cabinet sub-committees the Deputy Prime Minister has been asked to chair. [33685]

  The Prime Minister
  The First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister will be chairing a number of Cabinet committees. The revised composition and terms of reference of such committees will be published shortly.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants are employed in the Deputy Prime Minister's Department. [33686]

  The Prime Minister
  The First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister is supported by the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service). The competitiveness and deregulation division of DTI transferred to the Cabinet Office on 5 July and the Office of Science and Technology transferred to DTI on the same day. The transfers are still being finalised but the total number of civil servants in the Office of Public Service is likely to be about 1,000.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Prime Minister, if he will list the responsibilities and terms of reference of the Deputy
  497
  Prime Minister, the number of staff for which he is responsible, the location of his office and that of his staff and the proposed budget of his office. [33792]

  The Prime Minister
  The First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister will assist generally and have specific responsibility for the competitiveness agenda, the working of Government and the presentation of policies. He will chair a number of Cabinet committees and will be an ex-officio member of Cabinet committees generally. He will have ministerial responsibility for the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service). His office is located in the Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall. The total budget of the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service), including those functions transferred from the DTI, will be approximately £80 million.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, what are the(a) parliamentary and (b) other duties of the Deputy Prime Minister [33683]

  The Prime Minister
  The First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister will answer in Parliament for the responsibilities of the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service), and undertake any other parliamentary duties as appropriate. On his duties more generally, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger).

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33462]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Prime Minister how many post cards he has received from the national post card campaign for breast cancer launched on 7 June. [33784]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations in connection with this campaign.

SCOTLAND

  Road Safety
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve road safety in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [30959]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Good progress has already been made towards achieving the Government's target of reducing casualties by one third by 2000, compared with the 1981 –85 average. At the end of 1993, total casualties had fallen by 17 per cent. and fatal and serious casualties were 46 per cent. less. The Scottish Office is taking forward a number of road safety initiatives covering engineering, education, publicity and enforcement, which are designed to make further contributions towards achievement of the Government's target. These include measures to reduce vehicle speeds, to encourage more responsible driving and to lessen the accident risk to vulnerable road users.
  498

  Health Care International
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the terms on which a Scottish Enterprise employee was given leave of absence to become director of international marketing for Health Care International in Clydebank; and when the employee subsequently left HCI. [31346]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The terms of employment of individual members of their staff are an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise. I have asked the chairman to reply to the hon. Member.

  Electro-Shock Weapons
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action his Department has taken to follow up allegations made in January in relation to the illegal and unauthorised production, export and arrangement of sale of electro-shock weapons and equipment; what legal action has been and is being undertaken in consequence of such investigations; and if he will make a statement. [31031]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 29 June 1995:] The Scottish Office has conducted extensive investigation and is satisfied that the allegations made against the Department by the Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme are unsubstantiated.

  The investigation by Strathclyde police into matters arising from the programme is not yet concluded.

  Scottish Ferries (Rebate Subsidy)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current percentage rate of tariff rebate subsidy for cars and passengers on(a) northbound voyages and (b) southbound voyages between Orkney, Shetland and the Scottish mainland on P&O Scottish Ferries; and if he will indicate what changes have taken place in subsidy rates since 30 April. [32689]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 5 July 1995]: There have been no changes in passenger and accompanied car subsidy rates since 30 April 1995. The table sets out the rates that have applied since 1 April 1995, and the previous subsidy rates that applied up 31 March 1995.

  Percentage

  Subsidy rates for southbound voyages (island related traffic)

  Subsidy rates for northbound voyages (mainland related traffic)

  From 1 April 1995

  Up to 31 March 1995

  From 1 April 1995

  Up to 31March 1995

  Adults and Children

  58.0

  63.0

  47.0

  30.5

  Students, Pensioners and Disabled

  76.0

  58.0

  47.0

  30.5

  Accompanied Cars

  58.0

  63.0

  47.0

  30.5

  499

  Procurator Fiscal Service
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the current grade structure and remuneration of the Procurator Fiscal Service. [32663]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current grades and salary ranges in the Procurator Fiscal Service are:

  Minimum £

  Maximum £

  Legal Grades

  3

  52,704

  62,817

  4

  45,278

  54,815

  5

  36,739

  54,815

  Senior Depute/Lower Level PF

  26,418

  45,078

  Senior Legal Assistant

  25,281

  44,136

  Legal Assistant

  18,185

  22,983

  Administrative Grades

  Senior Executive Officer

  19,215

  25,289

  Higher Executive Officer/Higher Precognition Officer

  15,363

  20,634

  Precognition Officer

  11,914

  18,639

  Executive Officer

  11,208

  16,496

  Administrative Officer

  8,778

  12,174

  Administrative Assistant

  6,928

  10,279

  Typing Grades

  Chief Typing Manager

  14,579

  20,913

  Typing Manager

  12,880

  16,504

  Personal Secretary

  9,287

  12,592

  Typist

  7,247

  10,279

  Support Grades

  .

  Support Grade Band I

  9,621

  11,323

  500

  Minimum £

  Maximum £

  Support Grade Band II

  8,602

  10,227

  Crown Office
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current establishment of the Crown Office; and how many posts are vacant. [32664]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current establishment of the Crown Office is 136.5 and there is one administrative vacancy.

  Advocates Depute
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current terms of engagement and remuneration of advocates depute. [32665]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Advocates depute are commissioned by the Lord Advocate and generally serve for a period of about three years. The salary of the home advocate depute is £45,956 and of the other 12 advocates depute £42,384.

  Temporary Classrooms
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by region the number of primary and secondary schools providing temporary classroom accommodation. [33298]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is not collected centrally.
  501

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Offshore Oil and Gas Licensing
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the library a copy of the advice he received from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on offshore blocks 106/3, 106/4, 106/8, 106/9, 106/24, 106/25, and 106/30A. [33790]

  Mr. Page
  Consultation with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee over blocks to be offered in the 16th round of offshore oil and gas licensing took place on the understanding that the information provided would be treated in confidence. This is our established practice with regard to blocks offered for licensing.

  I can inform the hon. Member, however, that JNCC did not object to the inclusion of blocks 106/3, 106/4, 106/8, 106/9, 106/24, 106/25 and 106/30a in the 16th round offer and also agreed the licence conditions attached to these blocks to protect the environmental sensitivities in the areas concerned.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the specific conditions to protect the environment on blocks 106/3, 106/4, 106/8, 106/9, 106/24, 106/25 and 106/30A licensed in the 16th offshore licensing round. [33791]

  Mr. Eggar
  The conditions to protect environmental sensitivities in blocks 106/3, 106/4, 106/8, 106/9, 106/24, 106/25 and 106/30a have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export license applications for each country were approved in 1994 for the export of goods defined in group 1 of part III or schedule 1 of S.I. 1992, No. 3092, as(a) of ML1 to ML11, ML13 to ML18, ML20, ML23, ML24, and ML26 and (b) each of PL5001, PL5002, PL5006, PL5014, PL5017, PL5018, PL5020, PL5021, PL5027, PL5028 and PL5029. [32733]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that his question involves a very large quantity of statistical information. I shall provide the information he has asked for, to the extent that it is available on my Department's databases. However, the task involved in gathering and collating the data is a considerable one. I shall therefore send the information, in tabular form, to the hon. Gentleman. I shall also arrange to have copies placed in the Library of the House.

  Military Exports
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all countries for which military list export licences have been granted in each of the last five years. [29849]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Countries for which military list export licences have been issued in the years 1990–1994 inclusive are:

  Abu Dhabi

  Afghanistan

  Albania

  Algeria

  Angola

  Anguilla

  502

  Argentina

  Ascension

  Antigua

  Australia

  Austria

  Bahamas

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Benin

  Bermuda

  Bosnia Hercegovina

  Bahrain

  Belize

  Bolivia

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Burundi

  Brunei

  Bulgaria

  Burma

  Virgin Islands (British)

  Kampuchea

  Canada

  Cayman Islands

  Chad

  Chile

  Channel Islands

  Cameroon

  Canary Islands

  Colombia

  Congo

  Costa Rica

  Croatia

  Cuba

  Cyprus

  Czechoslovakia

  Denmark

  Djibouti

  Dominica Republic

  Dubai

  Ecuardo

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Equatorial Guinea

  Ethiopia

  Falkland Islands

  Foroe Isles

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Gabon

  Gambia

  Germany

  Ghana

  Gibraltar

  Grenada

  Greece

  Guam

  French Guiana

  Guinea

  Guatemala

  Guyana

  Haiti

  Hong Kong

  Honduras

  High Seas

  Hungary

  Iceland

  503

  India

  Indonesia

  Ireland

  Iran

  Iraq

  Israel

  Italy

  Cote D'lvorie

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kazakhistan

  . Kenya

  St. Kitts Nevis

  Kirgizstan

  Korea Republic of (South)

  Kuwait

  Laos

  Latvia

  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Liberia

  Lithuania

  St. Lucia

  Luxembourg

  Mauritania

  Macao

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Mauritius

  Malaya

  Monaco

  Macedonia

  Mexico

  Maldives

  Mali

  Malta

  Malaysia

  Montserrat

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Martinique

  Namibia

  Nepal

  Nicaragua

  Nigeria

  Niger

  Norway

  Antilles Netherlands

  Netherlands

  New Caledonia

  New Guinea

  New Zealand

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Panama

  Papua New Guinea

  Paraguay

  Peru

  Philippines

  Poland

  Portugal

  China People's Republic of

  Puerto Rico

  Qatar

  504

  Romania

  Russia

  Rwanda

  Santo Domingo

  South Africa

  St. Helena

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Slovak Republic

  Slovenia

  Solomon Islands

  Somalia

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Surunam

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Syrian Arab Republic

  Taiwan

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Tahi

  Togo

  Tonga

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Turks and Ciacos Islands

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  United Arab Emirates

  Uganda

  United Kingdom

  Uruguay

  America United States of

  USSR

  Uzbekhistan

  Various Countries

  Venezuela

  St. Vincent

  Virgin Islands (US)

  Vietnam

  Western Samoa

  Western Sahara

  Yemen Arab Republic

  Yemen Peoples Democratic Republic

  Yugoslavia

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Seconded Staff
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff from small and medium-sized enterprises were seconded to his Department in 1994. [32269]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 4 July 1995]: During 1994 there were a total of 186 people seconded to the Department from business. A list of companies providing secondees has been published in the 1994 departmental report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. To provide the breakdown of the number of staff from small and medium-sized companies could be completed only at disproportionate cost.
  505

  Brent Spar
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his current policy on bringing the Brent Spar inshore to be disposed of. [31693]

  Mr. Eggar
  Our policy is to consider every proposal on a case-by-case basis to seek the best practicable environmental option. I await a further application in respect of the Brent Spar.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what lessons he draws from the case of the Brent Spar for the decommissioning of nuclear power stations. [31695]

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no parallels between the case of the Brent Spar and the decommissioning of nuclear power stations.

  Oil Platforms (Disposal)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what year his Department or the Department of Energy began to consider options for the disposal of disused oil platforms. [31694]

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has been considering options since the early days of North sea development.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department's procedures for considering applications for licences for the exploration and extraction of oil in Cardigan Bay will include an assessment of options for the disposal of disused oil platforms. [31698]

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The model clauses incorporated into each offshore production licence provide that no licensee may develop a field for production without the prior consent of the Secretary of State. The Petroleum Act 1987 applies to the abandonment of installations and pipelines. It is therefore not appropriate to consider abandonment options at the application stage.

  Executive Pay Increases
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to restrict the pay increases awarded to senior executives. [31797]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Pay awards for all employees in the private sector are for the private sector to determine. It is not for Government to dictate how much companies should pay their employees.

  Genetic Engineering
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those United Kingdom patents that have been(a) granted and (b) applied for in respect of genetically engineered animals and processes for creating such animals. [33637]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  There have been a total of 11 patent applications filed under the Patents Act 1977 and subsequently published relating to genetically engineered animals and/or processes for preparing them. Of these, eight have claims for both animals and processes and three have been granted. Two have claims for animals only and one of these has been granted. One has process claims only and has not yet been granted.
  506
  The eight with claims for animals and processes are GB2282139, GB2272440, GB2247023, GB2233655, GB2229440, GB2228487, GB2227243 and GB2223755. The two with claims for animals only are GB2280186 and GB2236753 and the one with only process claims is GB2265909.

  Those granted are GB22336753, GB2233655, GB2228487 and GB2227243.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that United Kingdom patents are not granted in respect of genetically engineered animals and processes for creating such animals where the genetic engineering leads, or is likely to lead, to suffering or physical harm for the animals involved. [33638]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Patents are granted when the requirements of the Patents Act 1977 are met. The Act prohibits the grant of a patent for an invention which would be generally expected to encourage offensive, immoral or anti-social behaviour. Such an objection would be raised only in a clear case. Decisions of the comptroller on the application of the Act are subject to appeal to the patents court.

  Astra Holdings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, further to his inquiry into Astra Holdings, how many shares were brought by each of the executive and non-executive directors of Astra Holdings in each of the three major rights issues before the company was declared insolvent; how many fully paid up shares each held before the first rights issue; how many share options were subsequently granted to each and how many were exercised and at what price; and how many shares were sold by each, at what date, and at what price. [33106]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  These are not matters which were covered in the inspector's report.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the directors of Astra Holdings listed in his inspector's report as unfit to hold office in a public company. [33093]

  Mr. Evans
  The inspector's report was critical of certain directors. As a result proceedings under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 have been instituted against former directors, John Anderson, Martin Guest, Christopher Gumbley, Gerald James, Laurence Kingswood and James Miller. It is for the court to determine whether their conduct was unfitted such that they should be disqualified from acting as a director or take part in the management of a limited company.

  Companies Inspector's Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's policy regarding the publication of inspectors' reports relating to(a) public and (b) private companies. [33922]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Where inspectors are appointed under the Companies Act 1985 on terms that their report may be published, the normal practice is for my Department to publish such reports in respect of public companies as being matters of public interest, but not to
  507
  publish reports in respect of private companies unless there is a particular public interest.

  Internal Market Advisory Committee
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the complaints against the United Kingdom which have been raised at the Internal Market Advisory Committee. [31145]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: There have been no complaints against the United Kingdom raised at the Internal Market Advisory Committee since specific single market complaints were first placed on its agenda last year.

  Copyright
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about his plans to(a) introduce, (b) amend and (c) veto new harmonised copyright laws of the European Union in this country. [33006]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: Three European directives in the copyright field await implementation into United Kingdom law: 92/100/EEC on rental and lending rights, and rights for performers, producers and broadcasting organisations; 93/98/EEC on duration of copyright; and 93/83/EEC on satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission. The Government are satisfied that the harmonisation of national laws brought by these directives is necessary to remove distortions from the internal market. The directives have all been formally adopted by the Council of Ministers, and the United Kingdom is obliged to implement their provisions in national law. This will be done by means of secondary legislation made under powers conferred by the European Communities Act 1972 and amending the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to the extent necessary to comply with the directives. The legislation will require approval by both Houses.

  The European Commission has a substantial programme for harmonisation of the copyright laws of member states, from which these three directives stem, and it is possible that further proposals may be submitted by the Commission. To the extent their purpose will be to eliminate market distortion, any new proposals will be subject to qualified majority voting, no single country having a veto. The United Kingdom will have a full opportunity in negotiations before the Council to make its views known, and to seek amendments to the content of the Commission's proposals.

  Malta (Trade)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the present balance of trade between the United Kingdom and Malta; and if he will make a statement. [32452]

  Mr. Nelson
  Detailed information on UK visible trade is regularly published by the Central Statistical Office in business monitor MM20, "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom with countries outside the European Community (Extra-EC Trade)", available in the Library of the House. In 1994 the UK had a visible trade surplus with Malta of £130.4 million.
  508

  Official Receiver
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures will be taken to ensure the continuity of work in the event of the business of the official receiver being contracted out. [32703]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Officials are exploring arrangements which would enable the transfer of existing cases at 1 April 1996 to contractors to complete their administration.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average cost of dealing with(a) bankruptcy and (b) company liquidations. [32704]

  Mr. Evans
  In the light of the current contracting out exercise, this information is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, when work currently undertaken by the official receiver is contracted out and the contractor is unable to sustain a lower cost performance, the contract will be cancelled and returned to the official receiver, and if he will make a statement. [32705]

  Mr. Evans
  Potential providers will be asked to submit prices which would be incorporated into the terms of their contract. The Insolvency Service would have the right to terminate the contract should a provider be unable satisfactorily to maintain its terms and conditions. Contracting out to a number of contractors would enable alternate providers to be used in the event of a contract cancellation.

  Net Book Agreement
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that the net book agreement will be maintained, by seeking to make statutory provision if it becomes necessary. [33144]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The net book agreement benefits from two decisions of the restrictive practices court exempting books from the general prohibition of resale price maintenance and upholding the agreement on public interest grounds. So long as those decisions remain in force, it is for the parties to decide whether to maintain the agreement. The restrictive practices court has been asked to consider whether its previous decisions stand.

  Gulf States
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide details of the value of British exports and imports for each year since 1992 and for the first quarter of 1995 with the Arab states of the Gulf which currently have reciprocal entry visa abolition agreements with the United Kingdom. [32203]

  Mr. Nelson
  Information is published in Central Statistical Office business monitor MM20, available in the Library of the House.

  Coal Authority Land
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will allow individuals currently leasing small sites owned by the Coal Authority to purchase that land. [32710]
  509
  Mr. Page
  Land was transferred to the Coal Authority, broadly, because it was judged to form part of a prospective opencast site or because it was required for the authority's own use, for example, in connection with mine water pumping. The authority will respond to requests for rights or interests in land that it owns in accordance with its duties under the Coal Industry Act 1994.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the new welfare standards for livestock being transported; [32726]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the enforcement mechanism for the new standards for livestock being transported. [32727]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: The new requirements adopted by the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 22 June represent a major step forward for the welfare of animals being transported in the European Union. Effective enforcement of the requirements will be vital, and the measure contains tough new enforcement provisions including a licensing system for transport undertakings under which offenders can be disqualified, requirements for the scrutiny of journey plans and strict enforcement obligations on member states.

  The directive is for implementation by 31 December 1996, and we will consult thoroughly with all interested parties to ensure that the United Kingdom's implementation of this measure is thorough and effective.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if sheep scab is a notifiable disease under sections 15 and 88 of the Animal Health Act 1981; and he if he will make a statement; [32891]

  (2) how many prosecutions there has been since 1 January 1993 in relation to sheep scab under the provisions of section 15(7) of the Animal Health Act 1981: and if he will make a statement; [32892]

  (3) if he will make a statement concerning the purposes and utility of retaining the notifiability of sheep scab. [32893]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: Although all secondary legislation detailing the control measures for sheep scab was revoked in 1992, sheep scab remains within the meaning of "disease" in section 88 of the Animal Health Act 1981 and is therefore still technically notifiable to a police constable under section 15(1) of the Act.

  A decision on whether to repeal this provision will be taken once I have reviewed what alternative options may be available for dealing with the disease.

  The local authority liaison group on animal health matters and the Home Office are fully aware of the situation regarding the notifiability of sheep scab and we will take no action on reported cases unless there are
  510
  welfare grounds for doing so. I am not aware of any prosecution made under article 15(7) of the Animal Health Act 1981 since 1 January 1993 in connection with sheep scab.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 635 –6, what criteria for reform have been adopted when pressing for the further reform of the CAP. [32669]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government believe that the CAP should be reformed so as to achieve progressive reductions in product-linked support and protection. This would lead to the eventual removal of artificial restrictions on production and the creation of a competitive and market-driven farming industry. Any remaining support should be better targeted towards environmental and other specific objectives.

  Salmon Fishing
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has made to the National Rivers Authority about changes in the east coast salmon net licensing season; what consultations he held with representatives of(a) anglers and (b) net fishermen on the proposals, and what evidence he has assembled in support of his proposals. [33036]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) on 28 June Official Report, column 697.

  If the National Rivers Authority, after reconsidering the recommendation made in the 1991 report on salmon net fisheries that the opening date of the drift net fisheries of Northumbria and Yorkshire should be postponed until 1 May, proposes a byelaw to this effect, this will be subject to the statutory consultation procedures.

  High Seas Driftnet Fishing
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement in regard to surveillance of the high seas driftnet fishery for albacore tuna in the north-east Atlantic in 1994; how many United Kingdom fisheries patrol vessels were involved in surveillance; how many patrol boats in total were involved in the surveillance; how many days were spent in surveillance; and what was the total cost to the United Kingdom [33633]

  Mr. Baldry
  Last year, during the summer tuna fishery, the long-standing conflict between Spanish and French fishermen spilled over and embroiled UK vessels. Such harassment of British fishing vessels ceased following the arrival of the Royal Navy in the tuna fishery.

  There are a total of nine vessels in the Royal Navy fisheries protection squadron, of which three or four vessels are normally on task to the Ministry at any one time and one to the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. The Royal Navy sent two vessels to patrol the tuna fishery for a total of 112 patrol days during 1994 at a cost of some £0.6 million to the Ministry and the Welsh Office.
  511
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total catch of albacore tuna by United Kingdom vessels in the high seas drifnet fishery in the north-east Atlantic in 1994; what was its value; and where was the main market for this tuna. [33634]

  Mr. Baldry
  UK vessels using nets in the north-east Atlantic landed 576 tonnes of albacore tuna in 1994, with a total value of £879,000. Some 426 tonnes of the total were landed in the UK, the main port of landing and first sale being Newlyn.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring has been conducted of the bycatch of unwanted fish, sharks, dolphins and other wildlife in the high seas driftnet fishery for albacore tuna in the north-east Atlantic; and what contribution to this bycatch is made by the United Kingdom driftnet fleet. [33636]

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1992 and 1993, there was a study of the bycatch of the French driftnet fleet, which is the largest in the north-east Atlantic tuna fishery. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has commissioned the sea mammals research unit to monitor the bycatch of the United Kingdom tuna driftnet fleet in 1995 and 1996.

  Fisheries Protection Vessels
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total cost of United Kingdom fisheries protection vessels in 1994. [33635]

  Mr. Baldry
  Fisheries surveillance operations in the UK are undertaken by vessels of the Royal Navy fishery protection squadron and vessels owned and operated by the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. The operational costs for 1994 were some £13.8 million.

WALES

  Countryside Council For Wales
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review his predecessor's announcement of 5 May in relation to the future role, responsibilities and staffing of the Countryside Council for Wales.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 30 June 1995]: No, the action plan published on 5 May stands and the discussion then instituted about its implementation will continue.

  Farming Unions
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with each of the farming unions in 1995; and if he will make a statement. [32938]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have had several meetings in 1995 with the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales.

  Connahs Quay
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will take to modify the impact upon residents in Kelsterton road, Connahs quay, Deeside, of the building of(a) the new River Dee crossing and
  512
  (b) the PowerGen power station at Connahs quay; and if he will make a
  statement. [32940]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Clwyd county council is responsible for the new River Dee crossing. Following consultations, the Department of Trade and Industry attached a number of conditions to the consent for the power station development to protect local residents, including those in Kelsterton road.

  River Dee Crossing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of(a) the number of jobs created by the building of the River Dee crossing and (b) the financial cost incurred in building the River Dee crossing; and if he will make a statement. [32941]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Clwyd county council is responsible for the new River Dee crossing. The scheme is estimated to cost £61 million.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the impact upon Kelsterton Farm, Kelsterton, Clwyd, of plans for and the construction of the new River Dee crossing, and if he will make a statement. [32939]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Clwyd county council is responsible for the new River Dee crossing.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list landfill sites in Wales which receive waste from the nuclear industry. [32708]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Radioactive waste from the nuclear power industry in Wales is not disposed of to any landfill sites in Wales: it goes to authorised landfill sites in England.

  Women's Aid Groups (Funding)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funding he has given to women's aid groups over the last five years. [32935]

  Mr. Richards
  The answer is as follows:

  1991 –92: £703,140

  1992 –93: £664,742

  1993 –94: £752,333

  1994 –95: £704,597

  1995 –96: £611,628

  These figures include core funding for Welsh Women's Aid and project funding for individual refugees, advice centres and outreach workers.

  Upper Limb Disorder
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning work-related upper limb disorder. [33015]

  Mr. Richards
  I understand that the extent and nature of this condition continues to be a source of debate. Although the Medical Research Council is not currently supporting studies of work-related upper limb disorder, it is always willing to consider scientifically based, sound proposals for research.
  513

  Physiotherapists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of physiotherapists in training. [33017]

  Mr. Richards
  At the end of May, there were 97 student physiotherapists being centrally funded for training in Wales.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average pay of physiotherapists in the NHS in Wales, and if he will make a statement. [33019]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of his annual funding for physiotherapists in the NHS in Wales. [33018]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many physiotherapists work in each of the health authorities in Wales. [33016]

  Mr. Richards
  Due to the use of local pay scales, information for Pembrokeshire NHS trust is not available centrally. Information for the other health authority areas is given in the table. Staff employed by NHS trusts are included in the area in which they are situated.

  Health Authority

  Physiotherapists in post at 31 March 1995 (whole-time equivalent)

  Clwyd

  91

  East Dyfed

  52

  Gwent

  100

  Gwynedd

  66

  Mid Glamorgan

  85

  Powys

  36

  South Glamorgan

  150

  West Glamorgan

  89

  Welsh Health Common Services authority

  2

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase funding for physiotherapists in Wales. [33020]

  Mr. Richards
  None. Any increases in funding for physiotherapists in Wales would be negotiated by health authorities through their contracts with service providers.

  Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State of Wales what new finance he proposes to implement the White Paper. "Our Future Homes," and if he will make a statement. [33513]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  "Our Future Homes" highlighted several initiatives to encourage further private sector investment in housing. Government provision for this year's housing programme was announced in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995 –96 to 1997 –98. Departmental Report by the Welsh Office and the Office 514
  of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales." Support for future years will, of course, be determined later in the year as part of the annual public expenditure review.

  Bloodbags
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the director of the National Blood Transfusion Service (Wales) concerning the withdrawal of blood contained in Tuta bloodbags; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the withdrawal on the number of operations cancelled or postponed in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [33543]

  Mr. Hague
  The managing director of the National Blood Transfusion Service (Wales) has kept my officials fully informed of the situation and there has been no need to cancel or postpone any planned surgery within Wales as a result of this incident.

  NHS Trusts' Pay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answers of 4 July Official Report, column 200 and 5 July, Official Report, column 241, if he will give details of the mechanism by which trusts having no executive or non-executive directors other than the appointed chairman can make 1995 –96 pay offers to their nursing staff. [33598]

  Mr. Hague
  Trusts having no executive or non-executive directors have been advised to make offers subject to ratification by the trust board when appointed.

  In-patient Activity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the comparative objective accuracy of deaths and discharges and finished consultant episodes as measures of clinical in-patient and day case activity in hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [33544]

  Mr. Hague
  Finished consultant episodes and discharges and deaths seek to measure different concepts of hospital in-patient activity. Both concepts can be measured accurately but data quality depends on the reliability of local arrangements for the collection and return of data.

  In Wales, data on both measures of activity have been collected since 1991 –92 and published. Published statistics of overall in-patient activity are based on discharges and deaths as these are more complete than consultant episode figures and are comparable with earlier years.

  Welsh Correspondence
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on signing correspondence written in Welsh. [33788]

  Mr. Hague
  I am happy to sign correspondence written in Welsh.
  515

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by how much unemployment in Lancashire has changed since April 1992. [31795]

  Mr. Paice
  Unadjusted claimant unemployment in Lancashire has fallen by 14,921 since April 1992.

  EU Employment and Social Issues Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when is the next meeting of the EU Employment and Social Issues Council; and if she will make a statement on the agenda. [31796]

  Mr. Forth
  The next meeting of the Social Affairs Council is on 5 October. The agenda has not yet been settled.

  Take-home Pay
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent evidence she has to show how take-home pay in the United Kingdom compares with that in other EC countries. [31798]

  Mr. Page
  Independent research shows that British workers' average take-home pay is among the best in the European Union, better than France, Italy or Denmark, and comparable with western Germany.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the expected number of school leavers who will join the labour market in July.

  Mr. Squire
  Latest forecasts suggest that, in England, 145,000 16-year-olds will leave full-time education during the summer. Almost all are expected to join the labour market.

  Employment (Terms and Conditions)
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on terms and conditions of employment. [31801]

  Mr. Page
  In discussions with her EC counterparts, my hon. Friend, the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) consistently argued that attempts to regulate terms and conditions of employment at EU level are unnecessary and likely to lead to more unemployment across Europe.

  I and my colleagues intend to continue to advance the benefits of the United Kingdom's policies.

  Unemployment (Over -50s)
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what initiatives her Department has undertaken to reduce unemployment rates amongst the over –50 age group. [31802]

  Mrs. Gillan
  It is the Government's sound economic policy, and growth at a sustainable pace, which is producing jobs and reductions in the unemployment rates.516
  The campaign for older workers, which was taken forward with commitment and determination by my predecessor, my hon. Friend, the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), is adding to this. I shall continue the campaign to eliminate age discrimination in employment.

  Training Allowance
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much the training allowance was when it was introduced and how much it is now. [31803]

  Mr. Forth
  The youth training allowance, introduced in 1978, was £19.50 per week and is now a minimum of £29.50 for 16-year-olds and £35 for those aged 17 and over participating in youth training. The adults' training allowance, introduced in 1987, is based on the benefit received prior to commencing training plus a premium of £10 per week.

  Low Pay
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to tackle the problem of low pay. [31804]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government's commitment to sound economic and labour market policies has resulted in significant increases in real take-home pay for the lowest paid since 1979.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to commission research into the cost to public funds of long-term unemployment on family stability and physical and mental health. [31806]

  Mr. Forth
  The relationship between unemployment, family stability and physical and mental health has been the subject of studies by a number of researchers. There are no plans for the Department to commission additional research in this area.

  Third Age Challenge Trust
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support her Department is giving to the Third Age Challenge Trust; and if she will make a statement. [31807]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), supported the work of the Third Age Challenge Trust, endorsing its voluntary code of practice to employers. Its work complements key elements of the Government's campaign for older workers. As the Minister now responsible for the campaign, I commend the work of the Third Age Challenge Trust. Ageism makes no economic sense for individual employers or for the nation.

  Vacancies-unemployed Ratio (Wolverhampton)
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the vacancies to unemployed ratio in the Wolverhampton travel-to-work area. [31808]
  517
  Mr. Robin Squire
  In May 1995, and on the unadjusted basis, there were 15,175 claimants unemployed in the Wolverhampton travel-to-work area and 857 unfilled jobcentre vacancies. The ratio between the two figures is misleading because jobcentre vacancies represent only a proportion of the total vacancies available in the area.

  Job Opportunities
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new proposals she has to increase job opportunities for those recently made redundant. [31809]

  Mr. Paice
  We will continue with the policies and measures that have enabled businesses to create nearly 300,000 new jobs in the past year and reduced redundancies to half the level of a year ago.

  Unemployment Benefit Claims (Bradford, West)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people aged under 25 years living in Bradford, West are claiming unemployment benefit. [31810]

  Mr. Paice
  In April 1995, on the unadjusted basis, there were 2,061 under -25-year-olds claiming unemployment-related benefits in Bradford, West, which is 11 per cent. less than the year before.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her assessment of the number of four-year-olds in the Normanton constituency who would qualify for consideration under the nursery vouchers plan. [33639]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The parents of all four-year-olds in the Normanton constituency will be given a voucher that can be exchanged for good quality pre-school education.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provision will be made for nursery places in the Normanton constituency when the nursery voucher scheme is introduced. [33640]

  Mr. Squire
  My right hon. Friend has invited local authorities to volunteer their areas for phase 1 of the nursery voucher scheme. Parents of every four-year-old in local education authorities that are selected for phase 1 will receive a voucher for pre-school education which they will be able to use from April 1996. Full implementation will be from April 1997.

  Teachers' Pensions
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to privatise the teachers' pension fund.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. In my announcement of 7 June,Official Report, columns 205 –7, I said that, whether or not we let a contract to administer the teachers' superannuation scheme, the scheme itself will stay in the public sector, on its current statutory basis. The scheme is unfunded.
  518

  Teachers' Pay
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement about teachers' pay in 1995 –96. [34088]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am today laying before Parliament a pay and conditions order bringing the provisions of the school teachers' pay and conditions document 1995 into force from 1 September 1995. Copies of the order are being sent to local education authorities, the chairmen of governors of grant-maintained schools and the teachers' and employers' associations. I have already implemented the 2.7 per cent. pay award for teachers by a first pay and conditions order in April.

  The school teachers' pay and conditions document 1995 was published on 28 June, following detailed consultation with the teachers' and employers' associations and representatives of the governors of voluntary schools and grant-maintained schools. The document sets out the statutory pay and conditions of service for teachers in maintained schools in England and Wales.

  Disabled Students
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the interim report of the further and higher education review programme announced on 27 March 1995 will be available. [34089]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government announced on 27 March 1995 details of a review of the effectiveness of further and higher education legislation in meeting the needs of students with learning difficulties and disabilities.

  The review has offered the Government the chance to work with the funding councils, representative bodies for higher education and organisations for the disabled to ensure that the legislative framework continues to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

  Copies of the interim report have been placed in the House of Commons Library today.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Further Education (Buildings)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what standards set by which bodies further education college buildings are obliged to meet; and to what extent they meet their criteria. [32905]

  Mr. Ancram
  Existing further education buildings would have been subject to the building regulations in force at the time they were provided. The Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1994 apply to all new college buildings. The Department of Education for Northern Ireland does not prescribe specific standards, but it offers advice and guidance on the design and provision of such buildings.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to produce a discussion or consultation paper on human rights in Northern Ireland,
  519
  and what assessment he has made of the political contribution of such a paper to the peace process. [323691]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Government stand ready to produce papers on a range of issues likely to arise in future political talks —including human rights —if requested to do so by the participants.

  I also hope that the parties to the talks will be ready to set out their own ideas for developing, in ways appropriate under a new political settlement, the extensive existing range of safeguards for human rights.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if it is his policy that a higher proportion of students from within Northern Ireland than from outside the Province should be able to find a higher education place within the Province; and what is his target figure for each category. [32907]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is for the higher education institutions themselves to determine admissions policy. In 1993 –94, some 82.1 per cent. of full-time undergraduate new entrants to higher education courses in Northern Ireland were of Northern Ireland domicile.

  Higher Education (Springvale)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has now completed his study of the feasibility of establishing a university campus at Springvale; and if he will make the conclusions public. [32909]

  Mr. Ancram
  The economic appraisal commissioned by my right hon. and learned Friend to consider the university of Ulster's proposal to establish a campus a Springvale is nearing completion. The Secretary of State will wish to consider the findings, alongside other advice, before making his conclusions public in due course.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how child care provision and its financing in Northern Ireland will be affected by the Government's proposals for voucher schemes in nursery education; [33826]

  (2) how his proposals for nursery education in Northern Ireland will differ from those announced by the Secretary of State for Education. [33825]

  Mr. Ancram
  The aim in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, will be to ensure that all four-year-olds have access to good-quality education. In implementing the initiative here, the Government have to take account of the distinctive features of the Northern Ireland education system —in particular, the different arrangements for compulsory school age. In Northern Ireland, any child whose fourth birthday falls on or before 1 July in a given year starts compulsory primary education in September of that same year. This is different from the position in England, and pre-school arrangements need to take this into account.

  The initiative will be based on a system of vouchers for pre-school provision which will give purchasing power to parents and promote consumer choice. More specifically,
  520
  the parents of four-year-olds who are not statutorily required to attend primary school will be entitled to a voucher for pre-school provision to cover the period from the beginning of the term after their fourth birthday until they reach compulsory school age; the voucher can be used for nursery education, reception class provision, private nurseries or playgroups; it will be exchangeable for a part-time place in a nursery school or private nursery or a full-time place in a playgroup or reception class and its value will be capable of being topped up by parents to meet the costs of a greater level of provision, if they wish it, in either the private or voluntary sectors; and it will be capable of being redeemed only if the provision offered is of a satisfactory educational standard. There will be inspections to ensure that that is so.

  As all children begin compulsory schooling in Northern Ireland at the start of the relevant school year, the number of terms of pre-school education will vary depending on when the child's fourth birthday falls. Parents in Northern Ireland will therefore be issued with a voucher which reflects their child's entitlement.

  I would stress that these are the entitlements that are conferred by this initiative. It will be open to nursery schools, for example, to offer additional provision where places are available and, of course, it will be open to parents to pay for additional provision in the voluntary or private sectors if they so wish.

  I plan that the scheme will be introduced into Northern Ireland in 1997 in line with the proposals for England. Before then there will be consultation with all interested parties on the details of how the initiative will be implemented, including such matters as the standards that must be achieved by those institutions that will be allowed to redeem vouchers, and the inspection arrangements which will apply.

  In conclusion, I would stress that this is a major initiative in pre-school education in Northern Ireland. At present, almost half the four-year-olds in Northern Ireland either have no pre-school provision or their parents have to pay for such provision in the private or voluntary sectors. This initiative will for the first time provide the opportunity for all four-year-olds who do not start primary school in the term following their fourth birthday to avail themselves of pre-school education, which will be guaranteed to be of real educational value to them. Importantly, this is being achieved not by cutting back on existing education budgets but by an injection of new money —over £8 million in a full year —to cover the costs. I am sure this will be welcomed by all those interested in the welfare and education of our children as the most significant single initiative we have ever undertaken at this vital stage in our children's development.

  Disruptive Pupils
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) research he has conducted into the scale of the problem of disruptive pupils in Northern Ireland, (b) guidance he has given to education and library boards about remedies and (c) cross-board initiatives he has planned. [33827]

  Mr. Ancram
  While no specific research has been conducted into the scale of the problem of disruptive pupils in Northern Ireland, the Department of Education
  521
  is aware from reports from the inspectorate of the general standards of behaviour in schools throughout the Province. A pilot project aimed at developing strategies to help them improve standards of discipline has been operating in a number of primary and secondary schools in Belfast during the past three years. The department will discuss with the education and library boards and other interested parties what more might be done to support schools and how the strategies developed in the pilot project might be disseminated to all schools in Northern Ireland.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by how much average class sizes have risen in colleges of further education in the past five years. [33786]

  Mr. Ancram
  The average class sizes over the past five years are set out in the list:

  1989 –90: 15.2

  1990 –91: 16.2

  1991 –92: 15.5

  1992 –93: 15.3

  1993 –94: 15.2

  Mobile Classrooms
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for a structured programme for the replacement of mobile classrooms at Northern Ireland's schools. [33824]

  Mr. Ancram
  The replacement of mobile classrooms by permanent accommodation has a high priority in my Department's capital programme and will continue to be addressed within the confines of capital resources at my disposal.

  Lecturing Staff
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has about the number of full-time and part-time lecturing staff in colleges of further education in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [33785]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Full-time lecturers

  Part-time lecturers

  1990–91

  2,192

  2,827

  1991–92

  2,174

  2,375

  1992–93

  2,186

  2,346

  1993–94

  2,199

  2,562

  1994–95

  2,153

  3,205

  National Vocational Qualification System
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what mechanisms exist for the external verification of the NVQ system in Northern Ireland; how many staff are employed in this matter; and how they are deployed. [33787]
  522
  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 7 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Agency, to reply to your question about which mechanisms exist for the external verification fo the NVtion system in Northern Ireland; how many staff are employed in this matter; and how they are deployed.
  As in England and Wales, the overall responsibility for the quality assurance of the NVQ system in Northern Ireland rests with the National Council or Vocational Qualifications (NCVQ). However, at operational level, NCVQ works with, and through, Awarding Bodies such as BTEC, City & Guilds, RSA etc who are required to have a process by which they can continuously monitor the consistency and quality of the NVQ assessment system and its support structures.
  Awarding Bodies are responsible for verifying that assessment is carried out systematically, validly and to national standards. This is achieved through the use of External Verifiers appointed by the Awarding Body.
  Awarding Bodies are required to review the reports of their External Verifiers and to prepare annual consolidated reports which are then made available to NCVQ.
  Information on the number of staff who are employed in External Verification and how they are deployed is not available to the Agency, but is a matter for each Awarding Body.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the pension, on retirement, of an average earner in each member state of the European Union, expressed as a percentage of final earnings. [31869]

  Mr. Heald
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the average income of pensioners, on retirement, in each member state of the European Union, expressed as a percentage of final earnings. [31868]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the required format.

  However, recent independent research1 comparing 11 countries —including eight EU member states —shows the UK has one of the lowest proportions of older people with incomes below 40 per cent. of average income. The UK has a more equal distribution of income among its older population, and a more effective benefit safety net than many other major industrial countries.

  A copy of this publication is in the Library.
  1Incomes and living standards of older people: a comparative analysis by Peter Whiteford and Steven Kennedy, Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, published as DSS Research Report no 34, 1995.
  523

  Social Fund
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish his annual report on the social fund for 1994 –95 and the social fund commissioner's annual report; and if he will make a statement. [34126]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Secretary of State's annual report on the social fund for 1994 –95 —CM 2885 —was published today and has been laid before Parliament. The report records that the gross budget allocated to the discretionary part of the fund at 1 April 1994 was £353 million, and that a further £15 million was allocated to the discretionary loans budget during the course of the year. Total gross expenditure in 1994 –95 was £451 million, £9 million higher than in 1993 –94 and was the highest annual level of expenditure since the fund was set up in 1988. This included 1.9 million non-repayable grants and interest-free loans worth £366 million and funeral, maternity and cold weather payments worth £85 million.

  For the current year, we have increased the gross discretionary budget to £406 million, an increase of £53 million since 1 April 1994. Cold weather payments will also increase from £7 to £8.50 from 1 November 1995.

  The cost of funeral payments has risen dramatically in the last five years. Proposals to limit social fund funeral payments to £875 were considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee. On the basis of the recommendations in its report, the Secretary of State introduced a new social fund funeral payment scheme from 5 June 1995 which places a ceiling on the amount payable for specified funeral directors' services but which ensures that the reasonable costs of other necessary disbursements, such as the cost of cremation or burial, will be met in full. These new arrangements mean that funeral payments, especially in the case of burials, could still exceed £1,000.

  The social fund commissioner's annual report has also been published today and copies placed in the Library.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the consistency of the local social fund guidance with his Department's guidance; and if he will make a statement. [33688]

  Proportion of children in each region living in families receiving income-related benefits

  Region

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  East Anglia

  London (Inner and Outer)

  South East (including Londan)

  South West

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Wales

  1991

  Number of children aged 0–15 (thousands)

  628

  1,012

  816

  415

  1,340

  2,154

  900

  1,095

  1,345

  491

  1,024

  Number of children in families receiving income-related benefits (thousands)

  200

  280

  180

  70

  410

  380

  190

  320

  420

  290

  160

  Proportion in families receiving income-related benefits (per cent.)

  31.9

  27.7

  22.1

  16.9

  30.6

  17.6

  21.1

  29.2

  31.2

  49.1

  15.6

  1992

  Number of children aged 0–15 (thousands)

  634

  1,024

  827

  432

  1,365

  2,177

  910

  1,104

  1,355

  59.6

  1,026

  524
  Mr. Evans
  In January this year, the Benefits Agency issued a bulletin to its district offices about local social fund guidance. This emphasised the need for local guidance to be as consistent as possible with the Secretary of State's guidance, while reflecting local factors, and contained advice on how guidance should be drawn up. The Benefits Agency will be evaluating the impact of this revised local guidance. I understand that the Wakefield district has revised its guidance following issue of the bulletin.

  Mortgage Interest
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if interest loans taken out for the purposes of energy conservation to a dwelling occupied as the home will be eligible for payment through income support under the Social Security (Income Support and Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1995; and if he will make a statement. [32925]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Income Support
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support in each region and as a percentage of the total had reductions made from their benefit for(a) poll tax arrears, (b) fuel bills and (c) social fund loan repayments in each year since 1990. [32927]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 1 May,Official Report columns 100 –111.

  Income-related Benefit Recipients
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the number of children, and (b) the number of children as a proportion of all families that were living in families dependent on income-related benefits for each year since 1979 for each region. [32928]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available on a consistent basis for all benefits or prior to 1991. The information that is available is set out in the tables. Data on population are not yet available for 1994.
  525

  Proportion of children in each region living in families receiving income-related benefits

  Region

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  East Anglia

  London (Inner and Outer)

  South East (including London)

  South West

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Wales

  Number of children in families receiving income-related benefits (thousands)

  210

  310

  200

  80

  510

  440

  210

  340

  440

  320

  170

  Proportion in families receiving income-related benefits (per cent.)

  33.1

  30.3

  24.2

  18.5

  37.4

  20.2

  23.1

  30.8

  32.5

  53.7

  16.6

  1993

  Number of children aged 0–15 (thousands)

  639

  1,035

  835

  415

  1,391

  2,196

  920

  1,114

  1,367

  602

  1,032

  Number of children in families receiving income-related benefits (thousands)

  210

  310

  220

  100

  560

  510

  240

  360

  480

  320

  190

  Proportion in families receiving income-related benefits (per cent.)

  32.9

  30

  26.3

  24.1

  40.3

  23.2

  26.1

  32.3

  35.1

  53.2

  18.4

  Notes:

  1. Child population figures have been rounded to the nearest 1,000. Children in families receiving income-related benefits has been rounded to the nearest 10,000. All percentages have been rounded to one decimal place.

  2. Children in families receiving income-related benefits does not include those in families receiving Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance only—a regional breakdown is not available.

  3. Children may be in families receiving more than one income-related benefit. Overlaps between benefits have been taken into account.

  4. Children are defined as aged 15 and under.

  5. Standard statistical regions have been used.

  Proportion of children in Great Britain in families receiving an income-related benefit

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Number of children aged 0–15 (thousands)

  11,318

  11,433

  11,547

  Number of children in families receiving Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance only (thousands)

  430

  500

  620

  Number of children in families receiving one or more income-related benefits (thousands)

  3,340

  3,720

  4,100

  Proportion of children in families receiving one or more income-related benefit (Percentage)

  29.5

  32.5

  35.5

  Notes:

  1. Child population figures have been rounded to the nearest 1,000. Children in families receiving income-related benefits has been rounded to the nearest 10,000. All percentages have been rounded to the nearest one decimal place.

  2. Children may be in families receiving more than one income-related benefit. Overlaps between benefits have been taken into account.

  3. Children are defined as aged 15 and under.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics May 1991 –1993.

  Family Credit Statistics April 1991-April 1993.

  Disability Working Allowance Statistics 1992 –93.

  Housing Benefit Management Information System. Enquiries May 1991 –1993.

  Office of Population, Censuses and Survey mid term estimates 1991 –1993.
  526

DEFENCE

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent progress has been made concerning the setting up of a rapid reaction force for former Yugoslavia. [32730]

  Mr. Soames
  The formation of UNPROFOR's rapid reaction force is continuing. The multi-national brigade, which includes a British battalion group, is assembling in Bosnia, and initial support elements of 24 Airmobile Brigade deployed to theatre last weekend. Other components of the brigade will follow, in a phased deployment, over the next few weeks.

  Australasia 95
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy ships are taking part in Australasia 95; which ports the ships are designated to visit on which dates; and what equipment is being carried on the ships for demonstration to potential overseas buyers. [33024]

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Monmouth, HMS Sheffield and RFA Brambleleaf are taking part in the Australasia 95 deployment. HMS Trenchant, HMS Plover and RFA Diligence are participating with the Australasia 95 ships in some visits and exercises. Between them, the ships are visiting some 25 ports in almost 20 countries. No additional equipment is being carried for sales demonstrations, although appropriate opportunities are being taken to show potential buyers the excellence of Royal Navy ships and equipment.
  527

  Iran-Iraq War
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with his Chinese counterpart in regard to the provision of munitions to the combatants during the Iran-Iraq war by factories based in China but funded by N.M. Rothschild Bank. [32888]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: I am aware of no such discussions.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further reports his Department has received to indicate that British arms firms sold arms to Iran via Singapore during the Iran-Iraq arms embargo; if he will list those companies involved; and if he will make a statement. [29465]

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 20 June 1995]: Following the statement by the President of the Board of Trade on BMARC, Departments have, as a prudent measure, started to research some associated areas of defence exports to Singapore. It is too early to draw even tentative conclusions. Any evidence of illegal activity will of course be brought immediately to the attention of Customs and Excise, the independent prosecuting authority, for its consideration.

  Sexual Harassment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints of sexual harassment have been filed by service women in the Army, Navy and RAF in the last 10 years; in how many cases disciplinary proceedings were instituted; and what were the results of these proceedings. [32667]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the procedure followed when a complaint is received from a service woman of sexual harassment. [32668]

  Mr. Soames
  The policy of the armed forces is that sexual harassment will not be tolerated and complaints are taken very seriously. Complaints are to be investigated sensitively and as quickly as possible. An informal complaint may be made and resolved at unit level. Formal complaints can be made through the redress of complaint procedure established under the Service Discipline Acts. Normally a complaint would be dealt with by the commanding officer, but if it cannot be resolved at that level or the complainant is dissatisfied, it may be referred up the chain of command and ultimately to the Admiralty, Army or Air Force Board. In addition, officers may ask for a service board's decision to be referred to the Sovereign. Following an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, service personnel have since 1 February 1995 been able to make complaints direct to an industrial tribunal with a three-month time limit, in line with the provision for civilian employees. If complaints are upheld, appropriate disciplinary or administrative action would be taken against those found responsible.
  528

  Portland Naval Base
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what undertakings have been given by his Department regarding future liability for environmental pollution at Portland naval base; and if he will make a statement. [32956]

  Mr. Soames
  No undertakings regarding future liability for environmental pollution of Her Majesty's naval base Portland have been given by my Department.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a clause has been inserted in the sale contract for Portland naval base allowing his Department to obtain a share of any future development gain; and if he will make a statement. [32957]

  Mr. Soames
  A clause has been inserted in the sale contract to protect the interests of my Department and the taxpayer against any future development gains.

  Surplus Land and Property
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those personnel who have left his Department in the last five years to join organisations subsequently involved in the purchase of surplus MoD property; and if he will make a statement. [32962]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the surplus land and buildings that have been on sale for over three years; if he will give the date when they were first proposed for sale; if he will give the current position over their disposal; and if he will make a statement. [32958]

  Mr. Soames
  Two sites, at RAF Northolt and Tern Hill in Shropshire, have been the subject of discussions on their sale to the highway authorities for more than three years. A number of other sites have not been sold, more than three years after being identified for disposal, for a variety of reasons such as the resolution of planning applications or the adoption of utilities services. These sites have not been on sale throughout that period.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 225, if he will list those estate agents and other specialists known to him to have advised his Department on the disposal of surplus land and buildings. [32959]

  Mr. Soames
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member on 18 April,Official Report, column 225.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a list of estate agents and other specialists called in to advise the Defence Land Agency on the disposal has now been compiled, as foreshadowed in his answer to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside, (Mr. Colvin) on 27 October 1993,Official Report, column 701. [32960]

  Mr. Soames
  The then Under-Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the hon. Member for Romsey and
  529
  Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 8 November 1993 and a copy of his letter was placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many estate agents and other specialists called in to advise his Department on the sale of surplus property over the last five years have subsequently purchased MOD property themselves; if he will list the transactions; and if he will make a statement. [32961]

  Mr. Soames
  Records are not maintained in the form requested and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 May, on applications from DESO to work in the private sector,Official Report, column 51, if he will name the civil sector company involved. [32965]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The individual concerned was given approval to accept a non-executive directorship in a small steel group with no defence or defence-related interests.

  Royal Dockyards
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a clause will be inserted in the sale contracts for the Royal Naval dockyards to allow his Department a share in any future development gain; and if he will make a statement. [32964]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No decision to sell either royal dockyard has been taken. Should either transaction proceed, appropriate provision will be made for my Department to share in future development gain.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the sale of the Devonport and Rosyth royal naval dockyards. [32963]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the opening paragraphs of the answer that was given to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on 3 July,Official Report, columns 84 –90.

  Northumberland and National Park
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what construction work has taken place as a consequence of his Department's decision to train with artillery system 90 and multiple launch rocket system guns in Northumberland national park at(a) Catterick, (b) the Otterburn training area and (c) other locations. [33357]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure has been incurred by his Department on military installations and infrastructure as a consequence of his Department's decision to train with artillery system 90 and multiple launch rocket systems gun in Northumberland national park at(a) Catterick, (b) the Otterburn training area and (c) other locations. [33358]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of(a) the method to be employed for transporting the artillery system 90 and
  530
  multiple launch rocket system guns from their bases to the Otterburn training area and (b) the cost of any facilitating engineering work needed. [33359]

  Mr. Soames
  The movement implications have been addressed in the environmental impact assessment. The only practical means of moving artillery system 90 and multiple launch rocket system guns from their bases to the Otterburn training area is by use of military tank transporters or civilian low loaders. Vehicles can, however, travel on their own tracks for short journeys of less than 50 miles.

  The cost of facilitating works cannot be calculated until our notice of proposed development has been considered by the Northumberland national park authority and, assuming planning consent is granted, any conditions applied to the approval have been properly costed.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has made a decision in principle to fire the artillery system 90 and multiple launch rocket system guns at Otterburn training area in Northumberland national park. [33363]

  Mr. Soames
  Yes, subject to planning clearance for the necessary infrastructure developments.

  Environmental Policy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the environmental implications of "Options for Change"; and if he will make a statement. [33360]

  Mr. Soames
  "Options for Change" involved reductions and changes in the structures of the armed forces. Where these changes involved major developments or intensification of use of the defence estate the environmental implications would normally have been considered on a case by case basis.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the environmental implications for the practices of his Department of the Secretary of State for the Environment's guidance document, "Policy Appraisal and the Environment". [33361]

  Mr. Soames
  In line with Government policy and guidance contained in such documents as the Department of the Environment's "Policy Appraisal and the Environment", my Department seeks to identify, assess and where practicable minimise the environmental impacts of its current and planned activities. The senior environmental forum within my Department, which is chaired by the Green Minister, seeks to ensure that environmental considerations are integrated into all aspects of our policy formulation.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to produce environmental statements for all defence-related infrastructure projects where national security would not be jeopardised by doing so. [33362]
  531
  Mr. Soames
  My Department is already committed to conducting environmental impact assessments for all major projects and where new, renewed or intensified use is to be made of training areas.

  Water Supplies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for which sites vacated in the last 10 years his Department continue to incur the cost of supplying water; and if he will state the costs involved for each site; [33367]

  (2) what has been the annual cost of supplying water to sites owned by his Department in each of the last 10 years; and what volume of water has been supplied to such sites in each year; [33366]

  (3) how many (a) people and (b) properties otherwise unassociated with his Department have been permitted to connect into his Department's water supply network in each of the last 10 years; and what volume of water has been thus consumed in each of the last 10 years; [33368]

  (4) what has been the cost to his Department in each of the last 10 years of connecting into his Department's water supply network properties otherwise unassociated with his Department; what financial return his Department has received; and what water provision is made by his Department for such properties in the event of the closure of the related site; [33364]

  (5) what has been the cost of (a) repairing and (b) ensuring the potability of his Department's water supply network in each of the last 10 years; and by whom are the activities cited in (a) and (b) conducted. [33365]

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

  British Products
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of British-made defence products his Department purchases. [33355]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As recorded in figure 13 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995", Cm 2800, we estimate that over the last five years 91 per cent. of my Department's equipment expenditure has been direct with United Kingdom prime contractors—79 per cent.—or on collaborative projects–12 per cent. —where UK industry's work share will generally correspond with my Department's expenditure.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the percentage of United Kingdom industry's(a) aerospace output, (b) shipbuilding output, (c) electronics output and (d) ordnance output purchased by his Department. [33356]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department does not regularly monitor the total output of these industrial sectors. However, it has been estimated that, in 1991, the proportion of the output of these sectors which comprised both sales to my Department and defence exports was as follows:532

  (a) aerospace: 40 per cent.

  (b) shipbuilding: 50 per cent.

  (c) electronics: 13 per cent.

  (d) ordnance: 90 per cent.

  Horses
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of horse training for the armed forces; where horse training is undertaken; and how many horses are trained each year. [33780]

  Mr. Soames
  The annual cost of horse training for the armed forces is less than £350,000. Horse training is initially carried out at the defence animal centre at Melton Mowbray. Further training is carried out by the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment at Knightsbridge and Windsor and the King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery at St. John's Wood. An average of 40 horses are trained each year.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of(a) maintaining armed forces horses and (b) equipment for armed forces horses. [33781]

  Mr. Soames
  The annual cost of maintaining armed forces horses is approximately £825,000, including the purchase of food, bedding, medical supplies and shoeing. The cost of equipment for armed forces horses is approximately £160,000 per annum. This figure excludes ceremonial equipment, the costs of which are not recorded centrally and could be identified only at disproportionate cost.

  Official Cars
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on new cars for senior members of the armed forces in each of the last five years; what makes of cars have been acquired; and which grades of officers and how many in each grade qualify to use them. [33782]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of vehicles purchased and the amount spent in each of the last five financial years on staff cars for senior officers is as follows:

  1991 –92: nil

  1992 –93: 131 at a cost of £1.7 million

  1993 –94: 7 at a cost of £0.1 million

  1994 –95: nil

  1995 –96: nil

  The make of vehicle procured in 1992 –93 and 1993 –94 was the Rover 825D.

  At present, the number and grades of officers who qualify for dedicated staff cars are as follows: two at five star level; 16 at four star; 18 at three star; 65 at two star; and two at one star. In addition senior officers not entitled to a dedicated staff car can call on a pool of vehicles which are available for official use.

  Military Exports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries to which the United Kingdom has sold military arms or equipment with Government support during the last three years. [32674]
  533
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Defence Export Services Organisation within my Department exists to help United Kingdom defence industries to export. DESO assistance has been an important factor in the achievement of military export orders worth on average some £4.5 billion in each of the last five years. The presence and degree of such assistance, however, varies from contract to contract and it would not be practical to produce a list of countries to which UK military exports had been made with assistance from DESO.

  Bulldog Aircraft
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace the Bulldog aircraft currently in service with the Royal Air Force. [33110]
  534
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The British Aerospace Bulldog aircraft has served the Royal Air Force well for over 20 years. The current principal users of the Bulldog are the university air squadrons, and the aircraft is planned to remain in service until at least the year 2010. The Royal Air Force is currently investigating a number of options bearing on the future of the Bulldog fleet and delivery of flying to university air squadrons and air experience flights. As the then Minister said in debate on the Royal Air Force on 4 May 1995,Official Report, column 455, we shall carefully examine the economics of replacing the Bulldog compared with those of other options. If, as a result, a recommendation is made that the Bulldog fleet should be replaced before 2010 then a full competition would be needed to select the most suitable replacement.
  535

ENVIRONMENT

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) details of all overseas trips made by him, or ministerial colleagues in his Department, paid for wholly or partly from public funds and (b) the purpose, destination and duration of such overseas trips, which officials accompanied him and the total cost in each case, including that of officials, to public funds for each year since 1992. [32260]

  Ministerial overseas travel 1993

  Duration

  Purpose

  £

  Secretary of State

  USA

  23–25 June

  UN Commission on Sustainable Development

  8,995

  Luxembourg

  28 June

  EC Environment Council

  764

  Belgium

  7 September

  Bilateral with EC Environment Commissioner

  621

  Monaco

  21–26 September

  Promotion of the British Olympic Bid

  2,268

  France

  28–29 November

  Bilateral with French Environment Minister

  1,901

  Belgium

  2–3 December

  EC Environment Council

  1,037

  Mr. Yeo

  Luxembourg

  28–29 June

  EC Environment Council

  1,039

  China

  1–10 September

  British construction industry mission to China.

  14,337

  Discussion of environmental and construction issues with new Japanese Government

  Luxembourg

  5–10 October

  EC Environment Council

  939

  Germany

  28 October

  Meeting with German Environment Minister about EC Packaging Directive

  737

  Belgium

  9 November

  EC symposium on environment and development

  474

  USA

  14–18 November

  To study US approach to air pollution, energy management and the use of economic instruments

  8,861

  Belgium

  2 December

  EC Environment Council

  474

  Denmark

  7 December

  Intermediate Ministerial meeting on the North Sea

  992

  Belgium

  15–16 December

  EC Environment Council

  626

  Mr. Curry

  Netherlands

  14–15 September

  EC Council of Ministers meeting on Regional Government

  441

  USA

  19 September—2 October

  To examine local government and planning practices, in the USA and meet counterparts in US Government

  10,149

  Mr. Baldry

  Taiwan

  29 May-6 June

  Construction Trade Mission

  6,337

  Belgium

  23 September

  Visit to the "British House" exhibition of British building materials

  275

  Lord Strathclyde

  Hungary

  1–3 June

  Energy Efficiency Trade Mission

  1,547

  South Africa

  19–24 September

  Water Trade Mission

  5,437

  Lady Denton

  Belgium

  20 October

  Meeting of EC Housing Ministers

  621

  536
  Mr. Gummer
  The information available, which relates to the period since I became Secretary of State, is set out in the table. Information concerning the officials attending is not held centrally, although the costs shown include any costs incurred by private secretaries accompanying Ministers. I should like to thank Ministers and civil servants who have represented the UK so effectively on these occasions and contributed to making us the world leader in environmental protection and a major exporter of environmentally friendly technology. I hope that, in the coming year, we shall be able to do even more to promote British business and British interests in the rest of Europe and abroad.
  537

  Ministerial overseas travel 1995

  Duration

  Purpose

  £

  Secretary of State

  France

  3–5 February

  Informal EC Environment Council

  1,793

  Norway

  10 February

  Round Table Conference on Sustainable Production and Consumption

  556

  Germany

  5–7 April

  Meeting of Parties to the Convention on Climate Change

  1,694

  USA

  26 April-1 May

  UN Commission on Sustainable Development

  12,633

  Kenya

  20–23 May

  UNEP Governing Council

  7,943

  Germany

  29–30 May

  Bilateral with the German Environment Minister

  744

  Denmark

  9 June

  North Sea Conference

  1,300

  Luxembourg

  22 June

  EC Environment Council

  1,090

  Mr. Atkins

  Belgium

  23 January

  EC Environment Council

  180

  Belgium

  8 March

  EC Environment Council

  437

  Mr. Curry

  Netherlands

  7 May

  Meeting on European local government and regeneration

  511

  The Lord Ullswater

  Netherlands

  8 February

  Building Exhibition

  401

  Lebanon/Syria

  23–27 April

  Construction Trade Mission

  2,195

  Vietnam

  27 May-3 June

  Construction Trade Mission

  7,806

  The Earl of Lindsay

  South Africa

  26 June

  World Environment Day

  4,019

  South America

  15–21 June

  Environment Conference

  3,114

  Ministerial overseas travel 1994

  Duration

  Purpose

  £

  Secretary of State

  Czechoslovakia

  28–29 January

  Global Environment Awards

  1,004

  Switzerland

  16–17 February

  United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/GATT Meeting

  2,192

  Italy

  12–13 March

  G7 Informal Ministerial Meeting

  1,485

  Belgium

  24–25 March

  EC Environment Council

  2,366

  Greece

  12–16 May

  Informal EC Environment Council

  2,515

  USA

  25–27 May

  UN Commission on Sustainable Development

  11,303

  Luxembourg

  8–9 June

  EC Environment Council

  1,205

  Norway

  13–14 June

  Second Sulphur Protocol Meeting

  895

  Finland

  21–22 June

  WHO Conference

  1,380

  India

  25 July

  International Forestry Workshop

  6,452

  Belgium

  28 July

  Transfer to Brussels to commence leave delayed by Government business

  481

  Austria

  1 August

  Bilateral with the Austrian Environment Minister

  746

  Brazil/Argentina/Chile/Paraguay

  3–12 September

  Bilaterals with South American Environment Ministers; export promotion and fact-finding mission

  11,772

  Luxembourg

  4 October

  EC Environment Council

  697

  Switzerland

  22 November

  UNCTAD/UNEP meeting on Trade and Environment

  972

  Belgium

  15 December

  EC Environment Council

  754

  France

  21 December

  Bilateral with the French Environment Minister

  1,211

  Mr. Atkins

  Netherlands

  22 March

  Water conference

  548

  Belgium

  23–25 March

  EC Environment Council

  1,181

  Belgium

  15 December

  EC Environment Council

  416

  Sir George Young

  Lebanon

  27 April

  Construction Industry export promotion

  2,800

  Kazakhstan

  30 May-4 June

  Construction Industry export promotion

  4,411

  Mr. Curry

  Greece

  3–5 June

  Informal EC Council

  1,761

  Poland

  17–18 October

  Ministerial Conference on Local Government

  2,982

  France

  19 October

  Thames Corridor Regeneration

  612

  Belgium

  20 October

  and "EuroLille" link

  464

  538

  539

  Ministerial overseas travel 1994

  Duration

  Purpose

  £

  The Earl of Arran

  India

  23–26 February

  Indo-British Environment initiative meeting

  5,666

  Barbados

  4–6 May

  Small islands developing states conference

  On behalf of FCO

  Denmark

  9 May

  European "Better Environment Awards for Industry"

  732

  Spain

  31 May-3 June

  ceremony Water trade mission

  1,656

  Mr. Jones

  Czechoslovakia

  7 November

  Energy Efficiency Trade Mission

  1,036

  Sir Paul Beresford

  Germany

  21 Sepember

  EC Informal Council on Spatial Planning

  1,021

  Australia/New Zealand

  16–24 November

  OECD Planning Conference

  7,784

  Parishes
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his decision on the recommendations of the Local Government Commission to grant parish council status to the city of Salisbury. [32096]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer Monday 3 July 1995]: In the light of the commission's recommendations and the representations my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has received, he has decided that the following areas should be parished:

  County

  Name of proposed parish

  Berkshire

  Newbury

  Cornwall

  St. Germans

  Seaton and Downderry

  Devon

  Exmouth

  County Durham

  Haswell

  South Hetton

  East Sussex

  Rottingdean

  Essex

  Loughton

  Buckhurst Hill

  Chigwell

  Great Burstead and South Green

  Little Burstead

  Ramsden Bellhouse

  Ramsden Crays

  Billericay

  Leigh on Sea

  Rayleigh

  Gloucestershire

  Charlton Kings

  Hampshire

  Bishopstoke

  Sarisbury

  Warsash

  Hereford and Worcester

  Malvern

  Kent

  Deal

  Dover

  Great Mongeham

  Walmer

  Heme and Broomfield

  Leicestershire

  Great Bowden

  Earl Shilton

  Northumberland

  Ulgham

  Widdrington Station and Stobswood

  Nottinghamshire

  Ollerton and Boughton

  The commission also recommended the creation of a number of large parishes. My right hon. Friend has carefully considered the advantages of giving these communities the opportunity to exercise the powers enjoyed by parish councils, balances against the potential for conflict between such large parishes and the existing
  540
  districts or new unitary authorities, and the greater likelihood that larger parishes would fail to reflect small, distinctive and recognisable communities. He has concluded that the following recommendations by the Local Government Commission should be rejected:

  County

  Name of proposed parish

  Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury

  High Wycombe

  Dorset

  Christchurch

  Kent

  Folkestone

  Oxfordshire

  Banbury

  Somerset

  Bridgwater

  Wiltshire

  Salisbury

  My right hon. Friend now proposes to undertake a review of the guidance on the size of parishes which is set out in Department of Environment circular 121/77. As part of that review, he will consider what other criteria should be taken into account in deciding whether parishes should be created, and the weight that those criteria should be given. Subject to the outcome of that review, he will decide then whether to direct the commission to proceed with the further parish reviews it has proposed.

  In the light of the representations received about the commission's recommendations for new parishes in the district of Havant in Hampshire and in Surrey, my right hon. Friend will also ask the commission to look again at parishing arrangements in those areas in due course.

  My right hon. Friend has also agreed the following minor transfers of land between parishes which were recommended by the commission:

  County

  Transfer

  Lincolnshire Swinderby and Swinethorpe

  Transfer of land between parishes.

  North Yorkshire Sciven and Farnham

  Transfer of land between parishes.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his decisions about the Local Government Commission's recommendations for the creation of new parishes. [34284]
  541
  Mr. Gummer
  In the light of the commission's recommendations and the representations I have received, I have decided that the following areas should be parished:

  County

  Name of proposed parish

  Berkshire Cornwall

  Newbury

  Cornwall

  St. Germans

  Seaton and Downderry

  Devon

  Exmouth

  County Durham

  HaswellSouth Hetton

  East Sussex

  Rottingdean

  Essex

  Loughton

  Buckhurst Hill

  Chigwell

  Great Burstead and South Green

  Little Burstead

  Ramsden Bellhouse

  Ramsden Crays

  Billericay

  Leigh on Sea

  Rayleigh

  Gloucestershire

  Charlton Kings

  Hampshire

  Bishopstoke

  Sarisbury

  Warsash

  Hereford and Worcester

  Malvern

  Kent

  Deal

  Dover

  Great Mongeham

  Walmer

  Herne and Broomfield

  Leicestershire

  Great Bowden

  Earl Shilton

  Northumberland

  Ulgham

  Widdrington Station and Stobswood

  Nottinghamshire

  Ollerton and Boughton

  The commission also recommended the creation of a number of larger parishes. I have carefully considered the advantages of giving these communities the opportunity to exercise the powers enjoyed by parish councils, balanced against the potential for conflict between such large parishes and the existing districts or new unitary authorities, and the greater likelihood that larger parishes would fail to reflect small, distinctive and recognisable communities. I have concluded that the following recommendations by the Local Government Commission should be rejected:

  County

  Name of proposed parish

  Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury

  High Wycombe

  Dorset

  Christchurch

  Kent

  Folkestone

  Oxfordshire

  Banbury

  Somerset

  Bridgwater

  Wiltshire

  Salisbury

  I now propose to undertake a review of the guidance on the size of parishes which is set out in Department of the Environment circular 121/77. As part of that review I shall consider what other criteria should be taken into account in deciding whether parishes should be created, and the weight those criteria should be given. Subject to the outcome of that review I will decide then whether or not to direct the commission to proceed with the further parish reviews it has proposed.
  542
  In the light of the representations received about the commission's recommendations for new parishes in the district of Havant in Hampshire and in Surrey, I will also ask the commission to look again at parishing arrangements in those areas in due course.

  I have also agreed the following minor transfers of land between parishes which were recommended by the commission.

  County

  Transfer

  Lincolnshire

  Transfer of land between Swinderby and Swinethorpe parishes

  North Yorkshire

  Transfer of land between Sciven and Farnham parishes

  Air Quality
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will implement the recommendation of the first report of the quality of urban air review group in respect of an enhanced urban network monitoring station for Coventry; [32807]

  (2) if all the sites identified in the first report of the quality of urban air review group have or will have an enhanced urban network monitoring station; [32805]

  (3) if he will reimburse Coventry the running costs of Coventry's OPSIS system to monitor air quality pending the installation of an enhanced urban network monitoring station; [32809]

  (4) when Coventry will have an enhanced urban network monitoring station. [32806]

  Mr. Clappison
  Of the 24 towns and cities identified in the first report of the quality of urban air review group, QUARG, as priorities for air quality monitoring, 22 have, or will have, a Department of the Environment funded automatic urban monitoring station by the end of 1996. The location of two further sites will be announced later this year.

  Meanwhile, the Government have announced their intention to integrate 35 local authority sites into a harmonised national network. The decision on the location of the two new centrally funded sites will therefore also take account of the results of consultation on which such sites should be integrated.

  The Government have made no 'commitment to reimburse local authorities for the costs of any air quality monitoring which they may themselves already have introduced.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he gives to Coventry in the absence of an enhanced urban network monitoring station in the respect of the monitoring of air quality. [32808]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government published "Air Quality —Meeting the Challenge" on 19 January 1995, setting out their strategic proposals for assessing and managing air quality in the UK. The Government have introduced amendments to the Environment Bill to implement their proposals. The amendments provide for a national strategy for air quality and a new system of local air qualify management under which local
  543
  authorities will assess air quality in their area and, where it falls short of targets, declare air quality management areas and produce a remedial plan. The Government intend to issue guidance to all local authorities, including Coventry, on how to undertake such an assessment at around the end of this year.

  The Government are proceeding at the same time with expansion of UK air quality monitoring networks, including the integration of 35 local authority monitoring sites. In addition, the Department of the Environment will fund 13 new automatic urban monitoring stations to be set up by the end of 1996. The location of 11 of these sites has already been determined. The locations of the other two will be announced later this year.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement as to the progress being made to improve air quality if Coventry and the west midlands. [32810]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government have introduced amendments to the Environment Bill to implement a new framework for air quality management and expect to publish later this year their draft strategy for improving air quality throughout the United Kingdom.

  Secondary Liquid Fuels
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Health and Safety Executive concerning the burning of waste products as fuels for cement kilns; and if he will make a statement. [33095]

  Mr. Clappison
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has consulted the Health and Safety Executive on the permanent burning of secondary liquid fuels in cement plants at Clitheroe and Barrington. It will do so for other plants where an application for permanent burning is received.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the consequences of burning waste products as fuels for cement kilns for communities near cement factories. [33094]

  Mr. Clappison
  The burning of substitute fuels based on waste products in cement kilns is currently allowed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for short-term trials only. This is being done under a strict regime of controls and extensive monitoring as announced by the Minister for the Environment and Countryside in answer to a parliamentary question of 23 June 1994. HMIP will not allow the permanent burning of substitute fuels if there is any net adverse environmental effect.

  Rent-to-mortgage Scheme
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1994,Official Report, column 131, how many rent-to-mortgage sales have now been completed. [33240]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities in England reported 11 completed sales under rent-to-mortgage by the end of March 1995.
  544

  Staff Shareholdings
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff in his Department or its agencies have(a) declared any company shareholdings they hold or (b) been advised to dispose of shareholdings in the past five years, indicating the companies concerned. [33417]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Ten officers have declared shareholdings further to the rules set out in my Department's staff handbook. The companies were:

  Tarmac

  Thames Water (3)

  Anglian Water

  Severn Trent Water

  Yorkshire Water

  South West Water

  WRC plc

  SERCO

  Two of these were advised to dispose of their holdings. The companies concerned were Tannac and WRC plc.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the past five years; [33571]

  (2) if he will indicate which five consultancy firms have received most contracts from his Department. (a) by number of contracts and (b) monetary value in the last five years for which figures are available. [33438]

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

  Cleveland
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decision he has reached on the recommendation of the Local Government Commission that the county of Cleveland should be abolished and its area divided, for ceremonial and related purposes, between the historic counties of Durham and Yorkshire. [33838]

  Mr. Gummer
  In my answer of 18 January 1994 to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates),Official Report, column 581 –82, I said that I had accepted in principle that the county of Cleveland should be abolished, but deferred a final decision until I had reached decisions on the commission's recommendations for Durham and North Yorkshire. In the light of my decisions on those two counties, and following consultation, I am now able to confirm my decision that the county of Cleveland should be abolished. I have also decided that, for ceremonial and related purposes, the county area north of the River Tees should be associated with County Durham, and the area south of the River Tees with North Yorkshire, restoring the traditional boundary between Durham and Yorkshire.
  545

  Offshore Industry (Environmental Impacts)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make funds available for marine biologists to carry out independent assessments of the environmental impacts of the offshore oil and gas industry, separate to those commissioned by the industry itself. [31696]

  Mr. Clappison
  The offshore industry is required to carry out various environmental studies as part of the processes for approval of offshore activities. Information from such studies is reviewed by marine scientists at the relevant fisheries departments responsible for assessing the impact of the offshore industry on the marine environment.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a full set of English translations of the documents discussed at the EU Environment Council on 22 and 23 June; and on what date he expects to be able to do so. [31697]

  Mr. Clappison
  The documents discussed at the Council were Council working documents and are not depositable. However, some documents were made available to the Select Committee on European Legislation on an informal basis to assist with scrutiny procedures, as no recent depositable texts were available. Of these documents, the French version of one text had earlier been attached to an unnumbered explanatory memorandum for the same reason. The English translation of this text will be submitted to the House under cover of an addendum to the memorandum.

  Inspectors
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many full-time Health and Safety Executive inspectors were employed in Scotland in each year since 1990 –91. [33542]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table shows the number of full-time health and safety inspectors based in the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division area offices in Scotland:

  Year (1 April)

  Number

  1990

  79

  1991

  92

  1992

  98

  1993

  104

  1994

  106

  1995

  97

  The figures comprise factory inspectors, agricultural inspectors, specialist inspectors, quarries inspectors and railway inspectors.

  Welsh Correspondence
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on signing correspondence written in Welsh. [33789]
  546
  Mr. Gummer
  The hon. Gentleman has to the best of my knowledge never sent a communication to me in Welsh. Were he to do so I should be happy to reply in Welsh, but the hon. Gentleman may feel it best to forward a translation into English of his constituent's letter so that there is no misunderstanding between us as to the points raised.

  Direct Labour and Service Organisations
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action he proposes to take against those local authorities whose direct labour and direct service organisations failed to meet their statutory financial objectives in 1993 –94. [34236]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  On 11 April this year, 36 statutory notices were served on 25 local authorities concerning the failure of their direct labour and service organisations (DLOs/DSOs) to meet the required financial objective in 1993 –94. My right hon. Friend has now considered the responses to those notices, and has today given directions to Carrick district council sports and leisure management; Cleveland county council, grounds maintenance; Croydon London borough council, grounds maintenance, sports and leisure management; Haringey London borough council, other catering; Kettering borough council, building maintenance; Leicestershire county council, grounds maintenance; Runnymede borough council, sports and leisure management; Scunthorpe borough council, refuse collection; South Lakeland district council, building maintenance and Watford borough council, other catering.

  The directions take three different forms:
  requiring the authority to retender all or part of the work, and to seek the Secretary of State's prior consent should they wish to award the work in-house. The work would need to be retendered or a new contract would need to have been awarded by specific dates: Carrick, sports and leisure management; Cleveland, grounds maintenance; Croydon London borough council, sports and leisure management; Haringey other catering; Leicestershire, grounds maintenance; Runnymede, sports and leisure management and Watford, other catering.
  preventing the authority from carrying out the work if it fails to meet the required financial objective in 1995 –96: South Lakeland, building maintenance.
  requiring the authority to retender the work if it fails to meet the required financial objective in a specified financial year or years, and to seek the Secretary of State's prior consent where the work has to be retendered and where the authority subsequently wish to award the work in-house:

  1995 –96: Croydon, grounds maintenance; Scunthorpe, refuse collection.

  1995 –96 and 1996 –97 Kettering, building maintenance.

  The Secretary of State has also decided to take no further statutory action in respect of financial failure in 1993 –94 by Avon, grounds maintenance; Barnsley, sports and leisure management; Derby, building cleaning, sports and leisure management; Doncaster, grounds maintenance; Ealing, other catering; Easington, grounds maintenance, highways and sewers, new construction over £50,000, other catering, other cleaning; Greenwich, building maintenance, Halton, building maintenance, grounds maintenance, other catering; North Hertfordshire, other cleaning; Reigate and Banstead, grounds maintenance; Stafford, building maintenance, other catering, other cleaning; Thanet, other catering; Walsall, highways and sewers and Wyre, building maintenance.
  547
  Decisions on Lincolnshire county council's failure to meet the financial objective for highways and sewers work, and Walsall metropolitan borough council's failure to meet the financial objective for other catering have been deferred and will be announced at a later date.

  Eco-management and Audit Scheme
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on registrations under the EC eco-management and audit scheme. [34285]

  Mr. Gummer
  I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies has accredited the first three verifiers for the EC's eco-management and audit scheme. I congratulate the new verifiers, and I look forward to receiving the first applications for EMAS registration very shortly.
  548
  EMAS is an important initiative which provides a powerful voluntary framework for securing environmental improvements. I hope that businesses in the United Kingdom will respond positively and will be among the leaders in Europe in demonstrating a proactive approach to environmental issues.

  Departmental Review
  Sir Kenneth Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the report of the review of the Department of the Environment will be issued. [34294]

  Mr. Gummer
  The report of the review of my Department is being issued today. It makes a number of recommendations concerning the structure, organisation and working methods of the Department. I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Medical Students: Financial Needs
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of financial hardship being experienced by medical and dental students, they will make available to them enhanced loans during their clinical training.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government have no plans to increase student loans for medical students. An extra allowance is payable, as part of the mandatory award, to students who attend their courses for longer in the academic year than normal. We know of no compelling reasons why medical and dental students should be treated more favourably than other students on long courses.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, perhaps I may couple my thanks to the Minister for that Answer with congratulations to him on his new appointment, as expressed yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. However, I find the Minister's Answer disappointing. I hope that he will be able to think again in the light of the fact that medical, dental and veterinary students work long hours for 48 to 50 weeks a year in their clinical courses and therefore have no opportunity to supplement their grants by part-time employment. Is the Minister aware that although graduates in the medical and dental professions cannot aspire to the levels of income now being commanded by certain captains of industry, it is nevertheless unlikely that they would have any difficulty in repaying an enhanced loan?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree with the second part of the noble Lord's question. Such students would obviously have no problems in repaying any loan, but there would still be a cost to Her Majesty's Government and such costs have to be taken into consideration by my right honourable friend when she allocates resources in the department. Quite frankly, my right honourable friend does not see this as a priority. On the first part of the noble Lord's question, I can assure him that, as I made clear in my original Answer, an extra allowance is payable to students whose courses last for more than 30 weeks a year. In the case of a student whose course lasts for 45 or 46 weeks of the year and who studies in London and away from home, that could amount to an extra 1,650 a year. That is a not inconsiderable sum on top of the other grants and loans that are available.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, can the Minister explain the reasoning behind the fact that in the first and second years of clinical studies a student is entitled to £1,375 as a loan but in the third year, for some inconceivable reason, that sum is reduced to £1,005? What is the reasoning behind that reduction?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the reasoning is that for the first two or however many years, the loan covers the whole year whereas in the final year it does not cover the whole year, but only nine months.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I begin by welcoming my noble friend to his new position and congratulating him on it. However, is he aware that from November 1994 the chairman of the British Medical Association, Dr. Macara, was repeatedly urging the former Under-Secretary of State, my honourable friend Mr. Tim Boswell, to recognise the special needs and urgent problems of medical students but that his proposal that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State should meet the representatives of medical students was refused and that nothing was done to address their problem'? Does my noble friend further agree that, given the serious drop-out rate for medical students and the consequent need to employ foreign doctors, it is both unacceptable and unwise to refuse to listen to such legitimate concerns? May we have an assurance that the Government will listen now and act?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's concern but these matters were pretty fully explored in correspondence between my right honourable friend and my honourable friend the former Minister for Further and Higher Education and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a subsequent meeting. If my noble friend wishes, I can place that correspondence in the Library of the House.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, does the Minister recollect that when the Select Committee on Science and Technology reported to this House on priorities in the National Health Service, it was concerned about the withdrawal of funding for intercalated Bachelor of Science degrees for medical students? Can the Minister say whether the Government have reinstated some of the bursaries for such degrees? If they have not done so, do they accept that that is one of the important reasons why medical students should be treated differently from university students on ordinary three or four-year courses?
Lord Henley: My Lords, where the intercalated year is an integral part of the medical degree course, it forms part of the course for awards purposes and payments made under the appropriate regulations. Where it is optional, students have instead to seek discretionary support, principally from the Medical Research Council but also from their own local education authorities. Therefore, it is a matter for their LEAs. Discretionary support for an intercalated year will not affect a student's entitlement to mandatory support for other periods of study on his medical course.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, perhaps I may join the chorus of those who congratulate the Minister on his new appointment and wish him well in it. Will he tell the House exactly what legislative action would be required to give power to the Student Loan Company to increase by agreed amounts loans available to medical, dental and veterinary students? Would it not be—to use a famous phrase—a price worth paying to achieve parity for that valuable category of students?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are not talking about achieving parity. Medical and dental students are treated now in the same way as other students. I made it clear that we do not see their needs as being more pressing than those of others, and so we do not see a case for devoting extra resources to them. Nor do we see a case for expanding, at considerable cost, the level of grants to all students on long courses.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, since we might have a minute, while I thank the Minister for that reply, will he answer the question that I asked and tell us what legislative action would be required to give powers to the Student Loan Company to increase its grants?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord as to whether we need primary or secondary legislation or whether it is something within the gift of my right honourable friend. The simple point I was making—clearly, I thought—was that we do not see a case for extending grants to that one class of students or, for that matter, any students doing long courses.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in some parts of the country there is a serious shortage of dentists and that some of those who are practising have very long waiting lists? Therefore, in giving further thought to the matter will he ensure that enough dental students are forthcoming?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall look at that case, which goes somewhat wide of my responsibilities. I do not believe that arrangements for grants and loans to medical and dental students have led to more drop-outs of medical and dental students. It is not the fault of the grant system that there are not enough dental or medical students.
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I, as one whose concern with student hardship is well known to the Minister, ask him to accept that this is an altogether different and more serious case? Most students now spend as long in the labour market as they do in their studies. These cannot; they are therefore much more hard up.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I appreciate that in their clinical years medical students cannot take time off to find other jobs. They therefore qualify for an extra allowance which, as I made clear, in the case of London students staying away from home can amount to an extra £1,650 a year, which is a not inconsiderable sum in addition to the loans and grants of which they are already in receipt.

British Fishing Fleet:Discards
2.47 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have figures for discards by the British fishing fleet of (a) undersized fish and (b) fish banned from being caught.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, the marine laboratory at Aberdeen has collected discard data from the mid-1970s. The data are published in aggregate form through the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and guide its advisory committee on fishery management when reporting to the European Commission and others. Its advice allows total allowable catches to be set after due allowance has been made for fish mortality and discarding.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I asked how much the percentages were and not who published the figures. Will my noble friend please tell me what are the figures?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the figures are necessarily complex because they deal with different types of fish from different parts of the sea. Therefore, while the original data go straight to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, as I said, so that its advisory committee can analyse them, the data which are more useful for everyone probably relate to the broad percentages of discards of different types of fish.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, what are the percentages?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, in haddock and whiting fisheries, discards amount to some one third of those catches but, for instance, in cod discards the percentage is very much lower.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will the Minister accept that he is having a difficult baptism on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in charge of fisheries and agriculture? Perhaps I may welcome him to the Dispatch Box. In order to make an early name for himself, will he introduce legislation to ensure that all the undersized fish do not go to the chip shop where I buy my fish and chips?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind thoughts. Any fish which cannot be landed legally in this country are, on the whole, not landed. So the undersized fish that he might get in his fish and chip shop may come from another source.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the size of fishing net mesh is a most important factor in the control of fish stocks? Does he believe that enough emphasis is given to the enforcement of the size of fishing net mesh?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, my noble friend has raised a very important point. Since 1992 we have been conducting initiatives on the different configurations of mesh. For instance, the UK pioneered the square mesh panels in nets which have had considerable benefits. The

1467
European Union last revived the technical conservation rules in 1992. The Commission has agreed to re-examine the rules, including the mesh sizes used in western waters, in time for the Council to reach decisions by the end of December 1995.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. Of course, we have met before when discussing other matters.
This is a difficult problem and the fact that fish are thrown back and are of no use to anyone except a number of sea birds almost defies common sense. The average person has great difficulty in understanding what it is all about. Do Her Majesty's Government still reject the abolition of discards on the ground of cost? Will the Minister seek a fresh opinion as regards the recently established common fisheries policy advisory group, assuming that the group will continue its work following the changes that have taken place in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? I am sure that all noble Lords will find difficulty in understanding why we are throwing good fish back.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind thoughts. We certainly have met previously in discussions on a number of different matters. It is generally impossible, in particular in the North Sea mixed fisheries, to have totally clean catches of a single species or size of fish. That is because the different species such as cod, haddock and whiting of all ages and sizes often shoal together and are therefore caught together. Fishermen discard fish either to comply with fisheries regulations relating to quota uptake or the minimum landing size or because poor markets exist for fish of certain species, sizes or quality.
Our reluctance to ban discarding has nothing whatever to do with cost. If one were to ban discarding, in particular in the North Sea where the catches are mixed, one could not penalise fishermen for landing undersized fish or fish of a stock for which the quota has been exhausted. The review of the CFP, which is undertaken by a special group, is continuing. We are drawing into the group the expertise of the industry and its recommendation will be put forward to the Commission in due course.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that outside the plaice box in the North Sea the amount of fish discarded from the trawlers which wait for the fish to come out to them is up to 90 per cent.? Is my noble friend further aware that some estimates put the total discard of fish at up 50 per cent? If that is the case, is it not a crazy way to run a conservation policy?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can only reiterate that within the North Sea it is impossible to avoid discards. Even discards have some place in the marine eco-system. It has been estimated, for instance, that up to 1 million sea birds in the North Sea survive on discards.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the discarding of undersized fish
1468
does nothing for the conservation of fish stocks? Will the Government consider expanding the decommissioning scheme, thereby reducing the effort?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, there have been two decommissioning schemes to date and we have recently announced a third. The Council of Ministers has asked the Commission to bring forward proposals to address the problem of discarding. However, as regards these waters, we have already taken measures to prevent discarding. MAFF is funding trials into the use of, for instance, separated trawls. All those measures should produce the required percentage of discards.

"Brent Spar": Disposal
2.55 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are prepared to reconsider their view of the proposed sinking of the "Brent Spar" in the Atlantic in view of European and worldwide reaction.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, Shell UK announced on 20th June that it would not be proceeding with deep-sea disposal of the "Brent Spar".
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. Is he aware that when I raised the matter on 12th June 1995 (Hansard, cols. 1537 to 1538) the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, answered on behalf of the Government and listed a number of conventions which the Government arc pledged to uphold? They are being amalgamated into the OSPAR Convention, which will cover the whole issue. Will the Minister give an undertaking that when the convention is signed it will be honoured in order to maintain a rationale on the disposal of such drilling apparatus? Will each case be decided by the Government on its merits?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for his welcome. It is correct that the United Kingdom's decision was fully consistent with the requirements of international law and, in particular, the provisions of the London and Oslo conventions of 1972. Furthermore, it was in line with the provisions of the Oslo convention's guidelines on the disposal of offshore installations. We shall certainly adhere to those conventions and, as indicated, we shall treat each case on its merits.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are two worrying aspects to the "Brent Spar" episode? First, there was the sudden decision by Shell, an independent company, to change its policy purely as a result of pressure from people who are becoming increasingly irresponsible in their demonstrations, contrary to what it believed to he the right policy and with the complicity of the German Government. The second and more worrying aspect is that offshore rigs have operated in the North Sea for more than 30 years

1469
and there are more than 100 in European waters and thousands around the world. Is there an agreed policy within the international community for the inevitable disposal of those rigs?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as regards the first issue, it remains the view of the Government that in the case of "Brent Spar" a deep-water disposal was the best option. I believe that Shell still adheres to that view. However, the European companies of the Royal Dutch Shell Group found themselves in a difficult position. I understand that for that reason a reversal of the original decision was made and that Shell is taking some time to reconsider the options.
It is difficult to assess how many rigs might be appropriately disposed of in deep water. As I indicated, our policy is that it is correct to do so on a case-by-case basis. However, an Answer given in another place yesterday indicated that of approximately 32 fixed offshore installations in United Kingdom waters 19 are in water less than 75 metres deep and therefore will have to be entirely removed. It should not be assumed that all of them will be appropriately disposed of in deep water. It is more likely that they will be returned to the shore for breaking up.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question? Is there an agreed international policy?
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not a fact that the polluting effects of the "Brent Spar" would have been negligible compared with those of a large number of ships which have sunk in the same waters? Is it not ironical that the Germans of all people should be making trouble about the issue when one recalls that U-boats littered these waters with sunken ships?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there is more metal at the bottom of the Atlantic than in the "Brent Spar" installation. Certainly, the North Atlantic is not to be regarded as a garbage dump of infinite capacity. However, on a case-by-case basis, some rigs may be suitable for disposal. Perhaps the noble Lord noticed with interest, as did I, that Nature magazine of 29th June indicated:
"Far from finding heavy metal residues lethal or mildly unappetising, the bacteria on the ocean floor would have greeted the arrival of the Brent Spar as if all their Christmases had come at once".
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the short answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to say that two wrongs do not make a right?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not aware of any scientific evidence or argument which indicates that the decision taken by the United Kingdom following the application by Shell was wrong. While there have been a number of reactions from Europe, so far as I am aware no one has come forward with a serious scientific basis on which to reject the proposal to which the United Kingdom agreed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the global implication placed before us so effectively by the Minister, to what extent is the matter now being discussed by the United Nations?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the decision that we took was in accordance with international law and the conventions to which we are signatories. They apply on a global basis. The noble Lord may be aware that recently a number of European countries suggested that there might be a moratorium on the disposal of such installations in deep water. Those who proposed it did not have offshore installations. Both the United Kingdom and Norway, which clearly have to deal with a difficult problem often in complicated circumstances, declined to reach that decision. There is a set of guidance notes in which we are indicating that as we review the matter we shall act in accordance with the International Maritime Organisation guidelines which apply on a worldwide basis.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that "Brent Spar" is not a rig or a platform but is unusual in that it is a loading container buoy? Its disposal on land will produce more environmental problems. Has he noted the reported comments of a technically qualified member of the Advisory Committee on the Protection of the Sea, which has international membership and which I chaired for four years, to the effect that to aim for publicity only at the expense of facts and sensible decisions is a disservice to the whole environmental movement?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I strongly endorse that. My understanding is that it may be six times more dangerous to try to dispose of "Brent Spar" on land. It is of such a size that it cannot be brought into United Kingdom coastal waters in a vertical position. If it is to be disposed of on land, a clever engineering solution will have to be found to the problem of getting it onto a horizontal plane.

Family Planning: Overseas Aid
3.3 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon Viscount Craigavon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made following the declaration of the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker): My Lords, we have made excellent progress through the overseas aid programme since the Cairo conference. Total new commitments in 1994 and 1995 for family planning and reproductive health will reach £150 million by the end of the year. That exceeds the target we set a year ago and will have a major impact by enabling large numbers of women and men in developing countries to choose if and when to have children; to protect themselves from HIV and other sexually transmitted infections; and by reducing the risks associated with childbirth.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. As distinct from all the other Ministers who have been congratulated on their new posts, perhaps I may say that some of us are extremely relieved to find that the noble Baroness retains her portfolio. Does she agree that, despite the genuine success of the Cairo population conference, it is an urgent issue? Does she accept that the figures that she has just given show a remarkable increase—something like a doubling in support over five years? How does she intend to enthuse others—namely, NGOs and other countries—so that they share her enthusiasm in the field of reproductive health?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount and your Lordships' House for the rather welcome endorsement of my remaining in place. Of course, the issue is still urgent because 254,000 children are born each day; that is, 176 each minute. That means that our current world population of 5.6 billion will increase by 1,000 million in the next decade and then increase further. Therefore, in the next century, the world population may triple. That is why the matter is so urgent.
We are doing more than we had expected and I am glad that it will not be at the expense of other projects in the social field but will be from savings made and money diverted to that very important task. I shall continue to enthuse as many people as I can wherever I go because the world food stocks simply will not meet even the current needs of the population in overcrowded countries. As those numbers increase, the situation, pressure and perhaps person-to-person violence will get worse unless we take real action on family planning.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is generally understood that the education of women is probably the most important single item in improving the population situation? What are the literacy rates for women in India, Pakistan and sub—Saharan Africa? How much money is earmarked for that purpose in the aid programme?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I should love to be able to give those figures to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, but I do not have them in my population and family planning file. I do not wish to misinform her. I shall write to her and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, the Minister is going to the Beijing conference. We know that there is a lot of pressure there to turn around the agenda from the Cairo conference. I believe that at the preliminary conference certain issues are to be taken up and earmarked to be debated which we thought had been accepted by everybody because they were the main issues accepted at the Cairo conference. Will my noble friend explain what would happen if the worst came about and some of those matters were turned around and not accepted at the conference in Beijing?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the main purpose of the Cairo conference was to promote sustainable development and slow population growth through strategies for better reproductive healthcare,
1472
including access to family planning. It is essential that all the gains that we have made at the Cairo conference are carried forward in Beijing. I have every confidence that people around the world will be sufficiently sensible to see that that happens.
I understand the anxiety shared by a number of noble Lords that some aspects of the Cairo conference may be slightly endangered. However, I can fairly say to my noble friend that there are enough people around who know the score. I shall not speculate about a negative possibility when I am working flat out for a positive outcome because that is what the women and men of the world want. They want access to family planning help and for women to be treated on a par with men. That is what we hope the conference at Beijing will deliver.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Perhaps I may say one or two things in general about this Bill on the subject of this Motion before we consider the Commons Amendments in full, as the list is fairly compendious.
I stand here with a certain amount of temerity. Some of your Lordships have had cause to be deeply involved with the Bill in its earlier stages. That has not been my good fortune so far, as I have been involved with other matters. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will avoid the temptation of treading all over the "new boy" and inadvertently thereby over the Government as well. The noble Lord is a kindly person and I am sure that that would be far from his mind. But in case it did enter the inner recesses of his mind, I hope that he will exorcise it forthwith.
The list of amendments is pretty formidable. However, a very large proportion of them meet concerns which were expressed by your Lordships before. As a listening, caring government, we listened to your Lordships and took the opportunity of the Bill's passage in another place to table amendments to meet the concerns of your Lordships. I hope in that respect at least that we shall receive some brownie points.
Air pollution was an issue on which many of your Lordships felt strongly. The noble Lords, Lord Lewis of Newnham and Lord Nathan, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, among others, all spoke with much conviction. We have now brought forward important new clauses introducing an air quality strategy.
We have also introduced a new clause and substantial schedules on old minerals planning permissions, which I hope will meet the concerns expressed by my noble friends Lord Addison, Lord Glenarthur and Lord Campbell of Croy.
The contaminated land provisions have been substantially amended, and I think improved, in the light of comments and concerns which were raised by your Lordships. In particular, we have removed the separate

1473
identification and handling of closed landfills, as was suggested by my noble friends Lord Lucas of Chilworth, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Mills.
We have introduced arrangements for consultation and negotiation on remediation requirements, as was suggested by my noble friend Lord Coleraine; and we have refined the provisions relating to liabilities, which were the subject of amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull.
Other amendments address matters which were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, on water conservation; by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on spray irrigation; by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on fish gratings, and by my noble friend Lord Wade on combined heat and power.
Having considered some of the points which were made by my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Mills, we have also made some amendments to the agency provisions. The Government have also accepted one of the two amendments on which your Lordships voted when the Bill was laid before your Lordships earlier, even though it was against the Government's preference. We have made further amendments in order to clarify the amendment which was originally tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley and which was accepted by your Lordships, and also to bring the Scottish provisions into line with it.
In discussing these amendments, I hope that your Lordships will feel that the Government have come a long way to meet many of the desires of your Lordships and that the Bill will be much improved as a result.
I apologise for the list of amendments, which I am sure that many of your Lordships, as I did, found mildly daunting. But many of them are connected and we shall be able to speak to a great many at a time, according to the way in which they are grouped, if that is to the convenience of your Lordships. I point out that those are the reasons why the list is as long as it is.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for introducing what will possibly be a long debate. I shall be the first to congratulate the noble Earl on his debut on the Environment Bill. We have had many debates and I am sure that the noble Earl in his new capacity has read through all of them with the greatest of interest. I have no intention at all of treading on any of the noble Earl's or the Government's corns or whatever.
However, I find 337 amendments coming before your Lordships this afternoon rather a heavy menu. Your Lordships may remember at Second Reading I described this Bill as a curate's egg—good in parts and bad in others. The putative curate—I cast the noble Earl in that role—may now be satisfied with the Bill he is putting before us. In so far as the amendments produced by the Commons satisfy the concerns of your Lordships' House, we shall give them a very fair wind. However,
1474
there are other amendments produced by the other place, which are contrary to the decision of your Lordships and the wind may not be so fair. Having said that, let me say from the Opposition that we wish to deal expeditiously with the amendments and not take up the time of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
  MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [References are to Bill (85) as first printed for the Commons.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 1, page 1, line 12, after first 'Agency' insert 'or, in Welsh, Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. I. Perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 309, 325, 333 and 334. Amendment No. 1 is tabled by the Government in response to that tabled at Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. It confers a Welsh name on the agency which it can use as it judges appropriate. I am sure that that would meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, were he here as I see that he is not. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  2 Clause 3, page 5, line 31, leave out subsection (8).
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. At the same time it may be convenient if we consider Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 24, 25, 161, 192, 193, 202, 210, 239, 240, 241, 243, 268, 274, 275, 291, 292, 294, 298, 299, 308, 311 and 326. This group comprises a number of minor and technical amendments. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.2.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, this is indeed a long list of technical amendments, but there is one in particular which I wish to bring to the attention of the House and to ask the Minister to explain in slightly greater detail. I refer to Amendment No. 13, which appears to give very wide-ranging and extensive powers to Ministers. It appears to suggest that a Minister may order the agency to do anything he chooses
  "under this section or any other enactment".
  That is an extraordinarily wide power and grants to a Minister, who may find some obscure and irrelevant piece of legislation unrelated to the agency's functions, the power to direct the agency to act on it.
  In this arena we are back to the problem of the agency not being given an overriding, overarching purpose which would confine the actions which a Minister might wish to take under this particular measure. We had long debates at earlier stages of the Bill that the agency is given no specific purpose in existing at all. Indeed, its purpose, as laid down by the Bill, is to carry out the

  1475
  functions transferred or assigned to it under the Bill. We have spent many hours arguing that it should have some specific role to protect or enhance the environment. It is this defect in the Bill—the fact that the agency has no specific function—which makes the extension of this particular section so odd. As far as I can see, it enables a Minister to require the agency to do almost anything. I should be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us as to why Ministers need this extraordinarily wide-ranging power to direct the agency and whether there are any restraints or confinements on what a Minister may do under this section, as it has been suggested it should be amended.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that there is anything too much for the noble Baroness to be unduly concerned about. Amendment No. 13 says that the new agencies are to comply with directions given to them by Ministers. It removes any doubt that that is so. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 were tabled because the European Commission has questioned the absence of a similar provision in Section 5(5) of the Water Resources Act 1991 and indicated that it would seek to challenge directions which are made without that sort of provision. We are confident of having an answer to such a challenge. We thought however that it would be a waste of time and money to try to fight such a case in the European Court of Justice. Part of the reason for the amended Clause 38 is to have available the means to implement European Community obligations by direction and to ensure that this provision satisfies the requirements of European Community law. Therefore, we consider that it is appropriate to put in those provisions in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  3 Clause 5, page 7, line 14, leave out 'section 161' and insert 'sections 161 to 16IC'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 171, 177, 179, 251, 252, 253, 257, 259, 287, 288 and 293.
  During our Committee and Report stages my noble friend Lord Crickhowell moved amendments for the introduction of an anti-pollution notice procedure into the powers available to the environment agency under the Water Resources Act. Amendment No. 287, which stems from these proposals, enhances the powers of the agency to prevent water pollution and to ensure that clean—up works are carried out where such pollution has occurred. The NRA already has a power under Section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991 to carry out anti-pollution works itself and then seek to recover costs from a polluter or a potential polluter.
  Amendment No. 287 introduces new Sections 161A, 161B and 161C to the 1991 Act. Section 161A will enable the agency to serve a notice which will require a polluter or a potential polluter to carry out anti-pollution works. We envisage that this power will he of particular value in preventing pollution incidents from occurring. The notice, which is called a "works" notice, will be
  1476
  served after consultation and will set out the actions which must be carried out and the date for their completion.
  The remainder of the amendments in this group are consequential and there are those which provide analogous powers to the Scottish environment protection agency.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  4 Clause 6, page 8, line 28, leave out 'and'.
  5 Page 8, line 36, at end insert 'and
  (c) in the case of sections 31 to 34 and 36(2) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 as applied by section 39(IB) of that Act, so much of the catchment area of the River Esk as is situated in Scotland,'.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. With these amendments I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 162, 223 to 228, 313 to 315 and 322. These amendments are for two purposes. First, they strengthen fisheries enforcement in the River Esk. Secondly, they introduce new requirements regarding the fitting of screens at fish farms.
  The first set of amendments, Nos. 4, 5 and part of No. 227, relate to fisheries enforcement on the River Esk. Although the NRA is responsible for managing and enforcing fisheries throughout the whole of the River Esk, in Scotland it does not have the power to carry out its duty effectively. These amendments will enable the new environment agency's water bailiffs to pursue individuals suspected of fisheries offences committed on the River Esk or its tributaries to be apprehended throughout the entire catchment of the River Esk, including that part which lies in Scotland. At the moment their authority is restricted to the river with its banks and tributary streams in Scotland, whereas they apply throughout the whole of the English part of the catchment. The amendments will mean that poachers in the Scottish part of the catchment will no longer have a better chance of escape and enforcement will be improved throughout the river system. If it proves necessary for a bailiff to search property in Scotland, he will need a search warrant from the sheriff or from a Scottish JP in the same way as a Scottish water bailiff does.
  I now turn to the amendments relating to screens. During our Committee and Report stages the noble Lord, Lord Moran, tabled amendments which would, in effect, require gratings to be fitted to fish farm intakes in order to protect wild fish. The Government agreed to consider that proposal and, if appropriate, to bring forward amendments in another place. That is the effect of the remaining amendments in this group. They have two main purposes—to prevent salmon and migratory trout from becoming trapped in fish farm intakes and outfalls and to prevent farmed fish from escaping into the wild. This latter point reflects a particular concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Mills.

  1477
  Amendment No. 223 will replace Section 14 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. This section currently requires certain water and canal undertakings and mills to fit gratings—the design of which must be approved by Ministers—to water intakes and outfalls in rivers. The new provision extends the requirement to fit gratings (now referred to as "screens") to fish farms and provides that these must be capable of preventing the ingress of wild fish and the escape of farmed fish. It also removes the requirement for ministerial approval. Instead, more general requirements similar to those enshrined in recent Scottish legislation will apply to the placing and nature of screens and will allow for the use of devices other than gratings to prevent the passage of fish.
  Amendment No. 224 replaces references to "gratings" in Section 15 of the 1975 Act with the term "screens" to bring it into line with Section 14. Amendments Nos. 225, 226, part of 227, 228, 313 to 315 and 322 make consequential amendments to Schedules 12, 19 and 20 to the Bill. Amendment No. 162 makes a minor technical amendment to Clause 88—which introduces Schedule 12—to bring the wording into line with the heading of that schedule.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I believe that in general these provisions are an advance on what we had before. I agree with the amendments, but there was one point that puzzled me as regards water bailiffs. When we discussed the Salmon Bill in this House we had a serious discussion as regards the powers of water bailiffs. The Scottish water bailiffs, as far as I remember, do not require a search warrant to break open the boot of a car. I remember discussing this point with the noble Lord, Lord Burton. A water bailiff, if appointed by the riparian owners in an area, has the power, without a search warrant, to break in. If we are to follow the English practice and require search warrants, I believe that that is an advance. If the Minister cannot find the answer to that question at the moment among his mass of papers, perhaps he will inform me of it in writing.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord. There is a difference between the power to enter, which he has of right, and the power to search property where he needs a proper search warrant. However, I shall write to the noble Lord with the details.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  6 Clause 11, page 13, line 19, leave out ', with the consent of the Treasury,'.
  7 Clause 13, page 15, line 33, leave out ', with the consent of the Treasury,'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. I would also like to speak to Amendments
  1478
  Nos. 14 to 23, 26 to 30, 191, 194 to 201, 285, 286, 290, 302 to 304, 307, 329, 330 and 332 on the subject of payments, charging powers, revenue and funds.
  Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 191 and 194 to 201 remove the requirement for Treasury consent to payments made to members of the agency, SEPA or their various committees. Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 respond to concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth in this House at Committee and Report stages that subsistence charges in relation to waste management licences should not he levied until works have commenced at the site. Amendments Nos. 18, 286 and 329 are minor and technical amendments which provide a more straightforward approach to the agencies' powers to charge for incidental functions.
  The underlying purpose of Amendment No. 19 is essentially technical. It would enable the return to the Consolidated Fund of receipts, other than surpluses which, in line with the normal rules of government accounting, ought to be returned to the Exchequer. An example would be windfall receipts relating to products developed by the agency following research or development work funded by central government grant. The amendment is necessarily drafted in wide terms. But I can assure your Lordships that there is no expectation that the power will apply new provisions to any of the sources of income inherited by the agency from its predecessor bodies. If it ever did, any income returned to the Consolidated Fund because of a technical reclassification would, under standard procedures, be offset by matching additional public expenditure provision.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, both spoke during our Committee stage about SEPA's borrowing limits. Having reflected on what they said during that debate, the Government brought forward Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. Amendment No. 22 would increase SEPA's borrowing limit from £2 million to £5 million. Amendment No. 23 would further enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to increase this limit by order up to £10 million.
  The purpose of Amendments Nos. 5, 27 and 30 is to extend the definition of "environmental licence" in Clause 53 of the Bill to include the registration of an activity exempted from waste management licensing under paragraph 45(1) or (2) of Schedule 3 to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (as amended).
  The majority of the other amendments in this group are minor and technical.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the amendments. It appears that Treasury approval has been removed by another place in relation to certain payments, salaries and expenditure. Why was Treasury approval required in the first place? Your Lordships have argued this point on many occasions. Although I accept that the Treasury has to approve certain matters, why did the Government

  1479
  produce a Bill to your Lordships which included Treasury approval for practically anything one could think of and then suddenly in another place concede that the Treasury has no right to impose limits on any of these payments? Can the noble Earl please clarify that point?
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, before my noble friend responds perhaps I may make a few remarks with regard to Amendments Nos. 14 to 16.
  In his opening remarks my noble friend the Minister outlined the scope of the amendments. As my noble friend mentioned, Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 are the first of the amendments with which I was involved all those weeks ago. I am very pleased that on more mature consideration after the Bill left your Lordships' House the Government and the other place were able to accept a number of suggestions that I and other noble Lords made during the long passage of the Bill earlier this year. I am grateful for that further consideration.
  In order to save your Lordships' time, I shall address the same remarks to the amendments to Clause 15(4), starting with Amendment No. 30, dealing with contaminated land. I and those in the industry who are involved in these matters are grateful that upon more mature consideration our suggestions have borne fruit, as we see in the amendments before us this afternoon.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I wonder why, if it is now to be dropped, the provision for Treasury consent was originally included in the Bill. It is very unusual to find a government amendment supporting the removal of the necessity for Treasury consent. As an old Treasury hand I look on that with a certain lack of sympathy. I believe that we should be told what was the argument for including the necessity for Treasury consent which moved the Government to put it into the Bill and to keep it in the Bill up to this stage.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, first, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth for the gratitude he expressed not only for Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 but also for others to be dealt with later.
  The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked why the Treasury had changed its mind. The Treasury always has to keep a tight rein on how money is spent. That is perfectly right. Some people curse the Treasury because it keeps too tight a rein and regard that as intolerable. Now, when the Treasury releases that control, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter seem to think that that is a retrograde step. There is nothing particularly bad about it.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I did not say that it was a retrograde step. I asked what was the argument for the inclusion of the provision in the Bill originally.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I asked exactly the same question. Why did the Bill come to us in this House with Treasury approval? I am neutral on the subject. And why, when the Bill went to the other place, was the need for Treasury approval removed? I do not understand that. I echo the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and I repeat my question. Will the
  1480
  noble Earl please explain why the Bill came to us in the first place with Treasury approval and then went to another place and now returns to us with that provision removed?
  Lord Renton: My Lords, what was in the Bill originally is now part of history. The Bill has been magnificently improved by the Government, at the behest of your Lordships. I should have thought that we could rejoice in the present situation in which the Treasury is relieved of one of its many obligations.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend, who always makes penetrating and sensible observations.
  I was in the process of trying to explain the matter to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, but he gets so impatient. It is part of the Treasury tradition to have these matters in Bills because it has to keep a tight rein on expenditure. However, on giving further consideration to the matter Treasury Ministers decided that this was not necessary. That decision reflects a relaxation, with which I should have thought my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter would have been delighted. Indeed, he said that he was delighted.
  Nevertheless, the payments and conditions concerned are still subject to the approval of the relevant Secretary of State or Minister. In other words, there has been only a marginal change. One does not need to obtain Treasury consent, but these matters arc subject to the approval of the relevant Secretary of State or Minister.
  Lord Hughes: My Lords, I can understand my noble friend wishing to have information about this rather unusual provision. However, I suggest to him that we should not look a gift horse in the mouth.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  8 After Clause 24, insert the following clause:—
  Assessing flood rick
  '.—(1) Without prejudice to section 92 of the Agriculture Act 1970 (provision of flood warning systems), SEPA shall have the function of assessing, as far as it considers it appropriate, the risk of flooding in any area of Scotland.
  (2) If requested by a planning authority to do so, SEPA shall, on the basis of such information as it holds with respect to the risk of flooding in any part of the authority's area, provide the authority with advice as to such risk.'.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 235 to 238 and 310.
  During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, urged us to give SEPA a stronger role in relation to flooding. Amendment No. 8 will give SEPA such a stronger role by conferring upon it a function to assess, as far as it considers appropriate, the risk of flooding in any area of Scotland. It will also require the agency to provide a planning authority with advice on flood risk, on request, based on all information available to it. Placing such a duty on SEPA to provide advice will ensure that sound advice is available to planning authorities.

  1481
  The amendment, taken together with existing statutory provisions, will ensure that councils can take well-informed decisions on flooding matters which will reflect local concerns and the general public interest.
  In Committee the noble Lord also expressed concern about an unnecessary burden which would be placed on SNH under Clause 33 of the Bill. The provision in question would have required SNH to give its reasons for considering that an area of land might be affected by the activities of SEPA. We had originally considered this to be a sensible measure since it would ensure that SEPA would know why SNH thought in the first instance that SEPA's activities might adversely affect an area of land. We still believe that it would be useful for SEPA to have that information but accept that that can be done without it being written on the face of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 therefore remove that duty.
  Amendments Nos. 235, 236, 237 and 310 provide for the application of Scottish water and sewerage legislation to the Crown. Crown immunity is being progressively reduced as legislative opportunities arise. The proposals are consistent with our Citizen's Charter initiative and will ensure the same level of statutory protection for consumers of Crown water and sewerage services north and south of the Border.
  Amendment No. 238 is a minor drafting amendment to Section 18(1) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951 which will ensure that all remaining references to the river purification authorities are converted to references to SEPA.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the lack of enforcement powers for SEPA? In speaking to the amendments before your Lordships the Minister made specific reference to the advisory role of SEPA in relation to flood prevention. There can be no doubt that, for example, one of the reasons for the floods in Perth some two years ago was the land use policies of the hydro-electricity companies, which operate at a fairly high level above the city of Perth and its low-lying environs round Bridge of Earn and various other villages. I know that we are too late to amend the provision now, but unless SEPA has enforcement rather than advisory powers, it is my guess—I hope I am wrong—that those flood catastrophes will continue to occur. SEPA is under an obligation only to give advice to local authorities if the local authorities request such advice. In my view it would have been far more progressive to give SEPA the powers to give advice whether or not the local authority sought that advice. After all, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has been created in order to try to prevent some of the pollution and flooding problems that we have had in the past.
  Perhaps I may turn briefly to the question of Crown immunity. I welcome the strengthening of the Bill regarding SEPA's advisory role (although I would have liked to see it with an enforcement role) and Crown immunity. However, there is an interesting passage in
  1482
  the amendments coming from another place. If the Secretary of State—I assume that to mean the Secretary of State for Scotland—decides that a building is in the national interest, the water and the sewerage Acts would not apply to that building. For the life of me, I cannot think of a building throughout the length and breadth of Scotland that would be so much in the national interest that the provisions of the water and sewerage Acts would be disapplied to it. For goodness sake, I hope that we shall not be told by the Secretary of State that, for example, Barlinnie Prison, Peterhead Prison or Saughton Prison is in the national interest and therefore the provisions of the water and sewerage Acts should be disapplied. That would be an absolute disaster.
  Against that background, perhaps the Minister will give an example of the type of building that the Secretary of State could designate as being in the national interest and to which the provisions of the water and sewerage Acts would be disapplied. I would have hoped that the part relating to Crown immunity could be omitted from the amendment. However, so long as that provision is among the powers given to the Secretary of State, then the whole question of Crown immunity still prevails. With that qualification I still welcome the amendments.
  The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, perhaps this is a case where a building could be entirely covered by private water and sewerage facilities. It is an issue that I raised during debate on the Bill. Perhaps I may say that I have a vested interest. On my estate there is a private supply to 43 households. In addition, in a number of cases the sewerage could not possibly be maintained or cleaned out by the new water or sewerage authorities in Scotland. I have to deal with that responsibility.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, a number of interesting points have been made by my noble friend Lord Balfour and the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. The first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, related to SEPA's ability to advise local authorities on flooding. We looked at the matter carefully in drafting the Bill. I make this essential point. We believe that the lead in all planning matters must be unambiguous. Local authorities already have all the powers they need to tackle flooding and to take any precautionary measures against the threat of flooding. Local authorities must retain unambiguously that responsibility to prevent flooding. Similarly, with its undoubted role in planning, we believe that it is much better that an elected council makes the final decision as to where development can or cannot take place, having taken all factors into account.
  Underlying the noble Lord's concern is the assumption that SEPA may have assessed a threat of flooding—it can do so without having been so solicited—but then a local authority refuses to request formally that advice. In no way do we see that gulf between SEPA and local authorities. We anticipate the level of communication between the SEPA main hoard and CoSLA, and between the regional SEPA hoards and the regional local authorities, as being quite close. We anticipate local authority figures serving on some of the

  1483
  regional boards. We know that there will be extensive communication between the planning arm of the local authorities and the SEPA regulatory arm. Therefore, although technically the noble Lord may have defined a situation which concerns him, I think in practice it will not arise.
  On the noble Lord's second point, my short and simple answer is this. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, I believe, cannot suddenly define "national interest" in such a way that it scoops up another basket of structures and parts of the built heritage. It is done largely by precedent. If I have misled him on that point, I shall write to him.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  3.45 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  9. After Clause 25, insert the following clause:—
  Power of SEPA to obtain information about land
  —(1) Where, with a view to performing a function conferred on it by any enactment, SEPA considers that it ought to have information connected with any land, it may serve on one or more of the persons mentioned in subsection
  (2) below a notice—

  (a)specifying the land, the function and the enactment; and

  (b)requiring the recipient of the notice to furnish to SEPA, within such period of not less than 14 days from the date of service of the notice as is specified in the notice—

  (i) the nature of his interest in the land; and

  (ii) the name and address of each person whom he believes is, as respects the land, a person mentioned in subsection (2) below.

  (2)The persons referred to in subsection (1) above are—

  (a)the occupier of the land;

  (b)any person—

  (i) who has an interest in the land as owner, creditor in a heritable security or lessee; or

  (ii) who directly or indirectly receives rent for the land; and

  (c)any person who, in pursuance of an agreement between himself and a person interested in the land, is authorised to manage the land or to arrange for the letting of it.

  (3)A person who—

  (a)fails to comply with the requirements of a notice served on him in pursuance of subsection (1) above; or

  (b)in furnishing any information in compliance with such a notice makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular,

  shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9, and at the same time I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 175, 258, 260, 262, 266, 278, 281, 289, 305 and 323. These all make minor improvements to the provisions relating to the new agencies.
  1484
  Amendments Nos. 9 and 260 are intended to ensure that the agencies will be able to require the owner, tenant or occupier of a particular piece of land, and any other person with an interest in that land, to provide information as to which persons have an interest in that land. The power is needed by the agencies in order to enable them to carry out their pollution control and prevention functions.
  Amendment No. 175 inserts a new clause which puts beyond doubt the ability of Ministers, the new agencies and local enforcing authorities to exchange information which will help them in carrying out their environmental functions. It makes clear that they can disclose such information to each other without risk of civil or criminal liability.
  Amendments Nos. 262, 278, 289 and 323 are consequential on the new clause. They amend the disclosure of information provisions in other environmental legislation to ensure that they are consistent with its provisions.
  My noble friend Lord Mills spoke to an amendment in Committee in this House, tabled in his name and that of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, which would have extended the agency's powers to institute civil proceedings. At the time my noble friend Lord Ullswater said that he did not think the amendment was necessary. The Government have, however, decided that it would be desirable for the agency to have express powers to take proceedings in the High Court to secure compliance with an enforcement notice in cases where it considers that prosecution would be ineffectual.
  We have therefore brought forward Amendments Nos. 258 and 281 which give both the agencies additional powers to make sure that holders of water discharge consents cannot ignore the conditions in their licences. Amendment No. 305 makes a similar provision in respect of registrations to keep radioactive materials or to accumulate or dispose of radioactive waste.
  The provisions are modelled closely on powers already available to HMIP and HMIPI in respect of authorised IPC processes.
  Amendment No. 266 seeks to deal with a concern about Section 4 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under Section 4(4) my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has the power to direct that HMIP or HMIPI regulate an industrial process which would ordinarily be regulated by a local authority. Under Section 4(8) such a direction must be advertised. However, one of the reasons he may see fit to issue such a direction is that the operation of the process has implications for national security. In such cases it is clearly not desirable that there is an obligation to advertise.
  This amendment would ensure that national security, which the Secretary of State is trying to protect in issuing the direction, will not be compromised by an obligation to advertise. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to refer to Amendment No. 175 on pages 45 to 47 in the list of Commons Amendments. I have tabled two amendments to the new clause which look rather technical, but they attempt to cure a defect in the Bill.
  I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I try to explain it. Subsection (3) of the new clause provides for the exclusion of confidential information from the public registers in relation to contaminated land. The subsection is designed to ensure that the enforcing authorities respect the confidentiality of information which they obtain in the course of carrying out their pollution control functions.
  I have tabled Amendment No. 175A and with it, as a subsidiary amendment, Amendment No. 175B. Without my amendments, there would be a serious imbalance in the Bill. On the one hand, the authorities would be forbidden to place confidential information on the registers and, on the other hand, they would be at liberty to release that same information to anyone who requested it under entirely separate statutory provision; namely, the environmental information regulations. We are up against a conflict in the law.
  If confidential information could be revealed in that way, industry and owners of property would inevitably be much less willing to share their information voluntarily with the regulatory authorities. If that were so, it would result in a much less healthy relationship between regulators and regulated. It would inhibit the Government's wise policy of encouraging voluntary reductions in pollution and a voluntary regeneration of contaminated or derelict land.
  The amendment plugs the loophole. I am advised by a Queen's Counsel who is in practice—it is not an opinion which I first formed as a rusty old lawyer—that we must be careful. Disclosure of information may assist in the discharging authorities' environmental functions and therefore be expressly permitted by Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972.
  There is a further conflict between what will become an Act of Parliament when we pass the Bill and what is an Act of Parliament, the Local Government Act 1972. So we must be careful. From various points of view it seems to be in the public interest, first, to ensure the voluntary disclosure of as much information as is relevant; and, secondly, to ensure that we get our duty as legislators right.
  Your Lordships may think it strange that I have to discuss the amendments which arise late on the Marshalled List of Commons Amendments, but I do so because of the groupings. If my noble friends on the Front Bench would prefer not to give an answer now because my amendments are starred, then I am quite willing to raise them later today when we reach Amendment No. 175. I do not believe it is appropriate for me to move my amendments now; I shall do so in due course. Meanwhile, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for necessarily anticipating the situation.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I had thought that it might be for the convenience of the House if the noble Earl responded first. However, since I am on my feet, I wish to make a short point on Commons Amendment
  1486
  No. 175 to which the Minister spoke. It enables the new agencies to provide information. In other words, it is a discretion for the new agencies, it is not mandatory. I understand the need for a statutory provision to enable a new agency to provide information and although it will be able to do that, it may also say: "No, we refuse to do so". It will be interesting to the House to know whether the Minister can confirm that the agency has those powers. I imagine that if the agency were to take that stand on too many occasions and refuse to provide Ministers with information, then the Ministers would exercise their ability as appointors of members of a quango and would dis-appoint those members. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that being able to provide information does not mean that the agency will be required to provide information.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as to my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 175A and 175B to which we shall come formally later on, I shall answer now. The issue of commercial confidentiality has been discussed on a number of occasions during the consideration of this Bill. I recognise that this is an important concern both to businesses which do not wish their commercial interest to be put at risk and to those seeking environmental information who wish to ensure maximum freedom of access.
  As I understand it, my noble friend is concerned that, while the Government have made provision for commercially confidential information to be excluded from registers, there appears to be no general restriction in the Bill on release of information obtained by an enforcing authority in the carrying out of its functions. Under the access to environmental information regulations of 1992, whereas information affecting matters to which any commercial or industrial confidentiality attaches must not be released if it is the subject of statutory restrictions on disclosure, where there are no such statutory restrictions there is discretion as to whether it should be withheld. My noble friend therefore appears to be concerned that information which is acknowledged by the authorities to be commercially confidential, and to be withheld from the registers, could nevertheless be released in response to an inquiry under the environmental information regulations.
  This matter has been considered carefully in the light of representations made to the department, including legal opinion. I cannot accept the proposed amendments which the Government continue to believe are unnecessary. Confidential information obtained in exercise of statutory powers for a particular purpose may only be used by them for that purpose. This general principle explains the need for, and is reinforced in the context of this Bill by, the terms of the Government's new clause making explicit provision for the disclosure of such information between enforcing authorities and Ministers. The environmental information regulations of 1992 require environmental information to be disclosed on request in certain circumstances. There is no obligation under those regulations to disclose environmental information which is commercially confidential. It follows that any regulatory authority would be most unwise to release environmental

  1487
  information obtained in exercise of statutory powers for a particular purpose and which it accepts is genuinely commercially confidential.
  In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, an agency can refuse but we do not expect it to do so in any circumstances other than exceptional ones.
  I finish by saying that safeguards are built into the Bill on the disclosure of information. Nothing in the provisions will authorise the agencies to disclose to local enforcing authorities any information, the disclosure of which would be contrary to the interests of national security or employment census information obtained under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947. Nor is a local enforcing authority which is in possession of any such information authorised to pass it to any other local enforcing authority.
  Moreover, no information disclosed by virtue of this provision which is commercially confidential or which relates to issues of national security may be disclosed to anyone else. A general legal presumption to the effect that information may be used only for the statutory purpose for which it is collected, or in this case disclosed, will also apply. I hope that I have laid to rest the anxieties of my noble friend and the noble Baroness.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may have the leave of the House to reply briefly, instead of raising the matter later. I feel bound to point out that, according to advice that I have received from an experienced practising Queen's Counsel, there is no authority for the proposition that my noble friend has put forward. Statutory powers may generally be exercised for more than one statutory purpose. Disclosure of information may assist in the main statutory purpose, and therefore be in accordance with it.
  Disclosure of information may also assist in the discharge of the authorities' environmental functions and therefore be permitted expressly by the Local Government Act, as I said. It is very regrettable that the department is not prepared to accept this offer of help to remove what is a defect in the Bill. I do not suppose in view of what I believe is the wrong advice that my noble friend received, that much can be done about it now. I merely express my regret.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  10 Clause 33, page 29, line 10, at end insert 'and'.
  11 Page 29, line 13, leave out from 'mentioned' to end of line 15.
  12 Clause 38, page 33, line 47, after 'given' insert 'under this section or any other enactment'.
  13 Page 34, line 6, at end insert:
  '() It is the duty of a new Agency to comply with any direction which is given to that new Agency by a Minister of the Crown under this section or any other enactment.'.
  14 Clause 39. page 34. line 40. leave out from 'whole' to end of line 41 and insert 'of any relevant licensed period;'.
  15 Page 34, line 42, leave out 'that' and insert 'any such'.
  16 Page 34, line 43, at end insert:
  1488
  'and in this subsection "relevant licensed period" means the period during which an environmental licence is in force or such part of that period as may be prescribed.'.
  17 Clause 40, page 36, line 50, at end insert:
  '(4A) If and to the extent that a charging scheme relates to any licence under Chapter II of Part II of the 1991 Act (abstraction and impounding), the Secretary of State may consider it appropriate to attribute to the carrying out of the Agency's functions in relation to activities to which such a licence relates any costs and expenses incurred by the Agency in carrying out any of its functions under Part II of that Act or under section 6(2) above.
  (4B) Subsection (4A) above is without prejudice to what costs and expenses the Secretary of State may consider it appropriate to attribute to the carrying out of any functions of a new Agency, the Minister or the Secretary of State in relation to activities to which environmental licences of any particular description relate.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 17 en bloc. These amendments were spoken to earlier.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 17 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  18 After Clause 40, insert the following clause:—
  Incidental power of the new Agencies to impose charges
  '. Without prejudice to the generality of its powers by virtue of section 35(1) (a) above and subject to any such express provision with respect to charging by a new Agency as is contained in the preceding provisions of this Chapter or any other enactment, each new Agency shall have power to fix and recover charges for services and facilities provided in the course of carrying out its functions.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 6.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.—(Earl Ferrers.)

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No.18
  18A After ("recover") insert ("reasonable").
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 18.
  My Amendment No. 18A on the Marshalled List seeks to provide that the charges that the agency can recover are "reasonable" charges. This clause relates to charging for services and facilities provided by the agency in the course of carrying out its functions.
  At earlier stages of the Bill there was a good deal of discussion about the level of charging by some of the present authorities. I was criticised for referring to an occasion when the National Rivers Authority had, I believe, charged £100 for a sheet of information. I was told that this was not merely a copying charge but that it reflected the research that had gone into preparing the

  1489
  fact sheet. Without going into the merits of that particular charge, I believe that it points very clearly to the need to have some sort of limit on charging. These are public bodies. Although their function is not to work for private individuals—for developers, and so on—it is nevertheless entirely right that the information that they hold should be made available to the public on a basis which allows the public real access, not access only if they can afford a substantial charge. This is a freedom of information point. It is for that reason that I seek to amend Commons Amendment No. 18 by providing that the charges that can be made shall be no more than are reasonable.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 18A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 18, be agreed to.— (Baroness Hamwee.)
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness may be misguided in her attempt to amend the legislation in this way. However, I quite understand that she is concerned about the provision of information. My noble friends Lord Ullswater and Lord Lindsay gave fairly specific reassurances in Committee about both the provision of information and the agencies' powers to charge reasonable fees for providing specific information. I understand the concern that those fees should be reasonable. However, I think it would be unreasonable to consider that those fees would not be reasonable.
  As regards provision of information by the agencies, the noble Baroness may be stretching the point a little. Both Commons Amendment No. 18 and her Amendment No. 18A are about the environment agencies' ability to charge for carrying out their functions. Clearly they ought to be able to charge; and clearly it would be quite intolerable if the agencies were not reasonable in the charges that they made. I do not believe that the noble Baroness's amendment to Commons Amendment No. 18 would be suitable.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I cannot pretend to be entirely happy with that answer, although I am not surprised either. Perhaps the best that we can do is rely on the good faith of Ministers who appoint members of the agencies in ensuring that, if the agencies are out of line in their charging policy and are making charges that are not appropriate in the eyes of the public, as the appointing Ministers, they bring that to the attention of the agencies and lean on them to behave reasonably. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment No. 18A.
  Amendment No. 18A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 18, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  19 Clause 41, page 37, line 44, at end insert:
  '(2A) The appropriate Minister may, after consultation with the Treasury and a new Agency, give a direction to that new Agency requiring it to pay to him an amount equal to the whole or such part as may be specified in the direction of any sum, or any sum of a description, so specified which is or has been received by that new Agency.'.
  20 Page 38. line 5, leave out 'and (b)' and insert:
  '(b) subsection (2A) above is subject to sections 118(1)
  1490
  (a) and 119(1) of the 1991 Act (special duties with respect to flood defence revenue and funds raised for fishery purposes under local enactments); and
  (c)". .
  21 Page 38, line 6, leave out from 'sections' to 'certain' in line 8 and insert '118(1) (b) and 119(2) of the 1991 Act (which provide for flood defence revenue and'.
  22 Clause 45, page 40, line 1, leave out '£2 million' and insert '£5 million'.
  23 Page 40, line 2, leave out '£5 million' and insert '£10 million'.
  24 Clause 50, page 42, line 18, leave out 'Subject to subsection (3) below,'.
  25 Page 42, line 29, leave out subsection (3).
  26 Clause 53, page 44, line 45, at end insert 'any of the following—'.
  27 Page 45, line 15, at end insert:
  '(j) registration in respect of an activity falling within paragraph 45(1) or (2) of Schedule 3 to those Regulations,'.
  28 Page 45, line 18, at end insert 'any of the following—'.
  29 Page 45, line 30, leave out'or'.
  30 Page 45, line 32, at end insert:
  '(j) registration in respect of an activity falling within paragraph 45(1) or (2) of Schedule 3 to those Regulations,'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19 to 30 en bloc. These amendments have already been spoken to.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19 to 30 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  31 Clause 54, page 47, leave out lines 9 to 45.
  32 Page 47, line 46, leave out 'a closed landfill site' and insert 'any contaminated land'.
  33 Page 47, line 47, leave out from 'as' to end of line 48 and insert 'such a site by virtue of section 78BB(7) or 78BC(6)'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 to 33 en bloc.
  It may be helpful if, in moving these amendments, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 36, 39 to 43 and 70 to 75. On Report, in response to an amendment moved by my noble friends Lord Crickhowell, Lord Mills and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, my noble friend Lord Ullswater undertook to look again at the treatment of closed landfill sites in the contaminated land regime. These amendments had the effect of removing the requirement for the separate identification of closed landfills, as well as the extra regulatory steps that were formerly proposed to be required of those sites.
  In the light of other changes made to these provisions, expanding the role of the environment agency and the Sottish Environment Protection Agency in giving guidance to local authorities, we no longer think there there is a need for particular treatment of closed landfill sites which are also contaminated land.

  1491
  These amendments also change the definition of special sites, for which the appropriate agency will itself be the enforcing authority. The descriptions of sites which will be required to be designated as special sites will now be set out in regulations and will not be restricted, as they were previously, to closed landfill sites which are likely to cause serious harm or serious pollution of controlled waters.
  The procedures for designation have also been amended, so that in most cases designation will be made by the local authority concerned and not by the Secretary of State. The amendments introduce a machinery for ensuring that designations are appropriately made, giving the agency the right to provide advice and to appeal against any designations. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 to 33 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I ask one question for clarification in relation to Amendment No. 42. New Sections 78B and 78C require that where the agency and the local authorities cannot agree that land must be designated as special, the matter must be referred to the Secretary of State. But there is no time limit laid down by which the Secretary of State must make a decision. That could in fact just provide a recipe for prolonged delay. I wonder whether the Minister could advise the House on what would seem to be a reasonable length of time in which the Secretary of State should be required to make some decision on the designation of sites as special.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a very reasonable question from the noble Baroness but I think that it would be very unwise of me to give her an answer. I cannot tell her how long a reasonable period of time would be. Sometimes it may be rather longer than at other times. One would have to leave it to the discretion of the Secretary of State to do the best that he can.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  34 Clause 54, page 48, line 37, after first 'land' insert 'adjoining or'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34. It may be helpful if I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 48, 58 to 62, 66, 76 to 86, 178 and 273.
  Many of the amendments in this group make minor or technical changes to the provisions. But they also address a number of specific issues, which I think it only proper to draw to the attention of your Lordships.
  Amendments Nos. 59 to 62 deal with the question of appeals against remediation notices. At first instance appeals of this kind go to the magistrates' court where the notice has been served by a local authority and to the Secretary of State where it has been served by the appropriate agency. Without specific further provision, appeals against decisions of the magistrates' court would only be available on points of law to the High
  1492
  Court. In the light of the complex legal issues and technical evidence which may be involved in some of the cases, we feel that it is appropriate that in some circumstances there should be a wider right to appeal against a decision of the magistrates' court. These amendments will allow regulations to be made providing for appeals to any specified court or tribunal.
  Proceedings for the offence of non-compliance with a remediation notice will also be brought in the magistrates' court; or in Scotland, the sheriff court. The penalty in either case would be a fine. Amendment No. 66 enables an enforcing authority, if it is of the opinion that such proceedings would afford an insufficient remedy, to take proceedings in the High Court, or in Scotland in any court of competent jurisdiction, to ensure compliance with a remediation notice. That power, which matches equivalent powers already in place under the statutory nuisance regime and proposed elsewhere in the Bill for other pollution control regimes, will give enforcing authorities the ability to seek injunctive relief where that is appropriate.
  Amendments Nos. 76 to 81 make changes to the provisions relating to the remediation registers to be maintained under this regime. At Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Ullswater, in response to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, undertook to consider the question of the inclusion of information about actual remediation which is carried out on the land. Amendment No. 78 provides for the person who carries out the remediation, or the owner or occupier of the land, to provide such information for inclusion on the register. The Government do not believe that it would be appropriate for the enforcing authority to guarantee that information or to provide any "certificate of compliance". The amendment therefore makes clear that the authority maintaining the register is not responsible for the accuracy or otherwise of the information which is provided in it.
  Amendment No. 81 provides for the exclusion of information from the remediation registers where questions of commercial confidentiality or national security are involved. These provisions broadly reflect their equivalents elsewhere in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which deal with other registers of regulatory actions. But for the purposes of these remediation registers, commercial interests which relate only to the value of the contaminated land in question, or otherwise to the ownership or occupation of the land, are to be disregarded for the purposes of considering whether information should be regarded as commercially confidential.
  Amendment No. 84 makes significant changes to the provision providing an exemption from personal liability for insolvency practitioners. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, expressed concern in our earlier debates that receivers appointed under the Law of Property Act 1925 should be included within this exemption. I am happy to confirm that the definition of those persons "acting in a relevant capacity" who will benefit from the exemption includes all such receivers. The amendment also clarifies what the exemption covers. Insolvency practitioners and receivers will not be personally liable

  1493
  to bear any of the costs of remediation, nor can they be guilty of an offence of non-compliance with a remediation notice. However, the effect of this amendment is not intended to be the creation of a polluter's charter for insolvency practitioners. They will lose the benefits of the exemption with respect to any remediation which may be made necessary as a result of the presence of contaminants which are there in consequence of the acts or omissions of the insolvency practitioners which are unreasonable for a person who is acting in their capacity to do.
  Amendment No. 86 achieves two purposes. First, it relocates provisions relating to the interaction of this contaminated land regime with other environmental regimes. That includes the provision relating to illegal deposits of waste and fly tipping which was introduced at Third Reading in response to an amendment by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. Secondly, the amendment provides for regulations to apply the contaminated land regime to radioactive contamination. The new Section 78T follows closely the model provided by Section 78 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which dealt with the application of the waste management licensing regime to radioactive waste. The White Paper on radioactive waste policy published on 4th July confirms that the Government intend to use this regulation-making power and to bring in a regime for radioactive contamination soon after the main provisions come into force.
  Amendment No. 273 reworks the provision in Schedule 18 which removes the potential overlap between this contaminated land regime and the existing statutory nuisance regime in Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. At Report stage my noble friend Lord Ullswater, in response to an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, promised that the Government would look further at this issue. Having done so, we have revised the formulation in order to ensure that, so far as is possible, there is neither an overlap between the two regimes nor a lacuna between them.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a point which concerns not only this amendment but the next three groups of amendments which deal with contaminated land.
  First, I should like to thank the Government for accepting in principle many of the concerns on contaminated land raised by your Lordships and in particular, as my noble friend said, by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I hope that my noble friend will not accuse me of looking a gift horse in the mouth when I say that it is a pity that a great deal is being left until we see the guidance and regulations. I wonder whether my noble friend can give me any idea of the how, why and when of them. Can he say who will be consulted on the guidance notes and regulations? However, I thank noble Lords and my noble friend for many of the amendments.
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to make two brief points. First, I understood my noble friend to say just now that there would be no guarantee of the accuracy of the contents of a register which was managed by an agency. What is the point of being so coy about it? What is the point of having a register at all unless someone who needs to consult it has a reasonable chance of being able to rely upon its accuracy?
  Secondly, in support of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, I should like to comment on the guidance. Again and again we are faced with long and complicated Bills. There are many clauses in the present Bill which do not yield up their meaning to casual inspection. They need to be studied with very great care before any meaning can be discovered with accuracy or some feeling of confidence.
  An awful lot is left to guidance. I do not feel that that should go without some mild protest on the part of your Lordships to say to the Government that they should endeavour to make their purposes clear at the time of legislating. They should not leave it until after the event, when there is no one to argue with them and, so far as I can see, they are entirely free to say, "This is what we meant and this is our advice to those who are affected by the Act". I hope my noble friend will take the point seriously. It is one which is of great concern.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I echo what was said by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley regarding the Government recognising many of the anxieties voiced while the Bill was passing through this House. The number of pages devoted to the Commons amendments on contaminated land is evidence of the substantial changes made when the Bill was in another place.
  The specific aspect about which I should like confirmation relates to the role of lenders; that is, bankers, building societies and so forth. It was raised at every stage of the Bill in this House and again in another place. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Gummer, was good enough, when meeting a delegation of lenders, to make it absolutely clear that in the Government's mind there was no intention whatever that lenders per se should become liable to have remediation notices served and to all the consequences that would flow from that.
  I am informed that some provisions have been made in the Bill—it is a little difficult to identify them in the many pages we have—which have gone part of the way to reflect that undertaking. What was said in another place by my right honourable friend Mr. Atkins was that this would be made abundantly clear in the guidance. While I understand the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Peyton in relation to guidance, can my noble friend Lord Ferrers give an unequivocal assurance to the House today that when the guidance is published it will include a clear statement that lenders per se are not to be the subject of contaminated land proceedings by way of notice of remediation? The interests outside this House were given to understand that that is the Government's intention, but they would like to see it in the report of this debate and in the guidance when it is published.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, first, I take any point made by my noble friend Lord Peyton seriously, not least his comment that these "technical" Bills, as he put it, do not yield up their meaning easily on casual inspection. I could not more heartily agree with him on that. But that often happens in legal matters. When matters become legal and technical they are difficult to understand. I cannot apologise to my noble friend for the Bill's complexity or for it being relatively difficult to understand; that is the nature of the beast.
  My noble friend Lord Peyton was concerned that the register was not accurate. He asked what the point was of putting something into the Bill and then saying that its accuracy could not be guaranteed. The point is that Amendment No. 78 provides for the person carrying out the remediation to provide such information as he can to be placed on the register. We believe that that is absolutely right. However, it is not right that the agency which runs the register should be held responsible for the accuracy of the information it contains. One assumes that it will be accurate, and I hope that it will be. But technically it is not possible to give a once-and-for-all guarantee that a site is no longer contaminated. The physical circumstances of the site can change over time and contamination may occur or containment works which have been undertaken may fail. It is appropriate that the register should say that such-and-such happened, that such-and-such has been done, and for the correct conclusion to be drawn from that.
  My noble friend Lord Stanley expressed an appreciation for the way in which some of the points have been met, and I am grateful to him for that. He asked when the guidance would be made: how, when and who would be consulted. The best that I can tell him is that consultation will probably be carried out at the end of the year and is expected to be very wide.
  My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to the lenders. That is an important matter. However, it may be more appropriate to deal with it when we come to the next group of amendments, if my noble friend is happy for me to answer him at that time.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  35 Clause 54, page 49, line 17, at end insert:
  '"appropriate person" means any person who is an appropriate person, determined in accordance with section 78E below, to bear responsibility for any thing which is to be done by way of remediation in any particular case;'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35. It may be helpful to your Lordships if at the same time I speak also to Amendments Nos. 37, 38, 44 to 47, 49 to 57, 63 to 65, and 67 to 69.
  The amendments in this group, particularly Amendment No. 56, make a number of significant changes to the enforcement procedures in the proposed contaminated land regime, and also re-work the provisions relating to liabilities. In many cases these amendments make changes which answer anxieties expressed by your Lordships in our earlier debates. We have introduced the important requirement for
  1496
  consultation to precede the service of any remediation notice, except in cases of urgency. My noble friend Lord Coleraine moved an amendment on this subject at Report stage.
  Following on from this consultation, enforcing authorities will be precluded from serving a remediation notice if they are satisfied that appropriate remediation is or will be taking place without one. In such cases, a remediation statement will be included on the remediation registers to ensure that information about the site is not lost.
  Amendment No. 67 strengthens the powers of enforcing authorities to undertake remediation themselves in appropriate circumstances. In particular, they will be specifically empowered to act in emergencies, where they have the agreement of the persons who would otherwise receive a remediation notice or where they cannot find any "appropriate person" on whom to serve a remediation notice. In such circumstances, the authorities would not serve a notice. They would, however, publish a remediation statement, which would go on the register.
  Another important circumstance in which an authority would be precluded from serving a remediation notice would be where it considered that hardship would result from the service of a notice. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull moved amendments on this question of hardship at Report stage. Under the original provisions of the Bill, hardship would have been considered only in circumstances where the enforcing authority was actually seeking to recover costs incurred in undertaking remediation where the recipient of a notice had failed to comply with the requirements set out in that notice. In other words, a notice would have been served—and not complied with—before the question of hardship was considered. Under the terms of the new Sections 78EA and 78HH, however, if the authority decides that it would not seek to recover all of its costs were it to act itself, it is precluded from serving a remediation notice. This means that hardship must be considered before any notice is served.
  Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 introduce a requirement that authorities should have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State in making decisions on questions relating to cost recovery and hardship. Amendment No. 56 is a substantial amendment and virtually re-writes the section which defines who is the "appropriate person" to be responsible for any remediation.
  My noble friend Lord Jenkin was concerned that the provisions still seek to implement the "polluter pays" principle, with liability falling on any person who,
  "caused or knowingly permitted the substances … by reason of which the contaminated land … is such land to be in, on or under that land".
  My noble friend Lord Coleraine expressed concerns about the meaning of the second element of this test— "knowingly permitted". He moved an amendment on Report. Concerns have also been raised by, among others, my noble friend Lord Jenkin, claiming that banks could be held liable as polluters by the act of lending money to polluting companies.

  1497
  We have considered the matter again since the Bill left the House. As your Lordships may be aware, the test of "causing or knowingly permitting" has been used in environmental legislation for more than 100 years and during that time there have been no cases where a bank lending money to a polluter has been held liable to be a "causer" or a "knowing permitter". I can also confirm that the National Rivers Authority has not brought such a case against a provider of finance under its current powers in the Water Resources Act 1991 which are based on "causing or knowingly permitting".
  The test of "causing" requires some active participation in the operation or chain of operations resulting in the pollution. This has been well established in leading cases, including by the House of Lords in Alphacell Ltd. v. Woodward and by the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General's Reference (No. 1 of 1994). Accordingly, whether a lender could be held to have caused substances to be in, on or under the land will depend on whether it took some active participation in the operation or chain of operations resulting in those substances being in, on or under the land. The act of lending per se does not amount to such active participation.
  The test of "knowingly permitting" would require both knowledge that the substances in question were in, on or under the land and the possession of the power to prevent such a substance being there. I am advised that there is no judicial decision which supports the contention that a lender, by virtue of the act of lending the money only, could be said to have "knowingly permitted" the substances to be in, on or under the land such that it is contaminated land. This would be the case if for no other reason than that the lender, irrespective of any covenants it may have required from the polluter as to its environmental behaviour, would have no permissive rights over the land in question to prevent contamination occurring or continuing.
  Amendment No. 56 revises the definition of the "appropriate person", as regards polluters, in two important respects. First, we have introduced a limiting condition that any "polluter" can only be required to carry out any remediation which is to any extent referable to the substances for which he is responsible. He is, therefore, not liable for dealing with unrelated problems. This, I hope, will remove some of the concerns surrounding the issue of joint liability. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull moved an amendment on this matter at Report stage.
  Secondly, we have clarified the provisions relating to the question of joint liability, confirming that two or more persons can be required jointly to do the same things by way of remediation, with the costs of so doing being apportioned between them by the enforcing authority in accordance with the guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 63 gives a specific defence against any prosecution for non-compliance with a remediation notice where the sole reason for non-compliance was the refusal or inability of another person to comply who was expected to bear a proportion of the costs.
  1498
  Where no "polluter" can be found, after reasonable inquiry, the owner or occupier of the land in question becomes the "appropriate person". In this, the contaminated land provisions follow directly the equivalent arrangements in the statutory nuisance regime in Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, as my noble friend Lord Ullswater promised in our Third Reading debate, the Government have looked again at the operation of this provision with respect to liabilities for water pollution. Amendment No. 56 ensures that a person who is identified as an "appropriate person" solely by virtue of his ownership or occupation of land cannot be held liable for any remediation needed to deal solely with water pollution. This reflects the fact that there is no liability in respect of water pollution falling on owners or occupiers per se under Section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991.
  Amendment No. 56 also addresses the question of the potential overlap between these provisions and the provisions in the Water Resources Act dealing with water pollution from abandoned mines. Concerns in this area lay behind a number of amendments moved by the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, at Report stage. We have resolved those by copying into these provisions the exemption from liability which applies with respect to water from abandoned mines under the Water Resources Act.
  Amendment No. 56 removes entirely two means by which liability might have fallen on owners or occupiers of land under the original provisions of the Bill. The first of these concerns "transfers of liability". The provision which would have allowed for polluters to have transferred their liabilities to new owners or occupiers of land—which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull sought to amend at Report stage— has been deleted. Having looked closely at the matter, the Government have concluded that it would be more practical to leave this question to be dealt with through the normal contractual means of guarantees and indemnities rather than to attempt to make detailed statutory provisions.
  The other issue concerns the circumstances in which a person is required to do things by way of remediation with respect to particular contaminated land notwithstanding that he may not be entitled to do them. In order to resolve this problem, under the original provisions of the Bill the consent of the occupier of the land was needed before any remediation notice could be served. Any refusal on the part of the occupier to give such consent would have made the owner or the occupier of the land himself liable for the remediation.
  These provisions have now been substantially restructured. There is now a requirement that, except in cases of urgency, any person whose consent might be required to enable remediation to be carried out should be consulted before a remediation notice is served concerning any rights which he might be required to grant. That person is then required to grant, or join in granting, the necessary rights of access. But any person required to grant rights in this way will be entitled to apply for compensation from the "appropriate person".

  1499
  Regulations will prescribe the procedures for applying for compensation and the manner in which the amount of any compensation will be determined.
  I hope that these improvements will make the contaminated land problems a great deal easier to deal with and that the contaminated land regime will operate better in practice, both in terms of the mechanics of the regime and the equity and fairness of the arrangement relating to liabilities. I apologise for the length of my speech but this is an important matter and one about which many of your Lordships were concerned. I thought it appropriate to try to point out in the best and clearest way possible and in some detail how we have sought to meet the concerns expressed by your Lordships.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I have one specific question which the Minister may feel reluctant to answer. It concerns "reasonable time". I realise that he was reluctant to commit a Secretary of State to what might be a reasonable time for making a decision but this is in relation to the enforcing authority. Where an owner intends to take appropriate remediation measures he must prepare and publish a remediation statement. Where he fails to do so in a reasonable time the enforcing authority may do so itself and recover the costs of so doing. I wonder whether the noble Earl might venture an opinion as to what is a reasonable time in this respect. As he is not committing a Secretary of State on this occasion, I hope we can get some kind of answer as to whether six months, a year, two years or five years might be considered a reasonable time.
  A more general and perhaps more important point relates to the costs to local authorities due to the introduction of these very welcome measures for dealing with contaminated land. For the first time local authorities will have an explicit duty to inspect their areas in order to identify contaminated land. The existing provisions, which are much more vague and tenuous, require only that they identify nuisances. The contaminated land test is set at a much lower level than the test for nuisance and therefore no doubt local authorities will be identifying far more contaminated land within their area. Moreover, this will require a much greater proportion of the land to be acted on.
  Local authorities are also required to determine whether these contaminated sites should be identified as special sites. Contaminated land will also include closed and abandoned mines. Following identification, local authorities must also consult with owners, occupiers and all others with an interest in the land before serving a remediation notice or accepting proposals from an owner for a remediation programme.
  All of those are considerable, time-consuming matters which will require additional staff and which may ultimately require additional capital investment. It has been estimated by the district councils that the formal inspection of land and the setting up of registers could mean that an additional one-and-a-half officers per district council are needed at an average cost of £30,000 per annum. Is it intended that that additional cost to
  1500
  local authorities will be funded from central funds? As we know, local authorities are already gravely overstretched through a number of other duties being imposed on them. The additional burden will make the welcome provisions of this legislation unworkable unless additional finance is provided for local authorities.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I know that I speak for a number of my noble friends when I say how immensely grateful I am for the long statement which my noble friend the Minister has made about the position of lenders. Without wishing in any way to appear ungrateful, when my noble friend replies to this brief debate will he say whether that statement about lenders will be made quite clear in the guidance when it is issued?
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like briefly to offer my warm congratulations to my noble friend on the skill with which he steered his way through the not always limpid clear waters of the amendments that we are now discussing.
  However, I wonder whether my noble friend could say just a word or two more about "appropriate person". Amendment No. 35 does not do a great deal to help me. Indeed, I suspect that not all of your Lordships will feel deeply grateful for the explanation that it contains. It states:
  '"appropriate person' means any person who is an appropriate person".
  That does not take me much further. It then states:
  "determined in accordance with section 78E below, to bear responsibility for any thing which is to be done by way of remediation in any particular case".
  Perhaps that particular piece of language should be enshrined in Hansard as an example of what ought to be avoided if at all possible. We are told by way of explanation that that implies that there can be more than one appropriate person in relation to any particular site. I am bound to say that that explanation and enlightenment succeeds in one thing: it adds to my confusion, but that may well be my fault and no one else's. I should be grateful if my noble friend could say a word or two about "appropriate person" because it might be important.
  4.45 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise again for the lengthy introduction to this group of amendments. I apologise also for the fact that it might have been a little tedious for your Lordships. But, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin realised, this is of considerable importance to many people.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, was keen to find out what I think "reasonable" means. I am afraid that I cannot give much of an answer because the "reasonableness" depends on the problem. Perhaps we can remove ourselves for a moment from consideration of the Bill. If the noble Baroness had left her handbag on a chair upon which I wanted to sit and I asked her to remove it, I might think that it was unreasonable if she took an hour to do so. On the other hand, if she was occupying my house and I asked her to move out of the

  1501
  house, it might be unreasonable to expect her to do so in under six months. A definition of "reasonableness" depends on the situation about which one is expected to be "reasonable". The question of how long is "reasonable" will have to be considered by local authorities, but I should have thought that it was likely to be a question of months rather than longer.
  The noble Baroness was also concerned about remediation. As I have said, the time period depends very much on the problems. The noble Baroness also referred to costs and asked whether local authorities would receive more funding. The Department of the Environment already runs a contaminated land survey and a supplementary credit approval programme to provide capital resources to local authorities for such work. Since 1990, some £40 million has been spent under the programme on investigation and remediation works at over 800 sites. The size of the programme is reviewed annually in the public expenditure survey. I have no doubt that that will continue and that local authorities will be affected accordingly.
  My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked whether the statement would appear in the guidance. I do not think that guidance can seek to construe primary legislation. There is a danger that if we seek to remove any doubt about the meaning of the term "cause or knowingly permit" in the context of this legislation, it could create the opposite effect in other legislation. I think that we ought to leave the statement as it is, knowing the way in which it will be taken.
  My noble friend Lord Peyton referred to the "appropriate person" and said that such expressions should be enshrined in Hansard. I can understand my noble friend feeling that. Indeed, he reminded me of another Bill and a Committee debate about somebody being over the age of 16. The Bill said that a person would be deemed to be over the age of 16 if he was not under the age of 16. I thought that that was fairly explicit. The definition of who is an "appropriate person" will appear in Section 78E and anyone who does not fall within the definition will not be an appropriate person. My noble friend now knows exactly where he is. I should have thought that it was pretty obvious really.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, was also concerned about the contaminated land regime which identifies land as contaminated only if it gives rise to significant harm or water pollution. That will not impose much greater burdens on local authorities than the existing statutory nuisance regime which identifies contaminated land which is prejudicial to health. I hope that I have responded to most of your Lordships' concerns and that your Lordships' will consider that this group of amendments should be approved.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  36 Clause 54, page 49, leave out lines 20 and 21.
  37 Page 50, line 30, at end insert:
  '"remediation declaration" has the meaning given by section 78EA(5) below;'.
  38 Page 50, line 34, leave out '78C(1)' and insert '78EA(6)'.
  39 Page 50, line 34, at end insert:
  '"required to be designated as a special site" shall be construed in accordance with section 78BB(8) below;'.
  40 Page 50, leave out lines 47 to 51.
  41 Page 51, line 2, leave out from 'purpose' to end of line 7 and insert:

  '(a) of identifying contaminated land; and

  (b) of enabling the authority to decide whether any such land is land which is required to be designated as a special site.'.

  42 Page 51, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 52 and insert:
  '(4) If a local authority identifies any contaminated land in its area, it shall give notice of that fact to—

  (a) the appropriate Agency;

  (b) the owner of the land;

  (c) any person who appears to the authority to be in occupation of the whole or any part of the land; and

  (d) each person who appears to the authority to be an appropriate person;

  and any notice given under this subsection shall state by virtue of which of paragraphs (a) to (d) above it is given.
  (5) If, at any time after a local authority has given any person a notice pursuant to subsection (4) (d) above in respect of any land, it appears to the enforcing authority that another person is an appropriate person, the enforcing authority shall give notice to that other person—

  (a) of the fact that the local authority has identified the land in question as contaminated land; and

  (b) that he appears to the enforcing authority to be an appropriate person.

  Identification and designation of special sites.
  78BB.—(1) If at any tie it appears to a local authority that any contaminated land in its area might be land which is required to be designated as a special site, the authority—

  (a) shall decide whether or not the land is land which is required to be so designated; and

  (b) if the authority decides that the land is land which is required to be so designated, shall give notice of that decision to the relevant persons.

  (2) For the purposes of this section, "the relevant persons" at any time in the case of any land are then persons who at that time fall within paragraphs (a) to (d) below, that is to say—

  (a) the appropriate Agency;

  (b) the owner of the land;

  (c) any person who appears to the local authority concerned to be in occupation of the whole or any part of the land; and

  (d) each person who appears to that authority to be an appropriate person.

  (3) Before making a decision under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above in any particular case, a local authority shall request the advice of the appropriate Agency, and in making its decision shall have regard to any advice given by that Agency in response to the request.
  (4) If at any time the appropriate Agency considers that any contaminated land is land which is required to be designated as a special site, that Agency may give notice of that fact to the local authority in whose area the land is situated.
  (5) Where notice under subsection (4) above is given to a local authority, the authority shall decide whether the land in question—

  (a) is land which is required to be designated as a special site, or

  1503

  (b) is not land which is required to be so designated,

  and shall give notice of that decision to the relevant persons.
  (6) Where a local authority makes a decision falling within subsection (1) (b) or (5) (a) above, the decision shall, subject to section 78BC below, take effect on the day after whichever of the following events first occurs, that is to say—

  (a) the expiration of the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day on which the notice required by virtue of subsection (1) (b) or, as the case may be, (5) (a) above is given to the appropriate Agency; or

  (b) if the appropriate Agency gives notification to the local authority in question that it agrees with the decision, the giving of that notification;

  and where a decision takes effect by virtue of this subsection, the local authority shall give notice of that fact to the relevant persons.
  (7) Where a decision that any land is land which is required to be designated as a special site takes effect in accordance with subsection (6) above, the notice given under subsection (1) (b) or, as the case may be, (5) (a) above shall have effect, as from the time when the decision takes effect, as the designation of that land as such a site.
  (8) For the purposes of this Part, land is required to be designated as a special site if, and only if, it is land of a description prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.
  (9) Regulations under subsection (8) above may make different provision for different cases or circumstances or different areas or localities and may, in particular, describe land by reference to the area or locality in which it is situated.
  (10) Without prejudice to the generality of his power to prescribe any description of land for the purposes of subsection (8) above, the Secretary of State, in deciding whether to prescribe a particular description of contaminated land for those purposes, may, in particular, have regard to—

  (a) whether land of the description in question appears to him to be land which is likely to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land that—

  (i) serious harm would or might be caused, or

  (ii) serious pollution of controlled waters would be, or would be likely to be, caused; or

  (b) whether the appropriate Agency is likely to have expertise in dealing with the kind of significant harm, or pollution of controlled waters, by reason of which land of the description in question is contaminated land.

  Referral of special site decisions to the Secretary of State.
  78BC.—(1) In any case where—

  (a) a local authority gives notice of a decision to the appropriate Agency pursuant to subsection (1) (b) or (5) (b) of section 78BB above, but

  (b) before the expiration of the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day on which that notice is so given, that Agency gives the local authority notice that it disagrees with the decision, together with a statement of its reasons for disagreeing,

  the authority shall refer the decision to the Secretary of State and shall send to him a statement of its reasons for reaching the decision.
  (2) Where the appropriate Agency gives notice to a local authority under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above, it shall also send to the Secretary of State a copy of the notice and of the statement given under that paragraph.
  (3) Where a local authority refers a decision to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above, it shall give notice of that fact to the relevant persons.
  (4) Where a decision of a local authority is referred to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above, he—

  (a) may confirm or reverse the decision with respect to the whole or any part of the land to which it relates; and

  (b) shall give notice of his decision on the referral—

  (i) to the relevant persons; and

  (ii) to the local authority.

  (5) Where a decision of a local authority is referred to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above, the decision shall not take effect until the day after that on which the Secretary of State gives the notice required by subsection (4) above to the persons there mentioned and shall then take effect as confirmed or reversed by him.
  (6) Where a decision which takes effect in accordance with subsection (5) above is to the effect that at least some land is land which is required to be designated as a special site, the notice given under subsection (4) (b) above shall have effect, as from the time when the decision takes effect, as the designation of that land as such a site.
  (7) In this section "the relevant persons" has the same meaning as in section 78BB above.'.
  43 Page 52, leave out line 31 and insert 'virtue of section 78BB(7) or 78BC(6)'.
  44 Page 52, line 38, leave out 'section' and insert 'Part'.
  45 Page 52, line 38, leave out 'the' and insert 'each person who is an'.
  46 Page 52, line 41, leave out 'required'.
  47 Page 52, line 41, leave out from 'the' to 'things' in line 45 and insert 'periods within which he is required to do each of the things so specified.
  (1A) Different remediation notices requiring the doing of different things by way of remediation may be served on different persons in consequence of the presence of different substances in, on or under any land or waters.
  (1B) Where two or more persons are appropriate persons in relation to any particular thing which is to be done by way of remediation, the remediation notice served on each of them shall state the proportion, determined under section 78E(5) below, of the cost of doing that thing which each of them respectively is liable to bear.
  (2) The only things by way of remediation which the enforcing authority may do, or require to be done, under or by virtue of this Part are'.
  48 Page 53, leave out lines 1 to 29.
  49 Page 53, line 30, leave out from 'determining' to end of line 32 and insert 'for any purpose of this Part—

  (a) what is to be done (whether by an appropriate person, the enforcing authority or any other person) by way of remediation in any particular case.'.

  50 Page 53. line 34. at end insert 'or
  (c) what is, or is not, to he regarded as reasonable for the purposes of subsection (2) above,'.
  51 Page 53. line 35, leave out 'concerned'.
  52 Page 53, line 36, leave out 'the appropriate Agency or'.
  53 Page 53. leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert:
  '(7) Regulations may make provision for or in connection with—

  (a) the form or content of remediation notices; or

  (b) any steps of a procedural nature which are to be taken in connection with, or in consequence of, the service of a remediation notice.'.

  54 Page 53, line 40, leave out 'subject to section 78F below'.
  55 Page 53, line 42, leave out 'on whom to serve a remediation notice' and insert 'to bear responsibility for any particular thing which the enforcing authority determines is to be done by way of remediation in any particular case.'.
  56 Page 53, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 26 on page 54 and insert:
  '(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any person, or any of the persons, who caused or knowingly permitted the substances, or any of the substances, by reason of which the contaminated land in question is such land to be in, on or under that land is an appropriate person.
  (2A) A person shall only be an appropriate person by virtue of subsection (2) above in relation to things which are to be done by way of remediation which are to any extent referable to substances which he caused or knowingly permitted to be present in, on or under the contaminated land in question.
  (3) If no person has, after reasonable inquiry, been found who is by virtue of subsection (2) above an appropriate person to bear responsibility for the things which are to be done by way of remediation, the owner or occupier for the time being of the contaminated land in question is an appropriate person.
  (3A) If, in consequence of subsection (2A) above, there are things which are to be done by way of remediation in relation to which no person has, after reasonable inquiry, been found who is an appropriate person by virtue of subsection (2) above, the owner or occupier for the time being of the contaminated land in question is an appropriate person in relation to those things.
  (4) Where two or more persons would, apart from this subsection, be appropriate persons in relation to any particular thing which is to be done by way of remediation, the enforcing authority shall determine in accordance with guidance issued for the purpose by the Secretary of State whether any, and if so which, of them is to be treated as not being an appropriate person in relation to that thing.
  (5) Where two or more persons are appropriate persons in relation to any particular thing which is to be done by way of remediation, they shall be liable to bear the cost of doing that thing in proportions determined by the enforcing authority in accordance with guidance issued for the purpose by the Secretary of State.
  (6) Any guidance issued for the purposes of subsection (4) or (5) above shall be issued in accordance with section 78R below.
  (7) A person who has caused or knowingly permitted any substance ("substance A") to be in, on or under any land shall also be taken for the purposes of this section to have caused or knowingly permitted there to be in, on or under that land any substance which is there as a result of a chemical reaction or biological process affecting substance A.
  (8) A thing which is to be done by way of remediation may be regarded for the purposes of this Part as referable to the presence of any substance notwithstanding that the thing in question would not have to be done—

  (a) in consequence only of the presence of that substance in any quantity; or

  1506

  (b) in consequence only of the quantity of that substance which any particular person caused or knowingly permitted to be present.

  Grant of, and compensation for, rights of entry etc.
  78EZA.—(l) A remediation notice may require an appropriate person to do things by way of remediation, notwithstanding that he is not entitled to do those things.
  (2) Any person whose consent is required before any thing required by a remediation notice may be done shall grant, or join in granting, such rights in relation to any of the relevant land or waters as will enable the appropriate person to comply with any requirements imposed by the remediation notice.
  (3) Before serving a remediation notice, the enforcing authority shall reasonably endeavour to consult every person who appears to the authority—

  (a) to be the owner or occupier of any of the relevant land or waters, and

  (b) to be a person who might be required by subsection (2) above to grant, or join in granting, any rights.

  concerning the rights which that person may be so required to grant.
  (4) Subsection (3) above shall not preclude the service of a remediation notice in any case where it appears to the enforcing authority that the contaminated land in question is in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that there is imminent danger of serious harm, or serious pollution of controlled waters, being caused.
  (5) A person who grants, or joins in granting, any rights pursuant to subsection (2) above shall be entitled, on making an application within such period as may be prescribed and in such manner as may be prescribed to such person as may be prescribed, to be paid by the appropriate person compensation of such amount as may be determined in such manner as may be prescribed.
  (6) Without prejudice to the generality of the regulations that may be made by virtue of subsection (5) above, regulations by virtue of that subsection may make such provision in relation to compensation under this section as may be made by regulations by virtue of subsection (4) of section 35A above in relation to compensation under that section.
  (7) In this section, "relevant land or waters" means—

  (a) the contaminated land in question;

  (b) any controlled waters affected by that land; or

  (c) any land adjoining or adjacent to that land or those waters.

  Restrictions and prohibitions on serving remediation notices.
  78EA.—(1) Before serving a remediation notice, the enforcing authority shall reasonably endeavour to consult—

  (a) the person on whom the notice is to be served,

  (b) the owner of any land to which the notice relates,

  (c) any person who appears to that authority to be in occupation of the whole or any part of the land, and

  (d) any person of such other description as may be prescribed,

  concerning what is to be done by way of remediation.
  (1A) Regulations may make provision for, or in connection with, steps to be taken for the purposes of subsection (1) above.
  (2) No remediation notice shall be served on any person by reference to any contaminated land during any of the following periods, that is to say—

  (a) the period—

  1507

  (i) beginning with the identification of the contaminated land in question pursuant to section 78B(1) above, and

  (ii) ending with the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the notice required by subsection (4) (d) or, as the case may be, (5) of section 78B above is given to that person in respect of that land;

  (b) if a decision falling within paragraph (b) of section 78BB(1) above is made in relation to the contaminated land in question, the period beginning with the making of the decision and ending with the expiration of the period of three months beginning with—

  (i) in a case where the decision is not referred to the Secretary of State under section 78BC above, the day on which the notice required by section 78BB(6) above is given, or

  (ii) in a case where the decision is referred to the Secretary of State under section 78BC above, the day on which he gives the notice required by subsection (4) (b) of that section;

  (c) if the appropriate Agency gives a notice under subsection (4) of section 78BB above to a local authority in relation to the contaminated land in question, the period beginning with the day on which that notice is given and ending with the expiration of the period of three months beginning with—

  (i) in a case where notice is given under subsection (6) of that section, the day on which that notice is given;

  (ii) in a case where the authority makes a decision falling within subsection (5) (b) of that section and the appropriate Agency fails to give notice under paragraph (b) of section 78BC(1) above, the day following the expiration of the period of twenty-one days mentioned in that paragraph; or

  (iii) in a case where the authority makes a decision falling within section 78BB(5) (b) above which is referred to the Secretary of State under section 78BC above, the day on which the Secretary of State gives the notice required by subsection (4) (b) of that section.

  (3) Neither subsection (I) nor subsection (2) above shall preclude the service of a remediation notice in any case where it appears to the enforcing authority that the land in question is in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that there is imminent danger of serious harm, or serious pollution of controlled waters, being caused.
  (4) The enforcing authority shall not serve a remediation notice on a person if and so long as any one or more of the following conditions is for the time being satisfied in the particular case, that is to say—

  (a) the authority is satisfied, in consequence of section 78D(2) and (6) above, that there is nothing by way of remediation which could be specified in a remediation notice served on that person;

  (b) the authority is satisfied that appropriate things are being, or will be, done by way of remediation without the service of a remediation notice on that person;

  (c) it appears to the authority that the person on whom the notice would be served is the authority itself; or

  1508

  (d) the authority is satisfied that the powers conferred on it by section 78HH below to do what is appropriate by way of remediation are exercisable.

  (5) Where the enforcing authority is precluded by virtue of section 78D(2) or (6) above from specifying in a remediation notice any particular thing by way of remediation which it would otherwise have specified in such a notice, the authority shall prepare and publish a document (in this Part referred to as a "remediation declaration") which shall record—

  (a) the reasons why the authority would have specified that thing; and

  (b) the grounds on which the authority is satisfied that it is precluded from specifying that thing in such a notice.

  (6) In any case where the enforcing authority is precluded, by virtue of paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (4) above, from serving a remediation notice, the responsible person shall prepare and publish a document (in this Part referred to as a "remediation statement") which shall record—

  (a) the things which are being, have been, or are expected to be, done by way of remediation in the particular case;

  (b) the name and address of the person who is doing, has done, or is expected to do, each of those things; and

  (c) the periods within which each of those things is being, or is expected to be, done.

  (7) For the purposes of subsection (6) above, the "responsible person" is—

  (a) in a case where the condition in paragraph (b) of subsection (4) above is satisfied, the person who is doing or has done, or who the enforcing authority is satisfied will do, the things there mentioned; or

  (b) in a case where the condition in paragraph (c) or (d) of that subsection is satisfied, the enforcing authority.

  (8) If a person who is required by virtue of subsection (7) (a) above to prepare and publish a remediation statement fails to do so within a reasonable time after the date on which a remediation notice specifying the things there mentioned could, apart from subsection (4) above, have been served, the enforcing authority may itself prepare and publish the statement and may recover its reasonable costs of doing so from that person.
  (9) Where the enforcing authority has been precluded by virtue only of subsection (4) above from serving a remediation notice on an appropriate person hut—

  (a) none of the conditions in that subsection is for the time being satisfied in the particular case, and

  (b) the authority is not precluded by any other provision of this Part from serving a remediation notice on that appropriate person,

  the authority shall serve a remediation notice on that person; and any such notice may be so served without any further endeavours by the authority to consult persons pursuant to subsection (1) above, if and to the extent that that person has been consulted pursuant to that subsection concerning the things which will be specified in the notice.
  Restrictions on liability relating to the pollution of controlled waters.
  78EB.—(I) This section applies where any land is contaminated land by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 78A above (whether or not the land is also contaminated land by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection).
  (2) Where this section applies, no remediation notice given in consequence of the land in question being contaminated land shall require a person who is an appropriate person by virtue of section 78E(3) or (3A) above to do anything by way of remediation to that or any other land, or any waters, which he could not have been required to do by such a notice had paragraph (b) of section 78A(2) above (and all other references to pollution of controlled waters) been omitted from this Part.
  (3) If, in a case where this section applies, a person permits, has permitted, or might permit, water from an abandoned mine or part of a mine—

  (a) to enter any controlled waters, or

  (b) to reach a place from which it is or, as the case may be, was likely, in the opinion of the enforcing authority, to enter such waters,

  no remediation notice shall require him in consequence to do anything by way of remediation (whether to the contaminated land in question or to any other land or waters) which he could not have been required to do by such a notice had paragraph (b) of section 78A(2) above (and all other references to pollution of controlled waters) been omitted from this Part.
  (4) Subsection (3) above shall not apply to the owner or former operator of any mine or part of a mine if the mine or part in question became abandoned after 31st December 1999.
  (4A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (4) above whether a mine or part of a mine became abandoned before, on or after 3Ist December 1999 in a case where the mine or part has become abandoned on two or more occasions, of which—

  (a) at least one falls on or before that date, and

  (b) at least one falls after that date,

  the mine or part shall be regarded as becoming abandoned after that date (but without prejudice to the operation of subsection (3) above in relation to that mine or part at, or in relation to, any time before the first of those occasions which falls after that date).
  (4B) Where, immediately before a part of a mine becomes abandoned, that part is the only part of the mine not falling to be regarded as abandoned for the time being, the abandonment of that part shall not be regarded for the purposes of subsection (4) or (4A) above as constituting the abandonment of the mine, but only of that part of it.
  (6) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) above prevents the enforcing authority from doing anything by way of remediation under section 78HH below which it could have done apart from that subsection, but the authority shall not be entitled under section 781 below to recover from any person any part of the cost incurred by the authority in doing by way of remediation anything which it is precluded by subsection (2) or (3) above from requiring that person to do.
  (7) In this section, "mine" has the same meaning as in the Mines and Quarries Act 1954.'.
  57 Page 55, line 33, leave out from 'that' to second 'person' in line 34.
  58 Page 55, leave out lines 36 to 44 and insert:
  '(5A) Nothing in subsection (3), (4) or (5) above prevents the enforcing authority from doing anything by way of remediation under section 78HH below which it could have done apart from that subsection, but the authority shall not be entitled under section 78J below to recover from any person any part of the cost incurred by the authority in doing by way of remediation anything which it is precluded by subsection (3), (4) or (5) above from requiring that person to do.
  (6) In this section, "appear" means appear to the enforcing authority, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.'.
  59 Page 56, line 7, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1) above'.
  60 Page 56, line 19, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1) above'.
  61 Page 56, line 20, leave out from 'made' to end of line 21 and insert:

  '(aa) the cases in which, grounds on which, court or tribunal to which, or person at whose instance, an appeal against a decision of a magistrates' court or sheriff court in pursuance of an appeal under subsection (I) above shall lie; or

  (b) the procedure on an appeal under subsection (I) above or on an appeal by virtue of paragraph (aa) above.'.

  62 Page 56, line 48, at end insert:
  '(6) This section, so far as relating to appeals to the Secretary of State, is subject to section 96 of the Environment Act 1995 (delegation or reference of appeals etc).'.
  63 Page 57, line 4, at end insert:
  '(1A) Where the remediation notice in question is one which was required by section 78D(1B) above to state, in relation to the requirement which has not been complied with, the proportion of the cost involved which the person charged with the offence is liable to bear, it shall be a defence for that person to prove that the only reason why he has not complied with the requirement is that one or more of the other persons who are liable to bear a proportion of that cost refused, or was not able, to comply with the requirement.'.
  64 Page 57, line 12, leave out 'under section 78J(1) (a)' and insert 'by virtue of section 78HH(3) (c)'.
  65 Page 57, line 24, leave out 'under section 78J(1) (a)' and insert 'by virtue of section 78HH(3) (c)'.
  66 Page 57, line 24, at end insert:
  '(3A) If the enforcing authority is of the opinion that proceedings for an offence under this section would afford an ineffectual remedy against a person who has failed to comply with any of the requirements of a remediation notice which that authority has served on him, that authority may take proceedings in the High Court or, in Scotland, in any court of competent jurisdiction, for the purpose of securing compliance with the remediation notice.'.
  67 Page 57, leave out lines 36 to 42 and insert:
  'Powers of the enforcing authority to carry out remediation.
  7814H.—(1) Where this section applies, the enforcing authority shall itself have power, in a case falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of section 78D(1) above, to do what is appropriate by way of remediation to the relevant land or waters.
  (2) Subsection (1) above shall not confer power on the enforcing authority to do anything by way of remediation if the authority would, in the particular case, be precluded by section 78S below from serving a remediation notice requiring that thing to be done.
  (3) This section applies in each of the following cases, that is to say—

  (a) where the enforcing authority considers it necessary to do anything itself by way of remediation for the purpose of preventing the occurrence of any serious harm, or serious pollution of controlled waters, of which there is imminent danger:

  (b) where an appropriate person has entered into a written agreement with the enforcing authority for that authority to do, at the cost

  1511
  of that person, that which he would otherwise be required to do under this Part by way of remediation;

  (c) where a person on whom the enforcing authority serves a remediation notice fails to comply with any of the requirements of the notice;

  (d) where the enforcing authority is precluded by section 78EB or 78F above from including something by way of remediation in a remediation notice;

  (e) where the enforcing authority considers that, were it to do some particular thing by way of remediation, it would decide, by virtue of subsection (2) of section 78J below or any guidance issued under that subsection,—

  (i) not to seek to recover under subsection (1) of that section any of the reasonable cost incurred by it in doing that thing; or

  (ii) to seek so to recover only a portion of that cost;

  (f) where no person has, after reasonable inquiry, been found who is an appropriate person in relation to any particular thing.

  (4) Subject to section 78D(2) and (6) above, for the purposes of this section, the things which it is appropriate for the enforcing authority to do by way of remediation are—

  (a) in a case falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (3) above, anything by way of remediation which the enforcing authority considers necessary for the purpose mentioned in that paragraph;

  (b) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection, anything specified in, or determined under, the agreement mentioned in that paragraph;

  (c) in a case falling within paragraph (c) of that subsection, anything which the person mentioned in that paragraph was required to do by virtue of the remediation notice;

  (d) in a case falling within paragraph (d) of that subsection, anything by way of remediation which the enforcing authority is precluded by section 78EB or 78F above from including in a remediation notice;

  (e) in a case falling within paragraph (e) or (f) of that subsection, the particular thing mentioned in the paragraph in question.

  (5) In this section "the relevant land or waters" means—

  (a) the contaminated land in question;

  (b) any controlled waters affected by that land; or

  (c) any land adjoining or adjacent to that land or those waters.

  Recovery of, and security for, the cost of remediation by the enforcing authority.
  78J.—(1) Where, by virtue of section 78HH(3) (a), (c), (e) or (f) above, the enforcing authority does any particular thing by way of remediation, it shall be entitled, subject to sections 78EB(6) and 78F(5A) above, to recover the reasonable cost incurred in doing it from the appropriate person or, if there are two or more appropriate persons in relation to the thing in question, from those persons in proportions determined pursuant to section 78E(5) above.'.
  68 Page 57, line 46, after 'regard' insert '(a)'.
  69 Page 57, line 47, at end insert '; and

  (b) to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection.'.

  70 Page 59, line 30. leave out '78K.—(1)' and insert:
  '78K.—(A1) If, in a case where a local authority has served a remediation notice, the contaminated land in question becomes a special site, the appropriate Agency may adopt the remediation notice and, if it does so,—

  (a) it shall give notice of its decision to adopt the remediation notice to the appropriate person and to the local authority;

  (b) the remediation notice shall have effect, as from the time at which the appropriate Agency decides to adopt it, as a remediation notice given by that Agency; and

  (c) the validity of the remediation notice shall not be affected by—

  (i) the contaminated land having become a special site;

  (ii) the adoption of the remediation notice by the appropriate Agency; or

  (iii) anything in paragraph (b) above.

  (A2) Where a local authority has, by virtue of section 78HH above, begun to do any thing, or any series of things, by way of remediation—

  (a) the authority may continue doing that thing, or that series of things, by virtue of that section, notwithstanding that the contaminated land in question becomes a special site; and

  (b) section 78J above shall apply in relation to the reasonable cost incurred by the authority in doing that thing or those things as if that authority were the enforcing authority.

  (1) '
  71 Page 59, line 31, leave out 'enter and'.
  72 Page 59, line 34, leave out from 'that' to 'a' in line 36.
  73 Page 59, line 36, leave out 'suitable for designation as such' and insert 'land which is required to be designated as such a site'.
  74 Page 59, line 42, leave out 'site's designation' and insert 'designation of the land in question'.
  75 Page 59, line 48, leave out 'this Part with respect to special sites' and insert 'subsection (1) or (2) above'.
  76 Page 60, leave out lines 7 and 8.
  77 Page 60, line 10, at end insert:
  'cc) remediation statements or remediation declarations prepared and published under section 78EA above;'.
  78 Page 60, line 13, at end insert:

  '(e) notices under subsection (1) (b) or (5) (a) of section 78BB above which have effect by virtue of subsection (7) of that section as the designation of any land as a special site;

  (f) notices under subsection (4) (b) of section 78BC above which have effect by virtue of subsection (6) of that section as the designation of any land as a special site;

  (g) notices given by or to the enforcing authority under section 78K(2) above terminating the designation of any land as a special site;

  (h) notifications given to that authority by person—

  (i) on whom a remediation notice has been served, or

  (ii) who are or were required by virtue of section 78EA(7) (a) above to prepare and publish a remediation statement,

  of what they claim has been done by them by way of remediation;

  (j) notifications given to that authority by owners or occupiers of land—

  (i) in respect of which a remediation notice has been served, or

  1513

  (ii) in respect of which a remediation statement has been prepared and published,

  of what they claim has been done on the land in question by way of remediation;

  (k) convictions for such offences under section 78H above as may be prescribed;

  (1) such other matters relating to contaminated land as may be prescribed;

  but that duty is subject to sections 78LA and 78LB below.
  (1A) The form of, and the descriptions of information to be contained in, notifications for the purposes of subsection (I) (h) or (j) above may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.
  (1B) No entry made in a register by virtue of subsection (1) (h) or (j) above constitutes a representation by the body maintaining the register or, in a case where the entry is made by virtue of subsection (2B) below, the authority which sent the copy of the particulars in question pursuant to subsection (2) or (2A) below—

  (a)that what is stated in the entry to have been done has in fact been done; or

  (b)as to the manner in which it has been done.'.

  79 Page 60, line 18, at end insert:
  '(2A) In any case where—

  (a)any land is treated by virtue of section 78P(2) below as situated in the area of a local authority other than the local authority in whose area it is in fact situated, and

  (b)any particulars relating to that land are entered on the register maintained under this section by the local authority in whose area the land is so treated as situated,

  that authority shall send a copy of those particulars to the local authority in whose area the land is in fact situated.
  (2B)Where a local authority receives a copy of any particulars sent to it pursuant to subsection (2) or (2A) above, it shall enter those particulars on the register maintained by it under this section.
  (2C)Where information of any description is excluded by virtue of section 78LB below from any register maintained under this section, a statement shall he entered in the register indicating the existence of information of that description.'.
  80 Page 60, line 20, leave out 'them' and insert 'it'.
  81 Page 60, line 33, at end insert:
  'Exclusion from registers of information affecting national security.
  78LA.—(1) No information shall be included in a register maintained under section 78L above if and so long as, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the inclusion in the register of that information, or information of that description, would be contrary to the interests of national security.
  (2) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of securing the exclusion from registers of information to which subsection (I) above applies, give to enforcing authorities directions—

  (a)specifying information, or descriptions of information, to be excluded from their registers; or

  (b)specifying descriptions of information to be referred to the Secretary of State for his determination;

  and no information referred to the Secretary of State in pursuance of paragraph (b) above shall be included in any such register until the Secretary of State determines that it should be so included.
  (3) The enforcing authority shall notify the Secretary of State of any information which it excludes from the register in pursuance of directions under subsection (2) above.
  (4) A person may, as respects any information which appears to him to be information to which subsection (1) above may apply, give a notice to the Secretary of State specifying the information and indicating its apparent nature; and, if he does so—

  (a)he shall notify the enforcing authority that he has done so; and

  (b)no information so notified to the Secretary of State shall be included in any such register until the Secretary of State has determined that it should be so included.

  Exclusion from registers of certain confidential information.
  78LB.-(1) No information relating to the affairs of any individual or business shall be included in a register maintained under section 78L above, without the consent of that individual or the person for the time being carrying on that business, if and so long as the information—

  (a)is, in relation to him, commercially confidential; and

  (b)is not required to be included in the register in pursuance of directions under subsection (5) below;

  but information is not commercially confidential for the purposes of this section unless it is determined under this section to be so by the enforcing authority or, on appeal, by the Secretary of State.
  (2) Where it appears to an enforcing authority that any information which has been obtained by the authority under or by virtue of any provision of this Part might be commercially confidential, the authority shall—

  (a)give to the person to whom or whose business it relates notice that that information is required to be included in the register unless excluded under this section; and

  (b)give him a reasonable opportunity—

  (i)of objecting to the inclusion of the information on the ground that it is commercially confidential; and

  (ii)of making representations to the authority for the purpose of justifying any such objection;

  and, if any representations are made, the enforcing authority shall, having taken the representations into account, determine whether the information is or is not commercially confidential.
  (3) Where, under subsection (2) above, an authority determines that information is not commercially confidential—

  (a)the information shall not be entered in the register until the end of the period of twenty-one days beginning with the date on which the determination is notified to the person concerned;

  (b)that person may appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision;

  and, where an appeal is brought in respect of any information, the information shall not be entered in the register until the end of the period of seven days following the day on which the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn.
  (3A)An appeal under subsection (3) above shall, if either party to the appeal so requests or the Secretary of State so decides, take or continue in the form of a hearing (which must be held in private).
  (3B)Subsection (10) of section 15 above shall apply in relation to an appeal under subsection (3) above as it applies in relation to an appeal under that section.
  (4) Subsection (3) above is subject to section 96 of the Environment Act 1995 (delegation or reference of appeals etc).
  (5)The Secretary of State may give to the enforcing authorities directions as to specified information, or descriptions of information, which the public interest requires to be included in registers maintained under section 78L above notwithstanding that the information may be commercially confidential.
  (6)Information excluded from a register shall be treated as ceasing to be commercially confidential for the purposes of this section at the expiry of the period of four years beginning with the date of the determination by virtue of which it was excluded; but the person who furnished it may apply to the authority for the information to remain excluded from the register on the ground that it is still commercially confidential and the authority shall determine whether or not that is the case.
  (7)Subsections (3) to (4) above shall apply in relation to a determination under subsection (6) above as they apply in relation to a determination under subsection (2) above.
  (8)Information is, for the purposes of any determination under this section, commercially confidential, in relation to any individual or person, if its being contained in the register would prejudice to an unreasonable degree the commercial interests of that individual or person.
  (9)For the purposes of subsection (8) above, there shall be disregarded any prejudice to the commercial interests of any individual or person so far as relating only to the value of the contaminated land in question or otherwise to the ownership or occupation of that land.'.
  82 Page 61, leave out lines 3 to 8 and insert:
  'Site-specific guidance by the appropriate Agency concerning contaminated land.
  78N.-(1) The appropriate Agency may issue guidance to any local authority with respect to the exercise or performance of the authority's powers or duties under this Part in relation to any particular contaminated land; and in exercising or performing those powers or duties in relation to that land the authority shall have regard to any such guidance so issued.
  (IA) If and to the extent that any guidance issued under subsection (1) above to a local authority is inconsistent with any guidance issued under this Part by the Secretary of State, the local authority shall disregard the guidance under that subsection.'.
  83 Page 61, line 20, at end insert:
  ' The appropriate Agency to have regard to guidance given by the Secretary of State.
  78NN.-(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the appropriate Agency with respect to the exercise or performance of that Agency's powers or duties under this Part; and in exercising or performing those powers or duties the appropriate Agency shall have regard to any such guidance so issued.
  (2) The duty imposed on the appropriate Agency by subsection (1) above is without prejudice to any duty imposed by any other provision of this Part on that Agency to act in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of State.'.
  84 Page 62, leave out lines 7 to 17 and insert:
  '(3) A person acting in a relevant capacity—

  (a)shall not thereby be personally liable, under this Part, to bear the whole or any part of the cost of doing any thing by way of remediation, unless that thing is to any extent referable to substances whose presence in, on or under the contaminated land in question is a result of any act done or omission made by him which it was unreasonable for a person acting in that capacity to do or make: and

  (b)shall not thereby be guilty of an offence under or by virtue of section 78H above unless the requirement which has not been complied with is a requirement
  1516
  to do some particular thing for which he is personally liable to bear the whole or any part of the cost.

  (3A) In subsection (3) above, "person acting in a relevant capacity" means—

  (a)a person acting as an insolvency practitioner, within the meaning of section 388 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (including that section as it applies in relation to an insolvent partnership by virtue of any order made under section 421 of that Act);

  (b)the official receiver acting in a capacity in which he would regarded as acting as an insolvency practitioner within the meaning of section 388 of the Insolvency Act 1986 if subsection (5) of that section were disregarded;

  (c)the official receiver acting as receiver or manager;

  (d)a person acting as a special manager under section 177 or 370 of the Insolvency Act 1986;

  (e)the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985);

  (f)a person acting as a receiver or receiver and manager—

  (i)under or by virtue of any enactment; or

  (ii)by virtue of his appointment as such by an order of a court or by any other instrument.'.

  85 Page 62, line 45, after '78E(4)' insert 'or (5)'.
  86 Page 63, line 12, at end insert:
  'Interaction of this Part with other enactments.
  78S.-(1) A remediation notice shall not be served if and to the extent that it appears to the enforcing authority that the powers of the appropriate Agency under section 27 above may be exercised in relation to—

  (a)the significant harm (if any), and

  (b)the pollution of controlled waters (if any),

  by reason of which the contaminated land in question is such land.
  (2) Nothing in this Part shall apply in relation to any land in respect of which there is for the time being in force a site licence under Part ll above, except to the extent that any significant harm, or pollution of controlled waters, by reason of which that land would otherwise fall to be regarded as contaminated land is attributable to causes other than—

  (a)breach of the conditions of the licence; or

  (b)the carrying on, in accordance with the conditions of the licence, of any activity authorised by the licence.

  (3) If, in a case falling within subsection (1) or (7) of section 59 above, the land in question is contaminated land, or becomes such land by reason of the deposit of the controlled waste in question, a remediation notice shall not be served in respect of that land by reason of that waste or any consequences of its deposit, if and to the extent that it appears to the enforcing authority that the powers of a waste regulation authority or waste collection authority under that section may be exercised in relation to that waste or the consequences of its deposit.
  (4) No remediation notice shall require a person to do anything the effect of which would be to impede or prevent the making of a discharge in pursuance of a consent given under Chapter II of Part Ill of the Water Resources Act 1991 (pollution offences) or, in relation to Scotland, in pursuance of a consent given under Part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
  This Part and radioactivity.
  78T. Except as provided by regulations, nothing in this Part applies in relation to harm, or pollution of controlled waters, so far as attributable to any radioactivity possessed by any substance: but regulations may—

  1517

  (a)provide for prescribed provisions of this Part to have effect with such modifications as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of dealing with harm, or pollution of controlled waters, so far as attributable to any radioactivity possessed by any substances; or

  (b)make such modifications of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 or any other Act as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.".'.

  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36 to 86 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36 to 86 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  87 Clause 55, page 63, line 17, leave out 'Ace and insert 'Chapter'.
  88 Page 63, line 18, leave out from 'mine,' to end of line 20 and insert:
  '(A) subject to paragraph (B) below, includes—'.
  89 Page 63, line 21, after 'of insert 'any or all of the'.
  90 Page 63, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert:

  '(c) the cessation of working of any relevant seam, vein or vein-system;

  (cc) the cessation of use of any shaft or outlet of the mine;'.

  91 Page 63, line 34, at end insert 'but
  (B) does not include

  (i)any disclaimer under section 178 or 315 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (power of liquidator, or trustee of a bankrupt's estate, to disclaim onerous property) by the official receiver acting in a compulsory capacity; or

  (ii)the abandonment of any rights, interests or liabilities by the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985);'.

  92 Page 63, leave out lines 36 to 45.
  93 Page 63, line 49, at end insert:
  "'acting in a compulsory capacity", in the case of the official receiver, means acting as —

  (a)liquidator of a company;

  (b)receiver or manager of a bankrupt's estate, pursuant to section 287 of the Insolvency Act 1986;

  (c)trustee of a bankrupt's estate;

  (d)liquidator of an insolvent partnership;

  (e)trustee of an insolvent partnership;

  (f)trustee, or receiver or manager, of the insolvent estate of a deceased person;'.

  94 Page 64, line 1, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 18 and insert:
  "'the official receiver" has the same meaning as it has in the Insolvency Act 1986 by virtue of section 399(1) of that Act;'.
  95 Page 64, line 21, leave out from end to second 'to' in line 24 and insert:
  "relevant seam, vein or vein-system", in the case of any mine, means any seam, vein or vein-system
  1518
  for the purpose of, or in connection with, whose working any excavation constituting or comprised in the mine was made.
  Mine operators to give the Agency six months' notice of any proposed abandonment.
  91B.—(1) If, in the case of any mine, there is to be an abandonment at any time after the expiration of the initial period, it shall be the duty of the operator of the mine'.
  96 Page 64, line 32, leave out '(2)' and insert '(I)'.
  97 Page 64, line 44, at end insert:
  '(4A) Where the operator of a mine is—

  (a)the official receiver acting in a compulsory capacity, or

  (b)the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985),

  he shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (3) above by reason of any failure to give the notice required by subsection (1) above if, as soon as reasonably practicable (whether before or after the abandonment), he gives to the Agency notice of the abandonment or proposed abandonment, containing such information as may be prescribed.
  (4B) Where a person gives notice under subsection (1), (4) (b) or (4A) above, he shall publish prescribed particulars of, or relating to, the notice in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality where the mine is situated.'.
  98 Page 64, line 47, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.
  99 Page 64, line 48, leave out 'of a' and insert 'in the case of any'.
  100 Page 65, line 1, leave out from 'that,' to 'become' in line 3 and insert 'in consequence of the abandonment or proposed abandonment taking effect, any land has or is likely to'.
  101 Page 65, line 6, leave out 'that local authority' and insert 'the local authority in whose area that land is situated'.
  102 Clause 56, page 65, line 35, leave out 'Act' and insert 'Part'.
  103 Page 65, line 36, leave out from 'mine,' to end of line 38 and insert:
  '(A) subject to paragraph (B) below, includes—'.
  104 Page 65, line 39, after 'of insert 'any or all of the'.
  105 Page 65, leave out lines 41 to 43 and insert:
  '(c) the cessation of working of any relevant seam, vein or vein-system;
  (cc) the cessation of use of any shaft or outlet of the mine;'.
  106 Page 66, line 5, at end insert 'but
  (B) does not include—

  (a) the abanndonment of any rights, interests or liabilities by the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985); or

  (b) any disclaimer under section 178 or 315 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (power of liquidator, or trustee of bankrupt's estate, to disclaim onerous property) by the official receiver acting in a compulsory capacity;'.

  107 Page 66, leave out lines 7 to 16.
  108 Page 66, leave out lines 19 to 40 and insert:
  '"acting in a compulsory capacity", in the case of the official receiver, means acting as—

  (a)liquidator of a company;

  (b)receiver or manager of a bankrupt's estate, pursuant to section 287 of the Insolvency Act 1986;

  (c)trustee of a bankrupt's estate;

  (d)liquidator of an insolvent partnership;

  (e)trustee of an insolvent partnership;

  1519

  (f) trustee, or receiver or manager, of the insolvent estate of a deceased person;

  "the official receiver" has the same meaning as it has in the Insolvency Act 1986 by virtue of section 399(1) of that Act;
  "relevant seam, vein or vein-system", in the case of any mine, means any seam, vein or vein-system for the purpose of, or in connection with, whose working any excavation constituting or comprised in the mine was made.'.
  109 Page 66, line 42, leave out from beginning to second 'to' in line 44 and insert:
  'Mine operators to give SEPA six months' notice of any proposed abandonment.
  30Z.—(1) If, in the case of any mine, there is to be an abandonment at any time after the expiration of the initial period, it shall be the duty of the operator of the mine'.
  110 Page 67, line 2, leave out '(2)' and insert '(1)'.
  111 Page 67, line 14, at end insert:
  '(4A) Where the operator of a mine is—

  (a)the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985); or

  (b)the official receiver acting in a compulsory capacity, he shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (3) above by reason of any failure to give the notice required by subsection (1) above if, as soon as is reasonably practicable (whether before or after the abandonment), he gives to SEPA notice of the abandonment or proposed abandonment, containing such information as may be prescribed.

  (4B) Where a person gives notice under subsection (I), (4) (b) or (4A) above, he shall publish prescribed particulars of, or relating to, the notice in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality where the mine is situated.'.
  112 Page 67, line 17, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.
  113 Page 67, line 18, leave out 'of a' and insert 'in the case of any'.
  114 Page 67, line 19, leave out from 'that,' to 'become' in line 21 and insert 'in consequence of the abandonment or proposed abandonment taking effect, any land has or is likely to'.
  115 Page 67, line 24, leave out 'that local authority' and insert 'the local authority in whose area that land is situated'.
  116 Clause 57, page 67, line 33, leave out 'after' and insert 'in'.
  117 Page 67, line 36, after 'waters)' insert 'after the words "an abandoned mine" there shall be inserted the words "or an abandoned part of a mine".
  (1A) After that subsection'.
  118 Page 67, line 37, at end insert 'former'.
  119 Page 67, line 38, leave out 'if the mine in question became an abandoned mine' and insert 'or part of a mine if the mine or part in question became abandoned'.
  120 Page 67, line 39, at end insert:
  '(3B) In determining for the purposes of subsection (3A) above whether a mine or part of a mine became abandoned before, on or after 31st December 1999 in a case where the mine or part has become abandoned on two or more occasions, of which—

  (a)at least one falls on or before that date, and

  (b)at least one falls after that date,

  the mine or part shall be regarded as becoming abandoned after that date (but without prejudice to the operation of subsection (3) above in relation to that mine or part at, or in relation to. any time before the first of those occasions which falls after that date).
  (3C) Where, immediately before a part of a mine becomes abandoned, that part is the only part of the mine not falling to he regarded as abandoned for the
  1520
  time being, the abandonment of that part shall not be regarded for the purposes of subsection (3A) or (3B) above as constituting the abandonment of the mine, but only of that part of it.".'.
  121 Page 68, line 5, after 'mine)' insert '(a)'.
  122 Page 68, line 7, at end insert '; and
  (b) after the words "an abandoned mine" there shall be inserted the words "or an abandoned part of a mine".'.
  123 Page 68, line 9, at end insert 'former'.
  124 Page 68, line 10, leave out 'if the mine in question became an abandoned mine' and insert 'or part of a mine if the mine or part in question became abandoned'.
  125 Page 68, line 11, at end insert:
  '(4B) Subsections (3B) and (3C) of section 89 above shall apply in relation to subsections (4) and (4A) above as they apply in relation to subsections (3) and (3A) of that section.".'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House to agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 87 to 125. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 229 to 233, 255 and 256.
  The Government's intention, in moving the bulk of the amendments was to ensure that the provisions for pre-notification of the abandonment of mines, and for the removal of the defence and exemption in respect of mines abandoned after the end of 1999, should work as intended. The amendments also serve to make the legislation as clear as possible to the mine operators and owners affected.
  I turn to Amendment No. 97. The noble Lords, Lord Ezra, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Moran, proposed an amendment which would have required a mine operator who served notice of abandonment on the agency to publish the notice in local newspapers as well. A similar amendment was also tabled in another place.
  Having considered further the points raised on this proposal, the Government tabled Amendment No. 97 to meet substantially those points. It requires anyone serving a notice of abandonment on the agency to publish particulars of, or relating to, that notice in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality of the mine. Amendment No. 111 has the same effect in Scotland.
  Amendments Nos. 118 and 123 amend the provisions in Clause 57 which refer to the removal of the defence against prosecution and the exemption from cost recovery from the owners and operators of mines abandoned after the end of 1999.
  Your Lordships may recall that the removal of the defence and exemption was subject to amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, which he regrettably put to a Division, and the Government lost. The Government have now agreed to accept the amendments. We have tabled further amendments (Amendments Nos. 229, 231 and 256) which will bring the law in Scotland into line with that approach. However, we were concerned that one aspect of the wording was unclear. It refers to,
  "the owner or operator of any mine or part of a mine if the mine of the part in question became abandoned after 31st December 1999".
  We believe that that could he confusing as any abandoned mine is, by definition, not being operated. That will please my noble friend Lord Peyton: an abandoned mine is an abandoned mine—it is one that

  1521
  has been abandoned. The amendments therefore change the wording so that it refers to the "former operator", which clarifies what is meant.
  With regard to Amendments Nos. 88, 91, 93, 94, 97, 103, 106, 108 and 111, we have had to have regard to the fact that sometimes the act of abandonment will accompany or follow the insolvency of the operator. We have had to look carefully at the position of office holders in liquidations and bankruptcies who would be prevented from notifying the abandonment of a mine promptly. Private sector office holders, of course, are allowed to review the cases they are offered, and have the right to refuse an appointment. The Official Receiver, on the other hand, when acting in the capacities listed in the amendments, has no choice. He cannot refuse to act. He might therefore be placed in a position of being compelled to continue some mining operations when there are no assets in the company to fund this, or face prosecution for a criminal offence. That would not of course be acceptable. These amendments, therefore, ensure that the Official Receiver, when acting in those capacities, does not commit an offence if he abandons a mine or part of a mine without giving six months' notice, providing he notifies the agency as soon as is practicable.
  These are all complicated provisions, but they are designed to enhance the agency's ability to address mine water pollution. The amendments have all been framed to ensure that the provisions will work in practice and address the events preceding and following the abandonment of mines in such a manner as is most appropriate.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 87 to 125-(Earl Ferrers.)
  Baroness Hilton of Eggardon:My Lords, the whole question of pollution from abandoned mines exercised us at great length at earlier stages of the Bill. We regret profoundly that the Government have not imposed a statutory duty on the Coal Authority to deal with minewater pollution. One cannot expect of course at this late stage to amend the Bill to include that, but we would be grateful if a clear statement could be made as to what action the Coal Authority is expected to take in relation to minewater pollution.
  As recently as April this year, the chief executive of the Coal Authority, Neville Washington, said that the Coal Authority was not responsible for water that emerges from the pits. Nevertheless, during its passage through this House and the other place, we were given assurances by the then Ministers that the Coal Authority would be expected to go beyond the minimum standards of environmental responsibility which are set by its legal duties. That was a vague statement which was not wholly reassuring at the time, but it did at least suggest that the Coal Authority had some responsibility for pollution of water from mines that were already closed. In view of the chief executive's recent statement, the extent to which we were reassured has now been considerably undermined.
  Another member of the Coal Authority, the director of contracts, Albert Schofield, said in May-even more recently-that the Bill was not clear in assigning
  1522
  responsibility for minewater pollution from abandoned coalmines to the Coal Authority. We would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the Coal Authority is responsible; who will deal with polluted water that arises from mines that have been closed; and who is responsible for continuing the pumping of mines that have been closed.
  This a serious matter. There are rivers in the north east which are already seeing pollution from many of the coalmines which have been abandoned or closed there. Unless there is a clear assignment of responsibility, public concern will continue to grow and we will continue to see rivers which are affected by heavy metal and other poisons seeping out of closed coalmines. I should he grateful if the Minister could reassure us further as to what are the responsibilities of the Coal Authority or whether the Government will be picking up the tag if the Coal Authority is not responsible.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I join with the noble Baroness in asking for some clarification in this area. We have already spent a great deal of time on this issue and it seems to be an area where the Government have fudged the issue to a great degree. It is far from clear where the responsibility lies. There are dangers that there will be great pollution into the future, and it will be difficult to find out how to cope with it. I add the thanks of myself, my noble friend Lord Ezra and other noble Lords who put forward the amendment relating to advertising in local newspapers. That was worthwhile. I am grateful to them for doing so.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who supported the amendment that I had the privilege of moving. I include the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who I think suspected me of being half-hearted on the second part of it, regarding the date of 1999 but I was not. I thank the Government for graciously accepting your Lordships' wishes and for adding the small technical amendment.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for having been good enough to express his thanks that we should have accepted the amendment which your Lordships passed, and which we have considered and thought appropriate to address, and adjust so as to improve it. It is an example of how, when your Lordships feel that something is important your Lordships do, on occasions—as some say—put the bit between your Lordships' teeth and pass an amendment which is sometimes not the wish of the Government. On consideration, it is often shown that your Lordships are correct. On this occasion your Lordships were correct, and we were able to amend the amendment to make it more appropriate to the Bill as a whole.
  I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, thought that we had fudged the issue. I do not think that we did fudge it. Of course it is not an easy issue with which to deal. I believe that we have come to the right conclusion. Time alone will show whether that is so. I am grateful to him for his appreciation of the amendment with regard to advertising in local

  1523
  newspapers. That is a good thing to do, and I am grateful to him for having drawn it to our attention in the first place.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, was worried about the Coal Authority, abandoned coalmines, and so forth. We have to realise that we must put in place arrangements to deal with the essential pollution prevention work which was formerly carried out by British Coal, particularly pumping at certain sites in Durham, notwithstanding that there was no statutory requirement for that work. We must then initiate a dialogue between the authority and the water regulators on the priorities for any other such work by the authority. In general, the authority is the owner of the abandoned coal mines throughout Great Britain. It has the responsibility which goes with that ownership. That responsibility will continue and it will be that of the Coal Authority.
  On Question, Motion agreed to. 5 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  126 Clause 58, page 68, line 29, leave out 'quiet enjoyment and understanding' and insert 'understanding and enjoyment'.
  127 Clause 62, page 74, line 24, leave out from 'heritage' to end of line 25 and insert 'of National Parks and of promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those Parks by the public).'.
  128 Clause 66, page 80, line 47, leave out from 'heritage' to end of line 49 and insert 'of National Parks and of promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those Parks by the public).'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 126 to 128 en bloc. Much has been said in this House and in another place about the second national park purpose and what it means for the future management of the parks. I understand the importance which has been attached to the concept of the national parks as places to get away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. Indeed, we recognised their importance in this respect in our 1992 policy statement on the future of the parks.
  I know that our policy statement indicated a willingness to consider the term "quiet enjoyment". However, in drafting the clauses which were to be introduced as part of this Bill, we gave long and careful consideration to the meaning of this phrase and the consequences of its use for all those, and especially the national park authorities, who would need to interpret it on a daily basis. We became convinced that to enshrine this phrase in statute would raise more difficulties than it would solve. Most of the issues that have been raised during the passage of this Bill with regard to "quiet enjoyment" became obvious to us during the drafting process. Your Lordships considered that "quiet enjoyment" was a better and more appropriate phrase than "enjoyment" and in Committee your Lordships moved that the word "quiet" should he included in the Bill.
  We have now had time to consider the matter in detail. While I understand the reasons for including the word "quiet", it is considered to be almost impossible
  1524
  to enforce in a court of law. One would ask—and I can see my noble friend Lord Peyton enjoying doing so—"What is quiet and what is noisy? Is sailing to be permitted but not power boat sailing? If power boat sailing is noisy, is an outboard motor noisy?". The difficulty of interpretation would be almost endless.
  Some supporters of "quiet enjoyment" have put forward the view that the Bill, as your Lordships amended it, does no more than ensure that there is an emphasis on promoting opportunities for "quiet enjoyment". They claim that the inclusion of the word "quiet" could not be used to justify the exclusion of other activities which may be noisy. They also say that national park authorities will not be prevented from continuing to promote opportunities for activities which are not "quiet". Very many, who have made their position clear to Ministers, dispute these propositions. They claim the reverse; that the inclusion of the word "quiet" must imply a presumption against a whole range of recreational activities, many of which have traditionally been carried on in the parks and, indeed, can often be seen as part of the local culture and character but may not he quiet.
  After a great deal of thought and deliberation, we have concluded that the term "quiet enjoyment" could be more serious and potentially detrimental to the future of the parks than the supporters of the phrase realise. Furthermore, your Lordships will be aware that the Government considered such an amendment in another place. My noble friend Lord Barber and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, also introduced amendments but none of them commanded universal support. Nor did we believe that any of them solved the difficulties which arise with "quiet enjoyment". We do not believe that the second national park purpose can be resolved by further clarificatory amendments. We have therefore concluded, and another place has agreed, that it would be preferable to return to the wording which the Government introduced in the Bill. That wording was drafted after very careful consideration.
  In returning the second national park purpose to its original form, we shall make clear in revised draft guidelines that there is a variety of ways in which the parks can be enjoyed and that the national park authorities should continue to promote the widest range of opportunities for recreation. I want to make it clear that we continue fully to respect the conservation values which the parks represent and which have led to so many appreciating the qualities which they seek to reflect in the phrase "quiet enjoyment". It will certainly not be appropriate for all forms of recreation to take place in every part of the parks. Large areas of the parks will, and should, continue to he quietly enjoyed for much of the time.
  It will he the responsibility of the national park authorities to strike a balance between the legitimate demands to use all the opportunities which the parks afford for recreation and the equally legitimate desires of those who wish to enjoy only their beauty and tranquillity. National park authorities will continue to be able to promote activities which are most appropriate to the particular circumstances of their parks. I do not doubt that they will wish to place emphasis on "quiet"

  1525
  activities; but they must also ensure that the parks continue to accommodate a wide range of recreational opportunities.
  In striking this balance, the national parks will, in those rare cases where there is a conflict between the conservation and recreation purposes of the parks which cannot be reconciled, be guided by the Sandford principle that the first purpose takes precedence. That is now set out in Clause 59 of the Bill.
  I hope that despite and even because of all the discussions on this difficult subject your Lordships will agree that the new wording of the Bill as agreed by another place should be incorporated.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 126 to 128.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the noble Earl that we do not agree with the Commons in their amendment to the amendment passed on Division in your Lordships' House. The principle of quiet enjoyment has been strongly supported by all parties. Indeed, it was strongly supported on all sides of the Chamber when the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, moved his amendment. We supported attempts to clarify what "quiet enjoyment" meant in the context of national parks. However, in the end we decided that there was no substitute for case law when it came to interpreting what Parliament had decided.
  After the publication of the Edwards Report, the Government made a commitment to the principle of park authorities promoting quiet enjoyment. That was the Government's response to the Edwards Report. It appears from what the Minister said that nothing has happened to detract from that principle. I understand that the Government remain committed to their response to the Edwards Report.
  In another place during Committee, Members of all parties supported the principle. On Report, my right honourable and honourable friends tried to move an amendment, given that the Government were not happy with what your Lordships had approved on a Division. They fought hard for the retention of the words. Indeed, they were supported by many representations from all kinds of organisations and private individuals. Finally, it came down to whether there was a definition that was acceptable in statute as opposed to a phrase which would be interpreted in case law.
  The Government wish to have in statute every conceivable dot and comma. Yet, we now have the position in which the Government, having accepted the Edwards Report and its conclusions on "quiet enjoyment", propose to put the measures into guidelines or guidance. I am wholly unclear—and during the course of the afternoon other noble Lords have raised the problem—as to what is the status of guidance or guidelines. Can they be challenged in either House of Parliament or in the courts? What is their status? If there are to be guidelines, I should prefer to have a simple phrase in the Bill such as "quiet enjoyment" and then to have that interpreted by the Government as to what they think it means. Indeed, in the light of Pepper v. Hart,
  1526
  as the noble Earl knows, the Government are entitled to put their gloss on what the expression means. The courts will then interpret it on a case by case basis.
  I cannot see, and nor can noble friends more learned than I, any case against that. At this last llth hour and 59th minute, I ask the noble Earl to put on the record a very clear statement that the Government support the Edwards concept of quiet enjoyment—that even though there may be different words in the Bill, those words should be interpreted by the courts as an endorsement of the principle of "quiet enjoyment" as expressed by Edwards. If the noble Earl can do that, I am prepared to be satisfied.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should find it of considerable interest if my noble friend could tell me whether the expression "quiet enjoyment" appears in any other statute and, if so, which one.
  Lord Norrie: My Lords, I very much endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said. However, perhaps I may return to what happened when we debated the Bill earlier this year. I was concerned that it did not reflect adequately the findings of the Edwards Committee because it did not clarify the forms of enjoyment which national park authorities should promote. Therefore, in Committee I moved an amendment to make it absolutely clear what should be the second purpose of national parks. To my delight, the amendment was accepted.
  The amendment was based on the recommendations of the Edwards report and the subsequent policy statement by the Government to which my noble friend alluded. I wanted to ensure that the principle of park authorities promoting the quiet enjoyment of areas was set out clearly in statute. Since then, as the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have said, much debate has centred around the need for a definition of "quiet enjoyment". Although I am aware that technically a definition is not strictly necessary, I have supported the efforts of Ministers both in this House and another place to secure a definition so that there can he no misinterpretation of the recreational purpose of the parks. I was naturally disappointed that my amendment was reversed in another place due to difficulties in agreeing a suitable definition of "quiet enjoyment". I understand that that was due to reasons of technical drafting and does not represent a change of policy.
  Therefore, I welcome warmly the Minister's commitment to include in detailed guidance how the Bill is to be interpreted. That should illustrate the kind of activities which national park authorities will he expected to promote. Although numerous organisations, and I myself, would be much happier to have the words "quiet enjoyment" on the face of the Bill, I hope that the Minister's words will reassure the House and those who live, work and take their recreation within the parks.
  Last week I wrote to the Minister and requested him to reassure the House today that quiet enjoyment will remain a principle of national parks, as it has been since their creation almost 50 years ago. I hope that he will he able to reassure me that peacefulness and tranquillity are key special qualities of all national parks and that the types of activity which park authorities would he expected to promote should he only those which do not

  1527
  put in jeopardy those special qualities. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that, as a principle, quiet enjoyment remains as relevant as it always has been. I ask him to indicate that that principle would be made absolutely clear in the guidance which is to accompany the Bill.
  5.15 p.m.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I support the requests made by my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I am worried that the whole exercise of including the words "quiet enjoyment" and then taking them out again will have an unfortunate effect. Publicity has been given to the fact that those words have been removed and I am worried that that may give the wrong impression to many people about what is now to be permitted in national parks, more so than if the argument had not taken place at all.
  There has been a kind of minor hysteria in the other place about the effect of the word "quiet", leaving aside for the moment the legal difficulties. which I believe have been overemphasised. The clause that we are talking about is concerned with what the authorities are actively required to promote. Therefore, it does not give them power to close down any existing activity as far as I can see. Therefore, a great deal of the fuss that has been made about putting an end to activities which now take place in the parks appears to me to be quite unnecessary.
  As the Bill went through in its earlier stages, we dealt with the composition of the authorities. That composition will be very important in relation to the interpretation of what is now proposed by the Government. Later this evening we shall be discussing the proposed changes to the composition of those authorities. It seems to me that those changes will give us additional cause for concern when we look at them in the context of the removal of that phrase. I very much regret what has happened and hope that the Minister will reassure us.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I welcome the removal of the word "quiet" from the Bill because it has caused a great deal of anxiety for a number of legitimate organisations which promote activities within the national parks.
  I am a member of the Public Policy Committee of the RAC and I am concerned in particular about the RAC rally. Rallying and motor sports in general are very popular and in this country, we are extremely good at them. Indeed, those sports produce a great deal of revenue for the Exchequer, which I am sure will be welcomed by all noble Lords. But the fact is that two-thirds of the RAC rally takes place in national park areas and has done for many years, long before they were so designated in fact. To impose a duty on park authorities to promote quiet activity could put in serious doubt the continuation of the RAC rally, among other things.
  It is all very well for noble Lords and others to say that the national park authorities have no intention of stopping the RAC rally. But others—what I might call the environmental puritans or zealots—may take the
  1528
  national park authorities to court for allowing something like the RAC rally to take place because it would not be promoting quiet enjoyment. The RAC rally is enjoyed by many thousands of people, but by no stretch of the imagination could it be described as quiet. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, may not enjoy it. I believe that the environmental zealots would wish to remove the word "enjoyment" from national parks legislation because, on the whole, they seem to want to stop anybody enjoying anything at all.
  The same applies to sailing. Anxieties have been expressed by sailing interests. Sailing is a quiet activity, but if there is to be competitive dinghy racing on a lake in a park, there must be a motorised safety boat. There are those who wish to ban all motor boats from lakes in national parks. If the word "quiet" is included in the Bill, they could probably attempt to do so.
  There are a great number of other activities which legitimately take place in the national parks which could not be described as quiet. I believe that the Bill as currently drafted is a great deal better.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is repeating arguments which I thought had been thoroughly dealt with at a previous stage. The fact that we want quiet enjoyment of the parks does not automatically mean, or even imply, any kind of a ban on specific sports. To go as far as he did and say that people in the national parks are not in favour of anyone enjoying themselves suggests a total misunderstanding of what the national parks are for. The mere fact that the national parks are there means that people who use them are enjoying themselves and take great pleasure from that.
  My purpose in rising to my feet is not to repeat the arguments which have been put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Norrie, but to say that the previous desire to have quiet enjoyment was supported in all parts of the House and that certainly includes noble Lords on these Benches. Although we understand why that provision has been taken out, we are sorry. We look to the Government to produce the greatest possible reassurance in the guidance that will be given.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am informed that the words "quiet enjoyment" could curtail work, particularly agricultural work, in the national parks. I am aware that agricultural activities are often not quiet and certainly they are not peaceful. If there are to he guidelines, I hope that my noble friend can assure me that the "work activities", if I may call them that, will not be affected. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will support such a view as will the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont.
  Lord Chorley: My Lords, I support the remarks made by the previous speakers, with the particular exception of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, with whom I totally disagree. There was very wide support from all sides of the House when the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, moved his successful amendment. I accept that the Government tried both then, and subsequently in another place, to come up with a definition. It may he that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is right that that was not

  1529
  necessary and it could be done the other way round by case law. However, I believe that the Government tried but they have not come up with a suitable definition. The route by way of guidance is probably the best we can expect at this stage.
  I would like to see particular attention paid to the remarks contained in the Edwards report. It states,
  "While we do not support their"—
  by "their" it is speaking about such activities as those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, including motor cycle scrambling, rally driving and so forth—
  "total prohibition in national parks, they should only take place on those rare sites where they do not cause undue annoyance to other park users or damage to the fabric of the parks themselves".
  The report says that in most cases other places can be found to carry out those activities.
  The point about the Edwards report is that it took the view that there are particular national parks where things can be done which should not be done in other parks. It is that kind of sentiment that one needs to get into the guidance. I do not know how these things are done, but when the Government draw up their guidelines I hope that they will consult with the relevant organisations like the NGOs and the National Trust, because we have a great deal of ownership in national parks. That would be important.
  What is most important of all—and here I am taking up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol—is that it would be deplorable if this Bill were to reach the statute book with any suggestion that the Government had in any way departed from the principle of quiet enjoyment as a special quality to be promoted and protected in our national parks.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, perhaps I may add my disappointment to that already expressed by noble Lords on both sides of the House that the Government have been unable to produce an appropriate definition. In a way, I am rather surprised that they have not been able to do so. It is disappointing because it was a crucial part of the Edwards report that quiet enjoyment should be part of the policy towards the national parks.
  I believe that most of us know what was intended. I recognise that it would be possible for ill-intentioned people to try to challenge perfectly legitimate activities. As regards what my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley said, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would contemplate challenging agricultural activities. That seems to be dicta ad absurdum as an argument.
  However, there is a need for tranquillity which is growing in this age. Things that may have been acceptable a while ago are not going to be acceptable. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Brabazon is right in saying that activities such as rallies would be acceptable forever. Recently I heard of someone with a business—and there is nothing immoral about it—taking people around national parks by helicopter. It is not right that in the future people's enjoyment of national parks should be spoilt by one or two persons being taken around by helicopter.
  1530
  It is an unsatisfactory legislative process that we cannot define the problem and yet we are told that there will be guidance. At the very least the Government should have provided—and have had time to provide—some draft guidance so that we see the kind of things that they have in mind. I do not cast any aspersions on the Government's intentions. I take at face value their earlier commitment to the principle of quiet enjoyment, which was contained in the Edwards report. But we need to be given more detail of the kind of thing that would be in the guidance. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that we must have a clearer idea of the vires of what the guidance would be.
  The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, at the risk of prolonging this discussion, I would like to say from this Bench that I support what the Government have been doing. With so many voices saying that the term "quiet" should precede "enjoyment", in throwing my hat into the ring I would like to bring some of my own experiences to bear on this matter.
  The Minister has quite rightly pointed out the difficulties of definition. I considered that myself in the light of some knowledge of commercial landlord and tenant where the term "quiet enjoyment" is a commonplace piece of terminology. But outside that rarified world of commercial activity, it clearly means different things to different people. Noble Lords will perhaps remember that I moved an amendment late in the proceedings in this House before the matter left for another place. It was evident to me, as it must have been to many others, that there was no consensus as to what that term meant. That is a very dangerous precedent and message to send out attached to an Act of Parliament.
  I accept that the national parks authorities should not be in the business of encouraging noisy activities, but acoustic matters are only one part of the equation. It is possible to be a hostage to fortune because of the lack of interpretation and definition. The provision is being treated by local authorities as "a duty to prevent". I say that with a degree of certainty, having recently been in a national park local planning inquiry where I was obliged to challenge a reference to commercial shooting. There were other references to other things about quiet enjoyment, but that was the particular matter about which I was concerned. I must explain why that was the case. I run a shoot commercially. It probably makes the difference between the estate balancing its hooks as against making a thumping loss. It also gives rise to a managed activity which enables investment to be made in things which could not otherwise be afforded.
  I am satisfied in my own mind that that national park authority and other local authorities will latch on to the principle of quiet enjoyment, like it or not, as a facility to decline consent for planning permission for anything that might be associated with a certain amount of noise. It is not just a matter of a particular class of activity; it is a question of quantum and of intensity of use. That brings in considerations of frequency and timing. These are the critical factors and they are matters of management. They are not a matter of absolutes whereby someone says that motoring is inherently noisy and walking is inherently quiet. If a large number of people walk along a footpath past someone's farmstead—I had

  1531
  reason to see the result of this when I took a potential purchaser round a farm last year which had a coastal footpath running next to it—it can create disamenity. This matter depends on one's point of view, on one's standpoint and on the position of the recipient of the acoustic or other disamenity. It is important that we get that straight.
  Therefore I do not believe that it is just a question of clarifying what national park authorities should promote. As I said, I tried to get that clear at a late stage in this Bill. However, what is more to the point is what it is that they should reject. That is, if I may put it this way, the hidden agenda that people in the countryside are so worried about; that there is this unstated raft of activities which for whatever reason are considered inappropriate. As someone who farms and owns land in a national park I cannot accept that.
  It has nothing to do with my activities, but I have been brought up with the concept of multi-use and multi-activity. I do not believe we should say that national parks are not appropriate places for the activities of the motorist or the power boat user. There ought to be the concept of national parks being used as the lungs of the nation, if you like, for all, and none, as the case may be. I have been brought up with that concept ever since I have managed my particular part of Exmoor.
  I finish by supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, mentioned. I wish to reassure him that the citation of the Exmoor national park—noble Lords may recall that each national park has a citation attached to it—refers to it as fine country for motoring.
  5.30 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not think that this group of amendments would be what one might call an easy ride, not only because your Lordships have discussed this matter frequently before and hold strong views on it, but also because you passed an amendment to insert the words "quiet enjoyment" into the Bill and another place has taken them out. I would not have expected your Lordships to change your views on that. This is a difficult matter. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked me whether "quiet enjoyment" appear in any other statute. As far as I know, the words do not.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, they appear in landlord and tenant legislation.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is telling me that the words appear in landlord and tenant legislation. In that case he has the advantage of me. I have no doubt that if he says that it is correct, in which case he has answered the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He might have intervened to tell him that, had he wanted to.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I could formally intervene. The noble Earl alas, was not Minister at the time. There was a debate, as the noble Earl has read. in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out that the words "quiet enjoyment" occurred in landlord and tenant legislation.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? I remember clearly an extremely powerful speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in which he said that in that landlord and tenant legislation the words "quiet enjoyment" meant something totally different from what we have been talking about in this debate.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have never known the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, make a speech which was not powerful. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin for correcting the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. We must be careful not to be—
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl but the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, did not correct me; it was a matter of fact. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, quite rightly said that the words had a completely different meaning. The question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was, "Do these words occur in any other legislation"? The answer is yes.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—as is the House—is now far more fully aware of the problems than we all were before.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if these words appear in a totally different sense, as is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not that a relevant consideration as to whether it is sensible to use them in this Act?
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, makes another pungent point, as he always does. It is perfectly true that if they have different meanings in different Acts it may he desirable not to include them in this Bill. That is why we thought it best not to do so.
  To return to the real problem, I do not think that there is too much between anyone here as regards what we are trying to do. The question is whether this provision should be put into a statute. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said he thought that the best thing to do would be to insert a simple phrase into the Bill and then the Government can say what they think the phrase means. I do not think that that would be the right thing to do because eventually the courts would have to come to a conclusion as to what "quiet enjoyment" means. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said that he wanted to know what the Government feel about the guidance, and he asked whether we accepted the Edwards recommendations. We continue to accept the concept which underlines the report's recommendations on quiet enjoyment. The guidance will make this clear, and it will be available to the national parks authorities and to others. It certainly will not be statutory, hut we would obviously expect the authorities and others to take full account of it.
  Then the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether the guidelines could be challenged. Guidelines are an explanation of government policy stating what should

  1533
  be done. However, if a national park were taken to court, the fact that it had not followed the guidelines could be held against it. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked whether the guidelines would be subject to consultation. The answer is that they are subject to consultation. My noble friend Lord Marlesford said that he had not yet seen the guidance. The draft guidance was published in January of this year. We intend to revise the guidance in the light of the debates in both Houses. We shall then consult widely on the revised draft later this year. I believe that that is the right way to do it. If one puts these words into a Bill, the only way one will know what they mean is when someone takes the matter to court.
  It is all very fine my noble friend Lord Marlesford saying—I think it was a momentary slip of intellectual superiority—that we all know what we mean by "quiet enjoyment", but the fact is that we do not all know what is meant. My noble friend Lord Stanley said that the provision might curtail agriculture. It might do so. What happens when chain-saws are making the most appalling noise? Has anyone listened to a farmer preparing silage for three days on end? The buzzing is worse than a thousand drones of bees and it is constant. No one could say that that adds to quiet enjoyment.
  The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, swatted my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara rather like a fly in saying that he raised issues that had been dealt with at an earlier stage. My noble friend Lord Brabazon was quite right. He raised issues which were considered at an earlier stage but which have not been resolved. They would not have been resolved with the incorporation of the words "quiet enjoyment".
  If the words "quiet enjoyment" are included, a great many activities are put at risk. They also create considerable uncertainty. Some parks have speed boats; some have jet-skis; some have motor-bike rallies; some have soldiers. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that he was all for national parks being for everyone. If one includes "quiet enjoyment", does that mean that one excludes the jet-skis, the speed boats, the motor-bike rallies and the soldiers? What is quiet enjoyment? Is it when you are sitting down in a national park having a cup of tea? If all of a sudden a man whose face is covered in black leaps out of a bush at you, being a soldier on an exercise, you could well say, "That's not quiet enjoyment. It disturbed my afternoon."
  Once we put that into statute we run into trouble. I believe that another place was correct to say that we should not put it in statute but include it in the guidance. I can tell your Lordships that the first draft of the guidance has already gone out. We intend to revise the guidance in the light of what has been said in both Houses. Then it will be open to wide consultation. I believe that that is the best approach. I hope that your Lordships will agree.
  I do not believe that it is possible to have one simple answer for all the national parks and the different parts of the national parks. That is why national park authorities are set up to conduct the parks as best they can and in the way they think fit in accordance with the guidance. As I said, the guidance will be very full.
  1534
  I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is the best way to deal with this vexatious and difficult problem. Once we enshrine such terms in law—words which are not simple of interpretation—we shall land ourselves in more trouble than if we leave them out.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  127 Clause 62, page 74, line 24, leave out from 'heritage' to end of line 25 and insert 'of National Parks and of promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those Parks by the public).'.
  128 Clause 66, page 80, line 47, leave out from 'heritage' to end of line 49 and insert 'of National Parks and of promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those Parks by the public).'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 127 and 128.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 127 and 128. —(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  129 After Clause 70, insert the following clause: —
  Validation of certain grants paid to local authorities in respect of expenditure relating to National Parks
  . —(1) No payment made for any year beginning on or after 1st April 1990 and ending on or before 31st March 1996 by the Secretary of State by way of grant to the council of a county or a metropolitan district in respect of the council's expenditure or estimated expenditure in connection with National Parks shall be regarded as made otherwise than under and in accordance with the relevant enactments by reason only of—

  (a)the aggregate amount of such grants for the year to such councils not having been duly prescribed;

  (b)the method of determining the proportion of such aggregate amount payable to that council not having been duly prescribed; or

  (c)payment of the grant being, or having been, made—

  (i)otherwise than in accordance with an approved Rate Support Grant Report or such a Report as varied by an approved supplementary report for the year; or

  (ii)without there being an approved Rate Support Grant Report for the year.

  (2)Any reference in this section to a payment by way of grant made under and in accordance with the relevant enactments is a reference to a payment of grant made under section 7 of the Local Government Act 1974 (supplementary grants towards expenditure with respect to National Parks) in accordance with the provisions of that section and those of section 60 or 61 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (rate support grant reports and supplementary reports) as they apply in relation to grants under the said section 7.
  (3)In this section—
  "approved Rate Support Grant Report" means a Rate Support Grant Report which has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons;
  "approved supplementary report" means a supplementary report which has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons:

  1535
  "duly prescribed" means prescribed by a Rate Support Grant Report or a supplementary report;
  "Rate Support Grant Report" means a Rate Support Grant Report made under section 60 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980;
  "supplementary report" means a supplementary report made under section 61 of that Act; and
  "year" means a period of 12 months beginning with 1st April.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 129.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 129.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as I understand it, Amendment No. 129 introduces a new subject. Perhaps the noble Earl may wish to expand on the subject that it introduces before the Question is put to the House.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is enormously helpful. I am deeply grateful. I am afraid that in the excitement of the last amendments my papers became a little confused and I thought that we were dealing with a different amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having pulled me back on to the track.
  In moving Amendment No. 129 perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 186 to 188, 214 to 219, 318, 320, 321, 327 and 335. All of these amendments are minor or technical amendments, other than Amendments Nos. 129 and 188. They are required to validate payments of national parks supplementary grant which have been made by my department and the Welsh Office to county and metropolitan district councils since 1990.
  The Secretary of State must lay a report annually before another place. This should specify both the determinations relating to the amount of grant to be paid to country councils which run the national parks and the considerations leading the Secretary of State to make such determinations. The report should be approved by affirmative resolution by another place.
  Regrettably both my department and the Welsh Office have failed to lay such reports before another place since 1990. The legislation permits the payments to be made. The payments were made. They were properly audited in the same way as other local authority expenditure is audited. However, regrettably, the necessary reporting procedure to Parliament was omitted. This problem has only recently come to light and we thought it important that the legality of the payments which have been made to local authorities should be put beyond doubt. That would be achieved by Amendments Nos. 129 and 188. I commend the amendments to the House.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, this is a regrettable event. Not only do we have retrospective validation of payments which were apparently made illegally, but we also have an admission by the Minister that his department and the Welsh Office did not lay the appropriate reports for the payments in question.
  This is an important issue. Can the noble Earl explain to this House what inquiries have been made in his department and in the Welsh Office to find out why such
  1536
  reports were not laid before the other place, as was their duty? What sanctions have been taken against those who were responsible? Which Ministers were involved, and what sanctions have been taken against those Ministers?
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have no hesitation in saying that this is a regrettable occurrence. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is quite right. Rather than brush the matter aside, we thought it appropriate that it should be put right. It should be made clear that the payments were not made illegally. Legislation permitted the payments to be made and the payments have been properly audited.
  Where we went wrong was in omitting the reporting procedure to Parliament. That was due to an oversight. It is clearly something which should not have happened. Both departments regret that it has happened. The failure appears to be associated largely with the major changes in the regime for local government finance which were introduced in 1990. Both my department and the Welsh Office faced a major task in introducing the new arrangements. In focusing on those they regrettably lost sight of the fact that approval for those grants continued under the previous arrangements. That is the position. It is a regrettable one and we thought it right to correct it.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl said that the payments were not made illegally. If they were not made illegally, why do they have to be validated? I understood the expression "validated" to mean that payments which were made contrary to certain provisions, rather than merely not being reported—payments made by mistake—are validated retrospectively by both Houses of Parliament. That is the meaning of the word "validation" as I understand it. If that is not the case perhaps the noble Earl will explain that I am wrong. I believe that I am right.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, much as the noble Lord would like me to, I shall not enter into the semantics of the definition of the word "validate". I tried to point out to him that these payments were made perfectly correctly. There was legislation which permitted those payments. It is not a question of payments being made which should not have been made. However, there should have been a report to Parliament, as he says, validating the payments. That is why we seek to amend the Bill now.
  I tried to make clear that that should have been done. Parliament should have known about it. It was an error. However, the payments themselves were covered by legislation which permitted them. In addition, the receipt of the payments was audited.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  130 Clause 71, page 82. line 33, at end insert:
  '() specifies a time for the purposes of section 4A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.'.
  131 Page 82, line 35, leave out '2(3)' and insert '2'.
  132 Page 82, line 36, at beginning insert '(i)'.
  133 Page 82, line 38. at end insert:
  '(ii) for so increasing the number of local authority members of a National Park authority to he appointed by any council as to secure that

  1537
  the number of local authority members of that authority remains unchanged notwithstanding any such exclusion of a council, or'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 130 to 133 en bloc. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 211 to 213, 312 and 316. These are all technical amendments relating to the interaction between national park and local government reorganisation in Wales. I commend the amendments to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 130 to 133.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  134 After Clause 75, insert the following clause: —
  'PART (AIR QUALITY)
  AIR QUALITY
  National air quality strategy
  .—(1) The Secretary of State shall as soon as possible prepare and publish a statement (in this Part referred to as "the strategy") containing policies with respect to the assessment or management of the quality of air.
  (2) The strategy may also contain policies for implementing—

  (a)obligations of the United Kingdom under the Community Treaties, or

  (b)international agreements to which the United Kingdom is for the time being a party,

  so far as relating to the quality of air.
  (3) The strategy shall consist of or include—

  (a)a statement which relates to the whole of Great Britain; or

  (b)two or more statements which between them relate to every part of Great Britain.

  (4) The Secretary of State—

  (a)shall keep under review his policies with respect to the quality of air; and

  (b)may from time to time modify the strategy.

  (5) Without prejudice to the generality of what may be included in the strategy, the strategy must include statements with respect to—

  (a)standards relating to the quality of air;

  (b)objectives for the restriction of the levels at which particular substances are resent in the air; and

  (c)measures which are to be taken by local authorities and other persons for the purpose of achieving those objectives.

  (6) In preparing the strategy or any modification of it, the Secretary of State shall consult—

  (a)the appropriate new Agency:

  (b)such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he may consider appropriate;

  (c)such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he may consider appropriate; and

  (d)such other bodies or persons as he may consider appropriate.

  (7) Before publishing the strategy or any modification of it. the Secretary of State—
  1538

  (a)shall publish a draft of the proposed strategy or modification, together with notice of a date before which, and an address at which, representations may be made to him concerning the draft so published; and

  (b)shall take into account any such representations which are duly made and not withdrawn.'.

  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 134. Perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 135 to 145, 169, 172 to 174, 181 to 184, 220, 261, 265, 267, 301 and 336.
  The group of amendments introduces an important new part into the Bill which would provide a new framework for assessing and managing air quality in the United Kingdom. This new part provides for a national air quality strategy and for revised powers and duties on local authorities, the Secretary of State, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and others.
  The amendments implement the government policy as was expressed in Improving Air Quality: and Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge. Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge was published only in January of this year when the Bill was already before Parliament. I realise that it is a substantial group of amendments for your Lordships to digest at this stage. I hope that it will be seen to constitute a full and constructive response to the amendments tabled in the House by the noble Lords, Lord Lewis and Lord Nathan, and by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding.
  In summary, the amendments introduce a national air quality strategy which will contain government policies on the assessment and management of air quality. They will introduce by regulation-making powers the means to prescribe air quality standards and objectives, and to enable other steps to be taken to meet them; and they will place new duties on local authorities to conduct reviews on local air quality, to designate air quality management areas and to prepare action plans to use their powers to address problems in those areas.
  Amendment No. 134 allows for there to be a national air quality strategy. That will be a statement of government policies on the topic. As well as dealing with the United Kingdom's aims, the strategy will be a means of implementing some of the important air quality provisions of European Community directives and international agreements to which this country is a party. It will set out general standards and objectives on air quality, and will include measures which the Government are looking to local authorities and others to take in pursuit of the strategy's objectives.
  By means of Amendment No. 135, we intend to ensure that the new agencies—the Environment Agency for England and Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—have regard to the strategy in discharging their pollution control functions.
  In Amendment No. 136, we require local authorities to carry out reviews in their areas of the present and likely future quality of air. The next step, described in Amendment No. 137, will he to require local authorities to designate local air quality management areas for all or part of their areas which are affected by air quality which is below the prescribed standards or objectives.

  1539
  Where local authorities have designated air quality management areas, Amendment No. 138 will require them to revise or prepare assessments and to prepare action plans for those areas with timetables for the measures which they intend to take to address the problem. District and county councils will be required to work together in preparing the action plan in areas where both types of councils operate.
  Amendment No. 139 deals with the reserve powers of the Secretary of State, or, in Scotland, of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, acting with the approval of the Secretary of State. In substance, the Secretary of State and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are given wide powers to make directions to local authorities over the steps which they must take on local air quality.
  Amendment No. 140 seeks to ensure that both district and county councils will be properly involved at all important stages of assessing and managing local air quality. Amendment No. 141 contains wide regulation-making powers and has a number of features which perhaps I may draw to your Lordships' attention. Regulations will be made for the purposes of implementing the strategy, implementing European Community or other international obligations, or otherwise for the assessment or management of the quality of air.
  Perhaps most importantly, "air quality standards" and "air quality objectives" are defined in the section, Interpretation of Part (Air Quality), as those prescribed under regulations made under that section. It is therefore those standards and objectives which will trigger most of the provisions of that new part. I should make it clear that regulations could deal with standards and objectives which stand as long-term goals and those which act as alert levels or indicators of episodes.
  Regulations will also deal with local authorities' powers and duties prohibiting or restricting prescribed activities, provision to the public of information on air quality, offences and appeals, fixed penalty schemes for offences under the regulations, and other aspects of new local air quality management systems.
  These are wide powers for a number of reasons. As many of your Lordships will know, my department and the Scottish and Welsh Offices are involved in very active discussions with local authorities about their role in respect of air quality issues. Rather than try to anticipate in this Bill every detail of what may be needed, we have sought to reflect the strong view of many local authorities that powers within the Bill should be wide enough and flexible enough to be able to give effect to the outcome of those discussions. We understand that view and I think that we have gone a long way to meet it.
  We may well need to consider implementation of European Community obligations through the medium of those regulations. One example might well be the air quality framework directive which is being concluded.
  I should also like to address the safeguards that we have introduced in order to balance the regulation making powers. We have introduced provisions to ensure that there is consultation before the powers are used. Importantly, we propose that they should be
  1540
  subject to the affirmative resolution procedure but with additional provision to the effect that provision for particular cases will riot be treated as making the regulations hybrid. That last provision is necessary because the orders may relate to specific local authorities but will be made in pursuance of a national air quality strategy.
  Amendment No. 142 allows for guidance to be given by the Secretary of State which can cover the exercise by local authorities of their powers under this Part. Amendment No. 143 applies the national air quality strategy to the Isles of Scilly. Amendment No. 144 introduces a new schedule for this part. The other amendments are, I think, fairly straightforward. I commend the amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 134. —(Earl Ferrers).
  Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I will make the same points about the anticipated costs to local authorities.
  The overall strategy for dealing with air quality is extremely welcome. We are delighted that it appears on the face of the Bill. However, the provision imposes specific new duties on local authorities; and costs could be considerable in terms of capital outlay. It has been estimated that purchasing or leasing the equipment to monitor a station to the appropriate standard could he as much as £0.25 million per authority. In addition, there would be annual running costs of anywhere between—
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness to make sure that we are on the right rails. Is she addressing the amendment in her name'? I gather that she is not.
  Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I have no amendments down.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the House. Amendment No. 134C stands in my name. That may be the amendment in the mind of the Minister which deals with the questions of cost. It is grouped separately from this group of amendments.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg Lady Hilton's pardon. She was right to speak. I have no doubt that when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, speaks on her amendment, the Deputy Speaker will first put the amendment to which the noble Baroness's amendment will refer.
  Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I have not put down a specific amendment. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is not in this group. However, I wish to make a general point about costs. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that those will be met from central government funds.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Boding: My Lords, I have two amendments which are grouped with Amendment No. 134. I start by warmly welcoming the speed with which the Government have brought the primary legislation

  1541
  before Parliament. We should bear in mind that the White Paper appeared only in January, yet within a few days it will now be embodied in primary legislation, and that is something for which the Government are entitled to great credit.
  I wish to speak to the new regulation-making power, to which my noble friend referred in Commons Amendment No. 141. That provision will give the local authorities power to tackle poor air quality and in particular to undertake the testing of vehicles at the roadside which are recognised as contributing substantially to atmospheric pollution in the cities. It is interesting that since the matter was discussed in your Lordships' House in Committee and on Report, public anxiety about the consequences of vehicle pollution in cities has greatly increased. During periods of still air and bright sunshine, the health consequences of pollution have been very much underlined. We must all from time to time, either in our families or among our friends, meet people who find that during the middle of the day in the cities it is almost impossible for them to go out because of the impact of conditions on their breathing.
  The clinical connection with asthma is the subject of a major study which has yet to be resolved, but no one can seriously doubt that adverse air quality from vehicles is now a serious matter. The Bill gives local authorities the power to join the Department of Transport in enforcing the construction and use regulations by testing vehicles at the roadside. That is a matter which we have pressed and it is now covered in the Bill.
  I remind the House that the London Local Authorities Bill contains a power for that, but it is confined to the London boroughs. Subject to one point, this Bill probably makes it unnecessary for the authorities to proceed with that part of the local authorities Bill.
  I feel it is a little unfair that when one has been given a bowl nearly full of cherries, one should still ask for the bowl to be filled. However, there is one issue which I believe it is right for us to consider: the power of stopping. Everyone agrees that it is only police constables in uniform in general who should have the power to stop vehicles. I know that my right honourable friend is strongly of that view. After all, he spent a long time at the Home Office. It was asserted again in another place and is now to be found in Amendment No. 141, the long clause, subsection (5A) on page 39 of the Commons Amendments. Near the bottom of the page we see the explicit injunction that nothing in the clause would allow anyone other than a police officer to stop a vehicle.
  However, there is a great difficulty. If there is no power to stop vehicles, how will the local authorities be able to carry out their testing functions? It is mostly when a vehicle is on the move that one can see that it may well be guilty of emissions beyond the permitted limits. Therefore the London Bill originally included the power to stop vehicles.
  The more the matter is considered by the local authorities concerned, the more they believe that without the power to stop, the power to test will become largely
  1542
  ineffective. My amendments, Amendments Nos. 141A and 261A, give the Government power, but no obligation, to allow traffic wardens in uniform to undertake the stopping, in order that the local authorities may carry out testing. Traffic wardens are not local authority officials, they come under the police authorities. They carry out part of the police functions. It has become increasingly the practice over recent years since their introduction for traffic wardens to take over a number of functions which used regularly to be carried out by police, such as traffic direction, as well as their primary purpose of enforcing parking regulations and so on.
  It has, therefore, been suggested, that it is a perfectly legitimate extension of the existing role of traffic wardens that they should be permitted, under police control and direction—and that is what it would be—to engage in the stopping of vehicles so that the local authority testers can carry out tests.
  I entirely understand the difficulties of the Home Office and my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Atkins, made it perfectly clear that he was having considerable arguments with his opposite numbers in the Home Office. I had the advantage of a brief discussion with the Home Secretary. Policemen and the police service do not regard it as a proper use of police time to stop vehicles for emission. They have more important things to do. Noble Lords will remember that I made that point firmly in earlier stages of the Bill. Policemen have plenty to do preventing crime and apprehending criminals. It is not realistic to expect them to stop vehicles for emission.
  Perhaps I may take the example of the 33 London boroughs. They hope to be able to have at least one team of testers per borough in action for most of the week. It is only one team covering the whole of a London borough with a population of 250,000 to 350,000 people, so that it is not a substantial exercise. However, in terms of 33 full-time policemen employed throughout London on that purpose, one begins to see why the commissioner and the Home Office are reluctant to commit police manpower to it. It is not just a question of money—no doubt it could be paid for—hut trained policemen are expensive and they are specifically trained for certain purposes.
  Why should not local authorities he allowed to authorise and supervise where necessary traffic wardens carrying out the stopping of vehicles? My amendment would not automatically provide for that; all it does is to write into the Bill the power for the Government to make regulations which would authorise traffic wardens to carry out those functions.
  The Government may be right that the power to test will he a sufficient measure and deterrent. It may well he used on vehicles which have already been stopped and that action will, to an extent, have the effect of cleaning up the atmosphere. But a large number of people outside this House have the gravest doubt. If the power which the Government have now taken is to he made effective, I believe that as a precaution they should extend the power to allowing traffic wardens to stop vehicles. The wardens will he in uniform, instantly recognisable. Drivers are increasingly used to traffic wardens directing traffic, particularly when there are

  1543
  emergencies. Traffic wardens will frequently divert vehicles to another street, where necessary. We have all become used to that. Therefore, my amendment would be a perfectly permissible extension. I recognise the difficulty that if we were to accept my amendments, the Bill would have to be returned to the other place with the amendments. Nevertheless it seems to me that, since the Government have gone most of the way to meet the strongly expressed views in this House and elsewhere that the power to test vehicles should now be put into primary legislation, it would be a pity if the legislation was ineffective because of failure to provide for an adequate stopping power. My amendments are a solution and I hope that, having heard the argument, my noble friend will he prepared to smile on them.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Dean of Harptree): My Lords, the Question is that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 134.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I believe that in order to get us hack onto the right rails it would be correct if he called the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The rest of the discussion can then take place on her amendment.

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 134
  134A In paragraph (5) (c), after ("by") insert ("the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State for Transport, and").
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 134A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 134.
  I am as confused as everyone else over this procedure. I hope that I may, without adding to the confusion, also speak to Amendment No. 134D, which is grouped with this one and which makes the same point.
  These amendments arc my attempts to draw to your Lordships' attention the importance of interdepartmental and cross-authority working. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the references that I have suggested are not in fact necessary either as a matter of practice or indeed as a matter of legislation. I hope he can assure me that in the provisions as they will be set out on the face of the Bill, what I seek will be covered, and not simply as a matter of good will.
  I very much welcome Amendment No. 134. However, in welcoming it I must express regret that it is necessary, and indeed that it has come to be seen as more necessary during the difficult weather that we have experienced since this Bill started its passage through Parliament.
  My amendments refer not only to measures that are to he taken by local authorities but to measures to be taken by the Secretary of State (that is, the Secretary of State for the Environment), and more particularly the Secretary of State for Transport. I seek to include that reference in subsection (5) (c) and as a new paragraph in subsection (6).
  The contribution to air quality—or perhaps I should say the detraction from air quality—brought about by transport is increasingly understood and is a matter of increasing concern. Subsection (5) (c) refers to measures
  1544
  to be taken by local authorities. Indeed, they will be in a position to do certain things to assist in improving air quality. They are very much at the sharp end. The Secretary of State for Transport may, for instance, have a policy whose effect is to increase road traffic, and perhaps in particular heavy traffic, rather than moving as much to rail as may be possible, or he may, for instance, not support the use of buses as much as may be practicable. Then it will be impossible for local authorities to take local steps which can do more than ameliorate at the very margins what is going on.
  I am sure that the new Secretary of State for Transport recognises very well that he inherits a huge responsibility in this area. As I say, I hope that the Minister can reassure me that that responsibility is recognised, not only as a matter of good will and general discussion between the departments, but actually in the words of the Bill. I cannot see it, but then I may not be reading the words quite correctly. I beg to move.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 134A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 134, be agreed to.—(Baroness Hamwee).
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has a very good point of substance, but her way of dealing with it is contrary to our usual legislative practice. Unfortunately, the term "Secretary of State" is deemed to include all Secretaries of State. Now that we have a First Secretary of State, I think it would even include him. Therefore, although the noble Baroness clearly made a point that is worthy of consideration by the Government, I do not think the Government would feel themselves very much at ease in dealing with it in that way; and, alas, it is probably too late to find another way of drafting it.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am glad that we got ourselves back on the technically correct rails, even though it was confusing not only to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but also to others. She moved her amendment, and technically the debate is taking place on that amendment.
  Perhaps I may answer first the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, on the substance of my amendment. She was concerned about local authority monitoring costs and thought that they would he very large. Not all authorities will need expensive monitoring equipment. Some will already have bought some equipment. We are expanding our networks and will be directing our resources at the priority areas. We shall discuss the cost fully with the local authorities, and we shall deal with all these matters in the course of the consultation which is bound to go on with the local authorities.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, very kindly hoped that I should be able to tell her that her amendments were unnecessary. That is precisely what I was about to do, though in a more felicitous way. Her Amendment No. 134A is unnecessary because the strategy will set out the Government's policies on air quality, including the steps which they will take to address air quality problems. These will include policies

  1545
  that will be contributed to by a number of different government departments. It is unnecessary to specify individual Secretaries of State.
  In regard to Amendment No. 134D, my noble friend Lord Renton, as usual, hit the nail completely on the head when he said that, although the noble Baroness wants to consult the Secretary of State for Transport, it is not necessary to state that specifically in the Bill because the Secretary of State for Transport is included in the generic term "Secretary of State". He will of course be fully consulted and will be a major contributor to the national air quality strategy.
  I am surprised, however, that in sitting down my noble friend said that it was too late to do anything about it even if we wanted to, having said that it was not necessary in the first place. If we did put in the amendment that the noble Baroness wanted, we should be requiring the Secretary of State to consult himself. As my noble friend Lord Peyton would say, that would be a very odd thing to do. So that is not necessary. The point that the noble Baroness wanted covered is in fact covered by the use of "Secretary of State" as a generic term. He will be fully consulted on the national air quality strategy.
  Amendments Nos. 141A and 261A, to which my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding referred, would enable the regulations, as my noble friend said, to extend the power to stop vehicles to traffic wardens. At the moment that power is confined to policemen.
  I can quite understand the reasons behind this proposal. However, I am bound to tell my noble friend that I do not believe that regulations about air quality discussed in the closing stages of the Environment Bill are the right place for a review of the functions of traffic wardens.
  There are strong arguments either way on this matter. I understand the need to ensure that scarce police resources are used to best effect. But conferring powers to stop vehicles is a very significant step indeed, as I know from the days when I was privileged to occupy a position in the Home Office. A number of organisations have expressed very strong concerns that only the police should have powers to stop vehicles. We also noted the views expressed on all sides of the Committee in another place.
  It is true that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 contains the means to transfer some powers to traffic wardens; but important questions would remain. The provisions of the 1984 Act apply to the transfer of "appropriate functions". It is by no means clear that the functions of stopping vehicles would necessarily come into the realm of being an appropriate function for a traffic warden. For example, what would happen if drivers refused to stop? What happens then? How would the traffic warden react? Should he run after the driver? Should he send for a policeman? What happens? These matters are important. We shall have to consider what would happen if these people, having been stopped by a traffic warden, proved unwilling to co-operate. The police have powers to deal with such contingencies but traffic wardens do not.
  1546
  I understand the argument of my noble friend. This a perfectly terrible situation. But if this change is to be brought about, or something of that nature, it ought to be done in the context of a wider review of the powers and duties of the police and traffic wardens, where the Home Office can ensure that all those who should be fully consulted are fully consulted. That would include all those organisations which represent the police and the motorists' organisations and even women's groups, which have expressed concern about these matters.
  My noble friend has a point but I do not feel that this is the appropriate place or indeed the appropriate time to incorporate it into the Bill.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I expected to be shot down on those grounds. However, aiming to table a couple of amendments before the weekend—like other noble Lords, I have had some difficulty in dealing with the bulk of this work and apologise for the lateness of my amendments—I thought it was probably better to get the amendment onto the Marshalled List rather than wait and achieve perfect wording. I recognised also that at this stage it was unlikely that your Lordships would wish to return the Bill to another place on such a matter.
  I thank the noble Earl for what he said on the issue of transport and the consultation which will take place. I am not sure that I entirely agree with him that Secretaries of State should not he required to consult with themselves. Sometimes procedural delay requiring them to stop and think might not be a bad thing.
  As I am on my feet, perhaps I may take the opportunity to regret that the Minister gave such a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. My name is also to his amendment and I warmly support it. I think that it was entirely the right place in which to try to move the issue forward and ensure that the steps proposed can he put into effect. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment No. 134A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 134, by leave, withdrawn.

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 134
  134B After paragraph (5) (c), insert:
  ("() measures of a temporary nature which are to he taken by local authorities and other persons in the event that air quality standards appear likely to be exceeded.").
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 134B seeks reassurance from the Minister, if he can give it. Otherwise it seeks inclusion in the Bill of a provision for local authorities to take, when required, temporary measures to deal with air quality standards.
  I raised the matter following debate in another place on an amendment moved by my honourable friend the Member for Truro, who drew the attention of the other place to the need for any strategy to allow for temporary measures. Your Lordships will he well aware from recent personal experience how quickly air quality can deteriorate. But we have a weather prediction system—that description might glorify it a little but the science is there—which can predict when pollution levels will climb rapidly. Once air quality standards have been set, it ought to he possible to forecast over a three or

  1547
  four-day timescale when those standards may be breached because of weather conditions in conjunction with other events.
  If so, the Government, working with local authorities, could take steps to ensure that air quality standards would not be breached. Perhaps I may give two examples. First, one might impose for a short period speed limits on motorways. We know that at high speeds vehicles are far more polluting than if speeds are controlled. My second example entails the closure of certain streets in city centres. After all, is it right to say to those who suffer from respiratory illnesses, "Pollution levels tomorrow and the day after will be very high and we suggest you stay at home"? The message should rather be: "Pollution levels will be very high and car drivers should leave their cars at home", so that those with respiratory illnesses should not have to stay at home and suffer. Those are just two examples of short-term but very urgent steps that might be taken.
  When the matter was discussed in another place, it was suggested by the then Minister that such powers do in fact exist. He was not able to give chapter and verse. More recently in a Question to the then Secretary of State, my honourable friend the Member for North Cornwall asked the Secretary of State to confirm that he had such powers. He asked him to explain how he intended to use them and to tell the other place what opportunities he would offer to local authorities to use such powers as well. The answer from the Secretary of State for Transport was:
  "I think the honourable gentleman is referring to road safety regulations".
  My honourable friends have not yet been able to obtain further clarity on the matter.
  Therefore, I raise the issue today in the hope that the Minister will be able to reassure your Lordships that the powers in local authorities do exist. If he cannot do so, perhaps he will assist me and the House by saying how, within this strategy, temporary measures, which are quite often very urgent and important measures, can be achieved. I beg to move.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 134B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 134, be agreed to.—(Baroness Hamwee.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Baroness has to be regarded in the light of what comes earlier in subsection (5) of the new clause proposed by Commons Amendment No. 134. Subsection (5) (a) refers to:
  "standards relating to the quality of air".
  The noble Baroness's amendment says:
  "in the event that air quality standards appear likely to be exceeded".
  That looks like quality standards better than those required.
  I should have thought—if the Government wanted this amendment, they could accept a manuscript amendment to it—that rather than the words "likely to be exceeded", the noble Baroness has in mind the words "unlikely to he reached".
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to draw attention to this matter. Air pollution is a terrible thing and so is the pollution by vehicles. Indeed, in the past 24 hours or so, we have seen a certain amount of pollution occurring.
  I can help her with her concern. The prime aim of a strategy for managing air quality has to be to reduce air pollution in general. If that is done, one avoids the risk of what the professionals call "episodes". An episode is a period of high pollution. We recognise that the risk of such episodes is bound to remain. One cannot remove them wholly. That is why the publications Improving Air Quality and Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge stated quite clearly that appropriate action in these episodes must also be part of the new system. In other words, it is right to address the totality in order to reduce air pollution in general, but when a period of high pollution occurs, appropriate action must be taken.
  In line with that, amendments to the Bill have been carefully framed so as to cover long-term goals as well as more immediate action. The amendment will allow response measures to be developed for both the long and the short term. I can assure the noble Baroness that developing sensible and effective action during pollution episodes, or when periods of high pollution can be accurately forecast, will be an integral part of implementing the air quality provisions of the Bill. It is not necessary therefore to single out those episodes on the face of the Bill. In fact, that may produce an adverse effect. I know the noble Baroness did not table the amendment with that intention, but it may suggest that less attention should be paid to the planned long-term measures which would help us to avoid the short-term problems.
  The noble Baroness said that she found it difficult to know where the provisions occur in the Bill. Perhaps I can draw her attention to Amendment No. 261, which amends Sections 1 and 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which allows traffic regulation orders to be made for the same purposes as those for which regulations may be made under Part IV relating to air quality. Of course, we must take careful account of a number of other considerations before those powers are used, but the amendment also amends Section 122 of the 1984 Act to the effect that local authorities with traffic and parking responsibilities under that section would be required to have regard, so far as practicable, to the national air quality strategy.
  I hope that I have been able to satisfy the anxieties of the noble Baroness with that explanation.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that is extremely helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 134B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 134, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.30 p.m.

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 134
  134C After Clause 75, after paragraph (5) (c), insert:
  ("() an assessment of the likely costs to local authorities of carrying out reviews under section (Local authority reviews) and of implementing action plans under section

  1549
  (Duties of local authorities in relation to designated areas) and a statement of the Secretary of State's proposals for making a contribution to these costs.").
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 134C as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 134.
  I am taking up a lot of your Lordships' time and shall endeavour to be brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred, quite rightly, to anxieties felt by local authorities in regard to the likely cost of proceeding with the strategy. That is not to say that there is a reluctance to do so, but inevitably the question arises whether local authorities will be able to finance the process. I recognise that there may be a question of privilege if I were to seek to include an amendment calling for a higher level of public expenditure. I hope therefore that Amendment No. 134C, in drawing your Lordships' attention to the issue, will achieve the appropriate response from the Minister.
  Local authorities will be under a duty to review air quality; to declare the whole or part of their area as an air quality management area and, in relation to those air quality management areas, under a duty to produce action plans. That will clearly mean that new costs will be incurred. The Minister indicated earlier that the costs may not be very high. However, monitoring will not be a paper exercise and in some areas continuous monitoring will be required.
  In London we now have an established monitoring system—the London Air Quality Network—which was commended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in its recent report on transport. That network will need to be augmented to ensure that all local authority areas are covered for all the target pollutants. Areas outside of London which do not currently monitor air quality are likely to be faced with substantial extra costs.
  I therefore tabled an amendment to add, at the end of subsection (5) (c), that the way in which the Secretary of State draws up his strategy should include an assessment of the likely costs to local authorities for carrying out their reviews and implementing action plans. There should also be a statement by the Secretary of State of his proposals for making a contribution to those costs. I tabled that amendment in order to require the Secretary of State, as part of the whole exercise, to make clear what the costs are likely to be and what proposals there may be for meeting them. I beg to move.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 134C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 134, be agreed to.—(Baroness Hamwee.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, Amendment No. 134C raises important issues. It is interesting that Amendment No. 134, the new clause, introduces something which I have not seen in statute before; namely, a requirement upon the Government to prepare and publish a statement to be referred to as "the strategy". That is a fine concept.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is fully entitled to ask, as she did, whether, as part of that strategy, the extra costs to be borne by local authorities—that is
  1550
  inevitable—should be a stated part of the strategy. My noble friend Lord Ferrers may say that the amendment is not necessary because the clause as it stands is quite far-reaching and, in any event, the Secretary of State is obliged to publish a draft of the strategy before it becomes effective.
  The noble Baroness has performed a useful service by asking the Government to consider this matter and I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton is correct when he said that I may say that the amendment is not necessary. That is what I do say.
  Costs are always a problem. First we say that there is terrible pollution and that we must do something about it; then we produce a Bill to say what must be done, and certain responsibilities are placed upon local authorities. Then everyone screams that local authorities do not have any money and the Government must provide it. But of course the Government are always trying to curtail their expenditure. We tend therefore to go around the houses.
  If we are not prepared to take action, then nothing will ever happen. We must settle down to the business of saying who will provide the service and where the resources will come from. We recognise that the new system of air quality management is bound to have cost implications for local authorities. It is the Government's aim to obtain the best possible estimate of those costs and of the potential cost to others—for instance, industry. It is difficult to be able to say what the costs will be. We want to obtain as reasonable an estimate as we can. We are already in extensive discussions with local government and are setting up a formal liaison group to take forward the implementation of the new provisions. Costs will be an important topic for discussion as we prepare the draft strategy for consultation.
  We must accept that it will not be possible to provide accurate figures which may be implied by a statutory requirement at the outset of a new and complex system and one which must not only be set up, but also be able to adapt itself. We shall therefore be working closely with local government at all stages of the implementation. We shall be revising and refining the cost estimates—for example, as we prepare the regulations. Those estimates will be taken into account when we consider local authority resources in the normal way.
  We shall be directing central government activity towards implementation of the new system. We shall encourage councils to make use of the extensive local and national data already available and many will be able to rely largely on that for their national reviews of air quality. We are expanding the networks—the new government stations—and we are funding the integration of some existing local authority equipment so that it can operate to national standards. We are paying for detailed emissions inventories for some of the largest conurbations. Those are an essential tool in an air quality management system. We will be looking to what else should be developed nationally as the system comes into operation.

  1551
  These are fairly large undertakings. The system is in the process of being put into place. Costs are important. We cannot give a guarantee as to exactly what they will be but the noble Baroness can be assured that we shall do this in close consultation with the local authorities. I hope she will consider that, if nothing else, her amendment has provided me with the opportunity to say what the Government are doing. I rather fancy that that was the purpose of her amendment in the first place.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the purpose of my amendment was to make it clear that the Government, while producing one sort of bill, recognise that there is another sort of bill and that there is a responsibility to meet the costs. I do not make an apology for drawing this matter to your Lordships' attention. Inevitably, this is an issue where immediate costs will fall on one set of shoulders and the long-term savings, quite apart from personal savings, may well be in another area. I refer to expenditure on health. After all, that is a lot of what this is about.
  I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am pleased to hear what the Government are doing and I shall he pleased over the next few months and years to hear more. It is an important area. However, it is also important to recognise that there are savings to be made over a longer period and that those will require an investment in the shorter period. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 134C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 134, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 134D not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  135 After Clause 75, insert the following clause:—
  Functions of the new Agencies
  '.—(1) In discharging its pollution control functions, each new Agency shall have regard to the strategy.
  (2) In this section "pollution control functions", in relation to a new Agency, means—

  (a) in the case of the Agency, the functions conferred on it by or under the enactments specified in section 5(5) above; or

  (b) in the case of SEPA, the functions conferred on it by or under the enactments specified in section 31(5) above.'.

  136 After Clause 75, insert the following clause:—
  Local authority reviews
  '.—(1) Every local authority shall from time to time cause a review to be conducted of the quality for the time being, and the likely future quality within the relevant period, of air within the authority's area.
  (2) Where a local authority causes a review under subsection (1) above to be conducted, it shall also cause an assessment to be made of whether air quality standards and objectives are being achieved, or are likely to be achieved within the relevant period, within the authority's area.
  (3) If, on an assessment under subsection (2) above, it appears that any air quality standards or objectives are not being achieved, or are not likely within the relevant period to be achieved, within the local authority's area, the local authority shall identify any parts of its area in which it appears that those standards or objectives are not likely to he achieved within the relevant period.'.
  137 After Clause 75. insert the following clause:—
  Designation of air quality management areas
  '.—(1) Where, as a result of an air quality review, it appears that any air quality standards or objectives are not being achieved, or are not likely within the relevant period to be achieved, within the area of a local authority, the local authority shall by order designate as an air quality management area (in this Part referred to as a "designated area") any part of its area in which it appears that those standards or objectives are not being achieved, or are not likely to be achieved within the relevant period.
  (2) An order under this section may, as a result of a subsequent air quality review,—

  (a) be varied by a subsequent order; or

  (b) be revoked by such an order, if it appears on that subsequent air quality review that the air quality standards and objectives are being achieved, and are likely throughout the relevant period to be achieved, within the designated area.'.

  138 After Clause 75, insert the following clause:—
  Duties of local authorities in relation to designated areas
  '.—(1) Where an order under section (Designation of air quality management areas) above comes into operation, the local authority which made the order shall, for the purpose of supplementing such information as it has in relation to the designated area in question, cause an assessment to be made of—

  (a) the quality for the time being, and the likely future quality within the relevant period, of air within the designated area to which the order relates: and

  (b) the respects (if any) in which it appears that air quality standards or objectives are not being achieved, or are not likely within the relevant period to be achieved, within that designated area.

  (2) A local authority which is required by subsection (1) above to cause an assessment to be made shall also he under a duty—

  (a) to prepare, before the expiration of the period of twelve months beginning with the coming into operation of the order mentioned in that subsection, a report of the results of that assessment; and

  (b) to prepare, in accordance with the following provisions of this Part, a written plan (in this Part referred to as an "action plan") for the exercise by the authority, in pursuit of the achievement of air quality standards and objectives in the designated area, of any powers exercisable by the authority.

  (3) An action plan shall include a statement of the time or times by or within which the local authority in question proposes to implement each of the proposed measures comprised in the plan.
  (4) A local authority may from time to time revise an action plan.
  (5) This subsection applies in any case where the local authority preparing an action plan or a revision of an action plan is the council of a district in England which is comprised in an area for which there is a county council; and if, in a case where this subsection applies, the county council disagrees with the authority about the contents of the proposed action plan or revision of the action plan—

  (a) either of them may refer the matter to the Secretary of State;

  (b) on any such reference the Secretary of State may confirm the authority's proposed action plan or revision of the action plan, with or without modifications (whether or not proposed by the county council) or reject it and, if he rejects it, he may also exercise any powers of his under section (Reserve powers of the Secretary of State or SEPA) below: and

  1553

  (c) the authority shall not finally determine the content of the action plan, or the revision of the action plan, except in accordance with his decision on the reference or in pursuance of directions under section (Reserve powers of the Secretary of State or SEPA)below.'.

  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 135 to 138.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 135 to 138.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  139 After Clause 75, insert the following clause:—
  Reserve powers of the Secretary of State or SEPA
  '.—(1) In this section, "the appropriate authority" means—

  (a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State; and

  (b) in relation to Scotland, SEPA acting with the approval of the Secretary of State.

  (2) The appropriate authority may conduct or make, or cause to be conducted or made,—

  (a) a review of the quality for the time being, and the likely future quality within the relevant period, of air within the area of any local authority;

  (b) an assessment of whether air quality standards and objectives are being achieved, or are likely to be achieved within the relevant period, within the area of a local authority;

  (c) an identification of any parts of the area of a local authority in which it appears that those standards or objectives are not likely to be achieved within the relevant period; or

  (d) an assessment of the respects (if any) in which it appears that air quality standards or objectives are not being achieved, or are not likely within the relevant period to be achieved, within the area of a local authority or within a designated area.

  (3) If it appears to the appropriate authority—

  (a) that air quality standards or objectives are not being achieved, or are not likely within the relevant period to be achieved, within the area of a local authority,

  (b) that a local authority has failed to discharge any duty imposed on it under or by virtue of this Part,

  (c) that the actions, or proposed actions, of a local authority in purported compliance with the provisions of this Part are inappropriate in all the circumstances of the case, or

  (d) that developments in science or technology, or material changes in circumstances, have rendered inappropriate the actions or proposed actions of a local authority in pursuance of this Part.

  the appropriate authority may give directions to the local authority requiring it to take such steps as may be specified in the directions.
  (4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, directions under that subsection may. in particular, require a local authority—

  (a) to cause an air quality review to be conducted under section (Local authority reviews) above in accordance with the directions:

  1554

  (b) to cause an air quality review under section (Local authority reviews) above to be conducted afresh, whether in whole or in part, or to be so conducted with such differences as may be specified or described in the directions;

  (c) to make an order under section (Designation of air quality management areas) above designating as an air quality management area an area specified in, or determined in accordance with, the directions;

  (d) to revoke, or modify in accordance with the directions, any order under that section;

  (e) to prepare in accordance with the directions an action plan for a designated area;

  (f) to modify, in accordance with the directions, any action plan prepared by the authority; or

  (g) to implement, in accordance with the directions, any measures in an action plan.

  (5) The Secretary of State shall also have power to give directions to local authorities requiring them to take such steps specified in the directions as he considers appropriate for the implementation of—

  (a) any obligations of the United Kingdom under the Community Treaties. Or

  (b) any international agreement to which the United Kingdom is for the time being a party,

  so far as relating to the quality of air.
  (6) Any direction given under this section shall be published in such manner as the body or person giving it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matters to which it relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them; and—

  (a) copies of the direction shall be made available to the public; and

  (b) notice shall be given—

  (i) in the case of a direction given to a local authority in England and Wales, in the London Gazette, or

  (ii) in the case of a direction given to a local authority in Scotland, in the Edinburgh Gazette,

  of the giving of the direction and of where a copy of the direction may be obtained.
  (7) It is the duty of a local authority to comply with any direction given to it under or by virtue of this Part.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 139.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 139.—(Earl Ferrers.)

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 139
  139A After Clause 75, at the end of subsection (7) insert ("and which is within its powers").
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 139A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 139. My amendment is what your Lordships may think is a knee-jerk reaction to my reading of this new provision. Subsection (7) of the Commons amendment states:
  "It is the duty of a local authority to comply with any direction given to it under or by virtue of this Part".
  That is all well and good, but is it implicit that the local authorities will have the powers to comply? In my experience local authorities need express powers to do the things they want to do—otherwise they find that they are being told that they are not entitled to do them. It may he a knee-jerk reaction from someone who has

  1555
  been at the wrong end of this argument in the past but I seek to add that a local authority will be under a duty to comply with directions only if it already has the powers to do so. I beg to move.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 139A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 139, be agreed to.—(Baroness Hamwee.)
  6.45 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I hesitate to tell the noble Baroness that her amendment is not necessary but I feel bound to do so because the Secretary of State can only properly require a local authority to do that which is within its powers. It is therefore not necessary to have a provision to say so on the face of the Bill. Accordingly, I think that the Secretary of State would not go outside his powers.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, he might, but at least we have the answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 139A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 139, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  140 After Clause 75, insert the following clause:—
  Functions of county councils for areas for which there are district councils
  '.—(1) This section applies in any case where a district in England for which there is a district council is comprised in an area for which there is a county council; and in this paragraph—

  (a) any reference to the county council is a reference to the council of that area; and

  (b) any reference to a district council is a reference to the council of a district comprised in that area.

  (2) The county council may make recommendations to a district council with respect to the carrying out of—

  (a) any particular air quality review,

  (b) any particular assessment under section (Local authority reviews) or (Duties of local authorities in relation to designated areas) above, or

  (c) the preparation of any particular action plan or revision of an action plan,

  and the district council shall take into account any such recommendations.
  (3) Where a district council is preparing an action plan, the county council shall, within the relevant period, submit to the district council proposals for the exercise (so far as relating to the designated area) by the county council, in pursuit of the achievement of air quality standards and objectives, of any powers exercisable by the county council.
  (4) Where the county council submits proposals to a district council in pursuance of subsection (3) above, it shall also submit a statement of the time or times by or within which it proposes to implement each of the proposals.
  (5) An action plan shall include a statement of—

  (a) any proposals submitted pursuant to subsection (3) above; and

  (b) any time or times set out in the statement submitted pursuant to subsection (4) above.

  (6) If it appears to the Secretary of State—

  (a) that air quality standards or objectives are not being achieved, or are not likely within the relevant period to be achieved, within the area of a district council.

  1556

  (b) that the county council has failed to discharge any duty imposed on it under or by virtue of this Part,

  (c) that the actions, or proposed actions, of the county council in purported compliance with the provisions of this Part are inappropriate in all the circumstances of the case, or

  (d) that developments in science or technology, or material changes in circumstances, have rendered inappropriate the actions or proposed actions of the county council in pursuance of this Part.

  the Secretary of State may give directions to the county council requiring it to take such steps as may be specified in the directions.
  (7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6) above, directions under that subsection may, in particular. require the county council—

  (a) to submit, in accordance with the directions, proposals pursuant to subsection (3) above or a statement pursuant to subsection (4) above;

  (b) to modify, in accordance with the directions, any proposals or statement submitted by the county council pursuant to subsection (3) or (4) above;

  (c) to submit any proposals or statement so modified to the district council in question pursuant to subsection (3) or (4) above; or

  (d) to implement, in accordance with the directions, any measures included in an action plan.

  (8) The Secretary of State shall also have power to give directions to county councils for areas for which there are district councils requiring them to take such steps specified in the directions as he considers appropriate for the implementation of—

  (a) any obligations of the United Kingdom under the Community Treaties, or

  (b) any international agreement to which the United Kingdom is for the time being a party,

  so far as relating to the quality of air.
  (9) Any direction given under this section shall he published in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matters to which it relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them; and—

  (a) copies of the direction shall be made available to the public; and

  (b) notice of the giving of the direction, and of where a copy of the direction may be obtained, shall he given in the London Gazette.

  (10) It is the duty of a county council for an area for which there are district councils to comply with any direction given to it under or by virtue of this Part.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 140.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 140.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  141 After Clause 75, insert the following clause:—
  Regulations for the purposes of Part (Air Quality)
  '.—(1) Regulations may make provision—

  (a) for, or in connection with, implementing the strategy;

  (b) for, or in connection with, implementing—

  (i) obligations of the United Kingdom under the Community Treaties, or

  (ii) international agreements to which the United Kingdom is for the time being a party,

  1557

  so far as relating to the quality of air; or

  (c) otherwise with respect to the assessment or management of the quality of air.

  (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, regulations under that subsection may make provision—

  (a) prescribing standards relating to the quality of air;

  (b) prescribing objectives for the restriction of the levels at which particular substances are present in the air;

  (c) conferring powers or imposing duties on local authorities;

  (d) for or in connection with—

  (i) authorising local authorities (whether by agreements or otherwise) to exercise any functions of a Minister of the Crown on his behalf;

  (ii) directing that functions of a Minister of the Crown shall be exercisable concurrently with local authorities; or

  (iii) transferring functions of a Minister of the Crown to local authorities;

  (e) prohibiting or restricting, or for or in connection with prohibiting or restricting,—

  (i) the carrying on of prescribed activities, or

  (ii) the access of prescribed vehicles or mobile equipment to prescribed areas,

  whether generally or in prescribed circumstances;

  (f) for or in connection with the designation of air quality management areas by orders made by local authorities in such cases or circumstances not falling within section (Local authority reviews) above as may be prescribed;

  (g) for the application, with or without modifications, of any provisions of this Part in relation to areas designated by virtue of paragraph (f) above or in relation to orders made by virtue of that paragraph;

  (h) with respect to—

  (i) air quality reviews;

  (ii) assessments under this Part;

  (iii) orders designating air quality management areas; or

  (iv) action plans;

  (j) prescribing measures which are to be adopted by local authorities (whether in action plans or otherwise) or other persons in pursuance of the achievement of air quality standards or objectives;

  (k) for or in connection with the communication to the public of information relating to quality for the time being, or likely future quality, of the air;

  (l) for or in connection with the obtaining by local authorities from any person of information which is reasonably necessary for the discharge of functions conferred or imposed on them under or by virtue of this Part;

  (m) for or in connection with the recovery by a local authority from prescribed persons in prescribed circumstances, and in such manner as may be prescribed, of costs incurred by the authority in discharging functions conferred or imposed on the authority under or by virtue of this Part;

  (n) for a person who contravenes, or fails to comply with, any prescribed provision of the regulations to be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or such lower level on that scale as may be prescribed in relation to the offence:

  1558

  (o) for or in connection with arrangements under which a person may discharge any liability to conviction for a prescribed offence by payment of a penalty of a prescribed amount;

  (p) for or in connection with appeals against determinations or decisions made, notices given or served, or other things done under or by virtue of the regulations.

  (3) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (h) of subsection (2) above, the provision that may be made by virtue of that paragraph includes provision for or in connection with any of the following, that is to say—

  (a) the scope or form of a review or assessment;

  (b) the scope, content or form of an action plan;

  (c) the time at which, period within which, or manner in which a review or assessment is to be carried out or an action plan is to be prepared;

  (d) the methods to be employed—

  (i) in carrying out reviews or assessments; or

  (ii) in monitoring the effectiveness of action plans;

  (e) the factors to be taken into account in preparing action plans;

  (f) the actions which must be taken by local authorities or other persons in consequence of reviews, assessments or action plans;

  (g) requirements for consultation;

  (h) the treatment of representations or objections duly made;

  (j) the publication of, or the making available to the public of, or of copies of,—

  (i) the results, or reports of the results, of reviews or assessments; or

  (ii) orders or action plans;

  (k) requirements for—

  (i) copies of any such reports, orders or action plans, or

  (ii) prescribed information, in such form as may be prescribed, relating to reviews or assessments,

  to be sent to the Secretary of State or to the appropriate new Agency.

  (4) In determining—

  (a) any appeal against, or reference or review of, a decision of a local authority under or by virtue of regulations under this Part, or

  (b) any application transmitted from a local authority under or by virtue of any such regulations,

  the body or person making the determination shall he bound by any direction given by a Minister of the Crown or SEPA to the local authority to the same extent as the local authority.
  (5) The provisions of any regulations under this Part may include—

  (a) provision for anything that may be prescribed by the regulations to be determined under the regulations and for anything falling to be so determined to he determined by such persons, in accordance with such procedure and by reference to such matters, and to the opinion of such persons, as may be prescribed;

  (b) different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances, areas or localities; and

  (c) such supplemental, consequential, incidental or transitional provision (including provision amending any enactment or any instrument made under any enactment) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

  (5A) Nothing in regulations under this Part shall authorise any person other than a constable in uniform to stop a vehicle on any road.
  (6) Before making any regulations under this Part, the Secretary of State shall consult—

  (a) the appropriate new Agency;

  (b) such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he may consider appropriate;

  (c) such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he may consider appropriate; and

  (d) such other bodies or persons as he may consider appropriate.

  (7) Any power conferred by this Part to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and no statutory instrument containing regulations under this Part shall be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  (8) If, apart from this subsection, the draft of an instrument containing regulations under this Part would be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 141.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 141.—(Earl Ferrers.)

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 141
  141A After Clause 75, in subsection (5A), after ("constable"), insert ("or traffic warden").
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 141A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 141. I recognise that we discussed this amendment at some length—or at least I did—during discussion of the previous amendment. I move it merely to ask my noble friend a question. Amendment No. 261 amends the Road Traffic Regulation Act. My noble friend referred to that as being the proper context in which to discuss a shift of duty between the police and traffic wardens. The question of what is appropriate is clearly one that would require some argument—he will recollect that he said that—but, the police having done a great deal over recent years to civilianise many of their functions, to their considerable advantage, is there a proposal to review the balance of duties between the police and traffic wardens which might encompass the possibility of traffic wardens being given the power to supplement the power of local authorities to test vehicles? If he can answer that question to my satisfaction, I shall be very happy to withdraw my amendment.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 141A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 141, be agreed to.—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should be delighted to answer that question to my noble friend's satisfaction but I am afraid that I am unable to do so. What I can tell him—I know this from the days when I had the advantage of being at the Home Office—is that these are matters of great importance and great sensitivity. In many respects the police are anxious not to give up their powers. Many people do not want the police to give up their powers, because they find—I referred to this earlier on—that many women's groups are worried at the
  1560
  possibility of other people stopping cars. My noble friend said that he spoke to the amendment at some length. I thought that I spoke at some length, too. I rather hoped that I had been able to answer some of the questions he put. The fact is that if one is going to give these powers to others one has to say what will happen when people do not comply with the power to stop vehicles that the traffic warden has had given to him. What will happen when someone does not allow his vehicle to be inspected and tested? Those are the kinds of difficulties that may be involved. If my noble friend asks, as he does on the spur of the moment, whether considerations about this are going on at present, I am bound to tell him that I cannot provide the answer. But I have no doubt that, in the immortal words of the government service, these matters are always under active consideration.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I have used that phrase so many times myself that I know precisely what it means. I hope that this can be given active consideration. If one asked the question, "If women's organisations really want to see atmospheric pollution and traffic pollution reduced, would they be prepared to see traffic wardens having the power to stop?", I think that the Government might get a realistic answer. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 141A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 141, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  142 After Clause 75, insert the following clause:—
  Guidance for the purposes of Part (Air Quality)
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to local authorities with respect to, or in connection with, the exercise of any of the powers conferred, or the discharge of any of the duties imposed, on those authorities by or under this Part.
  (2) A local authority, in carrying out any of its functions under or by virtue of this Part, shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this Part.
  (3) This section shall apply in relation to county councils for areas for which there are district councils as it applies in relation to local authorities.'.
  143 After Clause 75, insert the following clause:—
  Application of Part (Air Quality) to the Isles of Scilly
  '.—(1) Subject to the provisions of any order under this section, this Part, other than section (National air quality strategy), shall not apply in relation to the Isles of Scilly.
  (2) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Council of the Isles of Scilly, by order provide for the application of any provisions of this Part (other than section (National air quality strategy)) to the Isles of Scilly; and any such order may provide for the application of those provisions to those Isles with such modifications as may be specified in the order.
  (3) An order under this section may—

  (a) make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances or localities; and

  (b) contain such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, including provision saving provision repealed by or under any enactment.

  (4) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and a statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
  144 After Clause 75, insert the following clause:—
  Supplemental provisions
  '. Schedule (Air quality: supplemental provisions) to this Act shall have effect.'.
  145 After Clause 75, insert the following clause:—
  Interpretation of Part (Air Quality)
  '.—(1) In this Part—

  "action plan" shall be construed in accordance with section (Duties of local authorities in relation to designated areas)(2) (b) above;

  "air quality objectives" means objectives prescribed by virtue of section (Regulations for the purposes of Part (Air Quality))(2) (b) above;

  "air quality review" means a review under section (Local authority reviews) or (Reserve powers of the Secretary of State or SEPA) above;

  "air quality standards" means standards prescribed by virtue of section (Regulations for the purposes of Part (Air Quality))(2) (a) above;

  "the appropriate new Agency" means—

  (a) in relation to England and Wales, the Agency;

  (b) in relation to Scotland, SEPA;

  "designated area" has the meaning given by section (Designation of air quality management areas)(1) above;

  "local authority", in relation to England and Wales, means—

  (a) any unitary authority,

  (b) any district council, so far as it is not a unitary authority,

  (c) the Common Council of the City of London and, as respects the Temples, the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple and the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple respectively,

  and, in relation to Scotland, means a council for an area constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;

  "new Agency" means the Agency or SEPA;

  "prescribed" means prescribed, or of a description prescribed, by or under regulations;

  "regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State;

  "the relevant period", in the case of any provision of this Part, means such period as may be prescribed for the purposes of that provision;

  "the strategy" has the meaning given by section (National air quality strategy)(1) above;

  "unitary authority" means—

  (a) the council of a county, so far as it is the council of an area for which there are no district councils;

  (b) the council of any district comprised in an area for which there is no county council;

  (c) the council of a London borough;

  (d) the council of a county borough in Wales.

  (2) Any reference in this Part to it appearing that any air quality standards or objectives are not likely within the relevant period to be achieved includes a reference to it appearing that those standards or objectives are likely within that period not to be achieved.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 142 to 145 en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 142 to 145.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  146 Clause 77, page 90, line 49, at end insert:
  "'recovery", in relation to products or materials, includes—

  (a) composting, or any other form of transformation by biological processes, of products or materials; or

  (b) the obtaining, by any means, of energy from products or materials;'.

  147 Clause 78. page 91, line 37. at end insert:
  '(dd) the registration of persons who are subject to a producer responsibility obligation and who are not members of registered exemption schemes, the imposition of requirements in connection with such registration, the variation of such requirements, the making of applications for such registration, the period for which any such registration is to remain in force and the cancellation of any such registration;'.
  148 Page 91, line 48, after 'any' insert 'such'.
  149 Page 92, line 4, leave out 'for registration received by it;' and insert 'received by it for registration of exemption schemes;'.
  150 Page 92, line 22, at end insert:

  '(v) on the making of an application for, or for the renewal of, registration of a person required to register under the regulations;

  (vi) in respect of the renewal of the registration of that person;'.

  151 Page 92, line 27, leave out 'in which—(i)' and insert:
  '(i) in which'.
  152 Page 92, line 37, at end insert:
  `(ss) the imposition on prescribed persons of duties to maintain records, and furnish to the Secretary of State or to the appropriate Agency returns, in such form as may be prescribed of such information as may be prescribed for any purposes of, or for any purposes connected with, or related to, sections 77 to 79 of this Act or any regulations;'.
  153 Page 92, line 41, at end insert 'or persons required to register under the regulations;'.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 146 to 153 en bloc.
  During our Committee stage my noble friend Lord Wade moved an amendment to clarify that the term "recovery" included energy recovery. My noble friend Lord Ullswater said then that we would consider whether such an amendment would be useful. Although we have always used the term "recovery" to include any form of value recovery, including energy recovery, we accepted the point and an amendment was moved in another place. This amendment clarifies that the term "recovery" includes energy recovery and composting.
  During Committee stage in another place an amendment was proposed to enable the regulations which will he made under this legislation to make provision for the registration of persons who are not

  1563
  members of a registered exemption scheme. There is already provision in the clauses for the registration of exemption schemes, and the suggestion was that this should be extended to those who choose to take the individual compliance route. Although it has always been the Government's intention to ensure the lightest touch possible in the producer responsibility legislation, we saw the likelihood of there being considerable benefit in some cases in individual registration. Amendments Nos. 147 to 150 and Amendment No. 153 are a series of amendments to enable individual registration which were moved in another place at Report stage.
  Amendment No. 151 merely corrects a grammatical error.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 152. In considering the producer responsibility clauses further, it became apparent that in order to construct an adequate database for a particular waste stream, including the level of re-use, recovery and recycling, we would need to collect data both from individual firms and from exemption schemes. Most obviously, data will be needed to monitor progress in meeting targets and, more immediately, in the case of packaging waste, to demonstrate to the European Commission evidence of compliance with the targets set by the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste. An amendment to allow data to be collected from individual firms and from exemption schemes was therefore promoted in another place. We shall, of course, take the necessary steps to ensure that commercial confidentiality is maintained and in setting up systems we shall also endeavour to observe the principles of deregulation and minimising burdens on business. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 146 to 153.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  154 After Clause 79, insert the following clause:—
  'Mineral planning permissions
  Mineral planning permissions
  .—(1) Schedules (Review of old mineral planning permissions) and (Periodic review of mineral planning permissions) to this Act shall have effect.
  (2) This section, those Schedules as they apply to England and Wales, and the 1990 Act shall have effect as if this section and those Schedules (as so applying) were included in Part III of that Act.
  (3) This section, those Schedules as they apply to Scotland, and the 1972 Act shall have effect as if this section and those Schedules (as so applying) were included in Part III of that Act.
  (4) Section 105 of the 1990 Act and section 25IA of the 1972 Act shall cease to have effect.
  (5) Without prejudice to the generality of sections 59 to 61 of the 1990 Act or. as the case may be, section 21 of the 1972 Act. a development order may make, in relation to any planning permission which is granted by a development order for minerals development, provision similar to any provision made by Schedule (Review of old mineral planning permissions) or (Periodic review of mineral planning permissions) to this Act.
  (6) In this section and those Schedules—
  "the 1972 Act" means the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972;
  "the 1990 Act" means the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
  "the 1991 Act" means the Planning and Compensation Act 1991; and
  "minerals development" means development consisting of the winning and working of minerals. or involving the depositing of mineral waste.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 154. In speaking to this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 221, 222, 242, 264, 319 and 324.
  During Report stage, my noble friends Lord Addison and Lord Campbell of Croy moved various amendments to provide for the reform of old mineral permissions. My noble friend Lord Ullswater undertook that the Government would bring forward their own amendments in another place.
  Since our debate, my noble friend Lord Ullswater has had helpful discussions with my noble friend Lord Addision and with representatives of the industry and local authorities. The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 154 and the two new schedules set out in Amendments Nos. 221 and 222 give effect to the policy proposals which my noble friend outlined at Report stage.
  With regard to the updating of old mineral sites, the first new schedule, which is set out in Amendment No. 221, provides for an initial review and updating of mineral sites where the predominant planning permission for the winning and working of minerals or the depositing of mineral waste was granted before 22nd February 1982.
  The schedule makes a distinction between active and dormant sites. Work cannot restart on dormant sites—that is, sites where no mineral working or depositing of mineral waste has taken place to any substantial extent between 22nd February 1982 and 6th June 1995—until a new scheme of full modern operating and restoration conditions has been approved by the planning authority. That is an important proposal. It will ensure that sites where working has not taken place for some years cannot be reactivated without warning on outdated terms and conditions.
  For active sites landowners of relevant minerals must submit new schemes of operating and restoration conditions for the planning authority's approval by a date specified by the authority. If no scheme is submitted, the planning permissions will cease to have any effect. That will get active sites up to standard.
  To spread the workload, reviews of active sites will take place in two consecutive phases, each of three years. Phase I will deal with sites where the predominant permission, or permissions, was granted before 31st March 1969, or 7th December 1969 in Scotland. Phase II will deal with sites where the predominant permission was granted after that date hut before 22nd February 1982. Sites wholly or partly within national parks, sites

  1565
  of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty, (and national scenic areas and natural heritage areas in Scotland), will all be treated as Phase I sites.
  Where my noble friend Lord Ullswater outlined these proposals at Report stage, he indicated that he intended that they should broadly follow the approach we adopted for the review and updating of interim development orders or such permissions introduced in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. However, he made it clear that he would give consideration to the possibility of incorporating in statute the principles of the statement made by my right honourable friend Sir George Young when he was a Minister at the Department of the Environment before he was catapulted into new spheres. That we have done.
  There will be no compensation for the cost of complying with conditions imposed on dormant sites. For active sites there will be no compensation for new restoration and aftercare conditions, nor for conditions which do not restrict working rights. For conditions which do restrict working rights, compensation will be payable only if, in the opinion of the planning authority, the effect of the restriction would be such as to prejudice to an unreasonable degree either the economic viability of the operation or the asset value of the site.
  These amendments will ensure that in a relatively short period old mineral permissions will be brought up to acceptable standards and that dormant sites cannot be reactivated without warning or proper conditions.
  Having got the older permissions up to standard, we need to ensure that all mineral permissions keep pace with changing standards in the future. The second new schedule, which is set out in Amendment No. 222, therefore provides for the periodic review of all mining sites with planning permission for the winning and working of minerals or the depositing of mineral waste.
  Your Lordships will be glad to know that the remaining amendments in this group are technical and consequential. I commend them to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 154.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as my noble friend said, I raised this subject in Committee and moved an amendment at Report stage, concentrating particularly on old mineral permissions relating to ironstone. My noble friend Lord Ullswater gave an undertaking then and I am grateful to the Government for having introduced these amendments in the other place in accordance with that undertaking. We now have a whole new clause and two schedules on a subject which was not originally in the Bill.
  Although I am grateful for that, I should like to raise two points relating to ironstone. Ironstone is different from other mineral workings. I shall not repeat my previous speeches, but ironstone has not been needed since 1979, although permissions for its mining continue to run for many years still and limestone is being worked at the sites instead. That was not the purpose for which the permissions were originally intended. They were granted after World War II by central government. It was not left to local government. Ironstone was then
  1566
  vital for our steel industry. All transport was to be by rail. Now all the limestone is conveyed by large and heavy lorries and there is damage and disturbance to the rural communities in the districts concerned. Access and transport conditions need to be considered and, where necessary, regulated in the new system.
  My first inquiry: can we be certain that the guidance which is foreseen in the Bill and which is due to be issued will include transport and access when the Bill has been enacted? Will it cover active as well as dormant sites? Will it arrange for access and transport conditions to be regulated in the present circumstances, which are different from those of 40 years ago?
  My second point is that many ironstone permissions for individual sites are large. Some of them are over 1,000 acres for a single permission. But in those areas only a small part is being worked. In some cases they are physically separated from the larger, dormant parts. It seems that the amendments, as drafted, require the whole area to be treated as active, because originally all the areas were in a single permission. Is there a way in which those large areas can now be divided into small, active sites and large, dormant ones? That would make sense under present conditions and would give mineral planning authorities better control.
  7 p.m.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I understand that the Government define sites as dormant if they were dormant on 6th June, which is when the amendments were published in the other place, but the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, announced the arrival of the amendments back in March. I understand that during that intervening period a number of operators have started up work on what were previously dormant sites in order to be able to claim compensation. Is the Minister aware of that? Can he give us any idea of whether the practice is widespread, and whether, if it is, there is any way that it can be proved that the sites are dormant and not therefore subject to compensation?
  Viscount Addison: My Lords, perhaps I may say, first, how much I value the efforts of my noble friend Lord Ullswater in securing the government amendments tabled in the other place to tackle the environmental problems created by old mineral planning permissions.
  I have just two outstanding concerns. The first is on the compensation. It appears at subsection (3) (b) half-way down page 77 of the Marshalled List. Will my noble friend explain what constitutes "prejudice adversely" and "unreasonable degree" with regard to the economic viability of the operational site? I hope that we can have some clarification on that point.
  The second point, relating to dormant sites, has already been mentioned. The Government have defined sites as dormant if they were dormant on 6th June, so I do not need to repeat what has been said. That causes concern. We have found that work has been restarted within the three months between my noble friend's announcement and 6th June. It is important that we get the wording right to ensure that people do not receive compensation if that is the case. One example relates to a major, long dormant limestone quarry in a prominent

  1567
  location within the Peak District National Park where work has recently recommenced for no other discernible reason. It is therefore crucial that we secure clarification on the definition of dormancy.
  The government amendments provide that a site will be considered active only if it has been worked to a substantial degree. There is no explanation of what that constitutes. The draft guidance issued on the provisions does not provide sufficient explanation. That definition will be crucial in determining whether a site which has had only a few wheelbarrow loads removed is active or not. We hope therefore that the final guidance will provide a full explanation of what constitutes:
  "working to a substantial degree".
  Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I welcome the amendments—as I do my noble friend to his new department. Also, I thank my noble friend Lord Ullswater for the time that he and his department have taken in listening to the views of the aggregates industry and for the courtesy which he always showed to those concerned. I must of course again declare an interest as an employee of Hanson, which owns ARC, which is a fairly prominent member of the aggregates industry, although I am not aware of any cases in which it might have been guilty of any activity described by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
  The industry recognises that the issue of old planning permissions is an emotive one. I recognise the difficulty in striking a balance between the environmental pressures which were described by my noble friend Lord Addison, on the one hand, and the industry's desire for fair treatment on the other. Although the industry did not achieve all that it wanted, the result embodied in this series of complex amendments is a fair one which will prove its worth in the future.
  As my noble friend described, the main change, and the one about which I spoke mostly at an earlier stage of the Bill, relates to compensation. It is right that compensation should be reflected in the way that it now is, and, should conditions be imposed which would seriously affect the asset value of a site, that compensation should be enshrined in statute, as it now is. That is a great step forward from the original IDO legislation which left the industry with no greater protection except through a statement of intent, as my noble friend the Minister described it, made by a Minister in another place.
  Important though the amendment is, it should not be regarded as any great concession to the industry. The new clause does not give the industry a new right to compensation. It does not even enhance the right already held. In fact it marks a significant reduction in the compensation regime to which it was previously entitled. Nevertheless, the position is now clarified and protected. I am grateful to all those in the department for the effort which has been put into finding a solution.
  It is important in this case, as well as in many others, to find a balance. That balance has been found. Those who take a different point of view should understand that there are difficulties in trying to strike that balance. While people may have legitimate objections to the activities of an industry—mineral working can have a
  1568
  significant effect on the landscape and on people's lives—the industry itself is aware of all that, and it does whatever it can to ensure that it lives up to its responsibilities.
  We must always bear in mind that the industry is a crucial element in the economy. Again. I thank my noble friend for all that he and my noble friend Lord Ullswater were able to do. The industry will of course maintain its vigilance as the legislation develops and will be consulted on the mineral planning guidance which will go with it. I am extremely grateful for and welcome the amendments.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for the gratitude he expressed, which goes not to me but to my noble friend Lord Ullswater and many others, including possibly the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who is smiling away. I am grateful to my noble friend because a great deal of work has been done on the minerals front which is always a technical subject. It is not always easy to understand it, and nor is it an easy matter on which to legislate.
  My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred to the ironstone permissions. As my noble friend Lord Ullswater made clear on Report, the Government believe that it is wrong in principle to revoke consents without compensation. That does not mean that the existing position will be allowed to remain as it is. We shall issue guidance to deal with both active and dormant sites. I hope that that will cover the points referred to by my noble friend Lord Addison. We would expect the industry to bring forward schemes which deal satisfactorily with the questions of access and transport and, where appropriate, the provision of buffer zones between workings and residential property. My noble friend asked whether large areas will be divided into small active sites and large dormant sites. If I may, I must take advice on that matter and write to him.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to sites which have started operating, as did my noble friend Lord Addison. It is regrettable that that has happened and where it has happened. Fortunately, I do not believe that the practice is widespread. I hope that operators will see it as their duty to bring forward full modern planning conditions. Sites cannot start working until those have been approved. My noble friend Lord Addison wanted us to define "prejudice" and "unreasonable degree". That will be covered in the guidance and we will do our best to flesh it out. In the end, common sense is required by all parties.
  I hope that with that explanation your Lordships will agree with the Commons amendment.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of Commons amendments be adjourned. In doing so, I suggest that consideration be resumed not earlier than quarter past eight.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Crown Agents Bill [H.L.]
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crown Agents Bill [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [Page and line refers to Bill 118 as first printed by the Commons.]
  1 Clause 7, page 4, line 13, at end insert:
  `(2) The existence or exercise of the powers of the Secretary of State under section 1 shall not be regarded as constituting or creating arrangements within the meaning of section 410 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (arrangements for the transfer of a company to another group or consortium) or as constituting or creating option arrangements for the purposes of paragraph 5B of Schedule 18 to that Act.
  (3) Any debt assumed under section 2 shall be treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts as if it had been assumed—

  (a) wholly in consideration of a loan made to the Crown Agents of an amount equal to the principal sum payable under the debt, and

  (b) wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade carried on by them.

  If the terms of any such debt include provision for the payment of a sum expressed as interest in respect of a period which falls wholly or partly before the debt was assumed, any payment made in pursuance of that provision in respect of that period shall be treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts as if the debt had been assumed at the commencement of that period and, accordingly, as interest on the principal sum payable under the debt.
  (4) Any security (other than a share) issued by the successor company in pursuance of section 3 shall be treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts as if it had been issued—

  (a) wholly in consideration of a loan made to the company of an amount equal to the principal sum payable under the security, and

  (b) wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade carried on by that company.

  If the terms of any such security include provision for the payment of a sum expressed as interest in respect of a period which falls wholly or partly before the security was issued, any payment made in pursuance of that provision in respect of that period shall be treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts as if the security had been issued at the commencement of that period and, accordingly, as interest on the principal sum payable under the security.
  (5) Any share issued by the successor company in pursuance of section 3 shall be treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts as if it had been issued wholly in consideration of a subscription paid to the company of an amount equal to the nominal value of the share.'.
  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  2 Clause 15, page 8, line 3, leave out subsection (3).
  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 7.13 to 8.15 p.m.]

Environment Bill [H.L.]
8.15 p.m.
Consideration of Commons amendments resumed.

Environment Bill [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  155 Clause 80, page 95, line 16, at end insert:
  `(2A) For the purpose of facilitating the protection of important hedgerows, regulations under subsection (I) above may also make provision in relation to other hedgerows in England or Wales.
  (2B) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) to (2A) above, regulations under subsection (I) above may provide for the application (with or without modifications) of, or include provision comparable to. any provision contained in the planning Acts and may, in particular, make provision—

  (a)prohibiting, or for prohibiting, the removal of, or the carrying out of prescribed acts in relation to, a hedgerow except in prescribed cases;

  (b) for or with respect to appeals against determinations or decisions made, or notices given or served, under or by virtue of the regulations, including provision authorising or requiring any body or person to whom an appeal lies to consult prescribed persons with respect to the appeal in prescribed cases;

  (c) for a person who contravenes, or fails to comply with, any prescribed provision of the regulations to be guilty of an offence;

  (d) for a person guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (c) above which consists of the removal, in contravention of the regulations, of a hedgerow of a description prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph to be liable—

  (i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or

  (ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine;

  (e) for a person guilty of any other offence by virtue of paragraph (c) above to be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding such level on the standard scale as may be prescribed.

  (2C) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different descriptions of hedgerow, different descriptions of person, different areas or localities or different circumstances.'.
  156 Page 95, line 43. at end insert:
  "hedgerow" includes any stretch of hedgerow;'.
  157 Page 96, line 1, at end insert:

  1571
  "the planning Acts" has the same meaning as it has in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by virtue of section 336(1) of that Act;'.
  158 Page 96, line 2, leave out second 'prescribed' and insert `specified, or of a description specified,'.
  159 Page 96, line 3, at end insert:
  "'remove", in relation to a hedgerow, means uproot or otherwise destroy, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;'.
  160 Page 96, line 5, at end insert:
  `(6)Any reference in this section to removing, or carrying out an act in relation to, a hedgerow includes a reference to causing or permitting another to remove, or (as the case may be) carry out an act in relation to, a hedgerow.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 155 to 160 en bloc. These amendments respond to anxieties expressed by your Lordships that the present provisions in Clause 80 are too broadly stated. They honour an assurance given by my noble friend Lord Ullswater that he would give further consideration to incorporating an appeals mechanism in the regulations on the face of the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 155 to 160 en bloc.-(Earl Ferrers.)
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I wanted simply to welcome the amendments and to ask one question. During the passage of the Bill in this House we had a great deal of discussion about what constitutes an "important hedgerow". Has any progress been made in that regard? Are the Government any nearer a definition of what constitutes an important hedgerow? That information would be helpful to some of us.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, it goes without saying that I am concerned that yet another bureaucratic regulation is being imposed on farmers because they must notify a local authority if they wish to remove one of their hedgerows. In line with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, I should like to know what is a hedgerow and whether that will be spelt out clearly in the regulations.
  Moreover and perhaps more important, if a farmer goes to a local authority to say that he wishes to remove a hedgerow, will the Minister ensure that there is a time limit in the regulations which provides that an answer is given within 28 days and that if he is not given an answer within that time limit, the permission will be granted automatically.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome which the noble Baroness has given to the amendments. The noble Baroness wants to know, as does my noble friend, what is meant by an "important hedgerow". I can understand the anxieties expressed by my noble friend because it is important that there is not too much bureaucracy in relation to the countryside or anything else. However, there are occasions when it is necessary to try to protect important hedgerows. Research is in hand to investigate what should properly he regarded as important hedgerows and to establish a system for assessing their quality.
  1572
  We have made clear our intention to focus protection on those hedgerows which are of particular historic interest or which make a particularly valuable contribution to the wildlife or landscape of an area. The kind of hedgerows which we have in mind are those which are long-standing and which form part of the natural countryside. If my noble friend planted a hedge 10 years ago, I do not believe that he would be refused permission to remove it because we place particular importance on those hedgerows which have been in place for a long time. My noble friend asked whether we could have a time limit of 28 days. That is rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asking earlier what "reasonable" meant. Now my noble friend tries to put me on the spot in asking for 28 days. This is a matter which is part of the regulations. We shall settle what is the appropriate time after we have had wide-ranging public consultations.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  161 Clause 82, page 97. line 37, at end insert:
  (h)the Moorland (Livestock Extensification) Regulations 1995.'.
  162 Page 105, line 2, leave out 'provision in relation' and insert 'amendments relating'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 161 and 162. They have both been spoken to earlier. They are technical amendments.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 161 and 162.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  163 Clause 91, page 105, line 20, at end insert:
  '(1A) A person who appears suitable to the Agency or SEPA may be authorised in writing by the Agency or, as the case may be, SEPA to exercise, in accordance with the terms of the authorisation, any of the powers specified in subsection (2) below for the purpose of enabling the Agency or, as the case may be, SEPA to carry out any assessment or prepare any report which the Agency or, as the case may be, SEPA is required to carry out or prepare under section 5(3) or 31(3) above.
  (1B) Subsection (IA) above only applies where the Minister who required the assessment to be carried out, or the report to be prepared, has, whether at the time of making the requirement or at any later time, notified the Agency or, as the case may be, SEPA that the assessment or report appears to him to relate to an incident or possible incident involving or having the potential to involve—

  (a)serious pollution of the environment,

  (b)serious harm to human health, or

  (c)danger to life or health.'.

  164 Page 105, line 22, after '(1)' insert 'or (1A)'.
  165 Page 106, line 44, after 'for' insert '(i)'.
  166 Page 106, line 45, after 'above' insert 'or
  (ii) any such purpose as is mentioned in subsection (1A) above.'.
  167 Page 107. line 28. leave out 'and' and insert 'to'.
  168 Page 108. line 19, alter '111' insert 'or (1 A)'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 163 to 168. At the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 170, 306 and 331 on the same subject of powers of entry.
  During Committee my noble friend Lord Crickhowell moved an amendment to enable the new agencies to exercise their powers of entry in respect of their functions under this Bill. Very few of the agencies' functions are in fact conferred or imposed by this Bill, rather than by existing legislation. The Government were therefore not persuaded at that time by my noble friend's arguments.
  Following the grounding of the MV "Braer" off the coast of Shetland in January 1993, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set up an ecological steering group on the oil spill in the Shetlands. One of the problems identified by that group was that of access to private land in order to carry out environmental assessments following that incident. The agencies have duties under Clauses 5(3) and 31(3) of the Bill to make assessments of the environment and of environmental pollution, and to prepare reports for Ministers.
  Amendments Nos. 163 to 168 will enable them to exercise their powers of entry when carrying out those specific duties. The powers of entry provided by these amendments will be available only in connection with a serious pollution incident of the sort which I have described, and not for assessments of a more routine nature. The other amendments are technical.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 163 to 168.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  169 Page 108, line 40, at end insert:
  `(c) a local authority for the purposes of Part (Air Quality) of this Act or regulations under that Part;'.
  170 Page 108, line 47, after 'conferred' insert `or imposed'.
  171 Page 109, line 13, leave out 'section 161' and insert 'sections 161 to 161C'.
  172 Page 109, line 21, leave out 'such authorities' and insert 'or transferred to, that authority'.
  173 Page 109, line 23, leave out second Part'.
  174 Page 109, line 24, leave out `or' and insert:
  `(aa) by or under regulations made by virtue of Part (Air Quality) of this Act; or'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 169 to 174.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 169 to 174.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  175 After Clause 95. insert the following clause:—
  Disclosure of information
  '.—(1) Notwithstanding any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment or rule of law, information of any description may be disclosed—
  1574

  (a)by a new Agency to a Minister of the Crown, the other new Agency or a local enforcing authority,

  (b) by a Minister of the Crown to a new Agency, another Minister of the Crown or a local enforcing authority, or

  (c) by a local enforcing authority to a Minister of the Crown, a new Agency or another local enforcing authority,

  for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by either of the new Agencies of any of its functions, by any such Minister of any of his environmental functions or by any local enforcing authority of any of its relevant functions; and no person shall be subject to any civil or criminal liability in consequence of any disclosure made by virtue of this subsection.
  (2) Nothing in this section shall authorise the disclosure to a local enforcing authority by a new Agency or another local enforcing authority of information

  (a)disclosure of which would, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, be contrary to the interests of national security; or

  (b) which was obtained under or by virtue of the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 and which was disclosed to a new Agency or any of its officers by the Secretary of State.

  (3)No information disclosed to any person under or by virtue of this section shall be disclosed by that person to any other person otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this section, or any provision of any other enactment which authorises or requires the disclosure, if that information is information—

  (a)which relates to a trade secret of any person or which otherwise is or might be commercially confidential in relation to any person; or

  (b)whose disclosure otherwise than under or by virtue of this section would, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, be contrary to the interests of national security.

  (4)Any authorisation by or under this section of the disclosure of information by or to any person shall also be taken to authorise the disclosure of that information by or, as the case may be, to any officer of his who is authorised by him to make the disclosure or, as the case may be, to receive the information.
  (5) In this section—
  "new Agency" means the Agency or SEPA:
  "the environment" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;
  "environmental functions", in relation to a Minister of the Crown, means any function of that Minister, whether conferred or imposed under or by virtue of any enactment or otherwise, relating to the environment; and
  "local enforcing authority" means—

  (a)any local authority within the meaning of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the "relevant functions" of such an authority arc its functions under or by virtue of that Part;

  (b) any local authority within the meaning of Part (Air Quality) of this Act, and the "relevant functions" of such an authority arc its functions under or by virtue of that Part;

  (c)in relation to England, any county council for an area for which there are district councils, and the "relevant functions" of such a county council are its functions under or by virtue of Part (Air Quality) of this Act; or

  (d)in relation to England and Wales, any local enforcing authority within the meaning of section 1(7) of the Environmental Protection Act

  1575
  1990, and the "relevant functions" of such an authority are its functions under or by virtue of Part I of that Act.'.

  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 175. This amendment has been spoken to before.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 175.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 175A and 175B not moved.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  176 Clause 96, page 112, line 13, leave out 'nominate' and insert 'appoint'.
  Earl Ferrers:My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 176. At the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 180 and 234. Amendments Nos. 180 and 234 clarify the provisions in the current Clause 96. In doing so, the material has been substantially re-ordered, hence the rather lengthy appearance on the list of amendments.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 176.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  177 Page 112, line 18, after '42B(5)' insert ', 46B'.
  178 Page 112, line 22, leave out 'or 78G' and insert 78G or 78LB'.
  179 Page 112, line 26, after '96' insert '161B'.
  180 Page 112, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 on page 114 and insert:
  '() Schedule (Delegation of appellate functions of the Secretary of State) to this Act shall have effect with respect to appointments under subsection (1) (a) above.'.
  181 Clause 99, page 115, line 17, leave out 'section 73' and insert 'sections 73, (National air quality strategy) and (Application of Part (Air Quality) to the Isles of Scilly)'.
  182 Page 115, line 18, after 'section' insert 'or section (Application of Part (Air Quality) to the Isles of Scilly)'.
  183 Page 115, line 25, after 'functions' insert '(other than functions under or by virtue of Part 111 or (Air Quality) of this Act)'.
  184 Page 115, line 29, after 'III' insert 'or (Air Quality)'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 177 to 184.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 177 to 184.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  185 Clause 102, page 119, line 1, leave out 'not mentioned in that Schedule but'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 185. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 189. These two amendments ensure that when the Bill is brought into
  1576
  force, any consequential amendments to this or other legislation can be dealt with, and all necessary transitional and savings provisions can be made. Amendment No. 189 also allows provision to be made in Northern Ireland for countryside grants.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. I 85.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, these are important amendments. I understand from what the noble Earl has said that the Government are trying to take powers to amend previous legislation and orders. These are regarded as consequential powers. I do not think that we should let these matters proceed without further explanation from the noble Earl as to why the Government wish to take the powers and what parliamentary approval will be available for the powers which the Government may wish to exercise.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, it is perfectly true that these are important amendments. Perhaps I can try to put him out of his misery and to tell him a little more as to what they are about. I gather from the noble Lord that he is not miserable, so that makes the two of us. Amendment No. 185 widens the power in Clause 102 to make minor consequential amendments by regulations. It provides that the amendments which can be made to other enactments are not limited to those which are not mentioned in Schedule 18. This will ensure that any missed consequentials which are noted after the Bill has been brought into force can be corrected by regulation.
  Amendment No. 189 inserts two new subsections into Clause 107 of the Bill. The first subsection extends the power for an appointed day order to make transitional provisions and savings in connection with the bringing into force of any of the provisions in the Bill. The second subsection will allow provisions corresponding to Clause 81 of the Bill to be made in Northern Ireland.
  The negative resolution procedure is being provided on this occasion because the substance of the amendment has already been debated in this House and in another place. We are seeking to use scarce parliamentary time efficiently and effectively by providing for the Order in Council making provision in Northern Ireland to be subject to negative resolution, and so avoid going over ground which has already been the subject of debate in the House.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he enlarge on that? Has the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this House had a look at this particular provision? So far as I am aware, there is no mechanism for it to do so. I believe that this is a matter that should be brought to that Committee because it allows, as a Commons amendment, which your Lordships are now being asked to accept, amendment by order of primary legislation. Is not that something that we have discussed in this House on many, many occasions? Is it not something that we ought to take more seriously than I think the noble Earl does at the moment? Should we not just note on the record that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee ought also to look at Commons amendments

  1577
  when they come before your Lordships when they seek to amend primary legislation by order? That, after all, is the point of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
  8.30 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can understand the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, wanting to know whether the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has looked at this. What the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee does is to look at all Bills which are proposed to go before Parliament to see what delegated powers are being given by virtue of the Bills. However, what it cannot do is to look at amendments which have been made in another place before they come before your Lordships. That has not been done up to now and one of the reasons for that is simply because the timescale does not provide for it. That has not been part of the practice.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I think we would both agree that, if the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has power given by this House to look at Bills coming before this House which give powers to Secretaries of State to amend primary legislation by regulation, it ought also to be able to look at Commons amendments. After all, that is the privilege of this House; to look at Commons amendments or indeed look at Bills in any form. I will leave it there on the record in the hope that those who may be attending to our proceedings can report them to the appropriate authorities. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, and the House, ought to be advised that it should have the right to look at Commons amendments and not just at the Bill when it first comes to us.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I think that we on these Benches would like to associate ourselves with those remarks and I hope that the matter will be looked at.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  186 Clause 103, page 120, line 15, at end insert:
  '() The power to make an order under subsection (1) above shall be without prejudice to any power conferred by any other provision of this Act.'.
  187 Clause 107, page 122, line 28, after '74' insert paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 7'.
  188 Page 122, line 32, leave out from first 'section' to '(which' in line 33 and insert section (Validation of certain grants paid to local authorities in respect of expenditure relating to National Parks) above and paragraphs 62(8) (a) and 116 of Schedule 18 to this Act'.
  189 Page 122, line 43, at end insert:
  '() The power conferred by subsection (4) above includes power to modify any enactment contained in this or any other Act.
  () An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1) (b) of Schedule I to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which states that it is made only for purposes corresponding to those of section 81 of this Act—
  1578

  (a)shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament); but

  (b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 186 to 189. They have been spoken to before.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 186 to 189.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  190 Clause 107, page 123, line 13, leave out subsection (9).
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 190. This deletes the privilege amendment which was inserted by your Lordships to ensure that the financial privilege of the House of Commons is not infringed.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 190.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  191 Schedule 1, page 124, line 46, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
  192 Page 125, line 24, leave out 'Water Resources Act 1991' and insert '1991 Act'.
  193 Page 125, line 28, leave out 'Water Resources Act 1991' and insert '1991 Act'.
  194 Schedule 3, page 136, line 4, leave out with the consent of the Treasury,'.
  E19
  195 Page 136, line 8, leave out with the consent of the Treasury,'.
  196 Schedule 5, page 142, line 33, leave out 'with the consent of the Treasury'.
  197 Page 142, line 42, leave out 'with the consent of the Treasury'.
  198 Page 142, line 45, leave out 'with the consent of the Treasury'.
  199 Schedule 6, page 146, line 43, leave out with the approval of the Treasury,'.
  200 Page 146, line 47, leave out ', with the approval of the Treasury,'.
  201 Page 147, line 35, leave out ', with the consent of the Treasury,' .
  202 Page 149, line 22, leave out paragraph 19.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 191 to 202. They have been spoken to before.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos.191 to 202.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  203 Schedule 7, page 149, line 44, at end insert:
  '(2A) In the case of a National Park authority for a National Park in England, such number as may be specified in the relevant order of the number of members of the authority to be appointed by the Secretary of State shall be parish members.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 203. I propose also that Amendments Nos. 204 to 209 be considered en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 203.—(Earl Ferrers.)

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 203
  203A That this House do disagree to Commons Amendment No. 203 but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:
  Schedule 7, page 149, line 44, at end insert:
  ("to represent the national interest in the statutory purposes of National Parks.").
  Lord Norrie: My Lords, I disagree with Commons Amendments Nos. 203 to 209 and I believe that my Amendment No. 203A in lieu would be totally consistent with the Edwards Report and ensure that the Secretary of State appoints members to the national parks authorities in order to represent the national interest. I think the Government got it right the first time, as the Bill closely reflected the report's recommendations. The authorities which run national parks must reflect the broad range of interests in the parks themselves. The Edwards Report recommended that the membership of the park authorities should be split three ways. One-third should represent national interests, one-third the park in its regional context, and one-third local interests. The beauty of this formula is that it achieves a balance.
  Local interests are extremely important and I fully appreciate that. In the words of the Government, they are "living and working landscapes", and the people who live in the parks should, quite rightly, have an important say in how they will be run. The Edwards structure also reflects the fact that the parks are of national significance in both environmental terms and for the opportunities that they afford for outdoor recreation. They are national assets, part of the "critical natural capital" of England and Wales. They must therefore be managed in this broader context in order to ensure that they remain a resource for the whole country.
  The new proposals for membership of the English park authorities upset this balance. A new category of membership is created—parish representatives—at the expense of both members representing the national interest and those appointed by local authorities. Parish members will be expected to represent all parishes that fall within the park boundaries. In the Peak District there are over 120 parish councils. I remain to be convinced that four or five parish council members, appointed by the Secretary of State, will be able adequately to represent the interests of all those parishes. In fact I suspect that the proposals may lead to new problems, particularly in trying to meet the aspirations of those parishes which do not have members sitting on the new authorities.
  I am particularly worried about the whittling away of the proportion of members representing the national interest on the parks. My amendment would make it clear beyond doubt that the Secretary of State should appoint members in order to represent the national interest in the statutory purposes of national parks. This is an extremely important safeguard.
  The Edwards panel examined the membership arrangements for the new authorities in detail. It examined the idea of appointing parish representatives to park authorities and rejected this. The panel concluded that the best way to ensure that local interests were taken
  1580
  into account by the authorities was through increasing the proportion of district council representatives. As originally drafted, the Bill did this by increasing district council membership from one-seventh to one-third, and requiring that wherever possible local authority members should represent wards within the park. Furthermore, the Bill already requires park authorities formally to liaise with the parish councils in their areas. This will best be done through the parish fora. I believe it is the best way of ensuring that national park authorities are in touch with the views of the local community.
  I had hoped that the Government would have been able to stick to the formula recommended by Edwards. That formula was carefully debated in the context of my Private Member's Bill, whose provisions were in turn reflected in the drafting of this Bill. I am therefore most disappointed that the Government have brought forward changes which could diminish the national and regional interest in the parks and which appear to undermine the role of the district councils. I hope that, when responding to my amendments, my noble friend the Minister will, even if he cannot accept them, be able to offer some reassurance on the following points. First, will he assure the House that when any appointments are made by the Secretary of State to a national park authority, the individuals appointed will be carefully selected in order to reflect the best possible mix of interests relevant to a national park?
  Secondly, will he confirm that the "non-parish" Secretary of State appointees will be chosen specifically to represent the national interest in the statutory purposes of the national parks, and that they will have the relevant expertise? Thirdly, will he undertake to ensure that all appointees will be fully informed as to the purposes for which the parks were originally designated? I beg to move.
  Moved, that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 203 but do propose Amendment No. 203A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Norrie.)
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I share the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Nome, and I wish to add one or two of my own. I understand that these changes were made quite suddenly and with little consultation. Among the few people who were consulted, there was considerable opposition to the Government's proposals.
  What worries me most is that there seems to be no limit to the length of time a parish representative appointed by the Secretary of State may serve. It is considered by one or two of those who know about these matters that the Secretary of State may find that he cannot end that appointment, so that the authority will become a quango, but a quango without an end because the Secretary of State cannot end what he has begun. It would be helpful if the Minister could at least clarify that point. At present the Secretary of State's appointees representing the national interest must serve a minimum of one year and a maximum of three. It seems unreasonable to replace them with open-ended appointments.
  The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, explained the main anxiety concerning losing sight of the national interest. I hope that the Minister will be able to demonstrate that that has not been lost sight of in all the pressure that has been

  1581
  put on the Government to represent local interests perhaps beyond what is reasonable in the context of the national parks.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley:My Lords, the Edwards formula was arrived at after a great deal of consultation. It is well known. It was agreed by all the organisations with an interest in the national parks. It strikes a balance between three different but complementary interests—national, regional and local—and it underlines the national importance of the parks. The new proposals do not. They provide a formula which appears to have been cobbled together at very short notice. It is difficult to understand, and it is questionable whether it will achieve what the Government intend.
  The proposals have been opposed totally by organisations with an interest in the parks, with the exception of the parish councils which benefit directly, and even some of those have reservations about them.
  This is a retrograde step on the part of the Government. It is certainly not an improvement. I hope that at this late stage at the very least the noble Earl will be able to answer satisfactorily the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
  The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I appreciate that the Government responded to general disquiet about the lack of a local democratic base in national parks. As someone who has business interests as a landowner and employer in a national park, I feel that acutely. There are important reasons why that issue needed to be addressed which were perhaps not so apparent at the time of the Edwards Report. Increasingly, we are moving towards all-purpose national park authorities. They are taking on board planning powers. As they take on those planning powers they acquire an enormously important role which is crucial to the economic well-being and the lives of those who live and work in national parks.
  An example was quoted to me by a neighbouring landowner of mine in Exmoor some time ago in relation to the problems resulting from the breaching of the shingle beach at Porlock Bay. The nearest member of the national park authority had to come from Bridgwater to attend a meeting. That was the only person who was available. That simply will not do. It is not acceptable that on matters which affect national parks—which admittedly affect the national interest—the legitimate aspirations of those who live and work and have an investment in the long-term future of national parks (and also have to take responsibility for that investment) should be represented only indirectly. One hopes that as a result of the Bill the situation will improve, but appointees from local authorities are not directly responsible to an electorate with an interest in the national park.
  The problem was brought into sharper focus by a recent experience of mine. I referred earlier today to having been involved in the Exmoor National Park local plan inquiry. The Exmoor National Park authority made it clear to me that it was not the organisation responsible for economic development. It was also not the housing authority. When I looked at the draft local plan for the West Somerset district, part of which is also in the Exmoor National Park, I found that the area covered by that document excluded
  1582
  all of the part of the district within the national park boundary. In other words, there is a policy void. There is one local authority in the national park which says that it is not its business to do various things—and I accept that up to a point—and another authority says that the area is not within the footprint of its local plan.
  There are serious problems which need to be addressed. They cannot be addressed simply by having appointees from outside who can allow the policy void to pass from one authority to the other. It is very important that parish councils, which are probably the closest to people in the sparsely populated rural areas, have a role to play. The response which the Government have sought to put in place here is right and proper. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on that point.
  According to the responses that I saw to the consultation document, views were sought only from county and district authorities and none was sought from anyone else. That is regrettable.
  I support the Commons amendment. I believe that giving parishes a say in the manner proposed is extremely helpful.
  8.45 p.m.
  Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and my noble friend Lady Nicol. It seems to me that the representation which was proposed in the Bill was very fair. District councils should be able to represent the views of local people. There must be a district councillor who represents the area. The unfairness of what is proposed is manifest in the representations that we have received.
  I should like to ask the Minister why this change was made at this very late stage. I cannot understand why it should have been because the matter was agreed at earlier stages of the Bill. It has been widely discussed. It seems to me an extraordinary thing to have happened. I hope that we can have a clear explanation.
  Lord Wise: My Lords, I too share the concern of my noble friend Lord Norrie regarding the change in the membership arrangements. I am not at all certain that the change in the membership arrangements of the authorities is the best way to increase local representation on the park authorities. I agree entirely with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that it is important that the parish councils are consulted, but the Bill already provides for greater parish representation as it requires formal mechanisms in each park for consulting every parish council. That is vitally important.
  In addition, there is a danger that in the race to increase local representation the Government may have neglected to put on record the importance of the other categories of membership. It would be helpful if my noble friend the Minister could assure the House that the national parks are still considered to be of national and regional importance and that the arrangements for appointing members to represent the national interest will reflect that importance. I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norrie.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I find the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, opposes very surprising. We discussed in great detail the membership of park authorities when the Bill was before

  1583
  your Lordships and before it went to another place. We now find that another place has produced an amendment which does not apply to Welsh national parks. In Wales we do not have parish councils because the Church in Wales was disestablished in 1921 and parish councils became community councils. Therefore the provision applies only to England.
  As regards the Government's proposals, there is a clear difference between what is happening in England and what is happening in Wales. In Wales we shall have the Bill exactly as drafted before it went to another place. The English are being asked to accept parish councillors.
  No other planning authority that I can think of has representation from parish councils—neither county councils nor district councils. So far as I can understand, this is the first time in the history of planning legislation in England that there will be appointments by the Secretary of State on the basis that someone is a member of a parish council.
  First, if noble Lords will be good enough to consider Amendment No. 205, they might have great difficulty in understanding it. Amendment No. 205 states:
  "A person shall not be appointed as a parish member of an English National Park authority unless he is (a) a member of the parish council for a parish the whole or any part of which is comprised in the relevant Park; or (b) the chairman of the parish meeting of a parish",
  and so on. The amendment defines what a chairman is and what happens if a chairman gives up his authority as a chairman of a parish council during a period of office when he is appointed to an English national park authority.
  It is a most obscure piece of drafting. I am sure that the noble Earl knows better than I do how parish councils work in England. I understand that the reason for the provision is for local people to be on national park authorities. How anyone can rely on any of this provision for a proper representation defies me.
  Secondly, district councils which will be represented on national park authorities in Wales and England are comprised of people who are on parish councils. Therefore anyone who is on a parish council and a district council may well have dual authority. That seems to me to be very odd.
  Thirdly, what about the interests of other people who should be represented? Millions of people who live in urban areas like to go to national parks. These are national parks. The regional context of the park is important, as is the national interest. Why does the Secretary of State—the reference is to the Secretary of State for the Environment, not to the Secretary of State for Wales—select someone who just happens to be on a parish council to serve on a national park authority which is a national asset and is defined as such?
  Until the Government can give us better justification for what they propose I am afraid that I have to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
  Lord Walpole: My Lords, before the Minister responds, perhaps I may make one point. I differ from my noble friend Lord Lytton, and I think that it is probably because of our experiences. The Minister will know the Broads Authority as well as I do. There does not appear to be a problem of consultation. So far as I am aware no
  1584
  parish councillor other than one who happens to serve on a district council has ever served on the Broads Authority. I have always believed that the Broads Authority was a shining example of how a national park authority should be run.
  Because consultation regarding the Broads Authority in the past has been good, and that in Exmoor has been bad, I believe that some bad legislation is being brought in.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Wise that national parks have both a national and regional interest and membership should reflect that. What I find difficult to understand is the great feeling that parish councillors should not be part of that involvement.
  I was glad when the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, disagreed with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norrie. I felt that he and I were on the same track because I disagree with it too. I believe that my noble friend's concern was that our amendments to the membership of the new national park authorities will weaken the role of those members who are appointed by the Secretary of State to represent the wider national interest in the park. I can understand the concern of my noble friend Lord Norrie. Bringing the wider national viewpoint into the deliberations of the new authorities remains a vital element in the continued care and protection of the parks. However, I do not think that the revised membership which we now propose will weaken that.
  It is no surprise that the way in which local people influence the management of national parks should have taken up a large proportion of the time we spent discussing Part III of the Bill. We have always emphasised the importance of giving local people the opportunity to make their views known and to have a real input in park affairs. They are national parks and I cannot understand the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asking, "Why should these people in the locality be taken as more representative than everyone else when it comes to national parks?"
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene. The local people—a rather dismissive term—have a perfect right to elect their representatives on district councils which, in the original Edwards formula, are part of a national park authority. But it is not a question of parish councils.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord states that it is not a question of parish councils; I suggest that it is. We suggest that parish councils should have an involvement in the matter. We believe that those aims are best and most practically achieved by the proposals which are given effect to by Amendments Nos. 203 to 209 which my noble friend Lord Norrie does not care for. I believe that these amendments will enable a proper balance to be achieved between the local authorities with the wider national interest, and the particular concerns of those who actually live and work in the parks.
  In making his appointments, the Secretary of State will continue to select individuals for their personal qualities and experience and not as representatives of specific groups or organisations. While he expects his members to have regard to the interests of all who are concerned with a specific park, his primary concern is that they should

  1585
  bring to the authorities' deliberations the wider national viewpoint. Candidates already come from a wide range of backgrounds and interests. They are made up of farmers, business people, conservationists and representatives of a wide variety of leisure activities as well as those with a more general interest in the countryside and national parks in particular.
  The Secretaries of State will continue to be advised on those national appointments by the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales which provide an independent input to the selection process and whose advice has always been valuable. We also make clear that parish members are to be appointed to represent the wider park view and not just the interests of their own parish. I do not think that these proposals reduce the importance of local authority members on the new authorities. I can assure your Lordships that these amendments do not change the principles enshrined in the Bill either that every principal council with land in the parks will be entitled to have at least one member on the new authorities, or that they will continue to have a majority of the membership.
  I do not think that the role of the Secretary of State's "own" appointees will be diluted. My noble friend Lord Norrie was concerned that familiarity with the purposes of the national parks and the interests of those whom they represent might not be adequate. We would encourage the countryside agencies, in consultation with the national park authorities, to ensure that all new members are familiar with the workings of the national parks and their purposes.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was concerned that there was no limit to the number of parish member appointments. Amendment No. 205 limits the term of parish member appointments to the term of their appointment as parish councillors.
  The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was worried that the consultation exercise was restricted to local authorities. The exercise followed the normal procedure for such exercises. There was no hesitation in the willingness of other bodies to respond. The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked why the amendments had been produced so late. The issue of local representation has been raised at every stage of the Bill. It was the intention, which was announced at Second Reading in another place, to introduce amendments and the arguments were introduced at the first opportunity after the consultation exercise was completed.
  The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was concerned about the Welsh national park authorities. Because of commitments which have already been made in respect of the membership of the national park boards being established under the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and the circular letters which had already been issued for consultations about establishing Welsh national park authorities, the Secretary of State for Wales proposes to leave unchanged the provisions for membership of the national park authorities as they apply to Wales.
  It is no surprise that the way in which local people influence the management of national parks should have taken up a large proportion of the time which has been spent in discussing Part III of the Bill. We have always
  1586
  emphasised the importance of giving local people the opportunity to make their views known and to have a real input into park affairs. I believe that that is best done by the amendments which the Commons has agreed to, and I hope that your Lordships will agree with them.
  9 p.m.
  Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, he has not answered my question. There were months and months of consultation after the Edwards Report and the membership was not questioned until, as the noble Earl said, it was mentioned at Second Reading in another place. It seems to me that we need an explanation of why there should have been such a big change at this late moment.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that it was a late moment. Obviously one has consultations, views fluctuate, thoughts are exchanged and eventually one reaches a conclusion. When that happens at Second Reading, I do not believe that it is the latest stage. It happened after due consideration.
  Lord Vinson: My Lords, there is a tendency to think that because Edwards said it, it is written in stone. There are many other points of view besides those of Professor Edwards, worthy though his may be. The whole point of this debate is to bring up sensible alternatives. He was a single issue man and this debate has broadened the discussion. As a result, the law will be much better.
  Lord Norrie: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his reply. I hope that he agrees that this debate has at least been useful to remind ourselves of the three components of the national park authorities' membership. I shall study his reply tomorrow. However, I wonder whether he could clarify one more point. Will the draft guidance covering membership arrangements be produced? Will there be an opportunity to comment on the arrangements before the draft is finalised? I shall wait for the reply, if the Minister is in a position to answer, before saying what I shall do.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend need not necessarily wait for my reply. I am always in a position to be able to answer. It is merely a question of whether a reply will be more accurate with further time for consideration. The noble Baroness, Lady David, does not seem to like to give that. I believe that the answer is in the affirmative.
  Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful reply. I do not wish to prolong the proceedings and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment No. 203A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 203, by leave, withdrawn.

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 203
  203B Leave out ("as may be specified in the relevant order of the number of members of the authority to he appointed by the Secretary of State shall be") and insert ("of").
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 203B which is grouped with my Amendments Nos. 203C, 204B and 205B to 205K. The main amendment in the group is Amendment No. 205B; the others are consequential.

  1587
  In moving the amendment, I ask your Lordships to consider the question of democracy. The proposal for the election of parish councillors—that is elections by the electorate from among parish councillors—is not the first choice of myself or these Benches for the appropriate way to appoint or constitute the national park authorities. The amendment is an attempt to inject an element of democracy rather than extending "quangodom" and failing notably to enhance accountability.
  The parish councillors will be appointed, as the Government propose, as other members of quangos, even though no doubt they will have their own priorities. The Government's proposals do not improve democratic accountability to any significant extent. The number of elected members—the number of members who can serve with a mandate because they have been elected by the local community—is cut; and the parish councillors will owe their places to the Secretary of State. I accept that this would not be the first choice of approach, but at this late stage my amendment attempts at least to include an element of democracy. I beg to move.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 203B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 203, be agreed to.—(Baroness Hamwee.)
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can understand the noble Baroness's desire to introduce an element of democracy into all this. I am surprised that she did not try to import a bit of proportional representation, too, while she was about it.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I sometimes recognise defeat before it comes and hits me in the face.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in that case, there is not much point in my answering the noble Baroness's amendment. However, it would be discourteous of me not to do so. I understand her desire to try to introduce some form of democracy. She wants to introduce a requirement that parishes wholly or partly within the parks should form one voting body for the purposes of electing parish members to the new authorities.
  In arriving at our own proposals in Amendments Nos. 203 to 209, we considered the option that parish members for each national park authority should be identified through some form of electoral process rather than be appointed by the Secretary of State. I can understand the noble Baroness's view. We are together in that. However, in the end we felt that it would be impossible to impose on parishes the requirement to hold elections in order to identify the parish members in the absence of any existing mechanisms that could be adapted for the purpose.
  We are aware that some parks have parish fora which might be responsible for running elections in their parks. In other parks, however, there may be no agreed organisation which could undertake the task of running an election; nor might the parishes agree on the process to be adopted or on when elections should be held. We therefore concluded that amending the Bill to require parish members to be elected could not be done without also drawing up a complete new set of provisions governing the conduct of those elections. We came to the conclusion that to try to amend the Bill at this stage
  1588
  to make such a provision would have been a very complex task. Instead, we opted for the simpler, more practical, route of appointment by the Secretary of State. We have made it perfectly clear, however, that we should be more than content for parishes in each park to decide collectively the nominations to be put before my right honourable friend.
  Nor will the Secretary of State have discretion over the terms of their appointments. Amendment No. 205 provides for parish members to hold office from the time of their appointment until they cease to be members of their parish councils. If they are re-elected to their parish councils, they will also be eligible for reappointment to the national park authorities, provided their names are again put before the Secretary of State.
  I understand the intention that underlies the noble Baroness's amendment, but I do not believe that at this stage in the Bill's progress it would be suitable. As I have tried to explain, we have done the best we can without proposing a whole new set of regulations to say how elections should be conducted. We decided to use a system that will make sure that parish councillors are appointed but will ensure that people in the parishes have the right and the duty to put before the Secretary of State those whom they believe will be most suitable for appointment.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wish that I had proposed election by proportional representation, by single transferable vote. It would have answered most of the points that the Minister used to defend the Government's failure to bite the bullet—a bullet that they seem to accept as a real one—and to incorporate a provision for election. I am surprised. It has not seemed to me that on other occasions it has been beyond the wit of the Government to impose the sort of arrangements that would be necessary to provide for such an election.
  My amendment would have met a point that was made in the previous debate by providing a period of years during which the elected councillors might serve. It is very unhealthy for democracy to allow the position to arise whereby an individual can continue to hold an appointed office for years and years. I have no doubt that many parish councillors do hold their offices for many years. If that is allowed to happen, one gets sucked into the system. Periodically putting oneself up for re-election and having one's position validated is, frankly, a very good thing indeed. However, sadly, at this point in the Bill I fear that we shall make no further progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 203B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 203, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 203C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No.203, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  204 Schedule 7, page 150, line 2, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 4 and insert '—

  (a) as respects any National Park authority for a National Park in England, he two less than the number of local authority members specified in the order: and

  1589

  (b) as respects any National Park authority for a National Park in Wales, be equal to half the number of local authority members specified in the order.

  (4) As respects any National Park authority for a National Park in England, the number specified in the relevant order as the number of parish members to be appointed by the Secretary of State shall be one less than one half of the total number of the members of the authority to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
  (5) Accordingly—

  (a) in the case of a National Park authority for a National Park in England, the effect of the relevant order shall be such that the total number of members of the authority will be an even number which is not a whole number multiple of four; and

  (b) in the case of a National Park authority for a National Park in Wales, the number of local authority members specified in the relevant order shall be an even number.'.

  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 204.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 204.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  [Amendment No. 204A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 204, not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 204B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 204, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  9.15 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  205 Schedule 7, page 151, leave out line 4 and insert:
  'Parish members of English National Park authorities
  2A.—(1) The parish members of an English National Park authority shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
  (2) A person shall not be appointed as a parish member of an English National Park authority unless he is

  (a) a member of the parish council for a parish the whole or any part of which is comprised in the relevant Park; or

  (b) the chairman of the parish meeting of a parish—

  (i) which does not have a separate parish council; and

  (ii) the whole or any part of which is comprised in the relevant Park.

  (3) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, where a person who qualifies for his appointment by virtue of his membership of a parish council, is appointed as a parish member of an English National Park authority, he shall hold office from the time of his appointment until he ceases to be a member of that parish council.
  (4) Sub-paragraph (3) above shall have effect so as to terminate the term of office of a person who on retiring from any parish council immediately becomes such a member again as a newly elected councillor; but a person who so becomes a member again shall be eligible for re-appointment to the National Park authority.
  (5) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, where a person who qualifies for his appointment by virtue of his being the chairman of a parish meeting, is appointed as a parish member of an English National Park authority, he shall hold office from the time of his appointment until he ceases to be the chairman of that parish meeting.
  (6) Sub-paragraph (5) above shall have effect so as to terminate the term of office of a person who is elected to succeed himself as chairman of any parish meeting; but a person who so becomes the chairman again shall be eligible for re-appointment to the National Park authority.
  (7) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, a parish member of an English National Park authority shall hold office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
  (8) In this paragraph, "English National Park authority" means a National Park authority for a National Park in England.
  Members (other than parish members) appointed by the Secretary of State'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 205.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 205.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  [Amendment No. 205A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 205, not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 205B to 205K, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 205, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  206 Schedule 7, page 151, line 22, at end insert:
  '(5) This paragraph shall not apply to persons appointed as parish members of a National Park authority for a National Park in England or to their appointment as such members.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 206.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 206.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  [Amendment No. 206A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 206, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  207 Schedule 7, page 151, line 44, after 'him' insert other than any parish member of a National Park authority for a National Park in England,'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 207.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 207.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  [Amendment No. 207A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 207, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  208 Schedule 7, page 151, line 48, at end insert:
  '(3) The Secretary of State may remove from office any parish member of a National Park authority for a National Park in England either—

  (a) by giving that member such written notice of the termination of his appointment as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; or

  (b) in such other manner as may be provided for in the terms of that member's appointment;

  1591
  but a parish member shall only be removed from office in the manner mentioned in paragraph (a) above where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so in consequence of the provisions of any order for varying either the area of the relevant Park or the number of parish members of the National Park authority in question.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 208.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 208.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  [Amendment No. 208A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 208, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  209 Schedule 7, page 152, line 10, after 'represented;' insert:
  '(cc) as respects a National Park authority for a National Park in England—

  (i) any parish council for, or parish meeting of, a parish the whole or any part of which is comprised in the relevant Park;

  (ii) any committee or sub-committee of any such parish council or any committee of any such parish meeting; or

  (iii) any joint committee on which any such parish council or parish meeting is represented;'.

  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 209.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 209.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  [Amendment No. 209A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 209, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  210 Schedule 7, page 152, line 26, after 'from' insert "'of.
  211 Page 155, line 7, at beginning insert '(a)'.
  212 Page 155, line 9, at end insert 'or
  (b) if the relevant Park is in Wales, any appointment—

  (i) which was made under that paragraph in relation to any such area, and

  (ii) which was adopted by a National Park planning board, as defined in section 61 of this Act, by virtue of an order under paragraph 3A of Schedule 17 to the 1972 Act or section 2(1B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.'.

  213 Page 155, line 14, at end insert:
  '() Sub-paragraph (3) above shall not apply in relation to the adoption of an appointment under this paragraph in relation to a National Park in Wales in any case where—

  (a) the National Park authority in question is the National Park authority in relation to that National Park by virtue of an order under section 60 of this Act made by virtue of section 61(1) of this Act;

  (b) the appointment in question was made or adopted by the body corporate which has so become that National Park authority, but in its capacity as the National Park planning board, as defined in section 61 of this Act, for the area of the National Park in question; and

  (c) no additional responsibilities are, on the occasion of the adoption of the appointment, to be assigned to the person holding the appointment.'.

  214 Schedule 10, page 165, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 166 and insert:
  `() For section 88 of that Act (application to areas of outstanding natural beauty of provisions relating to National Parks) there shall be substituted—
  "Functions of certain bodies in relation to areas of outstanding natural beauty.
  88.—(1) The following provisions of this Act, that is to say—

  (a) paragraph (e) of subsection (4) of section six,

  (b) section nine,

  (c) subsection (1) of section sixty-two,

  (d) subsection (5) of section sixty-four, and

  (e) subsections (5) and (5A) of section sixty-five,

  shall apply in relation to areas of outstanding natural beauty as they apply in relation to National Parks.
  (2) In paragraph (e) of subsection (4) of section six of this Act as it applies by virtue of the last foregoing subsection, the expression "appropriate planning authority" means a local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of an area of outstanding natural beauty and includes a local authority, not being a local planning authority, by whom any powers of a local planning authority as respects an area of outstanding natural beauty are exercisable, whether under this Act or otherwise.
  (3) The provisions of section 4A of this Act shall apply to the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section for the purposes of their application to areas of outstanding natural beauty as the provisions of the said section 4A apply for the purposes of Part II of this Act.
  (4) A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of an area of outstanding natural beauty shall have power, subject to the following provisions of this section, to take all such action as appears to them expedient for the accomplishment of the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty or so much thereof as is included in their area.
  (5) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the generality of the last foregoing subsection; but in so far as the provisions of this Act confer specific powers falling within that subsection those powers shall be exercised in accordance with those provisions and subject to any limitations expressed or implied therein.
  (6) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by this Act, subsection (4) of this section shall have effect only for the purpose of removing any limitation imposed by law on the capacity of a local planning authority by virtue of its constitution, and shall not authorise any act or omission on the part of such an authority which apart from that subsection would be actionable at the suit of any person on any ground other than such a limitation.".'.
  215 Page 167, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
  216 Page 167, line 46, leave out 'in paragraph (b) of subsection (1)' and insert:

  '(a) at the beginning of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to section 65 of the Environment Act 1995 (planning authority functions under National Parks legislation to be functions of National Park authorities in certain cases),"; and

  (b) in paragraph (b) of that subsection,'.

  217 Page 167, line 48, at end insert:
  '() In subsection (3) of that section, for the words "sections 9 and 11" there shall he substituted the words "section 9".'.
  218 Page 168, leave out lines 1 to 4.
  219 Page 177, line 11, leave out '2' and insert '1, at the beginning of the subsection which that paragraph substitutes for subsection (1) of section 184 of the 1972 Act, there shall be inserted the words "Subject to section 65 of the Environment Act 1995 (planning authority functions under National Parks legislation to be functions of National Park authorities in certain cases),".
  (2) In paragraph 2 of that Schedule,'.
  220 After Schedule 10, insert the following Schedule:—

  'SCHEDULE AIR QUALITY: SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS
  Consultation requirements
  1.—(1) A local authority in carrying out its functions in relation to—

  (a) any air quality review,

  (b) any assessment under section (Local authority reviews) or (Duties of local authorities in relation to designated areas) of this Act, or

  (c) the preparation of an action plan or any revision of an action plan,

  shall consult such other persons as fall within sub-paragraph (2) below.
  (2) Those persons are—

  (a) the Secretary of State;

  (b) the appropriate new Agency;

  (c) in England and Wales, the highway authority for any highway in the area to which the review or, as the case may be, the action plan or revision relates;

  (d) every local authority whose area is contiguous to the authority's area;

  (e) any county council in England whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of the authority's area;

  (f) any National Park authority for a National Park whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of the authority's area;

  (g) such public authorities exercising functions in, or in the vicinity of, the authority's area as the authority may consider appropriate;

  (h) such bodies appearing to the authority to be representative of persons with business interests in the area to which the review or action plan in question relates as the authority may consider appropriate;

  (j) such other bodies or persons as the authority may consider appropriate.

  (3) In this paragraph "National Park authority", subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, means a National Park authority established under section 60 of this Act which has become the local planning authority for the National Park in question.
  (4) As respects any period before a National Park authority established under section 60 of this Act in relation to a National Park becomes the local planning authority for that National Park, any reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to a National Park authority shall be taken as a reference to the National Park Committee or joint or special planning board for that National Park.
  Exchange of information with county councils in England
  2.—(1) This paragraph applies in any case where a district in England for which there is a district council is comprised in an area for which there is a county council; and in this paragraph—

  (a) any reference to the county council is a reference to the council of that area; and

  (b) any reference to a district council is a reference to the council of a district comprised in that area.

  (2) It shall be the duty of the county council to provide a district council with all such information as is reasonably requested by the district council for purposes connected with the carrying out of its functions under or by virtue of this Part.
  (3) It shall be the duty of a district council to provide the county council with all such information as is reasonably requested by the county council for purposes connected with the carrying out of any of its functions relating to the assessment or management of the quality of air.
  (4) Information provided to a district council or county council under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above shall be provided in such form and in such manner and at such times as the district council or, as the case may be, the county council may reasonably require.
  (5) A council which provides information under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above shall be entitled to recover the reasonable cost of doing so from the council which requested the information.
  (6) The information which a council may be required to provide under this paragraph shall include information which, although it is not in the possession of the council or would not otherwise come into the possession of the council, is information which it is reasonable to require the council to obtain.
  Joint exercise of local authority functions
  3.—(1) The appropriate authority may give directions to any two or more local authorities requiring them to exercise the powers conferred by—

  (a) section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 (power of two or more local authorities to discharge functions jointly), or

  (b) section 56(5) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (which makes similar provision for Scotland),

  in relation to functions under or by virtue of this Part in accordance with the directions.
  (2) The appropriate authority may give directions to a local authority requiring it—

  (a) not to exercise those powers, or

  (b) not to exercise those powers in a manner specified in the directions,

  in relation to functions under or by virtue of this Part.
  (3) Where two or more local authorities have exercised those powers in relation to functions under or by virtue of this Part, the appropriate authority may give them directions requiring them to revoke, or modify in accordance with the directions, the arrangements which they have made.
  (4) In this paragraph, "the appropriate authority" means—

  (a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State; and

  (b) in relation to Scotland, SEPA acting with the approval of the Secretary of State.

  Public access to information about air quality
  4.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority—

  (a) to secure that there is available at all reasonable times for inspection by the public free of charge a copy of each of the documents specified in sub-paragraph (2) below; and

  (b) to afford to members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of those documents on payment of a reasonable charge.

  (2) The documents mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (a) above are—

  (a) a report of the results of any air quality review which the authority has caused to be conducted:

  (b) a report of the results of any assessment which the authority has caused to be made under section (Local authority reviews) or (Duties of local authorities in relation to designated areas) of this Act;

  1595

  (c) any order made by the authority under section (Designation of air quality management reas) of this Act;

  (d) any action plan prepared by the authority;

  (e) any proposals or statements submitted to the authority pursuant to subsection (3) or (4) of section (Functions of county councils for areas for which there are district councils) of this Act;

  (f) any directions given to the authority under this Part;

  (g) in a case where section (Functions of county councils for areas for which there are district councils) of this Act applies, any directions given to the county council under this Part.

  Fixed penalty offences
  5.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (o) of subsection (2) of section (Regulations for the purposes of Part (Air Quality)) of this Act, regulations may, in particular, make provision—

  (a) for the qualifications, appointment or authorisation of persons who are to issue fixed penalty notices;

  (b) for the offences in connection with which, the cases or circumstances in which, the time or period at or within which, or the manner in which fixed penalty notices may he issued;

  (c) prohibiting the institution, before the expiration of the period for paying the fixed penalty, of proceedings against a person for an offence in connection with which a fixed penalty notice has been issued;

  (d) prohibiting the conviction of a person for an offence in connection with which a fixed penalty notice has been issued if the fixed penalty is paid before the expiration of the period for paying it;

  (e) entitling, in prescribed cases, a person to whom a fixed penalty notice is issued to give, within a prescribed period, notice requesting a hearing in respect of the offence to which the fixed penalty notice relates;

  (f) for the amount of the fixed penalty to be increased by a prescribed amount in any case where the person liable to pay the fixed penalty fails to pay it before the expiration of the period for paying it, without having given notice requesting a hearing in respect of the offence to which the fixed penalty notice relates;

  (g) for or in connection with the recovery of an unpaid fixed penalty as a fine or as a civil debt or as if it were a sum payable under a county court order;

  (h) for or in connection with execution or other enforcement in respect of an unpaid fixed penalty by prescribed persons;

  (j) for a fixed penalty notice, and any prescribed proceedings or other prescribed steps taken by reference to the notice, to be rendered void in prescribed cases where a person makes a prescribed statutory declaration, and for the consequences of any notice, proceedings or other steps being so rendered void (including extension of any time limit for instituting criminal proceedings);

  (k) for or in connection with the extension, in prescribed cases or circumstances, by a prescribed person of the period for paying a fixed penalty;

  (l) for or in connection with the withdrawal, in prescribed circumstances, of a fixed penalty notice, including—

  (i) repayment of any amount paid by way of fixed penalty in pursuance of a fixed penalty notice which is withdrawn; and

  1596

  (ii) prohibition of the institution or continuation of proceedings for the offence in connection with which the withdrawn notice was issued;

  (m) for or in connection with the disposition of sums received by way of fixed penalty;

  (n) for a certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of a prescribed person and stating either—

  (i) that payment of a fixed penalty was, or (as the case may be) was not, received on or before a date specified in the certificate, or

  (ii) that an envelope containing an amount sent by post in payment of a fixed penalty was marked as posted on a date specified in the certificate,

  to be received as evidence of the matters so stated and to be treated, without further proof, as being so signed unless the contrary is shown;

  (o) requiring a fixed penalty notice to give such reasonable particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the fixed penalty offence to which the notice relates as are necessary for giving reasonable information of the offence and to state—

  (i) the monetary amount of the fixed penalty which may be paid;

  (ii) the person to whom, and the address at which, the fixed penalty may be paid and any correspondence relating to the fixed penalty notice may be sent;

  (iii) the method or methods by which payment of the fixed penalty may be made;

  (iv) the period for paying the fixed penalty;

  (v) the consequences of the fixed penalty not being paid before the expiration of that period;

  (oo) similar to any provision made by section 79 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (statements by constables in fixed penalty cases);

  (op) for presuming, in any proceedings, that any document of a prescribed description purporting to have been signed by a person to whom a fixed penalty notice has been issued has been signed by that person;

  (p) requiring or authorising a fixed penalty notice to contain prescribed information relating to, or for the purpose of facilitating, the administration of the fixed penalty system;

  (q) with respect to the giving of fixed penalty notices, including, in particular, provision with respect to—

  (i) the methods by which,

  (ii) the officers, servants or agents by, to or on whom, and

  (iii) the places at which,

  fixed penalty notices may be given by, or served on behalf of, a prescribed person;

  (r) prescribing the method or methods by which fixed penalties may be paid;

  (s) for or with respect to the issue of prescribed documents to persons to whom fixed penalty notices are or have been given;

  (t) for a fixed penalty notice to be treated for prescribed purposes as if it were an information or summons or any other document of a prescribed description.

  (2) The provision that may be made by regulations prescribing fixed penalty offences includes provision for an offence to be a fixed penalty offence—

  (a) only if it is committed in such circumstances or manner as may be prescribed; or

  (b) except if it is committed in such circumstances or manner as may be prescribed.

  (3) Regulations may provide for any offence which is a fixed penalty offence to cease to be such an offence.
  (4) An offence which, in consequence of regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) above, has ceased to be a fixed penalty offence shall be eligible to be prescribed as such an offence again.
  (5) Regulations may make provision for such exceptions, limitations and conditions as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient.
  (6) In this paragraph—

  "fixed penalty" means a penalty of such amount as may be prescribed (whether by being specified in, or made calculable under, regulations);

  "fixed penalty notice" means a notice offering a person an opportunity to discharge any liability to conviction for a fixed penalty offence by payment of a penalty of a prescribed amount;

  "fixed penalty offence" means, subject to sub-paragraph (2) above, any offence (whether under or by virtue of this Part or any other enactment) which is for the time being prescribed as a fixed penalty offence;

  "the fixed penalty system" means the system implementing regulations made under or by virtue of paragraph (o) of subsection (2) of section (Regulations for the purposes of Part (Air Quality)) of this Act;

  "the period for paying", in relation to any fixed penalty, means such period as may be prescribed for the purpose;

  "regulations" means regulations under or by virtue of paragraph (o) of subsection (2) of section (Regulations for the purposes of Part (Air Quality)) of this Act.'.

  221 After Schedule 11, insert the following Schedule:—

  'SCHEDULE REVIEW OF OLD MINERAL PLANNING PERMISSIONS
  Interpretation
  1.—(1) In this Schedule—

  "dormant site" means a Phase I or Phase II site in, on or under which no minerals development has been carried out to any substantial extent at any time in the period beginning on 22nd February 1982 and ending with 6th June 1995 otherwise than by virtue of a planning permission which is not a relevant planning permission relating to the site;

  "first list", in relation to a mineral planning authority, means the list prepared by them pursuant to paragraph 3 below;

  "mineral planning authority"—

  (a) as respects England and Wales, means a mineral planning authority within the meaning of the 1990 Act, and

  (b) as respects Scotland, means a planning authority for the purposes of the 1972 Act;

  "mineral site" has the meaning given by sub-paragraph (2) below;

  "National Park" means an area designated as such under section 5(3) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949;

  "old mining permission" has the meaning given—

  (a) as respects England and Wales, by section 22(1) of the 1991 Act, and

  (b) as respects Scotland, by section 49H(1) of the 1972 Act;

  "owner", in relation to any land—

  (a) as respects England and Wales, means any person who—

  (i) is the estate owner in respect of the fee simple, or

  1598

  (ii) is entitled to a tenancy granted or extended for a term of years certain of which not less than seven years remains unexpired; and

  (b) as respects Scotland, has the meaning given by paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 10A to the 1972 Act;

  "Phase I site" and "Phase II site" have the meaning given by paragraph 2 below;

  "relevant planning permission" means any planning permission, other than an old mining permission or a planning permission granted by a development order, granted after 30th June 1948 for minerals development; and

  "second list", in relation to a mineral planning authority, means the list prepared by them pursuant to paragraph 4 below.

  (2) For the purposes of this Schedule, but subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, "mineral site" means—

  (a) in a case where it appears to the mineral planning authority to be expedient to treat as a single site the aggregate of the land to which any two or more relevant planning permissions relate, the aggregate of the land to which those permissions relate; and

  (b) in any other case, the land to which a relevant planning permission relates.

  (3) In determining whether it appears to them to be expedient to treat as a single site the aggregate of the land to which two or more relevant planning permissions relate a mineral planning authority shall have regard to any guidance issued for the purpose by the Secretary of State.
  (4) Any reference (however expressed) in this Schedule to an old mining permission or a relevant planning permission relating to a mineral site is a reference to the mineral site, or some part of it, being the land to which the permission relates; and where any such permission authorises the carrying out of development consisting of the winning and working of minerals but only in respect of any particular mineral or minerals, that permission shall not be taken, for the purposes of this Schedule, as relating to any other mineral in, on or under the land to which the permission relates.
  (5) For the purposes of this Schedule, a mineral site which is a Phase I site or a Phase II site is active if it is not a dormant site.
  (6) For the purposes of this Schedule, working rights are restricted in respect of a mineral site if any of—

  (a) the size of the area which may be used for the winning and working of minerals or the depositing of mineral waste;

  (b) the depth to which operations for the winning and working of minerals may extend;

  (c) the height of any deposit of mineral waste;

  (d) the rate at which any particular mineral may be extracted;

  (e) the rate at which any particular mineral waste may be deposited;

  (f) the period at the expiry of which any winning or working of minerals or depositing of mineral waste is to cease; or

  (g) the total quantity of minerals which may be extracted from, or of mineral waste which may be deposited on, the site,

  is restricted or reduced in respect of the mineral site in question.
  (7) For the purposes of this Schedule, where an application is made under paragraph 9 below for the determination of the conditions to which the relevant planning permissions relating to the mineral site to which the application relates are to be subject, those conditions are finally determined when—

  1599

  (a) the proceedings on the application, including any proceedings on or in consequence of an application under section 288 of the 1990 Act or, as the case may be, section 233 of the 1972 Act, have been determined, and

  (b) any time for appealing under paragraph 11(1) below, or applying or further applying under paragraph 9 below, (where there is a right to do so) has expired.

  Phase I and II sites
  2.—(1) This paragraph has effect for the purposes of determining which mineral sites are Phase I sites, which are Phase II sites, and which are neither Phase I nor Phase II sites.
  (2) A mineral site is neither a Phase I site nor a Phase II site where—

  (a) all the relevant planning permissions which relate to the site have been granted after 21st February 1982; or

  (b) some only of the relevant planning permissions which relate to the site have been granted after 21st February 1982, and the parts of the site to which those permissions relate constitute the greater part of that site.

  (3) With the exception of those mineral sites which, by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above, are neither Phase I nor Phase II sites, every mineral site is either a Phase I site or a Phase II site.
  (4) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) above, where any part of a mineral site is situated within—

  (a) a National Park;

  (b) a site in respect of which a notification under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (sites of special scientific interest) is in force;

  (c) an area designated under section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an area of outstanding natural beauty;

  (d) an area designated as a National Scenic Area under section 262C of the 1972 Act; or

  (e) an area designated as a Natural Heritage Area under section 6 of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991,

  that site is a Phase I site.
  (5) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where—

  (a) all the relevant planning permissions which relate to a mineral site, and which were not granted after 21st February 1982, were granted after the relevant day in 1969; or

  (b) the parts of a mineral site to which relate such of the relevant planning permissions relating to the site as were granted after the relevant day in 1969 but before 22nd February 1982 constitute a greater part of the site than is constituted by those parts of the site to which no such relevant planning permission relates but to which a relevant planning permission granted on or before the relevant day in 1969 does relate,

  the mineral site is a Phase II site.
  (6) In sub-paragraph (5) above, "the relevant day in 1969" means—

  (a) as respects England and Wales, 31st March 1969; and

  (b) as respects Scotland, 7th December 1969.

  (7) Every other mineral site, that is to say any mineral site other than one—

  (a) which is, by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above, neither a Phase I nor a Phase II site; or

  (b) which is a Phase I site by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) above; or

  (c) which is a Phase II site by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) above,

  1600
  is a Phase I site.
  (8) In ascertaining, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) or (5) above, whether any parts of a mineral site constitute the greater part of that site, or whether a part of a mineral site is greater than any other part, that mineral site shall be treated as not including any part of the site—

  (a) to which an old mining permission relates; or

  (b) which is a part where minerals development has been (but is no longer being) carried out and which has, in the opinion of the mineral planning authority, been satisfactorily restored;

  but no part of a site shall be treated, by virtue of paragraph (b) above, as being not included in the site unless the mineral planning authority are satisfied that any aftercare conditions which relate to that part have, so far as relating to that part, been complied with.
  The "first list"
  3.—(1) A mineral planning authority shall, in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph, prepare a list of mineral sites in their area ("the first list").
  (2) A site shall, but shall only, be included in the first list if it is a mineral site in the area of the mineral planning authority and is either—

  (a) an active Phase I site;

  (b) an active Phase II site; or

  (c) a dormant site.

  (3) In respect of each site included in the first list, the list shall indicate whether the site is an active Phase I site, an active Phase II site or a dormant site.
  (4) In respect of each active Phase I site included in the first list, that list shall specify the date by which an application is to be made to the mineral planning authority under paragraph 9 below.
  (5) Any date specified pursuant to sub-paragraph (4) above shall be a date—

  (a) not earlier than the date upon which expires the period of 12 months from the date on which the first list is first advertised in accordance with paragraph 5 below, and

  (b) not later than the date upon which expires the period of three years from the date upon which the provisions of this Schedule come into force.

  (6) The preparation of the first list shall be completed before the day upon which it is first advertised in accordance with paragraph 5 below.
  The "second list"
  4.—(1) A mineral planning authority shall, in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph, prepare a list of the active Phase II sites in their area ("the second list").
  (2) The second list shall include each mineral site in the mineral planning authority's area which is an active Phase II site.
  (3) In respect of each site included in the second list, that list shall indicate the date by which an application is to be made to the mineral planning authority under paragraph 9 below.
  (4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, any date specified pursuant to sub-paragraph (3) above shall be a date—

  (a) not earlier than the date upon which expires the period of 12 months from the date on which the second list is first advertised in accordance with paragraph 5 below, and

  (b) not later than the date upon which expires the period of six years from the date upon which the provisions of this Schedule come into force.

  (5) The Secretary of State may by order provide that sub-paragraph (4) (b) above shall have effect as if for the period of six years referred to in that paragraph there were substituted such longer period as may be specified in the order.
  (6) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under sub-paragraph (5) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (7) The preparation of the second list shall be completed before the day upon which it is first advertised in accordance with paragraph 5 below.
  Advertisement of the first and second lists
  5.—(1) This paragraph makes provision for the advertisement of the first and second lists prepared by a mineral planning authority.
  (2) The mineral planning authority shall advertise each of the first and second lists by causing to be published, in each of two successive weeks, in one or more newspapers circulating in its area, notice of the list having been prepared.
  (3) In respect of each of those lists, such notice shall—

  (a) state that the list has been prepared by the authority; and

  (b) specify one or more places within the area of the authority at which the list may be inspected, and in respect of each such place specify the times (which shall be reasonable times) during which facilities for inspection of the list will be afforded.

  (4) In respect of the first list, such notice shall—

  (a) be first published no later than the day upon which expires the period of three months from the date upon which the provisions of this Schedule come into force;

  (b) explain the general effect of a mineral site being classified as a dormant site or, as the case may be, as an active Phase I site or an active Phase II site;

  (c) explain the consequences which will occur if no application is made under paragraph 9 below in respect of an active Phase I site included in the list by the date specified in the list for that site;

  (d) explain the effects for any dormant or active Phase I or II site not included in the list of its not being included in the list and—

  (i) set out the right to make an application to the authority for that site to be included in the list;

  (ii) set out the date by which such an application must be made; and

  (iii) state that the owner of such a site has a right of appeal against any decision of the authority upon such an application; and

  (e) explain that the owner of an active Phase I site has a right to apply for postponement of the date specified in the list for the making of an application under paragraph 9 below, and set out the date by which an application for such postponement must be made.

  (5) In respect of the second list, such notice shall—

  (a) be first published no later than the day upon which expires the period of three years, or such longer period as the Secretary of State may by order specify, from the date upon which the provisions of this Schedule come into force; and

  (b) explain the consequences which will occur if no application is made under paragraph 9 below in respect of an active Phase II site included in the list by the date specified in the list for that site.

  (6) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under sub-paragraph (5) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  Applications for inclusion in the first list of sites not included in that list as originally prepared and appeals from decisions upon such applications
  6.—(1) Any person who is the owner of any land, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral, may, if that land or interest is not a mineral site included in the first list and does not form part of any mineral site included in that list, apply to the mineral planning authority for that land or interest to be included in that list.
  (2) An application under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be made no later than the day upon which expires the period of three months from the day when the first list was first advertised in accordance with paragraph 5 above.
  (3) Where the mineral planning authority consider that—

  (a) the land or interest is, or forms part of, any dormant or active Phase I or II site, they shall accede to the application; or

  (b) part only of the land or interest is, or forms part of, any dormant or active Phase I or II site, they shall accede to the application so far as it relates to that part of the land or interest,

  but shall otherwise refuse the application.
  (4) On acceding, whether in whole or in part, to an application made under sub-paragraph (1) above, the mineral planning authority shall amend the first list as follows—

  (a) where they consider that the land or interest, or any part of the land or interest, is a dormant site or an active Phase I or II site, they shall add the mineral site consisting of the land or interest or, as the case may be, that part, to the first list and shall cause the list to indicate whether the site is an active Phase I site, an active Phase II site or a dormant site;

  (b) where they consider that the land or interest, or any part of the land or interest, forms part of any mineral site included in the first list, they shall amend the entry in the first list for that site accordingly.

  (5) Where the mineral planning authority amend the first list in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) above, they shall also—

  (a) in a case where an active Phase I site is added to the first list pursuant to paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph, cause that list to specify, in respect of that site, the date by which an application is to be made to the mineral planning authority under paragraph 9 below;

  (b) in a case where—

  (i) the entry for an active Phase I site included in the first list is amended pursuant to paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph; and

  (ii) the date specified in that list in respect of that site as the date by which an application is to be made to the mineral planning authority under paragraph 9 below is a date falling less than 12 months after the date upon which the authority make their decision upon the application in question,

  cause that date to be amended so as to specify instead the date upon which expires the period of 12 months from the date on which the applicant is notified under sub-paragraph (10) below of the authority's decision upon his application.
  (6) Any date specified pursuant to sub-paragraph (5) (a) above shall be a date—

  (a) not earlier than the date upon which expires the period of 12 months from the date on which the applicant is notified under sub-paragraph (10) below of the mineral planning authority's decision upon his application, and

  (b) not later than the later of—

  1603

  (i) the date upon which expires the period of three years from the date upon which the provisions of this Schedule come into force; and

  (ii) the date mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

  (7) On acceding, whether in whole or in part, to an application made under sub-paragraph (1) above, the mineral planning authority shall, if the second list has been first advertised in accordance with paragraph 5 above prior to the time at which they make their decision on the application, amend the second list as follows—

  (a) where they consider that the land or interest, or any part of the land or interest, is an active Phase II site, they shall add the mineral site consisting of the land or interest or, as the case may be, that part, to the second list;

  (b) where they consider that the land or interest, or any part of the land or interest, forms part of any active Phase II site included in the second list, they shall amend the entry in that list for that site accordingly.

  (8) Where the mineral planning authority amend the second list in accordance with sub-paragraph (7) above, they shall also—

  (a) in a case where an active Phase II site is added to the second list pursuant to paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph, cause that list to specify, in respect of that site, the date by which an application is to be made to the authority under paragraph 9 below;

  (b)in a case where—

  (i) the entry for an active Phase II site included in the second list is amended pursuant to paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph; and

  (ii) the date specified in that list in respect of that site as the date by which an application is to be made to the authority under paragraph 9 below is a date falling less than 12 months after the date upon which the authority make their decision upon the application in question,

  cause that date to be amended so as to specify instead the date upon which expires the period of 12 months from the date on which the applicant is notified under sub-paragraph (10) below of the authority's decision upon his application.
  (9) Any date specified pursuant to sub-paragraph (8) (a) above shall be a date—

  (a) not earlier than the date upon which expires the period of 12 months from the date on which the applicant is notified under sub-paragraph (10) below of the mineral planning authority's decision upon his application, and

  (b)not later than the later of—

  (i) the date upon which expires the period of six years from the date upon which the provisions of this Schedule come into force; and

  (ii) the date mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

  (10) When a mineral planning authority determine an application made under sub-paragraph (1) above, they shall notify the applicant in writing of their decision and, in a case where they have acceded to the application, whether in whole or in part, shall supply the applicant with details of any amendment to be made to the first or second list in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) or (8) above.
  (11) Where a mineral planning authority—

  (a) refuse an application made under sub-paragraph (1) above; or

  (b) accede to such an application only so far as it relates to part of the land or interest in respect of which it was made,

  the applicant may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State.
  (12) A person who has made such an application may also appeal to the Secretary of State if the mineral planning authority have not given notice to the applicant of their
  1604
  decision on the application within eight weeks of their having received the application or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority.
  (13) An appeal under sub-paragraph (11) or (12) above must be made by giving notice of appeal to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of six months beginning with—

  (a) in the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (11) above, the determination; or

  (b) in the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (12) above, the end of the period of eight weeks mentioned in that sub-paragraph or, as the case may be, the end of the extended period mentioned in that sub-paragraph.

  Postponement of the date specified in the, irst or second list for review of the permissions relating to a Phase I or II site in cases where the existing conditions are satisfactory
  7.—(1) Any person who is the owner of any land, or of any interest in any mineral, comprised in—

  (a) an active Phase I site included in the first list; or

  (b) an active Phase II site included in the second list,

  may apply to the mineral planning authority for the postponement of the date specified in that list in respect of that site as the date by which an application is to be made to the authority under paragraph 9 below (in this paragraph referred to as "the specified date").
  (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, an application under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be made no later than the day upon which expires the period of three months from the day when—

  (a) in the case of an active Phase I site, the first list; or

  (b) in the case of an active Phase II site, the second list,

  was first advertised in accordance with paragraph 5 above.
  (3) In the case of—

  (a) an active Phase I site—

  (i) added to the first list in accordance with paragraph 6(4) (a) above; or

  (ii) in respect of which the entry in the first list was amended in accordance with paragraph 6(4) (b) above; or

  (b) an active Phase II site—

  (i) added to the second list in accordance with paragraph 6(7) (a) above; or

  (ii) in respect of which the entry in the second list was amended in accordance with paragraph 6(7) (b) above,

  an application under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be made no later than the day upon which expires the period of three months from the day on which notice was given under paragraph 6(10) above of the mineral planning authority's decision to add the site to or, as the case may be, to so amend the list in question.
  (4) An application under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be in writing and shall—

  (a) set out the conditions to which each relevant planning permission relating to the site is subject;

  (b) set out the applicant's reasons for considering those conditions to be satisfactory;

  (c) set out the date which the applicant wishes to be substituted for the specified date; and

  (d) be accompanied by the appropriate certificate (within the meaning of sub-paragraph (5) or (6) below).

  (5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above, as respects England and Wales the appropriate certificate is such a certificate—

  (a) as would be required, under section 65 of the 1990 Act (notice etc. of applications for planning permission) and any provision of a development

  1605
  order made by virtue of that section, to accompany the application if it were an application for planning permission for minerals development, but

  (b) with such modifications as are required for the purposes of this paragraph,

  and section 65(6) of that Act (offences) shall also have effect in relation to any certificate purporting to be the appropriate certificate.
  (6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above, the appropriate certificate is, as respects Scotland, each of the certificates which would be required, under or by virtue of sections 23 and 24 of the 1972 Act (notice etc. of applications for planning permission), to accompany the application if it were an application for planning permission for minerals development, but with such modifications as are required for the purposes of this paragraph; and sections 23(3) and 24(5) of that Act (offences) shall have effect in relation to any certificate purporting to be the appropriate certificate.
  (7) Where the mineral planning authority receive an application made under sub-paragraph (1) above—

  (a) if they consider the conditions referred to in sub-paragraph (4) (a) above to be satisfactory they shall agree to the specified date being postponed in which event they shall determine the date to be substituted for that date;

  (b) in any other case they shall refuse the application.

  (8) Where the mineral planning authority agree to the specified date being postponed they shall cause the first or, as the case may be, the second list to be amended accordingly.
  (9) When a mineral planning authority determine an application made under sub-paragraph (1) above, they shall notify the applicant in writing of their decision and, in a case where they have agreed to the postponement of the specified date, shall notify the applicant of the date which they have determined should be substituted for the specified date.
  (10) Where, within three months of the mineral planning authority having received an application under sub-paragraph (1) above, or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority, the authority have not given notice, under sub-paragraph (9) above, to the applicant of their decision upon the application, the authority shall be treated as—

  (a) having agred to the specified date being postponed; and

  (b) having determined that the date referred to in sub-paragraph (4) (c) above be substituted for the specified date,

  and sub-paragraph (8) above shall apply accordingly.
  Service on owners etc. of notice of preparation of the first and second lists
  8.—(1) The mineral planning authority shall, no later than the date upon which the first list is first advertised in accordance with paragraph 5 above, serve notice in writing of the first list having been prepared on each person appearing to them to be the owner of any land, or entitled to an interest in any mineral, included within a mineral site included in the first list, but this sub-paragraph is subject to sub-paragraph (7) below.
  (2) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (1) above shall—

  (a) indicate whether the mineral site in question is a dormant site or an active Phase I or II site; and

  (b) where that site is an active Phase I site—

  (i) indicate the date specified in the first list in relation to that site as the date by which an application is to be made to the mineral planning authority under paragraph 9 below;

  (ii) explain the consequences which will occur if such an application is not made by the date so specified; and

  1606

  (iii) explain the right to apply to have that date postponed, and indicate the date by which such an application must be made.

  (3) Where, in relation to any land or mineral included in an active Phase I site, the mineral planning authority—

  (a) has served notice on any person under sub-paragraph (1) above; and

  (b) has received no application under paragraph 9 below from that person by the date falling eight weeks before the date specified in the first list as the date by which such applications should be made in respect of the site in question,

  the authority shall serve a written reminder on that person, and such a reminder shall—

  (i) indicate that the land or mineral in question is included in an active Phase I site;

  (ii) comply with the requirements of sub-paragraph (2) (b) (i) and (ii) above; and

  (iii) be served on that person on or before the date falling four weeks before the date specified in the first list in respect of that site as the date by which an application is to be made to the authority under paragraph 9 below.

  (4) The mineral planning authority shall, no later than the date upon which the second list is first advertised in accordance with paragraph 5 above, serve notice in writing of the second list having been prepared on each person appearing to them to be the owner of any land, or entitled to an interest in any mineral, included within an active Phase II site included in the second list, but this sub-paragraph is subject to sub-paragraph (7) below.
  (5) A notice required to be served by sub-paragraph (4) above shall—

  (a) indicate that the mineral site in question is an active Phase II site; and

  (b) indicate the date specified in the second list in relation to that site as the date by which an application is to be made to the mineral planning authority under paragraph 9 below;

  (c) explain the consequences which will occur if such an application is not made by the date so specified; and

  (d) explain the right to apply to have that date postponed, and indicate the date by which such an application must be made.

  (6) Where, in relation to any land or mineral included in an active Phase II site, the mineral planning authority—

  (a) has served notice on any person under sub-paragraph (4) above; and

  (b) has received no application under paragraph 9 below from that person by the date falling eight weeks before the date specified in the second list as the date by which such applications should be made in respect of the site in question,

  the authority shall serve a written reminder on that person, and such a reminder shall—

  (i) comply with the requirements of sub-paragraph (5) (a) to (c) above; and

  (ii) be served on that person on or before the date falling four weeks before the date specified in the second list in respect of that site as the date by which an application is to be made to the authority under paragraph 9 below.

  (7) Sub-paragraph (1) or (4) above shall not require the mineral planning authority to serve notice under that sub-paragraph upon any person whose identity or address for service is not known to and cannot practicably, after reasonable inquiry, be ascertained by them, but in any such case the authority shall cause to be firmly affixed, to each of one or more conspicuous objects on the land or, as the case may be, on the surface of the land above the interest in

  1607
  question, a copy of the notice which they would (apart from the provisions of this sub-paragraph) have had to serve under that sub-paragraph on the owner of that land or interest.
  (8) If, in a case where sub-paragraph (7) above applies, no person makes an application to the authority under paragraph 9 below in respect of the active Phase I or II site which includes the land or interest in question by the date falling eight weeks before the date specified in the first or, as the case may be, the second list as the date by which such applications should be made in respect of that site, the authority shall cause to be firmly affixed, to each of one or more conspicuous objects on the land or, as the case may be, on the surface of the land above the interest in question, a copy of the written reminder that would, in a case not falling within sub-paragraph (7) above, have been served under sub-paragraph (3) or (6) above.
  (9) Where by sub-paragraph (7) or (8) above a copy of any notice is required to be affixed to an object on any land that copy shall—

  (a) he displayed in such a way as to be easily visible and legible;

  (b) be first displayed—

  (i) in a case where the requirement arises under sub-paragraph (7) above, no later than the date upon which the first or, as the case may be, the second list is first advertised in accordance with paragraph 5 above; or

  (ii) in a case where the requirement arises under sub-paragraph (8) above, no later than the date falling four weeks before the date specified in the first or, as the case may be, the second list in respect of the site in question as the date by which an application is to be made to the authority under paragraph 9 below; and

  (c) be left in position for at least the period of 21 days from the date when it is first displayed, but where the notice is, without fault or intention of the authority, removed, obscured or defaced before that period has elapsed, that requirement shall be treated as having been complied with if the authority has taken reasonable steps for protection of the notice and, if need be, its replacement.

  (10) In sub-paragraphs (7) and (8) above, any reference to a conspicuous object on any land includes, in a case where the person serving a notice considers that there are no or insufficient such objects on the land, a reference to a post driven into or erected upon the land by the person serving the notice for the purpose of having affixed to it the notice in question.
  (11) Where the mineral planning authority, being required—

  (a) by sub-paragraph (3) or (6) above to serve a written reminder on any person; or

  (b) by sub-paragraph (8) above to cause a copy of such a reminder to be displayed in the manner set out in that sub-paragraph,

  fail to comply with that requirement by the date specified for the purpose, they may at any later time serve or, as the case may be, cause to be displayed, such a written reminder and, in any such case, the date by which an application in relation to the mineral site in question is to be made under paragraph 9 below is the date upon which expires the period of three months from the date when the reminder was served or posted in accordance with the provisions of this sub-paragraph.
  Applications for approval of conditions and appeals in cases where the conditions approved are not those proposed
  9.—(1) Any person who is the owner of any land, or who is entitled to an interest in a mineral, may, if that land or mineral is or forms part of a dormant site or an active Phase
  1608
  I or II site, apply to the mineral planning authority to determine the conditions to which the relevant planning permissions relating to that site are to be subject.
  (2) An application under this paragraph shall be in writing and shall—

  (a) identify the mineral site to which the application relates;

  (b) specify the land or minerals comprised in the site of which the applicant is the owner or, as the case may be, in which the applicant is entitled to an interest;

  (c) identify any relevant planning permissions relating to the site;

  (d) identify, and give an address for, each other person that the applicant knows or, after reasonable inquiry, has cause to believe to be an owner of any land, or entitled to any interest in any mineral, comprised in the site;

  (e) set out the conditions to which the applicant proposes the permissions referred to in paragraph (c) above should be subject; and

  (f) be accompanied by the appropriate certificate (within the meaning of sub-paragraph (3) or (4) below).

  (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above, as respects England and Wales the appropriate certificate is such a certificate—

  (a) as would be required, under section 65 of the 1990 Act (notice etc. of applications for planning permission) and any provision of a development order made by virtue of that section, to accompany the application if it were an application for planning permission for minerals development, but

  (b) with such modifications as are required for the purposes of this paragraph,

  and section 65(6) of that Act (offences) shall also have effect in relation to any certificate purporting to be the appropriate certificate.
  (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above, the appropriate certificate is, as respects Scotland, each of the certificates which would be required, under or by virtue of sections 23 and 24 of the 1972 Act (notice etc. of applications for planning permission), to accompany the application if it were an application for planning permission for minerals development, but with such modifications as are required for the purposes of this paragraph; and sections 23(3) and 24(5) of that Act (offences) shall have effect in relation to any certificate purporting to be the appropriate certificate.
  (5) Section 65 of the 1990 Act or, as respects Scotland, section 24 of the 1972 Act (by virtue of which a development order may provide for publicising applications for planning permission) shall have effect, with any necessary modifications, as if subsection (1) of that section also authorised a development order to provide for publicising applications under this paragraph.
  (6) Where the mineral planning authority receive an application under this paragraph in relation to a dormant site or an active Phase I or II site they shall determine the conditions to which each relevant planning permission relating to the site is to be subject; and any such permission shall, from the date when the conditions to which it is to be subject are finally determined, have effect subject to the conditions which are determined under this Schedule as being the conditions to which it is to be subject.
  (7) The conditions imposed by virtue of a determination under sub-paragraph (6) above—

  (a) may include any conditions which may be imposed on a grant of planning permission for minerals development;

  (b) may he in addition to, or in substitution for, any existing conditions to which the permission in question is subject.

  (8) In determining that a relevant planning permission is to be subject to any condition relating to development for which planning permission is granted by a development order, the mineral planning authority shall have regard to any guidance issued for the purpose by the Secretary of State.
  (9) Subject to sub-paragraph (10) below, where, within the period of three months from the mineral planning authority having received an application under this paragraph, or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority, the authority have not given notice to the applicant of their decision upon the application, the authority shall be treated as having at the end of that period or, as the case may be, that extended period, determined that the conditions to which any relevant planning permission to which the application relates is to be subject are those specified in the application as being proposed in relation to that permission; and any such permission shall, from that time, have effect subject to those conditions.
  (10) Where a mineral planning authority, having received an application under this paragraph, are of the opinion that they are unable to determine the application unless further details are supplied to them, they shall within the period of one month from having received the application give notice to the applicant—

  (a) stating that they are of such opinion; and

  (b) specifying the further details which they require,

  and where the authority so serve such a notice the period of three months referred to in sub-paragraph (9) above shall run not from the authority having received the application but from the time when the authority have received all the further details specified in the notice.
  (11) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (10) above, the further details which may be specified in a notice under that sub-paragraph include any—

  (a) information, plans or drawings; or

  (b) evidence verifying any particulars of details supplied to the authority in respect of the application in question,

  which it is reasonable for the authority to request for the purpose of enabling them to determine the application.
  Notice of determination of conditions to be accompanied by additional information in certain cases
  10.—(1) This paragraph applies in a case where—

  (a) on an application made to the mineral planning authority under paragraph 9 above in respect of an active Phase I or II site the authority determine under that paragraph the conditions to which the relevant planning permissions relating to the site are to he subject;

  (b) those conditions differ in any respect from the proposed conditions set out in the application; and

  (c) the effect of the conditions, other than any restoration or aftercare conditions, so determined by the authority, as compared with the effect of the conditions, other than any restoration or aftercare conditions, to which the relevant planning permissions in question were subject immediately prior to the authority making the determination, is to restrict working rights in respect of the site.

  (2) In a case where this paragraph applies, the mineral planning authority shall, upon giving to the applicant notice of the conditions determined by the authority under paragraph 9 above, also give to the applicant notice—

  (a) stating that the conditions determined by the authority differ in some respect from the proposed conditions set out in the application;

  (b) stating that the effect of the conditions, other than any restoration or aftercare conditions, determined by the authority, as compared with the effect of the conditions, other than any restoration or aftercare conditions, to which the relevant planning
  1610
  permissions relating to the site in question were subject immediately prior to the making of the authority's determination, is to restrict working rights in respect of the site;

  (c) identifying the working rights so restricted; and

  (d) stating whether, in the opinion of the authority, the effect of that restriction of working rights would be such as to prejudice adversely to an unreasonable degree—

  (i) the economic viability of operating the site; or

  (ii) the asset value of the site.

  (3) In determining whether, in their opinion, the effect of that restriction of working rights would be such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) (d) above, a mineral planning authority shall have regard to any guidance issued for the purpose by the Secretary of State.
  (4) In this paragraph, "the applicant" means the person who made the application in question under paragraph 9 above.
  Right to appeal against mineral planning authority's determination of conditions etc.
  11.—(1) Where the mineral planning authority—

  (a) on an application under paragraph 9 above determine under that paragraph conditions that differ in any respect from the proposed conditions set out in the application; or

  (b) give notice, under paragraph (d) of paragraph 10(2) above, stating that, in their opinion, the restriction of working rights in question would not be such as to prejudice adversely to an unreasonable degree either of the matters referred to in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the said paragraph (d),

  the person who made the application may appeal to the Secretary of State.
  (2) An appeal under sub-paragraph (1) above must be made by giving notice of appeal to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the authority give notice to the applicant of their determination or, as the case may be, stating their opinion.
  Permissions ceasing to have effect
  12.—(1) Subject to paragraph 8(11) above, where no application under paragraph 9 above in respect of an active Phase I or II site has been served on the mineral planning authority by the date specified in the first or, as the case may be, the second list as the date by which applications under that paragraph in respect of that site are to be made, or by such later date as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority, each relevant planning permission relating to the site shall cease to have effect, except insofar as it imposes any restoration or aftercare condition, on the day following the last date on which such an application may be made.
  (2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) above to the date specified in the first or, as the case may be, the second list as the date by which applications under paragraph 9 above are to be made in respect of any Phase I or 11 site is a reference to the date specified for that purpose in respect of that site in that list as prepared by the mineral planning authority or, where that date has been varied by virtue of any provision of this Schedule, to that date as so varied.
  (3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, no relevant planning permission which relates to a dormant site shall have effect to authorise the carrying out of minerals development unless—

  (a) an application has been made under paragraph 9 above in respect of that site; and

  (b) that permission has effect in accordance with sub-paragraph (6) of that paragraph.

  (4) A relevant planning permission which relates to a Phase I or II site not included in the first list shall cease to have effect, except insofar as it imposes any restoration or aftercare condition, on the day following the last date on which an application under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 above may be made in respect of that site unless an application has been made under that sub-paragraph by that date in which event, unless the site is added to that list, such a permission shall cease to have effect when the following conditions are met—

  (a) the proceedings on that application, including any proceedings on or in consequence of the application under section 288 of the 1990 Act or, as the case may be, section 233 of the 1972 Act, have been determined, and

  (b) any time for appealing under paragraph 5(11) or (12) above, or applying or further applying under paragraph 5(1) above, (where there is a right to do so) has expired.

  Reference of applications to the Secretary of State
  13.—(1) The Secretary of State may give directions requiring applications under paragraph 9 above to any mineral planning authority to be referred to him for determination instead of being dealt with by the authority.
  (2) Any such direction may relate either to a particular application or to applications of a class specified in the direction.
  (3) Where an application is referred to the Secretary of State in accordance with such a direction—

  (a) subject to paragraph (b) below, the following provisions of this Schedule—

  (i) paragraph 9(6) and (7),

  (ii) paragraph 10, and

  (iii) paragraph 14 so far as relating to applications under paragraph 9 above,

  shall apply, with any necessary modifications, as they apply to applications which fall to be determined by the mineral planning authority;

  (b) before determining the application the Secretary of State must, if either the applicant or the mineral planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose; and

  (c) the decision of the Secretary of State on the application shall be final.

  Two or more applicants
  14.—(1) Where a mineral planning authority has received from any person a duly made application under paragraph 7(1) or 9 above—

  (a) that person may not make any further application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same site; and

  (b) if the application has been determined, whether or not in the case of an application under paragraph 9 above it has been finally determined, no other person may make an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same site.

  (2) Where—

  (a) a mineral planning authority has received from any person in respect of a mineral site a duly made application under paragraph 7(1) or 9 above; and

  (b) the authority receives from another person a duly made application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same site,

  then for the purpose of the determination of the applications and any appeal against such a determination, this Schedule shall have effect as if the applications were a single application received by the authority on the date on which the later application was received by the authority and references to the applicant shall be read as references to either or any of the applicants.
  Compensation
  15.—(l) This paragraph applies in a case where—

  (a) an application made under paragraph 9 above in respect of an active Phase I or II site is finally determined; and

  (b) the requirements of either sub-paragraph (2) or (3) below are satisfied.

  (2) The requirements, referred to in sub-paragraph (1) (b) above, of this sub-paragraph are—

  (a) that the conditions to which the relevant planning permissions relating to the site are to be subject were determined by the mineral planning authority;

  (b) no appeal was made under paragraph 11(1) (a) above in respect of that determination or any such appeal was withdrawn or dismissed; and

  (c) the authority gave notice under paragraph (d) of paragraph 10(2) above and either—

  (i) that notice stated that, in the authority's opinion, the restriction of working rights in question would be such as to prejudice adversely to an unreasonable degree either of the matters referred to in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the said paragraph (d); or

  (ii) that notice stated that, in the authority's opinion, the restriction in question would not be such as would so prejudice either of those matters but an appeal under paragraph 11(1) above in respect of the giving of the notice has been allowed.

  (3) The requirements, referred to in sub-paragraph (1) (b) above, of this sub-paragraph are that the conditions to which the relevant planning permissions are to be subject were determined by the Secretary of State (whether upon an appeal under paragraph 11(1) (a) above or upon a reference under paragraph 13 above) and—

  (a) in a case where those conditions were determined upon an appeal under paragraph 11(1) (a) above either—

  (i) the mineral planning authority gave notice under paragraph (d) of paragraph 10(2) above stating that, in their opinion, the restriction of working rights in question would be such as to prejudice adversely to an unreasonable degree either of the matters referred to in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the said paragraph (d), or

  (ii) the authority gave a notice under the said paragraph (d) stating that, in their opinion, the restriction in question would not be such as would so prejudice either of those matters but an appeal under paragraph 11(1) (b) above in respect of the giving of that notice has been allowed; or

  (b) in a case where those conditions were determined upon a reference under paragraph 13 above, the Secretary of State gave notice under paragraph (d) of paragraph 10(2) above stating that, in his opinion, the restriction of working rights in question would be such as to prejudice adversely to an unreasonable degree either of the matters referred to in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the said paragraph (d).

  (4) In a case to which this paragraph applies—

  (a) as respects England and Wales, Parts IV and XI of the 1990 Act, or

  (b) as respects Scotland, Parts VIII and XI of the 1972 Act,

  shall have effect as if an order made under section 97 of the 1990 Act or, as the case may be, section 42 of the 1972 Act, had been confirmed by the Secretary of State under section 98 of the 1990 Act or, as the case may be, section 42 of the 1972 Act at the time when the application in question was

  1613
  finally determined and, as so confirmed, had effect to modify those permissions to the extent specified in sub-paragraph (5) below.
  (5)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above, the order which is treated by virtue of that sub-paragraph as having been made under section 97 of the 1990 Act or section 42 of the 1972 Act is one whose only effect adverse to the interests of any person having an interest in the land or minerals comprised in the mineral site is to restrict working rights in respect of the site to the same extent as the relevant restriction.
  (6)For the purposes of section 116 of the 1990 Act and section 167A of the 1972 Act and of any regulations made under those sections, the permissions treated as being modified by the order mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) above shall be treated as if they were planning permissions for development which neither consists of nor includes any minerals development.
  Appeals: general procedural provisions
  16.—(1) This paragraph applies to appeals under any of the following provisions of this Schedule—

  (a)paragraph 6(11) or (12) above; or

  (b)paragraph 11(1) above.

  (2) Notice of appeal in respect of an appeal to which this paragraph applies shall be given on a form supplied by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for use for that purpose, and giving, so far as reasonably practicable, the information required by that form.
  (3) Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the 1991 Act (determination of appeals) shall, as respects England and Wales, apply to an appeal to which this paragraph applies as it applies to an appeal under paragraph 5 of that Schedule.
  (4) As respects England and Wales, sections 284 to 288 of the 1990 Act (validity of certain decisions and proceedings for questioning their validity) shall have effect as if the action mentioned in section 284(3) of that Act included any decision of the Secretary of State—

  (a)on an appeal to which this paragraph applies; or

  (b)on an application under paragraph 9 above referred to him under paragraph 13 above.

  (5) Paragraph 6 of Schedule 10A to the 1972 Act (determination of appeals) shall, as respects Scotland, apply to an appeal to which this paragraph applies as it applies to appeals under paragraph 5 of that Schedule.
  (6) As respects Scotland, sections 231 to 233 of the 1972 Act (validity of certain decisions and proceedings for questioning their validity) shall have effect as if the action mentioned in section 231(3) included any decision of the Secretary of State—

  (a)on an appeal to which this paragraph applies; or

  (b)on an application under paragraph 9 above referred to him under paragraph 13 above.

  (7) As respects Scotland, Schedule 7 to the 1972 Act shall apply to appeals to which this paragraph applies.
  222 After Schedule 11, insert the following schedule:—

  'SCHEDULE PERIODIC REVIEW OF MINERAL PLANNING PERMISSIONS
  Duty to carry out periodic reviews
  1. The mineral planning authority shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule, cause periodic reviews to be carried out of the mineral permissions relating to a mining site.
  Interpretation
  2.—(1) For the purposes of this Schedule—
  "first review date", in relation to a mining site, shall, subject to paragraph 5 below, be ascertained in accordance with paragraph 3 below;
  "mineral permission" means any planning permission, other than a planning permission granted by a development order, for minerals development;
  "mineral planning authority"—

  (a)as respects England and Wales, means a mineral planning authority within the meaning of the 1990 Act, and

  (b)as respects Scotland, means a planning authority for the purposes of the 1972 Act;

  "mining site" means—

  (a)in a case where it appears to the mineral planning authority to be expedient to treat as a single site the aggregate of the land to which any two or more mineral permissions relate, the aggregate of the land to which those permissions relate; and

  (b)in any other case, the land to which a mineral permission relates;

  "old mining permission" has the meaning given—

  (a)as respects England and Wales, by section 22(1) of the 1991 Act, and

  (b)as respects Scotland, by section 49H(1) of the 1972 Act; and

  "owner", in relation to any land—

  (a) as respects England and Wales, means any person who—

  (i)is the estate owner in respect of the fee simple, or

  (ii)is entitled to a tenancy granted or extended for a term of years certain of which not less than seven years remains unexpired; and

  (b) as respects Scotland, has the meaning given by paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 10A to the 1972 Act.

  (2) In determining whether it appears to them to be expedient to treat as a single site the aggregate of the land to which two or snore mineral permissions relate a mineral planning authority shall have regard to any guidance issued for the purpose by the Secretary of State.
  (3) Any reference (however expressed) in this Schedule to a mining site being a site to which relates—

  (a)an old mining permission; or

  (b)a mineral permission,

  is a reference to the mining site, or some part of it, being the land to which the permission relates.
  (4) For the purposes of this Schedule, an application made under paragraph 6 below is finally determined when—

  (a)the proceedings on the application, including any proceedings on or in consequence of an application under section 288 of the 1990 Act or section 233 of the 1972 Act, have been determined, and

  (b)any time for appealing under paragraph 9(1) below, or applying or further applying under paragraph 6 below, (where there is a right to do so) has expired.

  The first review date
  3.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (7) below, in a case where the mineral permissions relating to a mining site include an old mining permission, the first review date means—

  (a)the date falling fifteen years after the date upon which, pursuant to an application made under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1991 Act or, as the case may be, paragraph 2 of Schedule 10A to the 1972 Act, the conditions to which that old mining permission is to be subject are finally determined under that Schedule; or

  (b)where there are two or more old mining permissions relating to that site, and the date upon which those conditions are finally determined is not the same date for each of those permissions, the date falling fifteen years after the date upon which was made the last such final determination to be so made in respect of any of those permissions,

  1615
  and paragraph 10(2) of Schedule 2 to the 1991 Act or, as the case may be, paragraph 10(2) of Schedule 10A to the 1972 Act (meaning of "finally determined") shall apply for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as it applies for the purposes of section 22 of and Schedule 2 to the 1991 Act or, as the case may be, section 49H of and Schedule 10A to the 1972 Act.
  (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (7) below, in the case of a mining site which is a dormant or Phase I or II site within the meaning of Schedule (Review of old mineral planning permissions) to this Act, the first review date means the date falling fifteen years after the date upon which, pursuant to an application made under paragraph 8 of that Schedule, there is determined under that paragraph the conditions to which the relevant planning permissions (within the meaning of that Schedule) relating to the site are to be subject.
  (3) Subject to sub-paragraphs (4) and (7) below, in the case of a mining site—

  (a)which is not a dormant or Phase I or II site within the meaning of Schedule (Review of old mineral planning permissions) to this Act; and

  (b)to which no old mining permission relates,

  the first review date is the date falling fifteen years after the date upon which was granted the most recent mineral permission which relates to the site.
  (4) Where, in the case of a mining site falling within sub-paragraph (3) above, the most recent mineral permission relating to that site relates, or the most recent such permissions (whether or not granted on the same date) between them relate, to part only of the site, and in the opinion of the mineral planning authority it is expedient, for the purpose of ascertaining, under that sub-paragraph, the first review date in respect of that site, to treat that permission or those permissions as having been granted at the same time as the last of the other mineral permissions relating to the site, the first review date for that site shall be ascertained under that sub-paragraph accordingly.
  (5) A mineral planning authority shall, in deciding whether they are of such an opinion as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) above, have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
  (6) Subject to sub-paragraph (7) below, in the case of a mining site—

  (a)to which relates a mineral permission in respect of which an order has been made under section 97 of the 1990 Act or section 42 of the 1972 Act, or

  (b)in respect of which, or any part of which, an order has been made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 to the 1990 Act or section 49 of the 1972 Act,

  the first review date shall be the date falling fifteen years after the date upon which the order took effect or, in a case where there is more than one such order, upon which the last of those orders to take effect took effect.
  (7) In the case of a mining site for which the preceding provisions of this paragraph have effect to specify two or more different dates as the first review date, the first review date shall be the latest of those dates.
  Service of notice of first periodic review
  4.—(1) The mineral planning authority shall, in connection with the first periodic review of the mineral permissions relating to a mining site, no later than 12 months before the first review date, serve notice upon each person appearing to them to be the owner of any land, or entitled to an interest in any mineral, included in that site.
  (2) A notice required to be served under sub-paragraph (1) above shall—

  (a)specify the mining site to which it relates;

  (b)identify the mineral permissions relating to that site;

  (c)state the first review date;

  (d)state that the first review date is the date by which an application must be made for approval of the conditions to which the mineral permissions
  1616
  relating to the site are to be subject and explain the consequences which will occur if no such application is made by that date; and

  (e)explain the right to apply for postponement of the first review date and give the date by which such an application has to be made.

  (3) Where, in relation to any land or mineral included in a mining site, the mineral planning authority—

  (a)has served notice on any person under sub-paragraph (1) above; and

  (b)has received no application under paragraph 6 below from that person by the date falling eight weeks before the first review date,

  the authority shall serve a written reminder on that person.
  (4) A reminder required to be served under sub-paragraph (3) above shall—

  (a)indicate that the land or mineral in question is included in a mining site;

  (b)comply with the requirements of sub-paragraph (2) (a) to (d) above; and

  (c)be served on the person in question on or before the date falling four weeks before the first review date.

  (5) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall not require the mineral planning authority to serve notice under that sub-paragraph upon any person whose identity or address for service is not known to and cannot practicably, after reasonable inquiry, be ascertained by them, but in any such case the authority shall cause to be firmly affixed, to each of one or more conspicuous objects on the land or, as the case may be, on the surface of the land above the interest in question, a copy of the notice which they would (apart from the provisions of this sub-paragraph) have had to serve under that sub-paragraph on the owner of that land or interest.
  (6) If, in a case where sub-paragraph (5) above applies, no person makes an application to the authority under paragraph 6 below in respect of the mining site which includes the land or interest in question by the date falling eight weeks before the first review date, the authority shall cause to be firmly affixed, to each of one or more conspicuous objects on the land or, as the case may be, on the surface of the land above the interest in question, a copy of the written reminder that would, in a case not falling within sub-paragraph (5) above, have been served under sub-paragraph (3) above.
  (7) Where by sub-paragraph (5) or (6) above a copy of any notice is required to be affixed to an object on any land that copy shall—

  (a) be displayed in such a way as to be easily visible and legible;

  (b) be first displayed—

  (i)in a case where the requirement arises under sub-paragraph (5) above, no later than 12 months before the first review date; or

  (ii)in a case where the requirement arises under sub-paragraph (6) above, no later than the date falling four weeks before the first review date; and

  (c) be left in position for at least the period of 21 days from the date when it is first displayed, but where the notice is, without fault or intention of the authority, removed, obscured or defaced before that period has elapsed, that requirement shall be treated as having been complied with if the authority has taken reasonable steps for protection of the notice and, if need be, its replacement.

  (8) In sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) above, any reference to a conspicuous object on any land includes, in a case where the person serving a notice considers that there are no or insufficient such objects on the land, a reference to a post driven into or erected upon the land by the person serving the notice for the purpose of having affixed to it a copy of the notice in question.
  Application for postponement of the first review date
  5.—(1) Any person who is the owner of any land, or of any interest in any mineral, comprised in a mining site may, no later than the day upon which expires the period of three months from the day upon which notice was served upon him under paragraph 4 above, apply under this paragraph to the mineral planning authority for the postponement of the first review date.
  (2) An application under this paragraph shall be in writing and shall set out—

  (a)the conditions to which each mineral permission relating to the site is subject;

  (b)the applicant's reasons for considering those conditions to be satisfactory; and

  (c)the date which the applicant wishes to have substituted for the first review date.

  (3) Where the mineral planning authority receive an application made under this paragraph—

  (a)if they consider the conditions referred to in sub-paragraph (2) (a) above to be satisfactory they shall agree to the first review date being postponed in which event they shall determine the date to be substituted for that date;

  (b)in any other case they shall refuse the application.

  (4) When a mineral planning authority determine an application made under this paragraph, they shall notify the applicant in writing of their decision and, in a case where they have agreed to the postponement of the first review date, shall notify the applicant of the date which they have determined should be substituted for the first review date.
  (5) Where, within the period of three months of the mineral planning authority having received an application under this paragraph, or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority, the authority have not given notice, under sub-paragraph (4) above, to the applicant of their decision upon the application, the authority shall be treated as having, at the end of that period or, as the case may be, that extended period—

  (a)agreed to the first review date being postponed; and

  (b)determined that the date referred to in sub-paragraph (2) (c) above be substituted for the first review date.

  Application to determine the conditions to which the mineral permissions relating to a mining site are to be subject
  6.—(1) Any person who is the owner of any land, or who is entitled to an interest in a mineral, may, if that land or mineral is or forms part of a mining site, apply to the mineral planning authority to determine the conditions to which the mineral permissions relating to that site are to he subject.
  (2) An application under this paragraph shall be in writing and shall—

  (a)identify the mining site in respect of which the application is made and state that the application is made in connection with the first periodic review of the mineral permissions relating to that site;

  (b)specify the land or minerals comprised in the site of which the applicant is the owner or, as the case may be, in which the applicant is entitled to an interest;

  (c)identify the mineral permissions relating to the site;

  (d)identify, and give an address for, each other person that the applicant knows or, after reasonable inquiry, has cause to believe to be an owner of any land, or entitled to any interest in any mineral, comprised in the site;

  (e)set out the conditions to which the applicant proposes the permissions referred to in paragraph (c) above should be subject; and

  1618

  (f) be accompanied by the appropriate certificate (within the meaning of sub-paragraph (3) or (4) below).

  (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above, as respects England and Wales the appropriate certificate is such a certificate—

  (a)as would be required, under section 65 of the 1990 Act and any provision of a development order made by virtue of that section, to accompany the application if it were an application for planning permission for minerals development, but

  (b)with such modifications as are required for the purposes of this paragraph,

  and section 65(6) of the 1990 Act shall also have effect in relation to any certificate purporting to be the appropriate certificate.
  (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above, the appropriate certificate is, as respects Scotland, each of the certificates which would be required, under or by virtue of sections 23 and 24 of the 1972 Act (notice etc. of applications for planning permission), to accompany the application if it were an application for planning permission for minerals development, but with such modifications as are required for the purposes of this paragraph; and sections 23(3) and 24(5) of that Act (offences) shall have effect in relation to any certificate purporting to be the appropriate certificate.
  (5) Where the mineral planning authority receive an application under this paragraph in relation to a mining site they shall determine the conditions to which each mineral permission relating to the site is to be subject.
  (6) The conditions imposed by virtue of a determination under sub-paragraph (5) above—

  (a)may include any conditions which may be imposed on a grant of planning permission for minerals development;

  (b)may be in addition to, or in substitution for, any existing conditions to which the permission in question is subject.

  (7) In determining that a mineral permission is to be subject to any condition relating to development for which planning permission is granted by a development order, the mineral planning authority shall have regard to any guidance issued for the purpose by the Secretary of State.
  (8) Subject to sub-paragraph (9) below, where, within the period of three months of the mineral planning authority having received an application under this paragraph, or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority, the authority have not given notice to the applicant of their decision upon the application, the authority shall be treated as having at the end of that period or, as the case may be, that extended period, determined that the conditions to which any mineral permission to which the application relates is to be subject are those specified in the application as being proposed in relation to that permission; and any such permission shall, from that time, have effect subject to those conditions.
  (9) Where a mineral planning authority, having received an application under this paragraph, are of the opinion that they are unable to determine the application unless further details are supplied to them, they shall within the period of one month from having received the application give notice to the applicant—

  (a)stating that they are of such opinion; and

  (b)specifying the further details which they require,

  and where the authority so serve such a notice the period of three months referred to in sub-paragraph (8) above shall run not from the authority having received the application but from the time when the authority have received all the further details specified in the notice.
  (10) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (9) above, the further details which may be specified in a notice under that sub-paragraph include any—

  1619

  (a)information, plans or drawings; or

  (b)evidence verifying any particulars of details supplied to the authority in respect of the application in question,

  which it is reasonable for the authority to request for the purpose of enabling them to determine the application.
  Permissions ceasing to have effect
  7. Where no application under paragraph 6 above in respect of a mining site has been served on the mineral planning authority by the first review date, or by such later date as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority, each mineral permission—

  (a)relating to the site; and

  (b)identified in the notice served in relation to the site under paragraph 4 above,

  shall cease to have effect, except insofar as it imposes any restoration or aftercare condition, on the day following the first review date or, as the case may be, such later agreed date.
  Reference of applications to the Secretary of State
  8.—(1) The Secretary of State may give directions requiring applications made under paragraph 6 above to any mineral planning authority to be referred to him for determination instead of being dealt with by the authority.
  (2)A direction under sub-paragraph (1) above may relate either to a particular application or to applications of a class specified in the direction.
  (3)Where an application is referred to the Secretary of State in accordance with a direction under sub-paragraph (1) above—

  (a)subject to paragraph (b) below, paragraph 6(5) and (6) above, and paragraph 11 below so far as relating to applications under paragraph 6 above, shall apply, with any necessary modifications, to his determination of the application as they apply to the determination of applications by the mineral planning authority;

  (b)before determining the application the Secretary of State must, if either the applicant or the mineral planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose; and

  (c)the decision of the Secretary of State on the application shall be final.

  Appeals
  9.—(1) Where on an application under paragraph 6 above the mineral planning authority determine conditions that differ in any respect from the proposed conditions set out in the application, the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.
  (2)An appeal under sub-paragraph (1) above must be made by giving notice of appeal to the Secretary of State, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the determination, on a form supplied by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for use for that purpose, and giving, so far as reasonably practicable, the information required by that form.
  (3)Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the 1991 Act (determination of appeals) shall, as respects England and Wales, apply to appeals under sub-paragraph (1) above as it applies to appeals under paragraph 5 of that Schedule.
  (4)As respects England and Wales, sections 284 to 288 of the 1990 Act shall have effect as if the action mentioned in section 284(3) of that Act included any decision of the Secretary of State—

  (a)on an appeal under sub-paragraph (1) above; or

  (b)on an application under paragraph 6 above referred to him under paragraph 8 above.

  (5) Paragraph 6 of Schedule 10A to the 1972 Act (determination of appeals) shall, as respects Scotland, apply to appeals under sub-paragraph (1) above as it applies to appeals under paragraph 5 of that Schedule.
  (6) As respects Scotland, sections 231 to 233 of the 1972 Act shall have effect as if the action mentioned in section 231(3) included any decision of the Secretary of State—

  (a)on an appeal under sub-paragraph (1) above; or

  (b)on an application under paragraph 6 above referred to him under paragraph 8 above.

  (7) As respects Scotland, Schedule 7 to the 1972 Act shall apply to appeals under sub-paragraph (1) above.
  Time from which conditions determined under this Schedule are to take effect
  10.—(1) Where an application has been made under paragraph 6 above in respect of a mining site, each of the mineral permissions relating to the site shall, from the time when the application is finally determined, have effect subject to the conditions to which it is determined under this Schedule that that permission is to be subject.
  (2) Sub-paragraph (1) above is without prejudice to paragraph 6(8) above.
  Two or more applicants
  11.—(1) Where a mineral planning authority have received from any person a duly made application under paragraph 5 or 6 above—

  (a)that person may not make any further application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same site; and

  (b)if the application has been determined, whether or not in the case of an application under paragraph 6 above it has been finally determined, no other person may make an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same site.

  (2) Where—

  (a)a mineral planning authority have received from any person in respect of a mineral site a duly made application under paragraph 5 or 6 above; and

  (b)the authority receives from another person a duly made application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same site,

  then for the purpose of the determination of the applications and any appeal against such a determination, this Schedule shall have effect as if the applications were a single application received by the authority on the date on which the later application was received by the authority and references to the applicant shall be read as references to either or any of the applicants.
  Second and subsequent periodic reviews
  12.—(1) In this paragraph, in relation to a mining site, but subject to paragraph 5 above as applied by sub-paragraph (2) below, "review date" means—

  (a)in the case of the second periodic review, the date falling fifteen years after the date upon which was finally determined an application made under paragraph 6 above in respect of the site; and

  (b)in the case of subsequent periodic reviews, the date falling fifteen years after the date upon which there was last finally determined under this Schedule an application made in respect of that site under paragraph 6 above as applied by sub-paragraph (2) below.

  (2) Paragraphs 4 to 11 above shall apply in respect of the second or any subsequent periodic review of the mineral permissions relating to a mining site as they apply to the first such periodic review, but as if—

  (a)any reference in those paragraphs to the "first review date" were a reference to the review date; and

  (b)the references in paragraphs 4(1) and 6(2) (a) above to the first periodic review were references to the periodic review in question.

  Compensation
  13.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

  (a)an application made under paragraph 6 above in respect of a mining site is finally determined; and

  (b)the conditions to which the mineral permissions relating to the site are to be subject, as determined under this Schedule, differ in any respect from the proposed conditions set out in the application; and

  (c)the effect of the new conditions, except insofar as they are restoration or aftercare conditions, as compared with the effect of the existing conditions, except insofar as they were restoration or aftercare conditions, is to restrict working rights in respect of the site.

  (2) For the purposes of this paragraph—
  "the new conditions", in relation to a mining site, means the conditions, determined under this Schedule, to which the mineral permissions relating to the site are to be subject; and
  "the existing conditions", in relation to a mining site, means the conditions to which the mineral permissions relating to the site were subject immediately prior to the final determination of the application made under paragraph 6 above in respect of that site.
  (3) For the purposes of this paragraph, working rights are restricted in respect of a mining site if any of—

  (a)the size of the area which may be used for the winning and working of minerals or the depositing of mineral waste;

  (b)the depth to which operations for the winning and working of minerals may extend;

  (c)the height of any deposit of mineral waste;

  (d)the rate at which any particular mineral may be extracted;

  (e)the rate at which any particular mineral waste may be deposited;

  (f)the period at the expiry of which any winning or working of minerals or depositing of mineral waste is to cease; or

  (g)the total quantity of minerals which may be extracted from, or of mineral waste which may be deposited on, the site,

  is restricted or reduced in respect of the mining site in question.
  (4) In a case to which this paragraph applies, but subject to sub-paragraph (7) below, as respects England and Wales, Parts IV and XI of the 1990 Act and, as respects Scotland, Parts VIII and XI of the 1972 Act, shall have effect as if an order made under section 97 of the 1990 Act or, as the case may be, section 42 of the 1972 Act—

  (a)had been confirmed by the Secretary of State under section 98 of the 1990 Act or, as the case may be, section 42 of the 1972 Act at the time when the application in question was finally determined; and

  (b)as so confirmed, had effect to modify those permissions to the extent specified in sub-paragraph (6) below.

  (5) For the purposes of this paragraph, the order referred to in sub-paragraph (6) above is one whose only effect adverse to the interests of any person having an interest in the land or minerals comprised in the mineral site is to restrict working rights in respect of the site to the same extent as the relevant restriction.
  (6) For the purposes of section 116 of the 1990 Act and section 167A of the 1972 Act and of any regulations made under those sections, the permissions treated as being modified by the order mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) above shall be treated as if they were planning permissions for development which neither consists of nor includes any minerals development.'.
  223 Schedule 12, page 181, leave out lines 37 to 39 and insert:
  '13. For section 14 of that Act (gratings) there shall be substituted—
  "Screens.
  14.—(1) This section applies in any case where—

  (a)by means of any conduit or artificial channel, water is diverted from waters frequented by salmon or migratory trout; and

  (b)any of the water so diverted is used for the purposes of a water or canal undertaking or for the purposes of any mill or fish farm;

  and in this section "the responsible person" means the owner of the water or canal undertaking or (as the case may be) the occupier of the mill or the owner or occupier of the fish farm.
  (2) Where this section applies, the responsible person shall, unless an exemption from the obligation is granted by the Agency, ensure (at his own cost) that there is placed and maintained at the entrance of, or within, the conduit or channel a screen which—

  (a)subject to subsection (4) below, prevents the descent of the salmon or migratory trout; and

  (b)in a case where any of the water diverted is used for the purposes of a fish farm, prevents the egress of farmed fish from the fish farm by way of the conduit or channel.

  (3) Where this section applies, the responsible person shall also, unless an exemption from the obligation is granted by the Agency, ensure (at his own cost) that there is placed and maintained across any outfall of the conduit or channel a screen which—

  (a)prevents salmon or migratory trout from entering the outfall; and

  (b)in a case where any of the water diverted is used for the purposes of a fish farm, prevents the egress of farmed fish from the fish farm by way of the outfall.

  (4) Where a screen is placed within any conduit or channel pursuant to subsection (2) above, the responsible person shall ensure that a continuous by-wash is provided immediately upstream of the screen, by means of which salmon or migratory trout may return by as direct a route as practicable to the waters from which they entered the conduit or channel (and accordingly nothing in subsection (2) or (3) above applies in relation to a by-wash provided for the purposes of this subsection).
  (5) Any screen placed, or by-wash provided, in pursuance of this section shall be so constructed and located as to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that salmon or migratory trout are not injured or damaged by it.
  (6) No such screen shall be so placed as to interfere with the passage of boats on any navigable canal.
  (7) Any exemption under subsection (2) or (3) above may be granted subject to conditions.
  (8) If any person who is required to do so by this section fails to ensure that a screen is placed or maintained, or that a by-wash is provided, in accordance with the provisions of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence.
  (9) In any proceedings for an offence under subsection (8) above, it shall, subject to subsection (10) below, be a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence by himself or a person under his control.
  (10) If in any case the defence provided by subsection (9) above involves the allegation that the commission of the offence was due to an act or default of another person, or to reliance on information supplied by

  1623
  another person, the person charged shall not, without leave of the court, be entitled to rely on that defence unless—

  (a)at least seven clear days before the hearing, and

  (b)where he has previously appeared before a court in connection with the alleged offence, within one month of his first such appearance,

  he has served on the prosecutor a notice in writing giving such information identifying or assisting in the identification of that other person as was then in his possession.
  (11) Any reference in subsection (10) above to appearing before a court includes a reference to being brought before a court.
  (12)The obligations imposed by subsections (2) to (6) above, except so far as relating to farmed fish, shall not be in force during such period (if any) in each year as may be prescribed by byelaw.
  (13)The obligations imposed by subsections (2) to (6) above on the occupier of a mill shall apply only where the conduit or channel was constructed on or after 18th July 1923.
  (14)Any reference in this section to ensuring that a screen is placed and maintained includes, in a case where the screen takes the form of apparatus the operation of which prevents the passage of fish of the descriptions in question, a reference to ensuring that the apparatus is kept in continuous operation.
  (15)In this section "by-wash" means a passage through which water flows.".'.
  224 Page 181, line 42, leave out 'in subsection (1),' and insert 'for the word "grating" or "gratings", wherever occurring (including in the side-note), there shall be substituted respectively the word "screen" or "screens".
  (1A) In subsection (1) of that section (placing of gratings, deepening of channels etc.)'.
  225 Page 181, line 49, at end insert:
  '(3) At the end of that section there shall be added—
  "(5) In this section "open", in relation to a screen which consists of apparatus, includes the doing of anything which interrupts, or otherwise interferes with, the operation of the apparatus.".'.
  226 Page 182, line 19, at end insert:
  '16A. In section 30 of that Act, the paragraph defining "fish farm" (which is superseded by amendments made by this Schedule) shall be omitted.'.
  227 Page 182, line 33, at end insert:
  '17A. After subsection (1A) of section 39 of that Act (application of Act to River Esk in Scotland) there shall be inserted—
  "(1B) Sections 31 to 34 and 36(2) of this Act shall, subject to the modifications set out in subsection (1C) below, apply throughout the catchment area of the River Esk in Scotland but a water bailiff shall exercise his powers under those sections as so applied only in relation to an offence—

  (a) against this Act;

  (b) against section 1 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951; or

  (c) which is deemed to be an offence under this Act by virtue of section 211(6) of the Water Resources Act 1991,

  which he has reasonable cause to suspect has been committed in a place to which this Act applies by virtue of subsection (1) (b) above.
  (1C) The modifications referred to in subsection (1B) above are—

  (a) references in sections 31 to 34 of this Act to "this Act" shall be construed as including references to section 1 of the Salmon and
  1624
  Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 (as applied to the River Esk by section 21 of that Act); and

  (b) in section 33—

  (i) references to a justice of the peace shall be construed as including references to a sheriff; and

  (ii) in subsection (2), the reference to an information on oath shall be construed as including a reference to evidence on oath.".

  17B. In section 41(1) of that Act (general definitions) the following definitions shall be inserted at the appropriate places, that is to say—

  (a) ""fish farm" has the same meaning as in the Diseases of Fish Act 1937;"; and

  (b) ""screen" means a grating or other device which, or any apparatus the operation of which, prevents—

  (a) the passage of salmon or migratory trout, and

  (b) if the screen is required in connection with a fish farm, the passage of any fish farmed at that fish farm,

  or any combination of devices or apparatus which, taken together, achieve that result;";
  and the definition of "grating" shall be omitted.
  17C. In subsection (3) of section 43 of that Act (extent of Act to Scotland), after the words "(IA)" there shall be inserted the words ", (1B), (1C)".'.
  228 Page 183, line 10, at end insert:
  '(2) In sub-paragraph (3) (c) of that paragraph (byelaws for the purpose of determining for the purposes of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 the period of the year during which gratings need not be maintained) for the word "gratings" there shall be substituted the word "screens".'.
  229 Schedule 13, page 187, line 13, leave out from 'person' to 'shall' in line 14.
  230 Page 187, line 16, after 'mine' insert 'or an abandoned part of a mine'.
  231 Page 187, line 17, leave out 'if the mine in question became an abandoned mine' and insert 'to the owner or former operator of any mine or part of a mine if the mine or part in question became abandoned'.
  232 Page 187, line 18, at end insert:
  '(4A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (4) above whether a mine or part of a mine became abandoned before, on or after 31st December 1999 in a case where the mine or part has become abandoned on two or more occasions, of which—

  (a) at least one falls on or before that date, and

  (b) at least one falls after that date,

  the mine or part shall be regarded as becoming abandoned after that date (but without prejudice to the operation of subsection (3) above in relation to that mine or part at, or in relation to, any time before the first of those occasions which falls after that date).
  (4B) Where, immediately before a part of a mine becomes abandoned, that part is the only part of the mine not falling to be regarded as abandoned for the time being, the abandonment of that part shall not be regarded for the purposes of subsection (4) or (4A) above as constituting the abandonment of the mine, but only of that part of it.'.
  233 Page 187. leave out lines 38 and 39.
  234 After Schedule 16, insert the following Schedule:—

  'SCHEDULE
  Delegation of appellate functions of the Secretary of State Section
  Interpretation
  1. In this Schedule—
  "appointed person" means a person appointed under section 96(1) (a) of this Act; and
  "appointment", in the case of any appointed person, means appointment under section 96(1) (a) of this Act.
  Appointments
  2. An appointment under section 96(1) (a) of this Act must be in writing and—

  (a) may relate to any particular appeal, matters or questions specified in the appointment or to appeals, matters or questions of a description so specified;

  (b) may provide for any function to which it relates to be exercisable by the appointed person either unconditionally or subject to the fulfilment of such conditions as may be specified in the appointment; and

  (c) may, by notice in writing given to the appointed person, be revoked at any time by the Secretary of State in respect of any appeal, matter or question which has not been determined by the appointed person before that time.

  Powers of appointed person
  3. Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, an appointed person shall, in relation to any appeal, matter or question to which his appointment relates, have the same powers and duties as the Secretary of State, other than—

  (a) any function of making regulations;

  (b) any function of holding an inquiry or other hearing or of causing an inquiry or other hearing to be held; or

  (c) any function of appointing a person for the purpose—

  (i) of enabling persons to appear before and be heard by the person so appointed; or

  (ii) of referring any question or matter to that person.

  Holding of local inquiries and other hearings by appointed Persons
  4.—(1) If either of the parties to an appeal, matter or question expresses a wish to appear before and be heard by the appointed person, the appointed person shall give both of them an opportunity of appearing and being heard.
  (2) Whether or not a party to an appeal, matter or question has asked for an opportunity to appear and be heard, the appointed person—

  (a) may hold a local inquiry or other hearing in connection with the appeal, matter or question, and

  (b) shall, if the Secretary of State so directs, hold a local inquiry in connection with the appeal, matter or question,

  but this sub-paragraph is subject to sub-paragraph (3) below.
  (3) No local inquiry shall be held by virtue of this Schedule in connection with an appeal under—

  (a) section 42B(5) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974,

  (b) section 22(5), 66(5) or 78LB(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, or

  (c) section 191B(5) of the Water Resources Act 1991,

  (appeals against decisions that information is not commercially confidential), or any matter involved in such an appeal, and any hearing held by virtue of this Schedule in connection with any such appeal or matter must be held in private.
  (4) Where an appointed person holds a local inquiry or other hearing by virtue of this Schedule, an assessor may be appointed by the Secretary of State to sit with the appointed
  1626
  person at the inquiry or hearing and advise him on any matters arising, notwithstanding that the appointed person is to determine the appeal, matter or question.
  (5) Subject to paragraph 5 below, the costs of a local inquiry held under this Schedule shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State.
  Local inquiries under this Schedule: evidence and costs
  5.—(1) In relation to England and Wales, subsections (2) to (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (local inquiries: evidence and costs) shall apply to local inquiries or other hearings held under this Schedule by an appointed person as they apply to inquiries caused to be held under that section by a Minister, but with the following modifications, that is to say—

  (a) with the substitution in subsection (2) (evidence) for the reference to the person appointed to hold the inquiry of a reference to the appointed person;

  (b) with the substitution in subsection (4) (recovery of costs of holding the inquiry) for the references to the Minister causing the inquiry to be held of references to the Secretary of State;

  (c) taking the reference in that subsection to a local authority as including the Agency; and

  (d) with the substitution in subsection (5) (orders as to the costs of the parties) for the reference to the Minister causing the inquiry to be held of a reference to the appointed person or the Secretary of State.

  (2) In relation to Scotland, subsections (3) to (8) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (which relate to the costs of and holding of local inquiries) shall apply to local inquiries or other hearings held under this Schedule as they apply to inquiries held under that section, but with the following modifications, that is to say—

  (a) with the substitution in subsection (3) (notice of inquiry) for the reference to the person appointed to hold the inquiry of a reference to the appointed person;

  (b) with the substitution in subsection (4) (evidence) for the reference to the person appointed to hold the inquiry and, in paragraph (b), the reference to the person holding the inquiry of references to the appointed person;

  (c) with the substitution in subsection (6) (expenses of witnesses etc.) for the references to the Minister causing the inquiry to he held of a reference to the appointed person or the Secretary of State;

  (d) with the substitution in subsection (7) (expenses) for the references to the Minister of references to the appointed person or the Secretary of State;

  (e) with the substitution in subsection (7A) (recovery of entire administrative expense)—

  (i) for the first reference to the Minister of a reference to the appointed person or the Secretary of State;

  (ii) in paragraph (a), for the reference to the Minister of a reference to the Secretary of State; and

  (iii) in paragraph (h), for the reference to the Minister holding the inquiry of a reference to the Secretary of State;

  (f) with the substitution in subsection (7B) (power to prescribe daily amount)—

  (i) for the first reference to the Minister of a reference to the Secretary of State;

  (ii) in paragraphs (a) and (c). for the references to the person appointed to hold the inquiry of references to the appointed person: and

  (iii) in paragraph (d), for the reference to the Minister of a reference to the appointed person or the Secretary of State; and

  1627

  (g) with the substitution in subsection (8) (certification of expenses) for the reference to the Minister, the reference to him and the reference to the Crown of references to the appointed person or the Secretary of State.

  Revocation of appointments and making of new Appointments
  6.—(1) Where under paragraph 2(c) above the appointment of the appointed person is revoked in respect of any appeal, matter or question, the Secretary of State shall, unless he proposes to determine the appeal, matter or question himself, appoint another person under section 96(1) (a) of this Act to determine the appeal, matter or question instead.
  (2) Where such a new appointment is made, the consideration of the appeal, matter or question, or any hearing in connection with it, shall be begun afresh.
  (3) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2) above shall require any person to be given an opportunity of making fresh representations or modifying or withdrawing any representations already made.
  Certain acts and omissions of appointed person to be treated as those of the Secretary of State
  7.—(1) Anything done or omitted to be done by an appointed person in, or in connection with, the exercise or purported exercise of any function to which the appointment relates shall be treated for all purposes as done or omitted to be done by the Secretary of State in his capacity as such.
  (2) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply—

  (a) for the purposes of so much of any contract made between the Secretary of State and the appointed person as relates to the exercise of the function; or

  (b) for the purposes of any criminal proceedings brought in respect of anything done or omitted to be done as mentioned in that sub-paragraph.'.

  235 Schedule 17, page 195, line 25, at end insert:
  'Part I
  Enactments relating to England and Wales'.
  236 Page 197, line 36, at end insert:
  'Part II
  Enactments relating to Scotland
  The Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968
  For section 55 of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 (Crown application) there shall be substituted—
  "Application of Act to Crown.
  55.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, this Act shall bind the Crown.
  (2) No contravention by the Crown of any provision made by or under this Act shall make the Crown criminally liable; but the Court of Session may, on the application of a sewerage authority, declare unlawful any act or omission of the Crown which constitutes such a contravention.
  (3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) above, any provision made by or under this Act shall apply to persons in the public service of the Crown as it applies to other persons.
  (4) If the Secretary of State certifies that it appears to him, as respects any Crown premises and any powers of entry exercisable in relation to them specified in the certificate, that it is requisite or expedient that, in the interests of national security, the powers should not be exercisable in relation to those premises, those powers shall not be exercisable in relation to those premises.
  (5) Nothing in this section shall be taken as in any way affecting Her Majesty in her private capacity.
  (6) In this section "Crown premises" means premises held by or on behalf of the Crown.".'.
  237 Page 198, line 9, at end insert:
  'The Water (Scotland) Act 1980
  . After section 110 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 there shall be inserted—
  "Application of Act to Crown.
  110A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, this Act shall bind the Crown.
  (2) No contravention by the Crown of any provision made by or under this Act shall make the Crown criminally liable; but the Court of Session may, on the application of a water authority, declare unlawful any act or omission of the Crown which constitutes such a contravention.
  (3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) above, any provision made by or under this Act shall apply to persons in the public service of the Crown as it applies to other persons.
  (4) If the Secretary of State certifies that it appears to him, as respects any Crown premises and any powers of entry exercisable in relation to them specified in the certificate, that it is requisite or expedient that, in the interests of national security, the powers should not be exercisable in relation to those premises, those powers shall not be exercisable in relation to those premises.
  (5) Nothing in this section shall be taken as in any way affecting Her Majesty in her private capacity.
  (6) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) above, the powers conferred by sections 16 to 18 above shall be exercisable in relation to land in which there is a Crown interest only with the consent of the appropriate authority.
  (7) In this section—
  "the appropriate authority" has the same meaning as it has in section 253(7) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972;
  "Crown interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, or belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department;
  "Crown premises" means premises held by or on behalf of the Crown.
  (8) The provisions of subsection (7) of section 253 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (questions relating to Crown application) as to the determination of questions shall apply for the purposes of this section.".
  The Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994
  After section 125 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 there shall be inserted—
  "Application of Part II to Crown.
  125A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, this Part of this Act shall bind the Crown.
  (2) No contravention by the Crown of any provision made by or under this Part of this Act shall make the Crown criminally liable; but the Court of Session may, on the application of a new water and sewerage authority, declare unlawful any act or omission of the Crown which constitutes such a contravention.
  (3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) above, any provision made by or under this Part of this Act shall apply to persons in the public service of the Crown as it applies to other persons.
  (4) Nothing in this section shall be taken as in any way affecting Her Majesty in her private capacity.
  (5) Subject to subsection (4) above, the powers conferred by section 99 above shall be exercisable in relation to land in which there is a Crown interest only with the consent of the appropriate authority.
  (6) In this section—

  1629
  "the appropriate authority" has the same meaning as it has in section 253(7) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972;
  "Crown interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, or belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department;
  "Crown premises" means premises held by or on behalf of the Crown.
  (7) The provisions of subsection (7) of section 253 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (questions relating to Crown application) as to the determination of questions shall apply for the purposes of this section.".'.
  238 Schedule 18, page 199, line 31, at end insert:
  '() for the word "them" in each place where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "it";'.
  239 Page 200, line 19, at end insert:
  'The Public Records Act 1958
  . In the First Schedule to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records) in Part II of the Table at the end of paragraph 3 (organisations whose records are public records) there shall be inserted at the appropriate place the entry—
  "The Environment Agency.".'.
  240 Page 200, line 21, leave out '52(3)' and insert '7(8)'.
  241 Page 200, line 21, after '1958' insert '(definitions etc. for the purposes of section 7) in paragraph (i) of the definition of "statutory water undertakers" for the words "National Rivers Authority" there shall be substituted the words "Environment Agency".
  (2) In section 52(3) of that Act'.
  242 Page 202, line 50, at end insert:
  'The Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971
  .—(1) The Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
  (2) After section 11 (duty to report discharge of oil into waters of harbours) there shall be inserted—
  "Certain provisions not to apply where a discharge or escape is authorised under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
  11A.—(1) The provisions of sections 2(1) and (2A), 3(1) and 11(1) of this Act shall not apply to any discharge which is made under, and the provisions of section 11(1) of this Act shall not apply to any escape which is authorised by, an authorisation granted under Part I of the Environmental Protection 1990.
  (2) This section does not extend to Northern Ireland."
  (3) In section 25(1) (power to extend certain provisions of the Act to the Isle of Man etc.), after the words "other than section 3" there shall be inserted the word ", 11A".
  The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972
  In Schedule 7 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (determination of certain appeals by persons appointed by the Secretary of State), in paragraph 2, after sub-paragraph (f) there shall be inserted—
  "(g) in relation to appeals under paragraphs 6(11) and (12) and 11(1) of Schedule (Review of old mineral planning permissions) and paragraph 9(1) of Schedule (Periodic review of mineral planning permissions)to the Environment Act 1995, paragraph 6 of Schedule 10A to this Act.".'.
  243 Page 206, line 27, at end insert:
  In section 62(2) (a) of that Act (exceptions to restrictions on the operation of loudspeakers in streets), as it has effect in relation to England and Wales, for the words "National Rivers Authority" there shall be substituted the words "Environment Agency".'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 210 to 243 en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 210 to 243.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  244 Schedule 18, page 207, line 48, after 'occur' insert '(other than the last reference in subsection (2))'.
  245 Page 207, line 50, after 'application)' insert '(i)'.
  246 Page 208, line 2, after 'consent";' insert:
  '(ii) for the word "three" there shall be substituted the word "four"; and
  (iii) for the words "the authority shall be deemed to have refused the consent" there shall be substituted the words "the applicant may treat the consent applied for as having been refused";'.
  247 Page 208, line 15, leave out 'and'.
  248 Page 208, line 27, at end insert '; and
  (c) in subsection (6), for the word "three" there shall be substituted the word "four".
  () In section 37(1) (revocation of consents and alteration and imposition of conditions), for the words from the beginning to "consent" in the second place where it occurs there shall be substituted the words "SEPA may from time to time review any consent given in pursuance of section 34 of this Act".
  () In section 38 (restriction as to variation and revocation of consent and of previous variation), in each of subsections (1) and (2), for the word "two" there shall he substituted the word "four".
  () After section 38 there shall be inserted—
  "General review of consents.
  38A.—(1) If it appears appropriate to the Secretary of State to do so he may at any time direct SEPA to review—

  (a) the consents given under section 34 of this Act; or

  (b) any description of such consents,

  and the conditions (if any) to which those consents are subject.
  (2) A direction given by virtue of subsection (1) above—

  (a) shall specify the purpose for which; and

  (b) may specify the manner in which, the review is to be conducted.

  (3) After carrying out the review, SEPA shall submit to the Secretary of State its proposals (if any) for—

  (a) the modification of the conditions of any consent reviewed pursuant to the direction; or

  (b) in the case of any such consent which is unconditional, subjecting the consent to conditions.

  (4) Where the Secretary of State has received any proposals under subsection (3) above in relation to any consent he may, if it appears appropriate to him to do so, direct SEPA, in relation to that consent—

  (a) to make modifications of the conditions of the consent; or

  1631

  (b) in the case of an unconditional consent, to subject the consent to conditions.

  (5) A direction given by virtue of subsection (4) above may direct SEPA to do, in relation to any such consent, only—

  (a) any such thing as SEPA has proposed should be done in relation to that consent; or

  (b) any such thing with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.".'.

  249 Page 208, line 28, after 'State)' insert:
  '() in subsection (1), in each of paragraphs (b) and (c), for the words "the preceding section" there shall be substituted the words "section 38 of this Act";

  (a) in subsection (5), for the words "terms and period as are" there shall be substituted the words "period as is";

  (b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—

  "(5A) Subject to subsection (5B) below, where a question is referred to the Secretary of State in pursuance of subsection (1) (b) above, the revocation of the consent or, as the case may be, the modification of the conditions of the consent or the provision that the consent (having been unconditional) shall be subject to conditions, shall not take effect while the reference is pending.
  (5B) Subsection (5A) above shall not apply to a reference where the notice effecting the revocation, modification or provision in question includes a statement that in the opinion of SEPA it is necessary for the purpose of preventing or, where that is not practicable, minimizing—

  (a) the entry into controlled waters of any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter, or

  (b) harm to human health,

  that that subsection should not apply.
  (5C) Where the reference falls within subsection (5B) above, if, on the application of the holder or former holder of the consent, the Secretary of State (or other person determining the question referred) determines that SEPA acted unreasonably in excluding the application of subsection (5A) above, then—

  (a) if the reference is still pending at the end of the day on which that determination is made, subsection (5A) above shall apply to the reference from the end of that day; and

  (b) the holder or former holder of the consent shall be entitled to recover compensation from SEPA in respect of any loss suffered by him in consequence of the exclusion of the application of that subsection;

  and any dispute as to a person's entitlement to such compensation or as to the amount of it shall be determined by a single arbiter appointed, in default of agreement between the parties concerned, by the Secretary of State on the application of any of the parties."; and
  (c)". .
  250 Page 208, line 31, at end insert:
  '(8) In this section "the holder", in relation to a consent, is the person who has the consent.".'.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 244 to 250 en bloc. At the same time I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 254, 282, 295, 296, 297 and 337, as well as to Amendments Nos. 295A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 295, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
  1632
  Amendments Nos. 248, 295, 297 and 337 introduce powers for the Secretary of State to direct the NRA and, in future, the agency, and for the Secretary of State for Scotland to direct SEPA, to undertake reviews of particular descriptions of consents for the purpose of making proposals to us for modifications to those consents.
  Having considered those proposals, the Secretary of State could then give them effect through a direction; in other words, modification of a number of consents could be achieved by direction. We consider that these powers offer a useful means for the Secretary of State to deal more expeditiously with changes to consents where an issue of general policy arises that affects a number of consents. In our view that would offer substantial advantages in terms of facilitating any changes that might be required to consents where an issue of general policy has been shown to arise. I know that the NRA has also said that it welcomes the introduction of such a power. I should, however, also make clear that we envisage that exercise of this power would not be frequent and that modifications to individual consents would continue to be dealt with on a bilateral basis between the discharger and the regulator.
  I want now to say something about our intentions in using these powers of direction. There are, of course, two powers: one to require the NRA to undertake a review of consents and then to come forward with proposals for modifications; the second to implement any changes to consents that may have been proposed.
  As regards the first direction, we have previously demonstrated our acceptance in principle of the development of general clauses to be included in, consents. However, experience has also shown that such conditions need very careful consideration. We need to discuss a number of issues with the NRA but, subject to those discussions, our intention would be to make use of the power to issue a direction. We intend that the powers in Amendment No. 295 should be commenced two months after Royal Assent.
  As regards the second direction—to implement any proposals made by the NRA—we cannot, of course, be expected to prejudge the outcome of such a review. We shall need, among other things, to hear the views of dischargers. And as I indicated, the Secretary of State must retain the right to modify the proposals that are brought forward.
  Amendment No. 296 has a simple purpose. It is intended to ensure that in future, as under the existing legislation, the requirement for advertising of an application for a discharge consent can be waived if the agency considers such advertising to be unnecessary in the case of a particular application.
  Amendments Nos. 282 and 249 provide a refinement of the deregulatory measures already in the Bill affecting discharge consent appeals. As originally drafted, the Bill provided that where an agency decides to revoke a consent, the revocation should not take effect until any appeal has been determined. It did not make the same provision for cases where an agency decides to modify a consent or impose conditions on a

  1633
  previously unconditional consent. On further consideration, however, we concluded that that was not the correct approach.
  These amendments therefore bring decisions by the agencies to modify a discharge consent and to impose conditions on a previously unconditional consent into line with revocations so that the effect of such decisions will also be suspended pending determination or withdrawal of an appeal. We recognised, however, that there will be situations where it is necessary for revocations, modifications and conditions to come into force immediately. The amendments therefore allow the agencies to require the discharger to comply immediately with the effect of a decision where they consider this to be necessary to prevent or minimise pollution of controlled waters or harm to human health. We consider that these amendments offer a sensible way forward, providing a balance between the interests of dischargers and the need for changes to have immediate effect where there is a pressing environmental or health requirement for them to do so.
  Amendments Nos. 244 to 247 and 250 amend the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and are designed to increase the operational flexibility of the water pollution control regime in Scotland. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 244 to 250.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
  Baroness Hanwell: My Lords, as the noble Earl spoke to Commons Amendment No. 295 and perhaps anticipated what I might say in moving Amendment No. 295A, it may be convenient for me to place on record the anxieties that underlie my amendment. When we come to it, it may not be necessary for me to move it, but it is appropriate that my concerns are on record.
  Following a serious pollution incident, discharge consents, setting limits on the amount of certain named substances allowed into rivers and coastal waters, have recently been reviewed as to their content. It had been understood that discharge consents only authorised the discharge of substances that could reasonably be expected to be present in the specific effluent, and that the consent would not provide a defence if pollution was caused by other substances not mentioned in the consent. As I say, the efficacy of that system recently came into doubt. It is not just a matter of action by the NRA or, as it will he, of the environment agency. There is concern that there would be difficulty for people who are affected to pursue damage claims in the civil courts in that situation.
  To clarify the position I was concerned to ensure that Ministers used their powers of direction to restore adequate environmental protection and give your Lordships and those concerned outside this place clear assurance that the issue will be progressed satisfactorily and river quality restored. I believe that that adequately puts on record the concerns that underlie my amendment.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  251 Schedule 18, page 208, line 50, leave out 'and (k)' and insert:

  (k) works notices under section 46A of this Act;

  (l) appeals under section 46B of this Act;

  (m) convictions for offences under section 46C of this Act; and

  (n)"..

  252 Page 211, line 39, after `(1)' insert:

  (i) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (1B) below,"; and

  (ii)". .

  253 Page 211, line 46, at end insert:
  (1B) Without prejudice to the power of SEPA to carry out investigations under subsection (1A) above, the power conferred by subsection (1) above to carry out operations shall be exercisable only in a case where—

  (a) SEPA considers it necessary to carry out forthwith any operations falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above; or

  (b) it appears to SEPA, after reasonable inquiry, that no person can be found on whom to serve a works notice under section 46A of this Act.".'.

  254 Page 211, line 49, after '(3) (b)' insert `(i)'.
  255 Page 211, line 50, at end insert & and

  (ii) after the words "an abandoned mine" there shall be inserted the words "or an abandoned part of a mine";'.

  256 Page 211, line 52, leave out 'if the mine in question became an abandoned mine' and insert 'to the owner or former operator of any mine or part of a mine if the mine or part in question became abandoned'.
  257 Page 211, line 53, at end insert:
  (3B) Subsections (4A) and (4B) of section 301 above shall apply in relation to subsections (3) and (3A) above as they apply in relation to subsections (3) and (4) of that section."
  () After section 46 there shall be inserted the following sections—
  "Notices requiring persons to carry out anti-pollution operations.
  46A.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, where it appears to SEPA 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, SEPA shall be entitled to serve a works notice on any person who, as the case may be,—

  (a) caused or knowingly permitted the matter in question to be present at the place from which it is likely, in the opinion of SEPA, to enter any controlled waters; or

  (b) caused or knowingly permitted the matter in question to be present in any controlled waters.

  (2) For the purposes of this section, a "works notice" is a notice requiring the person on whom it is served to carry out such of the following operations as may be specified in the notice, that is to say—

  (a) in a case where the matter in question appears likely to enter any controlled waters, 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, operations for the purpose—

  (i) of removing or disposing of the matter;

  1635

  (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.

  (3) A works notice—

  (a) must specify the periods within which the person on whom it is served is required to do each of the things specified in the notice; and

  (b) is without prejudice to the powers of SEPA by virtue of section 46(1B) (a) of this Act.

  (4) Before serving a works notice on any person, SEPA shall reasonably endeavour to consult that person concerning the operations which are to be specified in the notice.
  (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with—

  (a) the form or content of works notices;

  (aa) requirements for consultation, before the service of a works notice, with persons other than the person on whom that notice is to be served;

  (b) steps to be taken for the purposes of any consultation required under subsection (4) above or regulations made by virtue of paragraph (aa) above;

  (c) any other steps of a procedural nature which are to be taken in connection with, or in consequence of, the service of a works notice.

  (5A) A works notice shall not be regarded as invalid, or as invalidly served, by reason only of any failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (4) above or of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (aa) of subsection (5) above.
  (6) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall entitle SEPA to require the carrying out of any operations which would impede or prevent the making of any discharge in pursuance of a consent given by SEPA by virtue of section 34 of this Act.
  (7) No works notice shall be served on any person requiring him to carry out any operations in respect of water from an abandoned mine or an abandoned part of a mine which that person permitted to reach such a place as is mentioned in subsection (1) (a) above or to enter any controlled waters.
  (8) Subsection (7) above shall not apply to the owner or former operator of any mine or part of a mine if the mine or part in question became abandoned after 31st December 1999.
  (9) Subsections (4A) and (4B) of section 301 of this Act shall apply in relation to subsections (7) and (8) above as they apply in relation to subsections (3) and (4) of that section.
  (10) Where SEPA—

  (a) carries out any such investigations as are mentioned in section 46(1A) of this Act, and

  (b) serves a works notice on a person in connection with the matter to which the investigations relate,

  it shall (unless the notice is quashed or withdrawn) be entitled to recover the costs or expenses reasonably incurred in carrying out those investigations from that person.
  (11) The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit in relation to any person, give directions to SEPA as to whether or how it should exercise its powers under this section.
  Grant of and compensation for, rights of entry etc.
  46AA.—(1) A works notice may require a person to carry out operations in relation to any land or waters notwithstanding that he is not entitled to carry out those operations.
  (2) Any person whose consent is required before any operations required by a works notice may he carried out shall grant, or join in granting, such rights in relation to any land or waters as will enable the person on whom the works notice is served to comply with any requirements imposed by the works notice.
  (3) Before serving a works notice, SEPA shall reasonably endeavour to consult every person who appears to it—

  (a) to be the owner or occupier of any relevant land, and

  (b) to be a person who might he required by subsection (2) above to grant, or join in granting, any rights,

  concerning the rights which that person may be so required to grant.
  (4) A works notice shall not be regarded as invalid, or as invalidly served, by reason only of any failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (3) above.
  (5) A person who grants, or joins in granting, any rights pursuant to subsection (2) above shall be entitled, on making an application within such period as may be prescribed and in such manner as may be prescribed to such person as may be prescribed, to be paid by the person on whom the works notice in question is served compensation of such amount as may be determined in such manner as may be prescribed.
  (6) Without prejudice to the generality of the regulations that may be made by virtue of subsection (5) above, regulations by virtue of that subsection may make such provision in relation to compensation under this section as may be made by regulations by virtue of subsection (4) of section 35A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to compensation under that section.
  (7) In this section—
  "relevant land" means—

  (a) any land or waters in relation to which the works notice in question requires, or may require, operations to be carried out; or

  (b) any land adjoining or adjacent to that land or those waters;

  "works notice" means a works notice under section 46A of this Act.
  Appeals against works notices.
  46B.—(1) A person on whom a works notice is served may, within the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day on which the notice is served, appeal against the notice to the Secretary of State.
  (2) On any appeal under this section the Secretary of State—

  (a) shall quash the notice, if he is satisfied that there is a material defect in the notice; but

  (b) subject to that, may confirm the notice, with or without modification, or quash it.

  (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to

  (a) the grounds on which appeals under this section may be made; or

  (b) the procedure on any such appeal.

  (4) Regulations under subsection (3) above may (among other things)—

  1637

  (a) include provisions comparable to those in section 290 of the Public Health Act 1936 (appeals against notices requiring the execution of works);

  (b) prescribe the cases in which a works notice is, or is not, to be suspended until the appeal is decided, or until some other stage in the proceedings;

  (c) prescribe the cases in which the decision on an appeal may in some respects be less favourable to the appellant than the works notice against which he is appealing;

  (d) prescribe the cases in which the appellant may claim that a works notice should have been served on some other person and prescribe the procedure to be followed in those cases;

  (e) make provision as respects—

  (i) the particulars to be included in the notice of appeal;

  (ii) the persons on whom notice of appeal is to be served and the particulars, if any, which are to accompany the notice; or

  (iii) the abandonment of an appeal.

  (5) In this section "works notice" means a works notice under section 46A of this Act.
  (6) This section is subject to section 96 of the Environment Act 1995 (delegation or reference of appeals).
  Consequences of not complying with a works notice.
  46C.—(1) If a person on whom SEPA serves a works notice fails to comply with any of the requirements of the notice, he shall be guilty of an offence.
  (2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable—

  (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding £20,000 or to both;

  (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

  (3) If a person on whom a works notice has been served fails to comply with any of the requirements of the notice, SEPA may do what that person was required to do and may recover from him any costs or expenses reasonably incurred by SEPA in doing it.
  (4) If SEPA is of the opinion that proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above would afford an ineffectual remedy against a person who has failed to comply with the requirements of a works notice, SEPA may take proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of securing compliance with the notice.
  (5) In this section "works notice" means a works notice under section 46A of this Act.".'.
  258 Page 212, line 34, at end insert:
  '() If SEPA is of the opinion that proceedings for an offence under subsection (3) above would afford an ineffectual remedy against a person who has failed to comply with the requirements of an enforcement notice, SEPA may take proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of securing compliance with the notice.'.
  259 Page 213, line 21, at end insert:
  () In section 56(1) (interpretation of Part II), the following definition shall be inserted in the appropriate place in alphabetical order—
  ""operations" includes works;".'.
  260 Page 215, line 42, at end insert:
  'The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
  28A. In section 44 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (interpretation of Part I of that Act) after subsection (1 A) (certain provisions of that Act, including section 16 (obtaining information about land), to have effect as if the Broads Authority were a local authority) there shall be inserted—
  "(1B) Section 16 of this Act shall have effect as if the Environment Agency were a local authority."…
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 251 to 260.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 251 to 260.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  261 Schedule 18, page 216, line 32, at end insert:
  ' The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
  30A.—(1) In section I of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (traffic regulation orders outside Greater London) in subsection (1), after paragraph (f) (which allows a traffic regulation order to be made for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs) there shall be added "or
  (g) for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of section (Regulations for the purposes of Part (Air Quality)) of the Environment Act 1995 (air quality)."
  (2) In section 6 of that Act (orders similar to traffic regulation orders in Greater London) in subsection (I) (b) (which allows orders in Greater London to be made for equivalent purposes to those in section 1(1) (a) to (f) of that Act) for the words "(a) to (f)" there shall be substituted the words "(a) to (g)".
  (3) In section 122(2) of that Act (matters to which, so far as practicable, regard is to be had by local authorities in exercising their functions under the Act) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
  "(bb) the strategy prepared under section (National air quality strategy) of the Environment Act 1995 (national air quality strategy);".'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 261.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 261.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  [Amendment No. 261A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 261, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  262 Schedule 18, page 217, leave out lines 26 to 37 and insert:
  '(6) Subsection (2) of that section (disclosure of information between certain authorities) shall cease to have effect.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 262.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 262.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  263 Schedule 18, page 218, line 2, leave out from beginning to `(water' and insert:
  '32.—(1) Section 3 of the Electricity Act 1989 (general duties of the Secretary of State and the Director General of Electricity Supply when exercising certain functions) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
  (2) In subsection (1) (c) (duty, subject to subsection (2), to promote competition), for the words "subsection (2)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (2) and (2A)".
  (3) After subsection (2) (duties as regards the supply of electricity in Scotland in certain cases) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) If an order under section 32(1) below requires a public electricity supplier to make, or produce evidence showing that he has made, arrangements or additional arrangements which will secure the result mentioned in subsection (2B) below, the order, so far as relating to any such requirement, may be made for the purpose of, or for purposes which include, promoting the supply to any premises of—

  (a) heat produced in association with electricity, or

  (b) steam produced from, or air or water heated by, such heat.

  (2B) The result referred to in subsection (2A) above is that, for a period specified in the order, there will be available to the public electricity supplier—

  (a) from combined heat and power stations; or

  (b) from combined heat and power stations of any particular description,

  an aggregate amount of generating capacity which is not less than that specified in relation to him in the order.
  (2C) In subsection (2B) above, "combined heat and power station" has the meaning given by section 32(8) below.".
  (4) In subsection (3) (further duties), for the words "and (2)" there shall be substituted the words ", (2) and (2A)".
  32A.—(1) Section 32 of that Act (electricity from non-fossil fuel sources) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
  (2) After subsection (2) (result to be secured by arrangements made pursuant to an order under subsection (1)) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) For the purposes of this section—

  (a) combined heat and power stations generally; and

  (b) combined heat and power stations of any particular description,

  are to be taken as being particular descriptions of non-fossil fuel generating stations.
  (2B) A particular description of combined heat and power stations may be described by reference to, or by reference to matters which include—

  (a) the heat or, as the case may be, the steam or heated air or water to be supplied from the station to any premises;

  (b) any premises to which any such heat, steam or heated air or water is to be supplied (including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the use to which any such premises are put);

  (c) the means or method by which any such heat, steam or heated air or water is to be supplied to any premises (including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, any system or network of supply or distribution); or

  1640

  (d) the arrangements (including financial or contractual arrangements) under which any such heat, steam or heated air or water is to be supplied to any premises.

  (2C) Subsections (2A) and (2B) above are without prejudice to—

  (a) the generality of subsection (2) (b) above, or

  (b) section 111(2) below;

  and subsection (2B) above is without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2A) (b) above.".
  (3) In subsection (8) (interpretation), after the definition of "coal products" there shall be inserted—
  ""combined heat and power station" means a non-fossil fuel generating station which is (or may be) operated for purposes including the supply to any premises of—

  (a) heat produced in association with electricity, or

  (b) steam produced from, or air or water heated by, such heat;".

  32B. In Schedule 4 to that Act (other powers etc. of licence holders) in paragraph 4(1) (b) (power for certain bodies to execute works involving alterations of electric lines or plant) for the words "National Rivers Authority" there shall be substituted the words "Environment Agency".
  32C. In Schedule 5 to that Act'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 263. During the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Wade moved an amendment with the intention of providing vires to identify combined heat and power schemes as a specific group in future non-fossil fuel obligation orders. This amendment meets his concern. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 263.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  264 Schedule 18, page 218, line 15, at end insert:
  ". In Schedule 5 to that Act (conditions relating to mineral working) in paragraph 4 (consultations) after sub-paragraph (4) there shall be inserted—
  "(4A) Without prejudice to the application of this paragraph in relation to consultation with the Forestry Commission, where the Minister is consulted pursuant to any provision of this paragraph—

  (a) he is not required to inspect any land or to express a view on any matter or question; and

  (b) he is not precluded from responding in general terms or otherwise in terms which are not specific to the land in question.".

  In Schedule 6 to that Act (determination of certain appeals by person appointed by the Secretary of State) in paragraph 1(1) (power, in respect of appeals under certain provisions, to prescribe classes of appeals to be determined by an appointed person instead of by the Secretary of State), after "208," there shall be inserted "and paragraphs 6(11) and (12) and 11(1) of Schedule (Review of old mineral planning permissions) and paragraph 9(1) of Schedule (Periodic review of mineral planning permissions) to the Environment Act 1995,".'.
  265 Page 219, line 8, at end insert:
  '(4A) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
  "(4A) In England and Wales, a local authority, in exercising the functions conferred or imposed on it under this Part by virtue of subsection (3) above, shall

  1641
  have regard to the strategy for the time being published pursuant to section (National air quality strategy) of the Environment Act 1995.".'.
  266 Page 219, line 19, leave out 'Subsections (4) to (8)' and insert `The requirements of sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, of paragraph (b) of subsection (8) above shall not apply in any case where, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the publication of notice in accordance with that sub-paragraph would be contrary to the interests of national security.
  (8B) Subsections (4) to (8A)'.
  267 Page 219, line 48, at end insert:
  '(2) At the end of subsection (12) of that section (definition of "relevant enactments" for the purposes of subsection (2)) there shall be added "; and
  (g) section (Regulations for the purposes of Part (Air Quality)) of the Environment Act 1995.".'.
  268 Page 221, line 29, at end insert:
  `() For subsection (5) (hearings) there shall be substituted—
  "(5) Before determining an appeal under this section, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit—

  (a) cause the appeal to take or continue in the form of a hearing (which may, if the person hearing the appeal so decides, be held, or held to any extent, in private); or

  (b) cause a local inquiry to be held;

  and the Secretary of State shall act as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above if a request is made by either party to the appeal to be heard with respect to the appeal.".'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 264 to 268.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 264 to 268.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  269 Schedule 18, page 224, line 30, at end insert:
  After section 35 of that Act there shall be inserted—
  "Compensation where rights granted pursuant to section 35(4) or 38(9A).
  35A.—(1) This section applies in any case where—

  (a) the holder of a licence is required —

  (i) by the conditions of the licence; or

  (ii) by a requirement imposed under section 38(9) below,

  to carry out any works or do any other thing which he is not entitled to carry out or do;
  (b) a person whose consent would be required has, pursuant to the requirements of section 35(4) above or 38(9A) below, granted, or joined in granting, to the holder of the licence any rights in relation to any land; and
  (c) those rights, or those rights together with other rights, are such as will enable the holder of the licence to comply with any requirements imposed on him by the licence or, as the case may be, under section 38(9) below.
  (2) In a case where this section applies, any person who has granted, or joined in granting, the rights in question shall be entitled to be paid compensation under this section by the holder of the licence.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for the descriptions of loss and damage for which compensation is payable under this section.
  (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

  (a) provide for the basis on which any amount to be paid by way of compensation under this section is to be assessed;

  (b) without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) and paragraph (a) above, provide for compensation under this section to be payable in respect of —

  (i) any effect of any rights being granted, or

  (ii) any consequence of the exercise of any rights which have been granted;

  (c) provide for the times at which any entitlement to compensation under this section is to arise or at which any such compensation is to become payable;

  (d) provide for the persons or bodies by whom, and the manner in which, any dispute —

  (i) as to whether any, and (if so) how much and when, compensation under this section is payable; or

  (ii) as to the person to or by whom it shall be paid,

  is to be determined;

  (e) provide for when or how applications may be made for compensation under this section;

  (f) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (d) above, provide for when or how applications may be made for the determination of any such disputes as are mentioned in that paragraph;

  (g) without prejudice to the generality of paragraphs (e) and (f) above, prescribe the form in which any such applications as are mentioned in those paragraphs are to be made;

  (h) make provision similar to any provision made by paragraph 8 of Schedule 19 to the Water Resources Act 1991;

  (j) make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons or circumstances;

  (k) include such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.".'.

  270 Page 226, line 7, at end insert:
  '(14) This section shall have effect subject to section 36A below."
  After section 36 of that Act there shall be inserted—
  "Consultation before the grant of certain licences.
  36A.—(1) This section applies where an application for a licence has been duly made to a waste regulation authority, and the authority proposes to issue a licence subject (by virtue of section 35(4) above) to any condition which might require the holder of the licence to—

  (a) carry out any works, or

  (b) do any other thing,

  which he might not be entitled to carry out or do.
  (2) Before issuing the licence, the waste regulation authority shall serve on every person appearing to the authority to be a person falling within subsection (3) below a notice which complies with the requirements set out in subsection (4) below.
  (3) A person falls within this subsection if—

  (a) he is the owner, lessee or occupier of any land; and

  1643

  (b) that land is land in relation to which it is likely that, as a consequence of the licence being issued subject to the condition in question, rights will have to be granted by virtue of section 35(4) above to the holder of the licence.

  (4) A notice served under subsection (2) above shall—

  (a) set out the condition in question;

  (b) indicate the nature of the works or other things which that condition might require the holder of the licence to carry out or do; and

  (c) specify the date by which, and the manner in which, any representations relating to the condition or its possible effects are to be made to the waste regulation authority by the person on whom the notice is served.

  (5) The date which, pursuant to subsection (4) (c) above, is specified in a notice shall be a date not earlier than the date on which expires the period—

  (a) beginning with the date on which the notice is served, and

  (b) of such length as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

  (6) Before the waste regulation authority issues the licence it must, subject to subsection (7) below, consider any representations made in relation to the condition in question, or its possible effects, by any person on whom a notice has been served under subsection (2) above.
  (7) Subsection (6) above does not require the waste regulation authority to consider any representations made by a person after the date specified in the notice served on him under subsection (2) above as the date by which his representations in relation to the condition or its possible effects are to be made.
  (8) In subsection (3) above—
  "owner", in relation to any land in England and Wales, means the person who—

  (a) is for the time being receiving the rack-rent of the land, whether on his own account or as agent or trustee for another person; or

  (b) would receive the rack-rent if the land were let at a rack-rent,

  but does not include a mortgagee not in possession; and
  "owner", in relation to any land in Scotland, means a person (other than a creditor in a heritable security not in possession of the security subjects) for the time being entitled to receive or who would, if the land were let, be entitled to receive, the rents of the land in connection with which the word is used and includes a trustee, 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.".'.
  271 Page 226, line 14, at end insert:
  '(3) After subsection (6) of that section (cases where an application for modification is deemed to have been rejected) there shall be added—
  "(7) This section shall have effect subject to section 37A below."
  After section 37 of that Act there shall be inserted—
  "Consultation before certain variations.
  37A.—(1) This section applies where—

  (a) a waste regulation authority proposes to modify a licence under section 37(1) or (2) (a) above; and

  1644

  (b) the licence, if modified as proposed, would be subject to a relevant new condition.

  (2) For the purposes of this section, a "relevant new condition" is any condition by virtue of which the holder of the licence might be required to carry out any works or do any other thing—

  (a)which he might not be entitled to carry out or do, and

  (b)which he could not be required to carry out or do by virtue of the conditions to which, prior to the modification, the licence is subject.

  (3) Before modifying the licence, the waste regulation authority shall serve on every person appearing to the authority to be a person falling within subsection (4) below a notice which complies with the requirements set out in subsection (5) below.
  (4) A person falls within this subsection if—

  (a) he is the owner, lessee or occupier of any land; and

  (b) that land is land in relation to which it is likely that, as a consequence of the licence being modified so as to be subject to the relevant new condition in question, rights will have to be granted by virtue of section 35(4) above to the holder of the licence.

  (5) A notice served under subsection (3) above shall—

  (a) set out the relevant new condition in question;

  (b)indicate the nature of the works or other things which that condition might require the holder of the licence to carry out or do but which he could not be required to carry out or do by virtue of the conditions (if any) to which, prior to the modification, the licence is subject; and

  (c)specify the date by which, and the manner in which, any representations relating to the condition or its possible effects are to be made to the waste regulation authority by the person on whom the notice is served.

  (6) The date which, pursuant to subsection (5) (c) above, is specified in a notice shall be a date not earlier than the date on which expires the period—

  (a) beginning with the date on which the notice is served, and

  (b) of such length as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

  (7) Before the waste regulation authority issues the licence it must, subject to subsection (8) below, consider any representations made in relation to the condition in question, or its possible effects, by any person on whom a notice has been served under subsection (3) above.
  (8) Subsection (7) above does not require the waste regulation authority to consider any representations made by a person after the date specified in the notice served on him under subsection (3) above as the date by which his representations in relation to the condition or its possible effects are to be made.
  (9) A waste regulation authority may postpone the service of any notice or the consideration of any representations required under the foregoing provisions of this section so far as the authority considers that by reason of an emergency it is appropriate to do so.
  (10) In subsection (3) above, "owner" has the same meaning as it has in subsection (3) of section 36A above by irtue of subsection (8) of that section.".'.
  272 Page 226, line 16, leave out `(12)' and insert `(9) (power to require certain measutes to be taken where licence suspended) there shall be inserted—
  "(9A) A requirement imposed under subsection (9) above may require the holder of a licence to carry out

  1645
  works or do other things notwithstanding that he is not entitled to carry out the works or do the thing and any person whose consent would be required shall grant, or join in granting, the holder of the licence such rights in relation to the land as will enable the holder of the licence to comply with any requirements imposed on him under that subsection.
  (9B) Subsections (2) to (8) of section 36A above shall, with the necessary modifications, apply where the authority proposes to impose a requirement under subsection (9) above which may require the holder of a licence to carry out any such works or do any such thing as is mentioned in subsection (9A) above as they apply where the authority proposes to issue a licence subject to any such condition as is mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, but as if—

  (a) the reference in subsection (3) of that section to section 35(4) above were a reference to subsection (9A) above; and

  (b) any reference in those subsections—

  (i) to the condition, or the condition in question, were a reference to the requirement; and

  (ii) to issuing a licence were a reference to serving a notice, under subsection (12) below, effecting the requirement.

  (9C) The authority may postpone the service of any notice or the consideration of any representations required under section 36A above, as applied by subsection (9B) above, so far as the authority considers that by reason of an emergency it is appropriate to do so."
  (2) After subsection (12) of that section (revocations and suspensions etc. to be effected by service of notice)'.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 269 to 272.
  Amendments Nos. 269 to 272 deal with an issue that was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Stanley during our Committee and Report stages and concern the requirement for landowners, and others with an interest in land, to grant rights under Section 35(4) of the Environmental Protection Act. Section 35(4) provides that where a waste management licence holder requires rights over land in order to comply with a condition in his licence, any person whose consent would be required must grant him the rights to enable him to comply with those conditions. Section 35(4) makes no provision for consulting those who might have to grant such rights when the licence condition is imposed or for compensating them for any loss or damage caused. We have carried out a consultation with interested parties and it confirmed the view that Section 35(4) provides inadequate safeguards for those required to grant rights under its provisions. Hence Amendments Nos. 269 to 272.
  Amendment No. 269 makes provision for the payment of compensation by the holder of the relevant waste management licence to anyone who is required to grant rights under Section 35(4) of the 1990 Act. Compensation is payable for loss or damage, but the detailed arrangements for determining the amount of compensation, including provision for resolving any disputes, are to be prescribed by regulations.
  1646
  Amendment No. 270 would modify the operation of Section 36 of the 1990 Act by placing a duty on waste regulation authorities—in future the agency—to notify those likely to be required to grant rights under Section 35(4) as a result of a condition which they propose imposing on a waste management licence when the licence is first issued.
  Amendment No. 271 makes similar provision in relation to the modification of licence conditions under Section 37 of the 1990 Act, but with the additional safeguard that where the licence is being modified in an emergency, the waste regulation authority would be able to postpone the consultation.
  Finally, Amendment No. 272 would amend Section 38(9) of the 1990 Act, which enables a waste regulation authority in suspending a waste management licence (or subsequently) to require measures to be taken to deal with or avert pollution. I commend the amendments to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 269 to 272 en bloc.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  9.30 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  273 Schedule 18, page 231, leave out lines 8 to 13 and insert:
  '"(1A) No matter shall constitute a statutory nuisance to the extent that it consists of, or is caused by, any land being in a contaminated state.
  (1B) Land is in a "contaminated state" for the purposes of subsection (IA) above if, and only if, it is in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that—

  (a) harm is being caused or there is a possibility of harm being caused; or

  (b) pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be, caused;

  and in this subsection "harm", "pollution of controlled waters" and "substance" have the same meaning as in Part IIA of this Act.".'.
  274 Page 232, line 11, leave out 'Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below,'.
  275 Page 232, leave out lines 21 to 27.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 273 to 275 en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 273 to 275 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  276 Schedule 18, page 236, line 33, at end insert:
  '. After section 93 of that Act (interpretation of Part III) there shall be insertedߞ

  PART IIIA PROMOTION OF THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER
  Duty to promote the efficient use of water.
  93A.—(1) It shall be the duty of every water undertaker to promote the efficient use of water by its customers.
  (2) The duty of a water undertaker under this section shall be enforceable under section 18 above—

  1647

  (a) by the Secretary of State; or

  (b) with the consent of or in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State, by the Director.

  (3) Nothing in this Part shall have effect to authorise or require a water undertaker to impose any requirement on any of its customers or potential customers.
  Power of Director to impose requirements on water undertakers.
  93B.—(1) The Director may require a water undertaker, in its performance of its duty under section 93A above, to—

  (a) take any such action; or

  (b) achieve any such overall standards of performance,

  as he may specify in the document imposing the requirement.
  (2) Where the Director, in the document imposing a requirement on a water undertaker under subsection (1) above, stipulates that any contravention of the requirement by the undertaker will be a breach of its duty under section 93A above, any contravention of that requirement by the undertaker shall be a breach of that duty.
  (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, a requirement under that subsection may—

  (a) require a water undertaker to make available to its customers or potential customers such facilities as may be specified in the document imposing the requirement;

  (b) require a water undertaker to provide or make available to its customers or potential customers such information as may be specified in the document imposing the requirement, and may specify the form in which, the times at which or the frequency with which any such information is to be provided or made available.

  (4) In exercising his powers under this section in relation to any water undertaker the Director shall have regard to the extent to which water resources are available to that undertaker.
  (5) Before imposing any requirement on a water undertaker under subsection (1) above the Director shall consult that undertaker.
  (6) Nothing in this section authorises the Director to impose any requirement on a water undertaker which has or may have the effect of authorising or requiring that undertaker to impose any requirement on any of its customers or potential customers.
  Publicity of requirements imposed under section 93B.
  93C.—(1) Where, under section 93B(1) above, the Director imposes any requirement on a water undertaker, the Director may arrange for that requirement to be publicised in any such manner as he may consider appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of that undertaker's customers.
  (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the Director may arrange for such publicising of the requirement as is mentioned in that subsection by—

  (a) himself publicising the requirement or causing it to be publicised; or

  (b) directing the undertaker to inform or arrange to inform its customers of the requirement.

  Information as to compliance with requirements under section 93B.
  93D.—(1) Where a water undertaker is subject to any requirement imposed under section 93B(1) above, the Director may arrange for there to be given to the customers of that undertaker at any such times or with such frequency, and in any such manner, as he may consider appropriate,
  1648
  such information about the level of performance achieved by the undertaker in relation to that requirement as appears to the Director to be expedient to be given to those customers.
  (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the Director may arrange for such giving of information as is mentioned in that subsection by—

  (a) himself disseminating the information or causing it to be disseminated; or

  (b) directing the undertaker to give or arrange to give the information to its customers.

  (3) At such times and in such form or manner as the Director may direct, a water undertaker shall provide the Director with such information as may be specified in the direction in connection with the undertaker's performance in relation to any requirement imposed upon the undertaker under section 93B(1) above.
  (4) A water undertaker who fails without reasonable excuse to do anything required of him by virtue of subsection (3) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.".
  . After section 101 of that Act (which provides for the determination of certain details in relation to requisitioned sewers) there shall be inserted—
  "Provision of public sewers otherwise than by requisition
  Further duty to provide sewers.
  101A.—(1) Without prejudice to section 98 above, it shall be the duty of a sewerage undertaker to provide a public sewer to be used for the drainage for domestic sewerage purposes of premises in a particular locality in its area if the conditions specified in subsection (2) below are satisfied.
  (2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

  (a) that the premises in question, or any of those premises, are premises on which there are buildings each of which, with the exception of any shed, glasshouse or other outbuilding appurtenant to a dwelling and not designed or occupied as living accommodation, is a building erected before, or whose erection was substantially completed by, 20th June 1995;

  (b) that the drains or sewers used for the drainage for domestic sewerage purposes of the premises in question do not, either directly or through an intermediate drain or sewer, connect with a public sewer; and

  (c) that the drainage of any of the premises in question in respect of which the condition specified in paragraph (a) above is satisfied is giving, or is likely to give, rise to such adverse effects to the environment or amenity that it is appropriate, having regard to any guidance issued under this section by the Secretary of State and all other relevant considerations, to provide a public sewer for the drainage for domestic sewerage purposes of the premises in question.

  (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection
  (2) (c) above, regard shall be had to the following considerations, so far as relevant, in determining whether it is appropriate for any sewer to be provided by virtue of this section—

  (a) the geology of the locality in question or of any other locality;

  (b) the number of premises, being premises on which there are buildings, which might reasonably be expected to be drained by means of that sewer;

  (c) the costs of providing that sewer;

  1649

  (d) the nature and extent of any adverse effects to the environment or amenity arising, or likely to arise, as a result of the premises or, as the case may be, the locality in question not being drained by means of a public sewer; and

  (e) the extent to which it is practicable for those effects to be overcome otherwise than by the provision (whether by virtue of this section or otherwise) of public sewers, and the costs of so overcoming those effects.

  (4) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section may—

  (a) relate to how regard is to be had to the considerations mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (3) above;

  (b) relate to any other matter which the Secretary of State considers may be a relevant consideration in any case and to how regard is to be had to any such matter;

  (c) set out considerations, other than those mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (3) above, to which (so far as relevant) regard shall be had in determining whether it is appropriate for any sewer to be provided by virtue of this section;

  (d) relate to how regard is to be had to any such consideration as is mentioned in paragraph (c) above;

  (e) without prejudice to paragraphs (a) to (d) above, relate to how a sewerage undertaker is to discharge its functions under this section.

  (5) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State shall consult—

  (a) the Environment Agency;

  (b) the Director; and

  (c) such other bodies or persons as he considers appropriate;

  and the Secretary of State shall arrange for any guidance issued by him under this section to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate.
  (6) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the duty of a sewerage undertaker by virtue of subsection (1) above shall be enforceable under section 18 above—

  (a) by the Secretary of State; or

  (b) with the consent of or in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State, by the Director.

  (7) Any dispute between a sewerage undertaker and an owner or occupier of any premises in its area as to—

  (a) whether the undertaker is under a duty by virtue of subsection (1) above to provide a public sewer to be used for any such drainage of those premises as is mentioned in that subsection;

  (b) the domestic sewerage purposes for which any such sewer should be provided; or

  (c) the time by which any such duty of the undertaker should be performed,

  shall be determined by the Environment Agency, and may be referred to the Environment Agency for determination by either of the parties to the dispute.
  (8) The Environment Agency—

  (a) shall notify the parties of the reasons for its decision on any dispute referred to it under subsection (7) above; and

  (b) may make any such recommendations, or give any such guidance, relating to or in connection with the drainage of the premises or locality in question as it considers appropriate.

  (9) The decision of the Environment Agency on any dispute referred to it under subsection (7) above shall be final.
  (10) A sewerage undertaker shall only be taken to be in breach of its duty under subsection (1) above where, and to the extent that, it has accepted, or the Environment Agency has determined under this section, that it is under such a duty and where any time accepted by it, or determined by the Environment Agency under this section, as the time by which the duty is to that extent to be performed has passed.".'.
  277 Page 239, line 13, at end insert:
  '.—(1) Section 142 of that Act (powers of undertakers to charge) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
  (2) In subsection (2) (manner in which charging powers to be exercised) for the words "subsection (3)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (3) and (3A)".
  (3) After subsection (3) (restriction on charging by agreement for trade effluent functions) there shall be inserted—
  "(3A) The power of a sewerage undertaker to charge, by virtue of subsection (1) above, for any services provided in the course of carrying out its duty under section 101A(1) above shall be exercisable only by or in accordance with a charges scheme under section 143 below."
  . In section 143 of that Act (charges schemes) after subsection (3) (charges which may be imposed in certain cases) there shall be inserted—
  "(3A) A sewerage undertaker is under a duty to ensure that any charges scheme made by the undertaker, so far as having effect to recover the undertaker's costs of providing a sewer by virtue of its duty under section 101A(1) above, causes those costs to be borne by the undertaker's customers generally; and a sewerage undertaker's duty under this subsection shall be enforceable under section 18 above—

  (a) by the Secretary of State; or

  (b) with the consent of or in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State, by the Director."

  . Section 151 of that Act shall cease to have effect.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 276 and 277 en bloc. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 279, 280, 317 and 328.
  During our consideration of this Bill, a number of amendments were moved that would place a duty on water undertakers to promote the efficient use of water by their customers. My noble friend Lord Ullswater was sympathetic to this intention, and the Government undertook to consider such provisions during the passage of the Bill through Parliament.
  The first part of Amendment No. 276 places a duty on water undertakers to promote the efficient use of water by their customers. Some water undertakers already consider this part of their customer care service; others could do more. The duty is backed up by a discretionary power for the Director General of Water Services to set standards of performance, where necessary, after taking account of the water resource situation in the undertaker's area and after consultation with the undertaker. The standards that the director general sets, and the undertaker's performance in meeting them will be made available to customers.

  1651
  We expect those standards to include the offering to customers of facilities, such as a low-cost voluntary metering scheme, and information on water use, which will enable them to make informed choices about how to use water efficiently. But there will be no compulsion on customers. The tone is one of encouragement. There is a dearth of information about the efficient use of water available to customers. Inefficient use of water will lead to requirements for new resources to be developed, the construction of new or expanded water treatment and waste water treatment plant and a consequent increase in customers' bills to pay for all that capital expenditure. I believe that the proposals here will help to inform customers and lead to a reduction in water use.
  The second part of Amendment No. 276 will make easier the provision of first-time connection to mains sewerage of existing premises. It puts a new requirement on a sewerage undertaker to provide public sewers to be used for the drainage for domestic purposes of premises in any locality in its area where there are adverse effects to the environment or amenity arising from the existing system, and where this is the most cost-effective solution.
  In the event of any dispute there is provision for a right to apply to the new Environment Agency to rule on whether there is a case for extending the mains sewerage network. These powers relate only to existing properties and do not cover future development. My department will issue guidance to the undertakers and the agency on the relevant issues to be taken into account in assessing the cost-effectiveness of the various solutions.
  Amendment No. 279 is a technical amendment. In Committee my noble friend Lord Crickhowell moved an amendment very similar to Amendment No. 280 to enable the agency to issue drought permits under certain circumstances on application by water undertakers, which we agreed to consider. Amendment No. 280 allows the agency to issue drought permits which would have the same effect as drought orders. The new power is to be parallel to the existing drought order powers. The power of the agency to issue such permits is to be exercisable in the same circumstances as the present power to make drought orders. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 276 and 277 en bloc.—(.Earl Ferrers.)
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 276, which fulfils the aims of an amendment that I put forward at an earlier stage. I particularly welcome the noble Earl's interpretation of the provisions which will mean that water metering will not be compulsorily imposed on customers.
  However, I have one niggle. All the emphasis is placed on the efficient use of water by customers. Why should we not include the efficient use of water by water companies? The mains which supply water to customers have been leaking with a 25 per cent. loss throughout the time that I have discussed the subject as a Member of your Lordships' House. Despite the work they have done recently, I understand that that figure is still
  1652
  roughly the same. It seems to me that the water companies should be included in the need to make efficient use of water, but, apart from that, I welcome the amendment.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I wish to make some comments and ask the Minister some questions about Amendments Nos. 276 and 277. I have given the Minister notice, and I am grateful to him for outlining the contents of Amendment No. 276 so that I do not have to explain how my queries fit into that in any great detail.
  I welcome the duty now proposed to be laid upon the undertakers to provide new sewerage systems, in effect, for residential premises in their area, but it is not clear in practice what the local authorities' role will now be in requisitioning new or extended sewerage schemes in rural areas. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how, in practice, he envisages the new system working with the old.
  There has been a marked decline in the number of new sewerage systems in recent years, although I think that I was mistaken in the note I sent the Minister when I said that that was especially since the Water Industry Act 1991. I do not believe that that was true. Given the undertakers' reluctance, acting under the present legislation, does the Minister anticipate that more rural sewerage schemes will be built as a result of the Bill, as amended by this schedule, coming into force? Such improved drainage is still urgently required in many rural areas, even though everyone will recognise that not every house can reasonably be expected to be connected to a main sewerage scheme.
  A further point relates to what considerations should be taken into account when determining whether it is appropriate for the new sewerage scheme to be provided. That comes under new Section 101A(3). As I understand it, local authorities retain their duty to ensure that private drainage systems do not pollute groundwater or damage local amenities. Will the undertakers be able to defend themselves from a request for a new or extended sewerage scheme by saying that the local authority should exercise those powers rather than attempt to requisition a new scheme? Is that what is intended by new Section 101A(3) (e)?
  I move now to new Section 101A(4) which relates to the guidance which will be issued by the Secretary of State. It can often be cheaper, and yet environmentally acceptable, to build small local treatment plants to provide main sewerage to a village community; that is to say, to do that rather than connect such communities to distant existing schemes. Yet a sewerage undertaker can frustrate a scheme by imposing engineering proposals to make the scheme financially unviable to the district council or to the residents, whomsoever is the requisitioner. Will the Government guidance indicate when the option of local treatment schemes will be acceptable?
  The powers of the environment agency to determine disputes between property owners, occupiers and the undertakers, on matters other than cost (new Section 101A(7)) are welcome, but will those powers enable also such small local schemes to be put in place where they are environmentally acceptable?

  1653
  On the matter of the settling of disputes, it is my understanding that in disputes between a requisitioning local authority and an undertaker, the local authority can seek arbitration only on matters of cost. That, at any rate, seems to be the current interpretation of Section 99(6) of the Water Industry Act 1991. Is it possible for the Government, through their guidance, to extend the scope of that arbitration to cover whether the undertaker has proposed a means of providing sewerage in the most economical or cost-effective way?
  That brings me to my final point, which is related to Amendment No. 277. Part of the amendment proposes the repeal of Section 151 of the 1991 Act; that is the discontinuance of the government grant to support local authorities' repayments to the undertakers. I am sure that I do not need to explain that at present the requisitioning local authority proposes that the undertaker does the work and then the local authority pays the amount back over a 12-year period. Let us suppose that the Government still see a role for local authorities in requisitioning sewerage schemes. Will the Minister consider extending the repayment period beyond the existing 12 years to a period which more closely reflects the life of the asset created by the new or extended scheme? Such an amendment or guidance would be some compensation to local authorities for their loss of grant.
  I am grateful to the Minister for enabling me to ask those questions.
  Lord Wise: My Lords, I am somewhat dismayed by the fact that Amendment No. 317 abolishes the government grants being paid to farmers towards first-time connections to the mains water supply and sewerage. I appreciate that much progress has been made during the past few years but, nevertheless, there are cases in which the continued availability of grants would provide a valuable incentive for farmers to connect to the mains. For example, that may be desirable in cases in which tougher environmental standards dictate that mains connection is desirable in substitution for private supplies and also the means of disposal. I am saddened that the grants will be removed. They are a great incentive and I would like to see them remain.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for her welcome of Amendment No. 276 because it met the points about which she was anxious. She said that she was glad that the meters would not be compulsory. I must say that I have a sneaking sympathy in sharing that view too. There is a forceful argument about meters. The fact is that if supplies are metered people use less and that if people use more one must pay for the construction of reservoirs, filtering plants and heaven knows what else. All of these are expensive and so up go the water rates. Therefore, there is a sound argument for saying that people should pay for what they use and they should be encouraged not to waste water.
  The noble Baroness said that it was fine to say that customers should not waste water but what about the companies which waste water all over the place—
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. He appeared to imply that he was sympathetic to the idea of compulsory water metering. I hope that even at this late stage he will reiterate his personal view and the view of the Government; that they are against compulsory water metering.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is too late to be put on the spot by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I was merely trying to explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that I too had a certain amount of sympathy with her view. However, there is the other side to the issue. It is a question of, on the one hand, this and, on the other hand, that. I thought that I was travelling a narrow course. I was saying that there are arguments for compulsory metering but that compulsory metering is not on the menu at the moment.
  The noble Baroness was concerned about the fact that consumers appear to be encouraged to save water but not the companies. Section 37 places a duty on water companies to provide an efficient and economic system of water supply. They would not do that if they wasted their water in an unsatisfactory way.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, was kind enough to give me notice of some of the questions which she asked and I am deeply grateful to her for that.
  She referred to the continuing role of local authorities in requisitioning. I can assure the noble Baroness that they will continue to be able to requisition the provision of sewers in rural areas. The second part of Amendment No. 276 imposes a new duty on sewerage undertakers to provide public sewers where there are environmental problems and public sewers are the most appropriate solution in all the circumstances.
  She was concerned about whether there would be more rural sewerage schemes as a result of this Bill. It is possible that, overall, there will be more rural sewerage schemes since the new arrangements will have to provide sewers where there are environmental problems which cannot be dealt with satisfactorily by existing systems such as cesspits and septic tanks.
  She asked whether sewerage undertakers would try to avoid their obligations by suggesting that local authorities should instead use their powers. It is not intended that Section 101A(3) (e) should be used to allow a sewerage undertaker to pass the responsibility to the local authority to deal with environmental problems. Each case for connection under the new duty will be looked at on its merits. Section 101A(3) (e) is intended to allow consideration of the practicality of alternatives to public sewerage such as the maintenance or repair of existing cesspits or septic tanks and to decide on which is the most cost effective solution.
  She was concerned also about small local treatment plants. Once it has been agreed or determined under the new arrangements that the undertaker has a duty to provide a public sewer, it will be for the undertaker to decide which method of disposal and treatment should be used to carry out its existing duty under Section 94 of the Water Industry Act to make the necessary provision for the disposal of sewage. The guidance under the new provisions will not deal with specific options for sewage disposal.

  1655
  The noble Baroness asked whether the agency would be able to determine that small local schemes should be used. Again, where it has been agreed or determined under the new provisions that it is appropriate to provide a public sewer—in other words, where there are environmental problems and that is the best solution in all the circumstances—the decision on the type of system will be for the undertaker. The agency will be able to make non-binding recommendations about that.
  The noble Baroness asked whether the Government would extend the scope of arbitration under the requisitioning provisions and would consider extending the existing 12-year repayment period for those who requisition, for example, local authorities. Both those matters concern the requisitioning provisions in Section 99 of the Act which are not the subject of the amendments which we are considering this evening. Those amendments introduce a new duty to provide sewers where there are environmental problems and mains sewerage is the most appropriate solution.
  My noble friend Lord Wise said that he is sorry that grants to farmers are being stopped and that it was better for farmers to be connected to the mains rather than using private supplies. I understand his feelings in that regard but we feel that grants have outlived their usefulness. The number of properties not connected to the mains has reduced significantly since grants were first introduced and a more practical solution for the remaining properties is now required. If a householder's sewerage is causing problems, that can be rectified without the need for it to be connected to the mains, such as by renewing the cesspit, and that is the most cost-effective solution. It is considered that the taxpayer's money should not be used to meet those costs.
  I hope that your Lordships are satisfied with regard to the points that have been raised and I commend the amendments.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  278 Schedule 18, page 239, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert:
  `(2) In subsection (3) (a) of that section (exception for disclosure of information for purposes of functions under certain enactments)—

  (a) for the words "the NRA" there shall be substituted the words "the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency"; and

  (b) for the words "or the Water Act 1989" there shall be substituted the words ", the Water Act 1989, Part I or 11A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Environment Act 1995".

  (3) In subsection (4), in paragraph (a) (which provides that nothing in subsection (1) shall limit the matters which may be included in reports made by specified bodies under specified enactments)—

  (a) for the words "the NRA" there shall be substituted the words "the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency"; and

  (b) for the words "or of the Water Resources Act 1991" there shall be substituted the words ", Part I or IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Water Resources Act 1991 or the Environment Act 1995"

  279 Page 241, line 22, leave out 'under' and insert 'by virtue of'.
  280 Page 241, line 22, at end insert:
  '. After section 79 of that Act (compensation and charges where drought order made) there shall be inserted—
  "Drought permits.
  79A.—(1) If the Agency is satisfied that, by reason of an exceptional shortage of rain, a serious deficiency of supplies of water in any area exists or is threatened then, subject to the following provisions of this section, it may, upon the application of a water undertaker which supplies water to premises in that area, issue to that undertaker a drought permit making such provision authorised by this section as appears to the Agency to be expedient with a view to meeting the deficiency.
  (2) A drought permit may contain any of the following provisions, that is to say.—

  (a) provision authorising the water undertaker to which it is issued to take water from any source specified in the permit subject to any conditions or restrictions so specified;

  (b) provision suspending or modifying, subject to any conditions specified in the permit, any restriction or obligation to which that undertaker is subject as respects the taking of water from any source.

  (3) A drought permit shall specify.—

  (a) the day on which it comes into force; and

  (b) the period for which, subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, any authorisation given, or suspension or modification effected, by the permit is to have effect.

  (4) Subject to subsection (5) below, the period for which.—

  (a) an authorisation given by a drought permit, or

  (b) a suspension or modification effected by such a permit,

  has effect shall expire before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which the permit comes into force.
  (5) At any time before the expiration of the period for which such an authorisation, suspension or modification has effect, the Agency may, by giving notice to the water undertaker to which the permit in question was issued, extend that period, but not so as to extend it beyond the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the permit came into force.
  (6) A drought permit which.—

  (a) authorises the taking of water from a source from which water is supplied to an inland navigation; or

  (b) suspends or modifies.—

  (i) a restriction as respects the taking of water from a source from which water is supplied to an inland navigation; or

  (ii) an obligation to discharge compensation water into a canal or into any river or stream which forms part of, or from which water is supplied to, an inland navigation,

  shall not be issued without the consent of every navigation authority exercising functions over any or all of the parts of the canal or inland navigation in question which are affected by the permit.
  (7) Schedule 8 to this Act shall have effect with respect to the procedure on an application for a drought permit as it has effect with respect to the procedure on an application for a drought order, but with the following modifications, that is to say.—

  (a) with the substitution for any reference to a drought order of a reference to a drought permit;

  1657

  (b)with the substitution for any reference to the Secretary of State of a reference to the Agency;

  (c) with the omission of the reference to the Agency in the Table in paragraph 1;

  (d) with the insertion, in paragraph 1(3) (c), of a requirement that the notice in question shall specify the address at which any objections are to be made to the Agency; and

  (e) with the omission.—

  (i) of paragraph 2(1) (a) and the word "either" immediately preceding it, and

  (ii) of paragraph 2(6).

  (8) For the purposes of sections 125 to 129 below any water authorised by a drought permit to be abstracted from a source of supply shall be treated as if it had been authorised to be so abstracted by a licence granted under Chapter II of this Part, whether the water undertaker to which the permit is issued is the holder of such a licence or not.
  (9) Section 79 above and Schedule 9 to this Act shall apply in relation to drought permits and their issue as they apply in relation to ordinary drought orders and their making.
  (10) A drought permit may—

  (a) make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances or localities; and

  (b) contain such supplemental, consequential and transitional provisions as the Agency considers appropriate.

  (11) In this section—

  "compensation water" has the same meaning as in section 77 above;

  "drought permit" means a drought permit under this section;

  "inland navigation" has the same meaning as in section 77 above."

  In section 80 of that Act (offences against drought orders) —

  (a) in subsection (1) (a) (taking or using water otherwise than in accordance with any condition or restriction imposed by or under a drought order) for the words "so imposed" there shall be substituted the words "imposed by or under any drought order or by any drought permit";

  (b) in subsection (2) (a) (failure to construct or maintain measuring apparatus required by any drought order) after the words "by any drought order" there shall be inserted the words "or drought permit"; and

  (c) in subsection (2) (b) (failure to allow person authorised by or under any such order to inspect etc apparatus or records) after the words "by or under any such order" there shall be inserted the words "or by virtue of any such permit".'.

  281 Page 242, line 23, at end insert:
  `() If the Agency is of the opinion that proceedings for an offence under subsection (3) above would afford an ineffectual remedy against a person who has failed to comply with the requirements of an enforcement notice, the Agency may take proceedings in the High Court for the purpose of securing compliance with the notice.'.
  282 Page 243, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert:
  `(2F) Subject to subsection (2FF) below, where an appeal is brought by virtue of subsection (1) (c) above against a decision—

  (a) to revoke a discharge consent,

  1658

  (b) to modify the conditions of any such consent, or

  (c) to provide that any such consent which was unconditional shall be subject to conditions,

  the revocation, modification or provision shall not take effect pending the final determination or the withdrawal of the appeal.
  (2FF) Subsection (2F) above shall not apply to a decision in the case of which the notice effecting the revocation, modification or provision in question includes a statement that in the opinion of the Agency it is necessary for the purpose of preventing or, where that is not practicable, minimising—

  (a) the entry into controlled waters of any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter, or

  (b) harm to human health,

  that that subsection should not apply.
  (2FG) Where the decision under appeal is one falling within subsection (2FF) above, if, on the application of the holder or former holder of the consent, the Secretary of State or other person determining the appeal determines that the Agency acted unreasonably in excluding the application of subsection (2F) above, then—

  (a) if the appeal is still pending at the end of the day on which the determination is made, subsection (2F) above shall apply to the decision from the end of that day; and

  (b) the holder or former holder of the consent shall be entitled to recover compensation from the Agency in respect of any loss suffered by him in consequence of the exclusion of the application of that subsection;

  and any dispute as to a person's entitlement to such compensation or as to the amount of it shall be determined by arbitration.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 278 to 282.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 278 to 282.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  283 Schedule 18, page 244, line 6, leave out '(4) (b)' and insert `(1) (which confers power to charge an application fee of £50 or such other sum as may be specified by order made by the Ministers) for the words "specified by order made by the Ministers" there shall be substituted the word "prescribed".
  (2) In subsection (4) (b) of that section'.
  284 Page 244, line 9, at end insert:
  `(3) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted—
  "(6) In subsection (1) above "prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, an order made by the Ministers; and any such order may make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances or localities.".'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 283 and 284. Perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 300 at the same time. These amendments do two things. First, they fulfil our undertaking to my noble friend Lord Mills to consider bringing forward amendments relating to scales of fees

  1659
  for land drainage consents. Secondly, they fulfil our undertaking given to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to consider bringing forward a suitable amendment on the management of water levels to facilitate spray irrigation.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 283 and 284.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  285 Schedule 18, page 244, line 24, leave out 'In section 119(2) of that Act' and insert:
  '(1) In section 119 of that Act (duties with respect to certain funds raised under local enactments) for subsection (1) (duty of the National Rivers Authority, in respect of funds created for fishery purposes under local enactments, not to use those funds except for the purposes for which they could have been used if the Water Resources Act 1963 had not been passed) there shall be substituted—
  "(1) Where the Agency holds any funds, or any interest in any funds, which immediately before the transfer date the National Rivers Authority, by virtue of this subsection as originally enacted, was not permitted to use except for particular purposes, those funds or that interest shall not be used except for the purposes for which they could be used by virtue of this subsection as originally enacted.
  (1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, "the transfer date" has the same meaning as in Part I of the 1995 Act.".
  (2) In subsection (2) of that section'.
  286 Page 244, line 34, leave out paragraph 134.
  287 Page 245, line 34, at end insert:
  '140A.—(1) Section 161 of that Act (anti-pollution works and operations) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
  (2) In subsection (1) (power, subject to subsection (2), to carry out works and operations etc) for the words "Subject to subsection (2) below," there shall be substituted the words "Subject to subsections (1A) and (2) below,".
  (3) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
  "(1A) Without prejudice to the power of the Agency to carry out investigations under subsection (1) above, the power conferred by that subsection to carry out works and operations shall only be exercisable in a case where—

  (a) the Agency considers it necessary to carry out forthwith any works or operations falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection; or

  (b) it appears to the Agency, after reasonable inquiry, that no person can be found on whom to serve a works notice under section 161A below."

  140B. After that section there shall be inserted—
  "Notices requiring persons to carry out anti-pollution works and operations.
  161A. —(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, 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, the Agency shall be entitled to serve a works notice on any person who, as the case may be,—

  (a) caused or knowingly permitted the matter in question to be present at the place from which it is likely, in the opinion of the Agency, to enter any controlled waters; or

  1660

  (b) caused or knowingly permitted the matter in question to be present in any controlled waters.

  (2) For the purposes of this section, a "works notice" is a notice requiring the person on whom it is served to carry out such of the following works or operations as may be specified in the notice, that is to say—

  (a) in a case where the matter in question appears likely to enter any controlled waters, works or 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 or 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.

  (3) A works notice—

  (a) must specify the periods within which the person on whom it is served is required to do each of the things specified in the notice; and

  (b) is without prejudice to the powers of the Agency by virtue of section 161(1A) (a) above.

  (4) Before serving a works notice on any person, the Agency shall reasonably endeavour to consult that person concerning the works or operations which are to be specified in the notice.
  (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with—

  (a) the form or content of works notices;

  (aa) requirements for consultation, before the service of a works notice, with persons other than the person on whom that notice is to be served;

  (b) steps to be taken for the purposes of any consultation required under subsection (4) above or regulations made by virtue of paragraph (aa) above;

  (c) any other steps of a procedural nature which are to be taken in connection with, or in consequence of, the service of a works notice.

  (5A) A works notice shall not be regarded as invalid, or as invalidly served, by reason only of any failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (4) above or of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (aa) of subsection (5) above.
  (6) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall entitle the Agency to require the carrying out of any works or operations which would impede or prevent the making of any discharge in pursuance of a consent given under Chapter II of Part III of this Act.
  (7) No works notice shall be served on any person requiring him to carry out any works or operations in respect of water from an abandoned mine or an abandoned part of a mine which that person permitted to reach such a place as is mentioned in subsection (1) (a) above or to enter any controlled waters.
  (8) Subsection (7) above shall not apply to the owner or former operator of any mine or part of a mine if the mine or part in question became abandoned after 31st December 1999.
  (9) Subsections (3B) and (3C) of section 89 above shall apply in relation to subsections (7) and (8) above as they apply in relation to subsections (3) and (3A) of that section.
  (10) Where the Agency—

  (a) carries out any such investigations as are mentioned in section 161(1) above, and

  (b) serves a works notice on a person in connection with the matter to which the investigations relate,

  it shall (unless the notice is quashed or withdrawn) be entitled to recover the costs or expenses reasonably incurred in carrying out those investigations from that person.
  (11) The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit in relation to any person, give directions to the Agency as to whether or how it should exercise its powers under this section.
  (12) In this section—
  "controlled waters" has the same meaning as in Part III of this Act;
  "mine" has the same meaning as in the Mines and Quarries Act 1954.
  Grant of and compensation for, rights of entry etc.
  161AA. —(1) A works notice may require a person to carry out works or operations in relation to any land or waters notwithstanding that he is not entitled to carry out those works or operations.
  (2) Any person whose consent is required before any works or operations required by a works notice may be carried out shall grant, or join in granting, such rights in relation to any land or waters as will enable the person on whom the works notice is served to comply with any requirements imposed by the works notice.
  (3) Before serving a works notice, the Agency shall reasonably endeavour to consult every person who appears to itߞ

  (a) to be the owner or occupier of any relevant land, and

  (b) to be a person who might be required by subsection (2) above to grant, or join in granting, any rights,

  concerning the rights which that person may be so required to grant.
  (4) A works notice shall not be regarded as invalid, or as invalidly served, by reason only of any failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (3) above.
  (5) A person who grants, or joins in granting, any rights pursuant to subsection (2) above shall be entitled, on making an application within such period as may be prescribed and in such manner as may be prescribed to such person as may be prescribed, to be paid by the person on whom the works notice in question is served compensation of such amount as may be determined in such manner as may be prescribed.
  (6) Without prejudice to the generality of the regulations that may be made by virtue of subsection (5) above, regulations by virtue of that subsection may make such provision in relation to compensation under this section as may be made by regulations by virtue of subsection (4) of section 35A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to compensation under that section.
  (7) In this section—
  "prescribed" means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State;
  "relevant land" means—

  (a) any land or waters in relation to which the works notice in question requires, or may require, works or operations to be carried out; or

  1662

  (b) any land adjoining or adjacent to that land or those waters;

  "works notice" means a works notice under section 161A above.
  Appeals against works notices.
  161B. —(1) A person on whom a works notice is served may, within the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day on which the notice is served, appeal against the notice to the Secretary of State.
  (2) On any appeal under this section the Secretary of State—

  (a) shall quash the notice, if he is satisfied that there is a material defect in the notice; but

  (b) subject to that, may confirm the notice, with or without modification, or quash it.

  (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to—

  (a) the grounds on which appeals under this section may be made; or

  (b) the procedure on any such appeal.

  (4) Regulations under subsection (3) above may (among other things)—

  (a) include provisions comparable to those in section 290 of the Public Health Act 1936 (appeals against notices requiring the execution of works);

  (b) prescribe the cases in which a works notice is, or is not, to be suspended until the appeal is decided, or until some other stage in the proceedings;

  (c) prescribe the cases in which the decision on an appeal may in some respects be less favourable to the appellant than the works notice against which he is appealing;

  (d) prescribe the cases in which the appellant may claim that a works notice should have been served on some other person and prescribe the procedure to be followed in those cases;

  (e) make provision as respects—

  (i) the particulars to be included in the notice of appeal;

  (ii) the persons on whom notice of appeal is to be served and the particulars, if any, which are to accompany the notice; or

  (iii) the abandonment of an appeal.

  (5) In this section "works notice" means a works notice under section 161A above.
  (6) This section is subject to section 96 of the Environment Act 1995 (delegation or reference of appeals).
  Consequences of not complying with a works notice.
  161C.—(1) If a person on whom the Agency serves a works notice fails to comply with any of the requirements of the notice, he shall be guilty of an offence.
  (2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable—

  (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding £20,000 or to both;

  (b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

  (3) If a person on whom a works notice has been served fails to comply with any of the requirements of the notice, the Agency may do what that person was required to do and may recover from him any costs or expenses reasonably incurred by the Agency in doing it.
  (4) If the Agency is of the opinion that proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above would afford an ineffectual remedy against a person who has failed

  1663
  to comply with the requirements of a works notice, the Agency may take proceedings in the High Court for the purpose of securing compliance with the notice.
  (5) In this section "works notice" means a works notice under section 161A above."
  140C. In section 162 of that Act (other powers to deal with foul water or pollution) in subsection (1) (which refers to section 161 of that Act) for the words "section 161" there shall be substituted the words "sections 161 to 161C".'.
  288 Page 246, line 31, leave out 'and (o)' and insert:

  `(o) works notices under section 161A above;

  (p) appeals under section 161B above;

  (q) convictions for offences under section 161C above;

  (r)"..

  289 Page 249, leave out lines 36 to 39 and insert:
  '150.—(1) Section 204 of that Act (restriction on disclosure of information with respect to any particular business) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
  (2) In subsection (2) (a) (exception for disclosure of information for purposes of functions under certain enactments)—

  (a) for the words "the Authority" there shall be substituted the words "the Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency"; and

  (b) for the words "or the Water Act 1989" there shall be substituted the words ", the Water Act 1989, Part I or IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the 1995 Act".

  (3) In subsection (3), in paragraph (a) (which provides that nothing in subsection (1) shall limit the matters which may be included in reports made by specified bodies under specified enactments)—

  (a) after sub-paragraph (i), there shall be inserted — "(ia) the Scottish Environment Protection Agency;"; and

  (b) for the words "or that Act of 1991" there shall be substituted the words ", Part I or IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, that Act of 1991 or the 1995 Act".

  (4) In paragraph (b) of that subsection, after the words "that Act" there shall be inserted the words "of 1991".'.
  290 Page 250, line 1, at end insert:
  `() The definition of "the Authority" shall be omitted.'.
  291 Page 250, line 30, leave out `(local inquiries)' and insert '(inquiries and other hearings)'.
  292 Page 250, line 51, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 52 and insert 'and (2) of section 50 (inquiries and other hearings);".'.
  293 Page 251, line 2, after `(b)' insert:

  `(i) after the words "161" there shall be inserted the words "to 161C"; and

  (ii)"..

  294 Page 251, line 6, leave out `to (3)' and insert 'and (2)'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 285 to 294.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 285 to 294.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  295 Schedule 18, page 251, line 24, leave out from beginning to 'there' and insert:
  1664
  '158A. In Schedule 10 to that Act (discharge consents) after paragraph 7 (restriction on variation and revocation of consent and previous variation) there shall be added—
  "General review of consents
  8.—(1) If it appears appropriate to the Secretary of State to do so he may at any time direct the Authority to review—

  (a) the consents given under paragraphs 2 and 5 above, or

  (b) any description of such consents,

  and the conditions (if any) to which those consents are subject.
  (2) A direction given by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above

  (a) shall specify the purpose for which, and

  (b) may specify the manner in which, the review is to be conducted.

  (3) After carrying out a review pursuant to a direction given by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, the Authority shall submit to the Secretary of State its proposals (if any) for—

  (a) the modification of the conditions of any consent reviewed pursuant to the direction, or

  (b) in the case of any unconditional consent reviewed pursuant to the direction, subjecting the consent to conditions.

  (4) Where the Secretary of State has received any proposals from the Authority under sub-paragraph (3) above in relation to any consent he may, if it appears appropriate to him to do so, direct the Authority to do, in relation to that consent, anything mentioned in paragraph 6(2) (b) or (c) above.
  (5) A direction given by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) above may only direct the Authority to do, in relation to any consent,—

  (a) any such thing as the Authority has proposed should be done in relation to that consent, or

  (b) any such thing with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate."

  159. For that Schedule'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 295.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 295.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord McColl of Dulwich): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 295A, I should inform the House that the following words should be inserted before the words printed in the Marshalled List:
  "After inserting subsection (8) (1) insert—".
  [Amendment No. 295A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 295, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  296 Schedule 18, page 251, line 34, at end insert:
  '(1A) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may make provision for enabling the Agency to direct or determine that any such advertising of an application as is required under sub-paragraph (1) (b) above may, in any case, be dispensed with if, in that case, it appears to the Agency to be appropriate for that advertising to be dispensed with.'.
  297 Page 256, line 39, at end insert:
  'General review of consents
  8A.—(l) If it appears appropriate to the Secretary of State to do so he may at any time direct the Agency to review—

  (a) the consents given under paragraph 3 or 6 above, or

  (b) any description of such consents,

  and the conditions (if any) to which those consents are subject.
  (2) A direction given by virtue of sub-paragraph (I) above—

  (a) shall specify the purpose for which, and

  (b) may specify the manner in which,

  the review is to be conducted.
  (3) After carrying out a review pursuant to a direction given by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, the Agency shall submit to the Secretary of State its proposals (if any) for—

  (a) the modification of the conditions of any consent reviewed pursuant to the direction, or

  (b) in the case of any unconditional consent reviewed pursuant to the direction, subjecting the consent to conditions.

  (4) Where the Secretary of State has received any proposals from the Agency under sub-paragraph (3) above in relation to any consent he may, if it appears appropriate to him to do so, direct the Agency to do, in relation to that consent, anything mentioned in paragraph 7(2) (b) or (c) above.
  (5) A direction given by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) above may only direct the Agency to do, in relation to any consent,—

  (a) any such thing as the Agency has proposed should be done in relation to that consent, or

  (b) any such thing with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.'.

  298 Page 257, line 46, leave out '(local inquiries)' and insert '(inquiries and other hearings)'.
  299 Page 257, line 50, leave out '(local inquiries)' and insert `(inquiries and other hearings)'.
  300 Page 258, line 41, at end insert:
  '167A.—(1) In section 23 of that Act (prohibition on obstructions etc in watercourses) in subsection (2) (which confers power to charge an application fee of £50 or such other sum as may be specified by order made by the Ministers) for the words "specified by order made by the Ministers" there shall be substituted the word "prescribed".
  (2) After subsection (7) of that section there shall be inserted—
  "(7A) In subsection (2) above "prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, an order made by the Ministers; and any such order may make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances or localities."
  167B. At the beginning of Part V of that Act (miscellaneous and supplemental provisions) there shall be inserted—
  "Spray irrigation
  Powers of internal drainage boards and local authorities to facilitate spray irrigation.
  61F.—(1) Any internal drainage board or local authority may, with the consent of the Agency, operate any drainage works under the control of the board or authority so as to manage the level of water in a watercourse for the purpose of facilitating spray irrigation.
  (2) Subsection (1) above is without prejudice to

  (a) the powers of an internal drainage board or local authority in relation to drainage; or

  (b) any requirement—

  (i) for any other consent of the Agency or any other person; or

  (ii) for any licence, approval, authorisation or other permission or registration."

  167C.—'.
  301 Page 259, line 15, at end insert:
  '169A. In section 59 of that Act (local inquiries) in subsection (I).—

  (a) for the words "a local inquiry" there shall be substituted the words "an inquiry"; and

  (b) for the words "such an inquiry" there shall be substituted the words "an inquiry";

  and for the side-note to that section there shall accordingly be substituted "Inquiries.".'.
  302 Page 259, line 29, leave out 'subsection (7)' and insert:
  `subsection (1) (c) (application to be accompanied by prescribed fee), for the words "prescribed fee" there shall be substituted the words "charge prescribed for the purpose by a charging scheme under section 39 of the Environment Act 1995".
  (2) In subsection (7) of that section'.
  303 Page 259, line 35, leave out from 'apparatus)' to end of line 38 and insert:
  'in subsection (1) (c) (application to be accompanied by prescribed fee), for the words "prescribed fee" there shall be substituted the words "charge prescribed for the purpose by a charging scheme under section 39 of the Environment Act 1995".
  (2) In each of subsections (3) and (5) (b) of that section (duty to supply copy of application, and to send copy of certificate, to local authority),'.
  304 Page 259, line 46, at end insert:
  `() In subsection (4) (application to be accompanied by prescribed fee), for the words "prescribed fee" there shall be substituted the words "charge prescribed for the purpose by a charging scheme under section 39 of the Environment Act 1995".'.
  305 Page 263, line 31, at end insert:
  In section 32 of that Act (offences relating to registration or authorisation, including the offence of failure to comply with the requirements of an enforcement or prohibition notice under section 21 or 22 of the Act) after subsection (2) there shall be added
  "(3) If the appropriate Agency is of the opinion that proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) (d) would afford an ineffectual remedy against a person who has failed to comply with the requirements of a notice served on him under section 21 or 22, that Agency may take proceedings in the High Court or, in Scotland, in any court of competent jurisdiction, for the purpose of securing compliance with the notice.".'.
  . In section 34(1) of that Act (which, with certain exceptions, makes it an offence to disclose certain trade secrets) after paragraph (b) (no offence where disclosure made in accordance with directions) there shall be inserted—

  1667
  "(bb) under or by virtue of section (Disclosure of information) of the Environment Act 1995, Or'
  306 Page 263, line 50, at end insert:
  '.Section 42(5) of that Act (which precludes, in the interests of national security, the exercise of certain powers of entry in relation to Crown premises and which is superseded by provisions of this Act) shall cease to have effect.'.
  307 Page 264, line 13, at end insert:
  `() In the definition of "prescribed", the words from "or, in relation to fees" onwards shall cease to have effect.'.
  308 Page 264, line 34, leave out '42, 46 and 56(1) to (4)' and insert '42B, 46 to 46C and 56(1) to (3)'.
  309 Page 264, line 34, at end insert:
  'The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994
  199A. In Schedule 9 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 (which makes provision for the transfer to the new principal councils in Wales of functions in relation to public health and related matters), in paragraph 17(2) (which amends the definitions of waste regulation and disposal authorities for the purposes of Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) for the words "each of subsections (1) (f) and (2) (f)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (2) (f)".'.
  310 Page 264, line 38, at end insert:
  '() In Schedule 13 to that Act (minor and consequential amendments) in paragraph 75(27) (which amends certain provisions of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968) for the words from the beginning to "premises)" there shall be substituted the words "In section 53 (notices to be in writing)".'.
  311 Schedule 19, page 267, line 44, at end insert:
  `The Public Records Act 1958
  .—(1) Such of the administrative and departmental records (in whatever form or medium) of a transferor as are transferred to and vested in the Agency by or under section 3 of this Act shall be treated for the purposes of the Public Records Act 1958 as administrative or departmental records of the Agency.
  (2) In this paragraph, "transferor" means any body or person any or all of whose administrative and departmental records are transferred to and vested in the Agency by or under section 3 of this Act.'.
  312 Page 268, line 9, at end insert:
  '.—(1) Where for any year, a Rate Support Grant Report under section 60 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, or a supplementary report under section 61 of that Act, has effect to determine the amount of supplementary grants to be paid under section 7 of the Local Government Act 1974 to the council of a county or county borough in Wales, and at any time—

  (a) after that report or, as the case may be, that supplementary report is approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, but

  (b) not later than the end of that year,

  a body corporate constituted as a National Park planning board for a National Park the whole or any part of which is included in that county or county borough becomes the National Park authority for that National Park by virtue of section 61 of this Act, those supplementary grants shall, subject to the provisions of any, or any further, such supplementary report, continue to be paid for that year notwithstanding that that body corporate has ceased to be a National Park planning board.
  (2) In this paragraph—
  "National Park planning board" has the meaning given by section 61(9) of this Act; and

  "year" means a period of 12 months beginning with 1st April.'.
  313 Page 268, line 36, leave out '11(4) or I4(3)' and insert 'or 11(4)' .
  314 Page 268, line 50, at end insert:
  '(4A) Without prejudice to section 16 or 17 of the Interpretation Act 1978, any exemption granted under subsection (1) or (2) of section 14 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 which is in force immediately before the substitution date shall have effect on and after that date as an exemption granted by the Agency under subsection (2) or, as the case may be, subsection (3) of section 14 of that Act as substituted by paragraph 13 of Schedule 12 to this Act.
  (4B) Any grating constructed and placed in a manner and position approved under section 14(3) of that Act as it had effect before the substitution date (including a grating so constructed and placed at any time as a replacement for a grating so constructed and placed) shall, if—

  (a) the approval was in force immediately before the substitution date, and

  (b) the grating is maintained in accordance with the approval,

  be taken for the purposes of section 14 of that Act, as substituted by paragraph 13 of Schedule 12 to this Act, to be a screen which complies with the requirements of subsection (2) (a) or (3) (a) of that section, according to the location of the grating, and with the requirements of subsections (4) to (6) of that section.'.
  315 Page 269, line 4, at end insert:
  "'grating" means a device in respect of which there is in force, immediately before the substitution date, an approval given for the purposes of the definition of "grating" in section 41(1) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 as it had effect before that date;
  "the substitution date" means the date on which paragraph 13 of Schedule 12 to this Act comes into force;'.
  316 Page 269, line 7, at end insert:
  'The Local Government Finance Act 1988
  .—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) of section 61 of this Act, where an order has been made under section 60 of this Act by virtue of section 61(1) of this Act designating a date in relation to a Welsh National Park planning board, the body corporate constituted as that board may at any time before the designated date issue a levy by virtue of section 68 of this Act for a year at or before the beginning of which that body becomes the National Park authority for the National Park in question by virtue of section 61 of this Act as if it were the National Park authority for that National Park, notwithstanding that it has not in fact become a National Park authority at the date when it issues the levy.
  (2) Without prejudice to the generality of section 74 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, where—

  (a) an order is made under section 60 of this Act by virtue of section 61(1) of this Act designating a date in relation to a Welsh National Park planning board; and

  (b) the designated date is a date falling after the beginning, but before the end, of a year in respect of which, at the time the order is made, that board has not issued any levy under that section 74,

  that board may nonetheless issue such a levy in respect of that year as if the body corporate constituted as that board was not in fact going to become the National Park authority for the National Park in question by virtue of that order before the end of that year.
  (3) Sub-paragraph (5) below applies in a case where a levy is issued in respect of any year by a Welsh National Park planning board under section 74 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and—

  1669

  (a) that levy is issued by that board at a time when no order has been made under section 60 of this Act by virtue of section 61(1) of this Act designating a date in relation to that board; and

  (b) after the levy is issued, but no later than the end of the year in respect of which it is issued, such an order is so made designating in relation to that board a date falling not later than the end of that year.

  (4) Sub-paragraph (5) below also applies in a case where a levy is issued in respect of any year by a Welsh National Park planning board under section 74 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and—

  (a) that levy is issued by that board at a time after an order has been made under section 60 of this Act by virtue of section 61(1) of this Act designating a date in relation to that board; and

  (b) the designated date is a date falling after the beginning, but before the end, of that year.

  (5) In a case where this sub-paragraph applies, the levy in question or any levy substituted for that levy—

  (a) shall have effect or, as the case may be, continue to have effect; and

  (b) in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) above, shall be paid or, as the case may be, continue to be paid,

  as if the body corporate constituted as that board was not to, or had not, so become the National Park authority for the National Park in question (but was to continue, or had continued, to be the National Park planning board for that Park for the whole of that year).
  (6) Where a body corporate constituted as a Welsh National Park planning board has or is to become the National Park authority for the National Park in question by virtue of an order made under section 60 of this Act by virtue of section 61(1) of this Act, nothing in this paragraph authorises that body corporate to issue for any year both a levy under section 74 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and a levy by virtue of section 68 of this Act.
  (7) In this paragraph—
  "the designated date" has the same meaning as in section 61 of this Act;
  "National Park planning board" has the meaning given by section 61(9) of this Act;
  "Welsh National Park planning board" means a National Park planning board for the area of a National Park in Wales;
  "year" means a period of 12 months beginning with 1st April;
  and any reference to the issue of a levy under section 74 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 by a Welsh National Park planning board is a reference to the issue of a levy under that section by such a board by virtue of subsection (7) of that section.'.
  317 Page 270, line 42, at end insert:
  'The Water Industry Act 1991
  —(1) Where, before the coming into force of the repeal by this Act of section 151 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (financial contributions to rural services), the Secretary of State has received an application from a relevant undertaker for a contribution under that section, he may, notwithstanding the coming into force of that repeal;

  (a) give any such undertaking for any contribution sought by that application as he could have given under that section prior to the coming into force of that repeal;

  (b) make any payments provided for in an undertaking given by virtue of this sub-paragraph.

  (2) Notwithstanding the coming into force of the repeal by this Act of that section—
  1670

  (a) the Secretary of State may make any payments provided for in an undertaking given by him under that section prior to the coming into force of that repeal;

  (b) subsection (4) of that section (withholding and reduction of contributions) shall—

  (i) continue to have effect in relation to contributions which the Secretary of State, before that repeal of that section, gave an undertaking under that section to make; and

  (ii) have effect in relation to contributions which the Secretary of State has, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, undertaken to make.'.

  318 Schedule 20, page 273, line 34, column 3, leave out 'Section 50(3) (e).' and insert 'In section 50(3), paragraph (e) and the words from "and "National Parks planning authority" means" onwards.'.
  319 Page 274, line 12, at end insert:

  '1972 c. 52.

  The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.

  Section 251A.'.

  320 Page 274, column 3, leave out line 21 and insert:
  '(a) in subsection (2), the words "and Schedule 17 to this Act",'.
  321 Page 274, column 3, leave out lines 23 to 27 and insert
  'words "subject to Schedule 17 of this Act"; and'.
  322 Page 277, line 47, column 3, at end insert:

  'In section 30, the paragraph defining "fish farm".In section 41(1), the definition of "grating".'.

  323 Page 281, line 3, column 3, leave out '7(8)' and insert '7(2) and (8)'.
  324 Page 281, line 47, column 3, at end insert: 'Section 105.'.
  325 Page 282, line 54, column 3, at end insert 'the words "and Wales" in paragraph (b) and'.
  326 Page 283, column 3, leave out line 17.
  327 Page 285, line 7, column 3, at end insert:
  '(aa) paragraph 1(13);'.
  328 Page 285, line 56, column 3, at end insert:
  'Section 151.'.
  329 Page 286, line 38, column 3, at end insert 'Section 144.'.
  330 Page 287, line 3, column 3, leave out 'definition of' and insert 'definitions of "the Authority" and'.
  331 Page 288, line 29, column 3, at end insert 'Section 42(5).'.
  332 Page 288, line 38, column 3, at end insert 'in the definition of "prescribed", the words from "or, in relation to fees" onwards'.
  333 Page 289, line 13, column 3, leave out '17(2), (4)' and insert '17(4)'.
  334 Page 289, line 13, column 3, at end insert 'In Schedule 11, paragraph 3(1) and (2).'.
  335 Page 289, line 46, column 3, after '22(1)' insert 'and (7) and, in paragraph 34(1), so much of paragraph (b) as precedes the word "and".'.
  336 Page 289, line 46, column 3, at end insert 'In Schedule (Air quality: supplemental provisions), in paragraph 1, in the definition of "National Park authority" in sub-paragraph (3), the words "subject to sub-paragraph (4) below" and sub-paragraph (4).'.
  337 Page 289, line 48, column 3, at end insert 35(10) (a), 158A and 199A.'.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 296 to 337. There was an expression that we used to have at harvest time in Norfolk when you came to the last sheaf of corn to be thrown on the trailer: "I think that this is the one we have been looking for".
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 296 to 337.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at eight minutes before ten o'clock.

  ABM Treaty: Presidents' Statement
  ABM Treaty: Presidents' Statement
  Counter-Proliferation Initiative: NACC Talks
  Counter-Proliferation Initiative: NACC Talks
  US/Middle Eastern States: Defence Co-operation
  US/Middle Eastern States: Defence Co-operation
  Employment Service: Course Fees Cost Limit
  Employment Service: Course Fees Cost Limit
  Motor Vehicles: Lighting Requirements
  Motor Vehicles: Lighting Requirements
  Transport Research Laboratory: Information for Bidders
  Transport Research Laboratory: Information for Bidders
  Motorway Service Area Proposals
  Motorway Service Area Proposals
  Cleveland
  Cleveland
  Somerset House
  Somerset House
  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: S.3 Convictions
  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: S.3 Convictions
  Home Office Senior Management Review
  Home Office Senior Management Review
  Security in Prisons: Learmont Report
  Security in Prisons: Learmont Report
  Nigerians: Asylum Applications
  Nigerians: Asylum Applications
  Prisoners: Numbers Held in Local Prisons
  Prisoners: Numbers Held in Local Prisons