Sitting of 2 March 1995

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

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 9 March.

    QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 9 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY

    Income Tax
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to extend the 20 per cent. income tax band.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The Government are committed to low tax rates, and will continue to move towards a 20 per cent. basic rate of income tax when it is prudent to do so.
    Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that 5 million people now pay tax at the lower 20 per cent. rate? Does he agree that an extension of the 20 per cent. rate is a clear example of the way in which Conservative tax cuts help those on lower incomes, especially pensioners, as well as all other groups in society?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As he says, the 20 per cent. band has been widened every year since it was introduced, and nearly 5.5 million taxpayers now pay tax of only 20 per cent.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: On the taxation of income of executive share options and the abuses in the privatised utilities, on Tuesday the Prime Minister threatened legislation, and on Wednesday the Secretary of State for Employment, the President of the Board of Trade and, indeed, the Chancellor rebuffed it. Will the Chancellor admit that he was wrong in ruling out legislation in the past? Give that 150 directors of privatised utilities have £100 million in shares—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have had occasion earlier this week to call attention to the fact that a supplementary question was not related to the substantive question on the Order Paper, which today concerns the 20 per cent.
    1166
    income tax band and its extension. Would the hon. Gentleman care to relate his question directly to the substantive question on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Brown: On the loss of income tax revenues because of what happens in the case of executive share options, will the Chancellor tell us that in the Budget Finance Bill he will introduce new measures to curb executive share options and tax them as income?
    Mr. Clarke: I have just told the House that 5.5 million people now pay tax at only 20 per cent. The hon. Gentleman has so little to say on behalf of the Opposition about reducing the burden of tax on those on lower incomes that he keeps dragging out his complaints about a handful of people whom we are all agreed have taken too much out of the industries for which they work.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I spoke yesterday. I did not see what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said, but I assume we all said what the Prime Minister said on Tuesday. I certainly did, and so did the Secretary of State for Employment. The Greenbury committee has been set up and has promised to report to us with recommendations on how best practice can be improved and on any measures that need to be taken. We all agree that the Government will certainly take whatever action is necessary when we have the Greenbury report.
    The hon. Gentleman is using his protracted concern about the share options of a handful of people to disguise the fact that he has nothing whatever to say about the total burden of taxation on ordinary men and women.

    Direct Taxation
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the relationship between reductions in direct taxation and the performance of the economy; and if he will make a statement.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): It has long been our assessment that high direct taxes damage the performance of the economy. That is why substantial reductions in direct taxation have been made since 1979 and why we hope to make further reductions when it is prudent to do so.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is it not evident that countries whose Governments take a higher proportion of the national wealth in taxation than our Government tend to have slower growth rates? Have we not achieved a major structural shift in competitiveness, to the advantage of the United Kingdom, by holding down the share of wealth that is taken by the Government, unlike many of our European competitors whose Government expenditure now exceeds 60 per cent. of gross domestic product?
    Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for stressing the importance of the connection between tight control of Government expenditure and good economic growth and competitiveness. He was right to make the point that the share of output spent by our Government is lower than that of any of our major European competitors. I should also note that, as we are a world trading nation, we must keep up the pressure to maintain tight control of Government expenditure because the ratio of Government expenditure to gross domestic product in other competitive nations, in areas such as the Asian Pacific region, and even in mature economies such as the United

    1167
    States of America and Japan, is still lower than it is here. We are, however, winning the prize in relation to our European competitors.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Why is only one of the Chancellor's five wise men forecasting that he will achieve his inflation targets by the end of this Parliament? Does the Chief Secretary think that that may be because they anticipate irresponsible and premature tax cuts that prejudice the national economy for short-term political advantage?
    Mr. Aitken: I shall not second-guess any wise men, whose forecasting record has not been any more impeccable than anyone else's sometimes, but I reject the notion that some irresponsible activity is going on in the Treasury and that it will lead to higher inflation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has shown his determination by a series of moves to keep inflation tightly under control and we will continue to do that.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we welcome progress so far, but it is precisely those developed countries such as Japan, Switzerland and the United States of America that have the lowest proportion of taxation as a proportion of gross net product—it is below 30 per cent.—and the best unemployment figures? In the past 15 years, fresh progress has been made in the United Kingdom to reduce the tax burden on a direct basis. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to get the total tax burden below 30 per cent. of GNP to match the achievement of those other countries?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said in my first answer, Britain is doing well in relation to some of our European competitors, but if one looks around the world one finds that we have some way to go, both in terms of taxation reductions and of Government expenditure reductions, to maintain our momentum of competitiveness. We are doing well. The trend of Government expenditure and taxes is aiming to come down, but we must keep that pressure up.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Following the publication on Tuesday of the report and study by Oxford and Warwick universities showing that no connection exists between the performance of companies and of the economy and the tax breaks given on executive share options, will the Chief Secretary give a commitment to tax those options as income? Does he not understand that the public are sick and tired of being taken for a ride by the excesses of some people in privatised boardrooms, and that it is not enough for him, the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends to call this distasteful? The public want action and they want it now.
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman's continual attempts at bogus indignation on this point are synthetic. If a company is successful and the executives of that company are performing well, there is no reason why they should not receive good rewards. Like everyone else, however, the Government are opposed to and critical of corporate greed, wherever it materialises. We reject the continued attack on share options that, in many companies, are well earned and well deserved, as are the rewards. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that all share options
    1168
    should be regarded in a hostile and negative light just because there are a few abuses. That is not the correct stance.

    Insurance Tax
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received on the new insurance tax.
    The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I have received a number of representations.
    Mr. Ainger: Does the Paymaster General accept that since 1979 burglaries and car thefts have more than doubled and that since 1987 there has been an increase of more than 20 per cent. in the price of insurance premiums? Why then, given that information, have the Government decided at this stage to penalise the victims of crime even further and, in many cases, to impose an additional tax on people who have no source of defence other than their insurance? Why has the Paymaster General carried on with this, bearing in mind the representations that he has received?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The incidence of crime is certainly one factor in the level of insurance premiums, which is why it is good news that the latest figures show that, over the past 12 months, recorded crime has dropped by 5.5 per cent. and burglary and theft by rather more.
    In answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I believe that a 2.5 per cent. tax on insurance premiums does not deter people from taking out prudent insurance, bearing in mind the fact that this sector is historically undertaxed to the extent that insurance premiums do not bear value added tax.

    Taxation, Scotland
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on the Scottish economy of an increase in taxation equivalent of between 3p and 19p in the pound; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Aitken: Such an increase would be unnecessary and would make the Scottish economy less competitive.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast sums of money currently being paid to Scotland should perhaps be considered the English subscription to the United Kingdom? Is it not perhaps more important to consider that payment as a transfer payment thought necessary because both England and Scotland are part of a single currency—the pound?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the factual position which is that Scotland today receives 21 per cent. more public expenditure than England—worth approximately £13 per head—but that is because of decisions taken by the elected and accountable Government of the United Kingdom. Whether future proposals for a single currency with fiscal harmonisation would or would not lead to higher levels of public expenditure in various parts of the European Union is one

    1169
    of the many difficult matters that we should have to assess when we considered whether a single currency might at some stage in the future be in Britain's national interest.
    Mr. Salmond: The Chief Secretary is making it very clear why he was laughed at by the business men at the Scottish Council Forum last week. When will he educate his hon. Friends about the huge hidden subsidies that pour into the south-east of England and, more directly, about the fact that, over the past 16 years, the Government have been bankrolled by Scottish resources to the tune of £100,000 million of oil revenues, or £20,000 per head for every man, woman and child in Scotland? When will he start educating Conservative Back Benchers about the true fiscal position?
    Mr. Aitken: The sort of rubbish that the hon. Gentleman has just uttered shows why, by contrast, I was warmly applauded when I spoke in Scotland. The fundamental point that I made, with which the business community agreed, is that a tax-raising Scottish Parliament would be an expensive self-indulgence which would scare away inward investors, cost a single man as much as £6.35 a week in tax and cost Scotland jobs, employment and competitiveness. Only the hon. Gentleman would wish to pursue such a path of folly.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents do not care how much goes to various parts of the United Kingdom and that my people in Yorkshire think that a strong Scotland is a strong England and, therefore, a strong Yorkshire and object to this spurious devolution nonsense?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend articulates the view that all our colleagues share—that a strong Union is good for Scotland, good for Britain and good for all parts of the United Kingdom, including Yorkshire.

    Brewing Industry
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has had from the brewing industry regarding levels of excise duty.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I received several representations from the brewing industry prior to the last Budget. Since then, various members of the brewing industry have written or made representations to me and other Treasury Ministers.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Opposition are never sure which of the Treasury Ministers are good Europeans but, given that many of them indulge in a drink, may I ask the Paymaster General whether he is concerned about the fact that the brewing industry is being harmed by the duty differential and the high level of illegal importation, or smuggling? Is it not about time that he and his colleagues did something to protect an industry that is a job creator and a wealth creator and deserves his attention and help?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Brewing is indeed an important industry, and we wanted to keep excise duties stable in the Budget. It was when the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends voted down the second stage of the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor sought to recover the revenue by increasing excise duties on tobacco, alcohol and road fuels, which was very much a
    1170
    second-best option. The brewing industry may well want to know why the hon. Gentleman forced that option on the Government, against our original intentions.
    Mrs. Lait: When does my hon. Friend expect the European Commission to publish its paper on excise duties on tobacco and alcohol? Does he expect our continental neighbours to engage in constructive discussions on the subject?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I cannot say when the discussions will be properly under way, but my hon. Friend knows, I hope, that we believe that other member states should increase the minimum rates of duty to help to close the gap between our higher duty rates and theirs. That gap is the cause of much of the cross-border shopping, and some of the smuggling, that is currently taking place.

    Tax Evasion
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to gather information on the sums of money lost to the Exchequer through tax evasion.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): There is no reliable way of measuring the extent of tax evasion. What is important is for the Inland Revenue to investigate suspected evasion across all areas of taxation—which it does—and to collect tax that is payable.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that £4 billion is lost each year in uncollected tax? Meanwhile, the number of Inland Revenue support staff is being cut by a further 25 per cent. Is it not madness to cut staff numbers when the uncollected tax bill is soaring?
    Sir George Young: The reduction in the number of Inland Revenue staff is being paid for, or secured, by a move to self-assessment and the introduction of information technology. The important point, however, is that counter-evasion work is not being cut. On the contrary, over the next five years the Revenue will put more resources into such work from routine processing.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lower the levels of taxation, the less will be the incentive either to evade or to avoid tax? The loss of revenue will also be much lower.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. When tax rates were approaching 100 per cent., the incentive to avoid or evade tax was relatively high; now that we have reduced tax, with the highest rate at 40 per cent., the incentive to engage in the creative accounting referred to by my hon. Friend has, of course, been sharply reduced.
    Mr. Maginnis: Does the Minister agree that there is every incentive for people to avoid paying tax, given the profligate way in which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland spends taxpayers' money? He has embarked on a door-to-door drop, delivering to every house in Northern Ireland the Government disinformation that is contained in the framework document.
    Sir George Young: I am not sure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is the best person to respond to

    1171
    that question, but I am sure that there was value for money in every action taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    Ms Primarolo: In the context of tax evasion and loss of money to the Exchequer, is the Financial Secretary aware of last week's National Audit Office report, which showed that £800 million of VAT had had to be written off because his Department had not collected it? People will be shocked to hear that, at a time when the Government are imposing VAT on fuel and proposing to cut the number of VAT offices collecting the money. What steps will the Government now take to ensure that money is collected from businesses and individuals alike when it is owed, rather than extending the scope of VAT on fuel?
    Sir George Young: Both Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue have a very good record of collecting tax that is due and payable to them, but if there is no money to be collected because, for example, the business is insolvent, clearly the money cannot be collected. The bulk of write-offs to which the hon. Lady referred were because, in fact, the cash was not there to pay the bill.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Pursuant to my right hon. Friend's answer, if it follows that when the top rate of tax was reduced from 98 per cent. to 40 per cent. the tax take went up, it also follows that the amount of evasion went down. Does it not therefore follow that if the Labour party were to put up tax rates, the amount of evasion would increase?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his last point and, crucially, in his first point, too. Although we have reduced the top rate of tax, higher earners are now contributing a bigger percentage of the total tax bill than they were in 1979.

    House Prices
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on house prices.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): The Department of the Environment house price index shows that house prices increased by 2 per cent. in the year to the fourth quarter of 1994.
    Dr. Jones: How does the Minister reconcile the need for price stability in the housing market with his Government's policies on assistance to house buyers, especially the million trapped by negative equity?
    Mr. Nelson: The hon. Lady should draw some encouragement from the fact that the number of people with negative equity has fallen by nearly a half and, indeed, the value of that negative equity has fallen by nearly two thirds. I immediately acknowledge, however, that there is a real problem and a concern, particularly for those who want to move and suffer from negative equity. In the Government's view, the best prospects for a gradual revival in house prices will be served by continued economic growth and increased prosperity, rather than a short-term inflationary boom.

    Single European Currency
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has with EU leaders about the introduction of a single currency and its link with political union.
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received advocating a single European currency; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has held with the Economic and Finance Council about a single European currency.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hold regular discussions with my European colleagues about a wide range of issues, including those relating to a single currency.
    Mr. Prentice: What are the constitutional impediments, if any, of Britain joining a single currency? Is the issue really a matter of practice rather than principle, as asserted by the Prime Minister yesterday?
    Mr. Clarke: The Prime Minister, other members of the Government and I set out yesterday the way in which the country should exercise the judgment that we have allowed it to make by the negotiations at Maastricht. We discussed this comprehensively yesterday and the Prime Minister came to the sensible conclusion—indeed, the obvious, commonsense conclusion—that we should take advantage of that option by taking a hard-headed judgment of British interest when the time comes, if it ever comes, for us to make up our mind.
    Mr. Welsh: Did the Prime Minister agree to or in any way alter the words of the Chancellor's speech on 9 February, in which he said that monetary union would not necessarily be a huge step on the road to federal union in Europe? If the Prime Minister agreed with him then, why will he not back the Chancellor's words now? Is there a massive policy gulf between them or, indeed, between them and the previous Chancellor, who disagrees with them both?
    Mr. Clarke: The Prime Minister answered that question yesterday in a way with which I totally agree. The Prime Minister said:
    "With one important qualification: I believe that it is possible to move forward to monetary union without necessarily moving forward to political union … the qualification depends on the nature and style of monetary union".—[Official Report, 1 March 1995; Vol. 255, c. 1067.]
    He went on to deal with that. It is absurd nit-picking textual analysis to try to separate members of the Government from that. That position leads, as I have just said, to the plain and obvious commonsense conclusion that we will make our minds up on the best judgment of British interests in 1999, or thereafter, whenever this proposition comes before us. To most people in the country, that, I think, is the sensible way in which to approach this important issue, compared with the rather lightweight way, with uncertain support behind, which the Opposition parties have demonstrated.
    Mr. Heppell: Is the Chancellor aware that yesterday the Prime Minister significantly decided not to endorse the Chancellor's view on a European currency that it

    1173
    would not be a serious constitutional issue? In view of the Prime Minister's lack of support, does the Chancellor feel that his position is unassailable?
    Mr. Clarke: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman was not here yesterday. If he had been, he would have enjoyed an extremely interesting debate which, in my opinion, was won hands down by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I can also assume that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my first two answers to questions on this subject. It is quite obvious from his misquotation that he has not read the speech that I gave a few days ago. I suggest that he studies what is coming from those on the Government Benches explaining the difficult choice that the country may face and how we propose to tackle it. He will then be better informed on all aspects of the subject.
    Dr. Hampson: Did my right hon. and learned Friend notice a piece in The Observer a few months ago which argued that commitment to a single currency and the associated restrictions on public spending and inability to devalue were inherently in conflict with the Labour party's commitments on economic policies? The author of that piece was the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who claimed that 67 other Opposition Members supported him. Is it surprising that the title of the piece was "Labour all at sea over Europe"?
    Mr. Clarke: I failed to see that article, but I am familiar with the views of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who is in his place again today. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of Labour Governments who seemed to their opponents to use devaluation as an instrument of policy from time to time which, as a deliberate instrument of policy, I do not think that we should.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) is quite right. At least 60 Opposition Members do not agree with a word of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday put forward an incredible position in comparison to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who made it quite clear that he was going to concentrate on the national interest if and when the decision had to be made.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is it not the case that there is now clear evidence that other members of the European family, notably Germany and Ireland, have stated that they recognise the dangers, not only of rushing prematurely into the EMU, but of saying at this stage in the proceedings that they intend to go into the EMU or indeed stay out of it?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. Although the debate may be lively in this country, it is becoming more intelligent and more informed and it is somewhat in advance of that taking place in some other countries on the continent. I have heard the German State Secretary and the Irish Finance Minister say that they see no prospect of economic and monetary union before 1999. I have seen reports of the Portuguese Finance Minister saying that he would expect the Portuguese to exercise an option, despite the fact that they failed to negotiate such an option for themselves in the Maastricht treaty.
    1174
    The Prime Minister, the Governor of the Bank of England and I have begun to set out the argument at greater length in this country. All of us, including myself, have set out clear circumstances in which we would be opposed to going into economic and monetary union because there are circumstances in which it might not be to our advantage. We in Britain are in one of the best positions in Europe. We have sensibly reserved for ourselves the opportunity to make a contribution to designing the thing and then to make our own decision in due course about where our national interest lies.
    Mr. Forman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that all Conservative Members, except possibly one right hon. Member, felt that we were completely convinced by the clarification provided by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this question yesterday? Is it not a fact that, since the Maastricht treaty, the European Union has become much more of a hybrid organisation with more intergovernmental characteristics? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we should not fall for the argument from some of our continental partners that we are going to be the victims of institutional determinism?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend and I do not think that we are going to be the victims of institutional determinism. I also agree with him that neither of us, nor the Conservative party, wishes that. My hon. Friend is quite right. Ever since Maastricht, with the second and third pillars moving forward on an intergovernmental basis, there have been changes from the old blueprint days inside the European Union. Yesterday, the Prime Minister clarified the position not by giving silly simple answers to very glib questions, but by setting out the serious economic and political considerations on which we have to concentrate and then reserving to the Government of this country the right to make up their mind in due course on a hard-headed judgment of the national interest.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Although the search to find Mr. Leeson is now over, the search is clearly still on to discover the Government's European policy. On the single currency and the referendum, yesterday the Prime Minister said that a referendum may be necessary and desirable. Does the Chancellor now regret saying, as he did, that a referendum was totally a non-issue and that those who thought that constituents desired it were slightly up the creek? Does the Chancellor agree with the Prime Minister that a referendum may be necessary and may be desirable?
    Mr. Clarke: Well, there were better jokes yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition and from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The search is now on for some Labour party policy on the subject which might hold together people as disparate as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, and the hon. Member for Workington with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), pointing out some rather serious divisions behind the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
    Our position is clear: that when the time comes to make a decision, the Prime Minister left open the question of a referendum. If and when we do reach the stage at which a single currency is on the agenda and ready for national decision, that is obviously again something that we have

    1175
    left open for the British Parliament at the time to consider when it decides how to address the question of the national interest.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that the increased usage of the ecu as a common currency would help to clarify some of the practicalities and dispel some of the myths attaching to a possible future single currency?
    Mr. Clarke: I do, but I think that it is going to be rather difficult to move there from the Maastricht position. The British Government, with hindsight, were proved right in pursuing those ideas, as indeed we did in the run-up to Maastricht. If it came back as a real possibility, I agree with my hon. Friend that it might well be a very sensible way to proceed, but all these matters now might or might not emerge in the debate over the next four, five or however many years in which we are going to play an active and constructive role.

    Teachers' Pay
    Mr. Betts: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will agree to fund fully local authorities and schools for the cost of the teachers' pay settlement in 1995–96.
    Mr. Aitken: No.
    Mr. Betts: Does the Chief Secretary accept that the only help that the Chancellor has so far offered to schools and councils facing education budget cuts is that they can enter into sale and lease-back deals with their own assets? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that sale and lease-back deals under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 have to be offset completely against the credit approvals of local authorities and therefore cannot add one penny to their revenue budgets?
    If that is true, is not the advice so far offered to schools and local authorities unhelpful and misleading? What will the Chief Secretary do to help schools, governors and parents facing massive increases in class sizes, or will he, like the Chancellor, stand on one side while education standards in our schools decline because he and his colleagues will not fund the pay settlement for which they are totally responsible?
    Mr. Aitken: I am certainly prepared to tell the hon. Gentleman what I would do to help schools in Sheffield. I would encourage Sheffield county council to stop being extravagant and profligate with taxpayers' money. I would stop it wasting money, by keeping open 12,000 surplus school places. I would be very critical of a council that, when it was under the hon. Gentleman's leadership, wasted tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on the world student games for Sheffield. Instead of coming up with bright wheezes for spending taxpayers' money, it is about time that Sheffield and a few other councils got their act together and kept taxpayers' money under good tight control.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Cleveland, one of the most left-wing authorities in the north of England, has announced that it will fully fund the teachers' pay increase from its own reserves? If a
    1176
    well-known left-wing authority such as Cleveland can do that—like Sheffield, it has built up enormous debts—why cannot other authorities do that?
    Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his praise, which comes from an unexpected quarter, for a council that is doing the right thing. All over Britain there are schools with current cash balances of more than £700 million, and local authorities are awash with cash of about £2 billion. Against that background, it is ludicrous for some councils to claim far too easily that they cannot possibly afford to fund what is admittedly a tight local government settlement to help schools.
    Mr. Clapham: Is the Minister really aware of the pressure on local authorities? For example, in Barnsley over the past five years we have had to absorb a 57 per cent. increase in the number of children on free school meals, a 54 per cent. increase in the number of children who receive grants for clothes and a 200 per cent. increase in the number of children needing special education. Clearly, the local authorities need help—
    Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The microphone is not working and we cannot hear.
    Madam Speaker: I am sorry, but I can hear the hon. Gentleman quite clearly, although it seems that no one else can. Will the sound effects people please increase the sound for Mr. Clapham?
    Mr. Clapham: Given those facts, is the Minister prepared to review his decision?
    Madam Speaker: Did the Minister hear the question?
    Mr. Aitken: I heard the question, more or less. The answer to it is that the hon. Gentleman has provided only half of the true picture. Of course the local government settlement is tight, but in Barnsley, for example, there are unspent school balances of about £3 million, there has been a standard spending assessment increase of 30.4 per cent. over the past five years, and expenditure per pupil is at the rather satisfactory figure of £1,570. Even allowing for inflation, that is roughly three times the amount spent when the Labour Government were in office. The schoolchildren of Barnsley have not had a bad deal from the Government.
    Mr. John Greenway: Cleveland county council, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), is not alone in the north-east in having had the foresight to plan for the teachers' pay award. North Yorkshire county council provided in its budget for a 2.5 per cent. increase in pay, and although finding the extra £300,000 will not be easy, it will not mean the kind of cuts in the classrooms that we have heard about from the media. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that local authorities that have done the right thing this year will not be starved of cash next year, and that their patience with the Government's policy will be rewarded with a better settlement in future?
    Mr. Aitken: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his North Yorkshire local education authority on having done the right and responsible thing and cut their cloth according to what was necessary to deliver good standards of education. On my hon. Friend's second point, of course we acknowledge that this year's local government settlement has been tight. I hear what he says about

    1177
    ensuring that neither in North Yorkshire nor anywhere else are schoolchildren subjected to unreasonable pressures—but we do not believe that we have put unreasonable pressure on this year. The local government settlement is tight but fair.

    Incomes
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what inquiries his Department is conducting into the distribution of income and wealth in the United Kingdom.
    Sir George Young: We keep a range of information under review, including that in the Department of Social Security's households below average income analysis and the Central Statistical Office's analysis of income distribution and the effects of taxes and benefits.
    Mr. Barnes: Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that we should know the facts before we make decisions. Should we not know the full facts about income and wealth distribution, and about the range of poverty? Between 1974 and 1979, the Labour Government had a standing Royal Commission on income and wealth distribution, but the first act of the new Conservative Government was to disband it. Should we not have an investigation covering more subjects than those that the Minister mentioned?
    Sir George Young: Of course it is important to have the facts, but if we examine the expenditure of the poorest 10 per cent. in this country—the poorest three quarters of a million people—we find that roughly half of them spend more than the average. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the facts with care before he comes to any conclusion.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the country would be better served if his Department spent its time considering the creation of income and wealth rather than its distribution?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. He will know that we have adopted many supply-side measures precisely to increase the capacity of this country to promote wealth. There are also measures in the current Finance Bill that take those policies further.
    Ms Armstrong: Is the Minister not a little complacent, given that the deputy chairman of the Conservatives has reminded the party that the British people are fed up with the rich getting richer on the backs of the poor? Is it not time that the Government took action on the matter? They have an opportunity in the Finance Bill to agree to taxing excess share options. Why do they not take it?
    Sir George Young: The Opposition will have absolutely no credibility on the subject of poverty until they come up with clear and costed proposals to deal with the problem and have identified exactly how they will pay for them.

    Taxation
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of taxation on different groups since 1979.
    Sir George Young: Average net income rose by 36 per cent., in real terms, between 1979 and 1991–92. There were increases for all economic groups and all family types.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does the Minister not tell us the whole story? Is not the truth that, since 1979, the richest 10 per cent. in Britain have had £50 billion cumulatively in tax cuts? Instead of attacking the nurses and teachers with paltry wage increases, and attacking pensioners, why do not the Government redistribute that money to ensure that pensioners, the national health service, the social services and local government have the right finances to offset the cuts?
    Sir George Young: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to ask his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench why the Labour party tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill to give—for the first time—tax relief to exactly the sort of people about whom he is complaining, on the bills which they pay for tax planning.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q 1. Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Maclennan: As the Prime Minister failed last night to persuade his campaign manager—the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of Maastricht—on Europe, how can he hope to persuade anyone else? Will the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) be joining those without a Whip, or will they join him within the ranks of the anti-Europeans in the Conservative party?
    The Prime Minister: What has piqued the hon. Gentleman is that I managed to persuade a sufficient number of people into my Lobby to win the vote.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Lloyds bank survey of the north of England which shows that one third of all businesses in the region expect to take on additional staff in the next three months? Is he also aware that there has been a 13 per cent. drop in unemployment in the neighbouring constituency of Sedgefield? Why do we never hear any of that from the Member who represents that constituency?
    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to hear about the drop in unemployment in Sedgefield, although I thought that it had fallen by 16 per cent. I am delighted to see unemployment dropping throughout the United Kingdom, and we intend to pursue policies which ensure that it will continue to drop.
    Mr. Blair: In the light of yet another report today on an excessive pay package in a privatised monopoly and of his own threat on Tuesday to legislate, will the right hon. Gentleman back an amendment to the Gas Bill a week on Monday that would give the regulator the power

    1179
    to cut prices where pay deals are excessive? Would that not send the clearest possible signal to the utilities that the game is up?
    The Prime Minister: I set out the position clearly to the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday, and he should know that the role of the regulator is to protect the interests of the consumer. I do not propose to extend that role. The regulators are introducing competition and bearing down on prices. As to the underlying premise of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I set out that we shall wait and see the report from Sir Richard Greenbury and his colleagues. We shall then take action upon that, including legislative back-up if that is required.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister not know that the Greenbury committee has said that it will not propose any legislation and its report will not be out for months? Furthermore, its main recommendations will not affect the abuses in the privatised monopolies. The anger is now, the abuses are now: why will he not act now to put an end to the abuses?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's assertions are, frankly, wrong. I made clear the other day the subjects that I believe need addressing—the need for complete and open disclosure over remuneration and the need to ensure that bonuses and share options are firmly based on company performance. Those subjects need consideration. When we have recommendations that cover those, we shall consider them, and I have made it clear that, if necessary, we shall provide legislative back-up. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that it is both necessary and desirable to wait until we have that report and that information so that we can consider what action is necessary.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the debate on Europe and the single currency yesterday? In columns 1053 and 1056 of Hansard, the leader of a political party dealt with interventions by one of my right hon. Friends, first, by saying that he would give way, but not doing so, and, secondly, by accusing him of inconsistency? Is there not a lesson in that on how to get people to vote on our side by treating them with less courtesy than the Labour party? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: We had an excitable day yesterday and perhaps we can have a little more calm today, Madam Speaker. The debate yesterday was very revealing in a number of respects. It was revealing because of what the leader of the Liberal party had to say, and it was also very revealing because a number of Labour Members flatly contradicted assertions in the speech by the leader of the Labour party. He was open enough to admit that his party was split and his party was generous enough to show precisely that in the speeches that Labour Members subsequently made.

    Secretary of State for Wales
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will remove the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) from his post of Secretary of State for Wales.
    The Prime Minister: No.
    Mr. Wigley: Surprise, surprise. Is the Prime Minister aware that, when the post of Secretary of State for Wales was first created, the idea was to have one member of the
    1180
    Cabinet from Wales, to speak up from personal experience of the needs and the aspirations of the people of Wales? The present incumbent is clearly incapable of doing that. Given the opinion poll this week, which has shown yet again that there is a 2:1 majority in favour of the powers of the Welsh Office being answerable to a Parliament in Wales rather than to a Governor General, will the Prime Minister stop having such an intransigent attitude to the question and allow the people of Wales to have at least some semblance of national democracy?
    The Prime Minister: I do not regard my position as the hon. Gentleman described it and would describe it quite differently. He is aware of my views of the possible difficulties with a Welsh Assembly. I do not believe that it is in the interests of Wales. To be frank, generally if the answer to the question is more politicians, then it is the wrong question. As to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, during his period in office, Wales has benefited from a steady stream of inward investment from the United States and the Pacific rim, and there has been a considerable improvement in the quality of life and the standard of living throughout Wales. Those are the policies that are necessary for the future. An extra tier of government, which would suck a great deal of authority from local councils in Wales, is not the way forward.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Blaby.
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Robathan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent visit to Enderby in my constituency by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), at which he discussed devolution with the Blaby constituency Labour party—all 25 of them? When my right hon. Friend visits Blaby, which I hope that he will do very soon, will he also discuss devolution, for he will discover that the overwhelming majority of my constituents, many of whom were born in Scotland or Wales, value the integrity of the United Kingdom, oppose devolution and have no interest in a ridiculous regional assembly based in Birmingham or elsewhere?
    The Prime Minister: Where there is a proper system of local government, I believe that devolution to an extra tier of government is an unwise way to proceed. There is one form of devolution that I strongly favour, which is devolution straight down to individuals: to let families make their own choice; and to let people have more control over schools, hospitals and local decisions. That is the form of devolution that we favour, not devolution to an extra tier of bureaucrats and politicians.

    Engagements
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Etherington: Will the Prime Minister attend the House tomorrow to vote in favour of the admirable Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)? More

    1181
    importantly, will he give an undertaking to the House that he will endeavour to ensure that parliamentary time is made available so that the will of the vast majority of people, who want the barbarism of blood sports abolished, can be brought to fruition?
    The Prime Minister: That has traditionally been the responsibility of individual Members and their consciences. I shall not be here to support the hon. Gentleman.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lancashire county council put £7 million of council tax money into a special contingency reserve to pay a 2.2 per cent. rise in teachers' salaries? Unfortunately, it has not handed over that money to the schools to pay those salaries. Does he sympathise with those in the schools, who feel very angry about that and therefore want to go grant-maintained?
    The Prime Minister: A large number of schools have gone grant-maintained because they believe that they can better look after their own interests than if they are retained in the control of the local education authority. I hope and believe that many more will do so in the future, not least for the reasons that my hon. Friend set out. I do not think that anyone can be unaware of the campaign that is being waged at the moment by some education authorities. I noticed the press release produced by the Opposition this morning. If they had looked at the facts of what is to happen to the standard spending assessments of the education authorities that they quote, they might have produced a more straightforward and honest press release.
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Timms: The Prime Minister will recall that, in 1991, the then Secretary of State for Transport announced that the channel tunnel rail link would be routed through east London to promote urban regeneration specifically within east London. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government remain committed to that objective for the rail link?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm the importance of the rail link and I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to let the hon. Gentleman have as much information as is currently available.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: Now that the distraction of yesterday's debate is behind us, does my right hon. Friend agree that he should turn his attention to the economic development that has been so successful in recent years, with falling unemployment, low inflation and record exports? Does he agree that the Government's policies are dealing with the real issues that affect the lives of our citizens and that the Opposition have no policies whatever on the economy?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to commend the economic recovery, which is very strong and widespread, and shows signs of being the best economic recovery that we have seen in this country for very many years. I intend to continue to give my full attention to that economic recovery. I wish to ensure that we continue to have growth and falling unemployment, and that we continue to see the levels of investment and growth, particularly in the manufacturing industry, that we have seen of late. Only a continuation of those policies will, over a long period, improve the living standards of the British nation, which is what I wish.
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fatchett: May I refer back to the issue of top people's pay increases, which was discussed earlier? The Prime Minister has argued that he will leave all of that to the Greenbury committee and its report. Is it right that a Government should delegate that responsibility to an employers' organisation that has a vested interest in top people's pay? Is it not about time that the Prime Minister, who claims that he feels strongly about that issue, gave a lead to the country and introduced his own proposals—or shall we simply be left with government that is all delegation and no leadership?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are thirsting to go down the route of pay policies that the Labour party has gone down for generations. The concern that people feel about that issue is the concern that I spelt out with great clarity to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on Tuesday. We are examining that, we are waiting for recommendations on that, and, when necessary, when the facts are available, we shall decide what action needs to be taken, if necessary, including legislation. However, I have no intention of operating in the envious spirit that activates the hon. Gentleman.

Local Government Reorganisation (England)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the progress of the review of local government structure in England.
My aim is a local government structure that can deliver effective services to its citizens and help build vigorous and self-sustaining communities. I believe that in many places that will involve the creation of unitary local authorities. Equally, I have long recognised that local government needs to reflect local identities, history and tradition. There is room in our system for diversity; different solutions in different areas, to meet different local circumstances. Local government does not need to be neat—it needs to be effective.
I also want to achieve stability so that local government can plan ahead with confidence; developing the concept of the enabling council, which has done so much to create a new culture in local government.
Against that background, I am pleased to be able to announce decisions on 20 of the counties where decisions are outstanding. First, I shall announce decisions on three counties where the commission has recommended change: Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Durham.
For Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, the commission has recommended that the county councils should be abolished, and replaced by a structure of unitary authorities—three in Bedfordshire, four in Buckinghamshire.
I am sure that it is right that Luton in Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes in Buckinghamshire should become unitary authorities. I am, however, not convinced by the argument for unitary local government in the rest of those counties. I have decided, therefore, to retain the existing structure of county and district councils in Bedfordshire outside Luton, and in Buckinghamshire outside Milton Keynes.
In Durham, the commission has recommended that Darlington should become an unitary authority, with the rest of the county remaining two-tier. I propose to accept that recommendation.
I have given a full explanation of the background and reasons for those decisions today, in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). There are copies in the Library and the Vote Office.
I now turn to the other 17 counties, for which the commission has recommended no change in the present structure. Those are Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Cornwall, Cumbria, Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, Kent, Lancashire, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Northumberland, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Warwickshire and West Sussex.
I have decided that, with two provisos, I should accept those recommendations. First, the commission has recommended the status quo for a small number of district councils which are among the largest non-metropolitan towns and cities in England. Many of those councils used to be county boroughs and so have a tradition of unitary local government. They are also often areas where there is a significant need for economic and social regeneration.
1184
The business community, deliverers of personal social services and the voluntary sector often believe that that need can best be met by bringing all of the responsibilities of local government under one roof. There are some other councils where the commission has appeared to accept that logic. I believe that we must at least test the case for consistency in this matter.
Therefore, I intend to ask the commission to carry out fresh reviews of a short list of selected districts—I emphasise that they are districts, and not counties. The rest of the county in each case will not be subject to any further review. I also emphasise that they are fresh reviews for which we shall issue new guidance to the commission. Before we issue that new guidance, we will consult local government and other interested parties about it. I expect the new reviews to get under way in the summer.
I believe that those new reviews must be carried out by a reconstituted commission which can look at the cases afresh. I am most grateful to Sir John Banham for having offered his resignation as chairman of the commission. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sir John for the significant contribution that he has made as chairman, particularly in the establishment of the commission, in responding to the acceleration of the review process and in delivering the structure recommendations for all areas by January this year.
I shall be consulting the Opposition parties about a successor, and I hope to announce a name shortly. I will be considering with the new chairman what other changes should be made to the commission, most of whose members' terms of office expire in June.
The areas I have in mind to be covered by the new reviews are: Blackburn, Blackpool, the Medway towns—that is, Rochester upon Medway and Gillingham—Northampton, Peterborough and Warrington. I also have it in mind to include Thurrock and Basildon in Essex, without prejudice to whatever I may decide on the commission's recommendations for the rest of the county.
A strong prima facie case has been made for a number of other districts to be considered for unitary status. Five districts almost fully covered by the Thames gateway area do not have unitary status at present. I have already said that I propose to refer three of those—Thurrock and the Medway towns—to the commission. Therefore, there is clearly a case for referring the other two—Gravesham and Dartford—as well.
Exeter and Gloucester are two long-standing county boroughs, in both of which there has been strong pressure for unitary status. The commission has recommended unitary status for the ancient counties of Hereford and Rutland. If those recommendations are accepted, it would seem right to ask the commission to consider the case of Huntingdonshire.
The commission has recommended unitary status for the city of Nottingham. There are significant built-up areas outside that city's boundaries, and that leads to the conclusion that the commission ought to look at the advisability of giving unitary status to Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe, given that there is clearly no local demand for a Greater Nottingham council. Finally, if Warrington is referred, the similarly densely populated district of Halton, which has been part of Cheshire only since 1974, may be a suitable candidate for reconsideration.

1185
[Interruption.] Many of the places concerned are interested in their future, even if Opposition Members are not.
I propose to hold further discussions with those towns and cities and their counties, and if those discussions confirm my present understandings, I shall also refer them to the commission for consideration.
It is, of course, open to me to consider further requests for unitary status, but given the need for stability, I should make it clear that it is very unlikely that I shall want to add significantly to the number of referrals to the commission.
I said that accepting the status quo recommendations was subject to two provisos. The second is this: in their response to the commission and their representations to me, many county and district councils admitted that the two-tier system can and must be improved.
Many have made explicit promises about improved co-operation and—where it is appropriate—delegation of functions. Many, indeed, have written such promises in the literature they have sent out in their areas. We are compiling a list of those for each county council. I shall be reminding each of them of the promises that they have made, and I shall be asking them to report to me on the implementation of what are, after all, their own commitments.
I am still considering the recommendations which the commission has made for change in the remaining 12 county areas. I am aware that everyone involved is anxious for the position to be clarified quickly, and I shall be making further announcements shortly.
With the decisions I have announced today, we have covered 27 of the 39 counties. In those counties, with the exception of the small number of districts I have mentioned, people now know how their governance will be carried out. Where the two-tier system is to remain, the authorities will be able to move on to the issues that the review has brought to the forefront: closer co-operation between the tiers and greater delegation of responsibility wherever that is possible. Whether the structures are two-tier or unitary, the end result should be improved services and more effective local government.
Mr. Frank Dobson: On behalf of the Labour party, I welcome much of the statement, and thank the Secretary of State for the discussions which preceded it. The overall effect of what he has announced should deliver much of what we have been calling for.
The proposals made by the Local Government Commission were inconsistent, and displayed neither rhyme nor reason. Rutland, with 33,000 people, was to get independence, while Northampton and Blackburn, both with more than 180,000 people, were not. We were seeking consistency. We were also calling for the House to be given an overall view of the likely proposals for the whole country.
Today's announcement recognises that the present shambles could not be continued. It creates a reasonable prospect of some consistency across the country, and gives a reasonable indication of the likely outcome of the review in every part of England. As that is what we were asking for, I very much welcome the Government's positive response to the points that we have been making, in public and in private.
1186
If we take together the decision so far announced by the Secretary of State, the further recommendations for change made by the commission and the list of authorities which the Local Government Commission is to be asked to re-examine, we see that most of the former large county boroughs are likely to regain their former status, and some additional major urban councils are likely to join them.
Taken together with the list put forward by the Secretary of State, unitary status seems likely to be achieved by Blackburn, Blackpool, Bournemouth, Brighton, Basildon and Thurrock, Darlington and Derby, Exeter, Gravesham and Dartford, Gloucester, Halton, Leicester, Luton, the Medway towns, Nottingham, Northampton, Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Reading, Slough, Southampton, Stoke-on-Trent, Thamesdown and Warrington.
However, a limited number of other councils clearly qualify for unitary status under the Secretary of State's new criteria. Therefore, I suggest to the Secretary of State that he at least consider the case for Cambridge, Ipswich, Norwich, Oxford and The Wrekin, which seem to meet his overall criteria. I hope that, in deference to other hon. Members, he will agree to consider other borderline candidates for the list of councils to be referred back to the commission.
The Secretary of State has recognised that, for this proposal to work, changes had to be made at the top of the Local Government Commission. When Sir John Banham was appointed to chair the commission, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) said that he was very happy to appoint Sir John, and described him as "a distinguished public servant" with "a tremendous knowledge" of local authorities. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, said that he was "delighted to announce" that Sir John Banham had agreed to take up the job. I bet he was not half as delighted as the present Secretary of State is to announce Sir John's departure. His conduct of the affairs of the commission has been quite deplorable. It should have been beyond reproach, but at times it has been beyond belief. Sir John's departure was required if today's proposals were to command any support or credibility across the country.
I welcome the opportunity that the Secretary of State has offered us to contribute in due course to setting out the new guidance to the commission. To advise it to use a bit of common sense would make a good start. 'The Secretary of State will understand that we would expect any new county boroughs to have reasonable and acceptable boundaries, and also we would expect the commission to make sure that the number of elected councillors truly matches the ward electorates in all the new authorities.
I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that the new situation creates a further period of uncertainty for council staff who are affected. Therefore, I hope that he will agree to meet the appropriate national officers of the main local government trade unions in an attempt to work out severance and compensation terms that are acceptable to all concerned.
The statement, welcome though it is, acknowledges that the local government review has sunk into a morass of contradiction, inconsistency, expense and litigation, which could have been avoided if the Government had laid down clearer guidelines in the first place and appointed someone better to do the job. The present Secretary of

1187
State has to accept some responsibility for the mess, but the bulk of the blame must lie with his predecessors and their principal appointee.
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general and generous support for what we have proposed. We should look forwards rather than backwards. No doubt all of us could think of different ways of doing many things. Let us accept that the commission has certainly produced its proposals faster than we had expected. It has given us a real opportunity to take these steps, and we should proceed from there.
I shall certainly look carefully at the other districts that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Of course, I looked at those in trying to draw the line, but that is difficult, as the hon. Gentleman kindly recognised. There are particular examples in terms of size, and we must also bear in mind the effect on the remaining parts of counties if we take the steps that the hon. Gentleman proposes. I shall have to look carefully at the districts and I promise to look at them afresh.
The next step relates to boundaries. I do not envisage any wholesale change in boundaries as a result of what is proposed. It is important for there to be some continuity and security, especially for staff. I should have thought that matters of council wards and the like are traditionally and properly the responsibility of the commission.
Naturally, we are concerned to ensure parity of representation, and it would be proper to draw to the new commission's attention the hon. Gentleman's points. I am certainly happy to meet the representatives of staff organisations, and I recognise that this is a difficult time for all of them.
Sir Trevor Skeet: Is it not anomalous to grant Luton unitary status and at the same time to deny that status to the county town of Bedford? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the county outside Luton, the number of people has been reduced to 360,000, with four local authorities? Is that not over-government locally?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to put forward a case that I know he has espoused for a long time, but perhaps my answer lies within his question. A perfectly reasonable county is left if one takes the one large town out, but if one then takes another area out, one does not have a sensible remaining county.
Although a fine and ancient town, Bedford is a district with considerable rural areas that have much in common with their neighbours. It would find the two-tier system more to its liking. I have tried to make a proper judgment. It is consistent with general policy for Luton to have its own unitary authority and for Bedford to be a proud county town in what is a fine county.
Mr. David Rendel: The Secretary of State has told us that he intends to refer only districts to the new commission, which he will get to do his bidding as the last one did not. Does he not accept that removing the major town or city from each of the 17 counties that had expected to remain within the status quo will simply prolong for the
1188
next year or two the appalling disruption to local authorities that this shambles of a Local Government Commission has caused for the past two years?
Mr. Gummer: The House is beginning to find it extremely difficult to know what the hon. Gentleman really wants. Of all parties in the House, the Liberal party has shown itself interested only in electoral advantage in any discussion on this matter. I am finding it increasingly difficult to find any rhyme or reason in what the Liberal party wants. When we talk about inconsistency, incongruity and the lack of reasonable principles behind anything, the Liberal party sets an example unfollowed by others.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: With reference to the county of Cheshire, I naturally warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to request the new commission to consider Warrington, which deserves unitary status—that has my full support. Will he accept, however, that the borough of Macclesfield, in which immense support exists for unitary status not only among individuals, but among charities, voluntary organisations and business, and which produced the best result in the whole of Cheshire in the public consultation on unitary status, should also receive further consideration from the new commission?
Mr. Gummer: Of course I shall look again at Macclesfield, but it is a town of 49,000 people. The district of Macclesfield is a mixture of town and country. It is not dissimilar to many other districts. It is a fine town, and its name is often well presented in the House. It does not, however, stand in quite the same role as, say, Warrington or Northampton, in terms either of size or of historic governance. I shall reconsider the matter, but I think that that town should fall outside the group of councils that I have decided to refer to the new commission.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Minister aware that, in his further proposals for Nottinghamshire, he has announced that district councils in suburban areas such as Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe will be considered for unitary status, but that areas such as Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Newark and Ashfield will not? The only thing wrong is that the areas that he has proposed for unitary status are Conservative, and that the areas that he has said will not be considered further are Labour. I do not want to accuse him of being politically biased—no hon. Member would want to do that—but could he not add a further request that the fresh review should consider all the district councils of Nottinghamshire? All eight of them want to be unitary authorities. That is the best way to sort the matter out; it is better than just basing proposals around the city.
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. A very large proportion of the councils on the list that I read out are Labour councils, but one cannot make the division between Labour and Conservative councils in that way. The councils that I have suggested are part, or an extension, of the conurbation of Nottingham itself, which is at one end—the southern end—of the county. The particular districts that he mentioned would have to be considered to some extent because of the residuary council.
I know that the hon. Gentleman lives in a county council which is not greatly loved by anyone. There is no doubt that Nottinghamshire county council has been unsuccessful, and has done a number of things which have upset everyone. I shall, of course, examine the matter

1189
again, but I think that, if the hon. Gentleman reads my statement, he will find that the councils to which he referred are quite different in terms of make-up. Were I to include them, I should open the way for a wide range of differences and not achieve the coherence that I seek. However, I shall re-examine the issues, because we should try to reach a consensus if possible.
Dame Peggy Fenner: I thank my right hon. Friend. Is he aware that the people who live in the rural areas of my constituency were not overwhelmed by the idea of unitary authority status? However, I am in fairness bound to say that the Medway towns, which I think comprise the largest conurbation in Kent and which deserve the review that he is going to grant, think that they can form a good unitary authority. I support them in that.
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. This is a review, not a decision, and it is for the commission to look at this again. The Thames gateway councils will be involved in seeking money for exciting new projects, arguing among themselves about where those projects should be located and searching for money from the European Union and elsewhere. That means that there is a case to be made for those who are going to affected to have the opportunity of at least equal representation. To exclude them would be wrong.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that the statement lends itself to a great deal of local flavour but many hon. Members wish to ask a question and I can call them only if they and the Minister are brisk. There is another statement and further business to come.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many people in Lancashire will be less inclined to remain in a Lancashire county council that no longer contains Blackburn and Blackpool? Does he accept that Burnley was an extremely successful county borough, and exactly the same size as Darlington, to which he proposes to give unitary status?
Mr. Gummer: It is curious how enthusiasm for Lancashire county council is busy waning as I offer an alternative. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that the balance that has been struck reflects the fact that, in their discussions with the commission, Blackpool and Blackburn showed considerable support for unitary status, which outweighed other parts of the county of Lancashire. It therefore seems right to try to reflect that fact, and I think that the general outcome was probably right.
Mr. Jim Lester: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments about Nottingham. Once the decision has been made to give unitary status to the city of Nottingham, is it not important to balance that power with the review for Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe? I wish my right hon. Friend well in his attempts to get a consensus on the future of Nottingham.
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend.
Mr. Alan Milburn: May I thank the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for their support for a single-tier Darlington council? He will be aware of the overwhelming popular support in the town for a return to the principles of self-government that were
1190
undermined 21 years ago in the previous local government review. When does he intend to bring an order to the House to bring into being the new Darlington council, so that we can make progress as soon as possible?
Mr. Gummer: I shall produce such an order as soon as possible, although it cannot come into being immediately.
Mr. Bob Dunn: I thank my right hon. Friend for taking the trouble to visit Dartford a few days ago. When he makes his recommendation to the new chairman of the commission, will he recommend that, if north-west Kent is given unitary status, that status should be given within the existing boundaries of what is now the borough of Dartford? We have no wish to be part of a Thames gateway authority stretching from Crayford to beyond Gillingham.
Mr. Gummer: I much enjoyed my visit to Dartford. I have no intention of suggesting the establishment of such a large authority, stretching from Crayford to Hempstead and Bredhurst; I would not dream of it.
I shall suggest to the commission, in the first place, that it review the possibility of a new authority relating to Rochester upon Medway and Gillingham. I shall also suggest, if further discussions take place with the councils concerned, and the county council, that they review the possibility of a new authority covering Gravesham and Dartford—or, if they think it right, a separate authority for Gravesham. That, however, will be for them to propose. I am not making the proposition; I am offering them the opportunity to consider the matter. I doubt, however, that they would want an authority the size of the one that my hon. Friend fears, which would be out of line with anything else that we are proposing.
Mr. Mike Hall: I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement about the county of Cheshire, and welcome the reference to Warrington. May I stress that I feel that Halton borough council should also have unitary status? It fulfils all the criteria outlined by the Secretary of State in relation to popular support, a good identity and social and economic regeneration to support business and the voluntary sector.
May I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)? Macclesfield also fulfils all the criteria. I urge the Secretary of State to look again at Chester as well: it too has a complete identity. You will gather, Madam Speaker, that I believe that a unitary solution for the whole of Cheshire would be appropriate.
Mr. Gummer: I understand that there are those who would prefer the whole cake to half of it. I am trying to ensure that the widely differing views of local government are taken into account, and that we provide reasonable answers that will satisfy most people.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's views about Halton; that is why I put Halton in the second list. I shall discuss the matter more widely, and if it turns out that the hon. Gentleman's proposal seems to be more generally accepted, I shall act accordingly.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I visited the area recently—in fact, I have been there several times—and I am much impressed by the partnership between local authorities and the private sector, and by the use to which elements of the single regeneration budget have been put.

1191
I was pleased to note the changes that have taken place, and I hope that any new form of local government will enhance and increase opportunities.
Mr. Alan Duncan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement, and for tidying up what was a rather mucky exercise.
The county council campaign in Leicestershire has caused some anxiety and concern about whether the county of Rutland can afford county status. Will my right hon. Friend therefore allow some extra time, so that—basing its assessment on the proper costs rather than on county council propaganda—that small county can establish whether it can afford such status, and the division that has been caused can be replaced by unity?
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. I am sorry about some of the extreme propaganda that has been put out by some councils; I do not think that it has helped the discussion. In my statement, I tried very hard to provide an opportunity for people to secure a more sensible and permanent answer.
I shall certainly consider the possibility of extra time. I have always felt that we ought to be able to obtain the advantages of unitary authorities with more sharing. When it seems best for services to spread across two unitary authorities, I do not see why we cannot find ways in which to allow that. We shall consider ways in which we can help.
I do not want people who have long sought independence and control over their affairs, for all sorts of historic reasons, to feel that they can choose that independence and control only at huge expense—particularly if the expense has been calculated by those who do not want them to have it.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will the Secretary of State explain why he has taken so little notice of the fact that the majority of citizens in Lancashire, according to the consultations, prefer the status quo; and why he has not taken account of the fact that his present solution will increase the costs of local government for all people in Lancashire? We will be paying for Blackpool achieving unitary status.
Mr. Gummer: I am proposing Blackburn as well as Blackpool, if the hon. Lady wishes to be—
Mrs. Wise: I will add Blackburn as well.
Mr. Gummer: I am glad that the hon. Lady is even-handed about this. The majority of people in Lancashire will have the status quo. I am suggesting only that the commission looks again at these two authorities, where there is evidence of very considerable support and where, in both cases, there is a large population, closely knit, which would have unitary status in other parts of the country. I merely think that it is good idea that that should be looked at carefully. I understand that I have the support of very many members of the Labour party, who live in both those areas, for this reference.
Mr. James Couchman: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), I welcome the decision to call for the new or revised commission to review the Medway towns. My right hon. Friend will know from his personal knowledge that the
1192
redevelopment of the Medway towns is absolutely critical to their future prosperity and that for planning, transportation and urban redevelopment, the Medway towns are seen as a whole.
The call will be welcomed by all the political parties, with the exception of the Gillingham Liberals, who got up to some extraordinary stunts during the consultation. Will my right hon. Friend tell me a little about the time scale that he foresees for the review, and when he thinks that there will be elections to a new county borough of the Medway towns?
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that we will have the guidance ready in June, when the old commission will cease and the new commission will be appointed. I hope that it will then get on with the job as quickly as possible, but it is up to its members, of course, to decide how.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend: the great and ancient towns of Chatham and Rochester joined to make a single authority—with rural areas about them, but centrally those two authorities—because they knew that it was necessary for the future of their community. In many of the regeneration areas of the Medway towns, it is difficult to draw the line between Gillingham and Rochester upon Medway.
Indeed, only those who have long lived there—it is probably why the Liberals do not understand this—know where the boundary is. Those who care about Rochester upon Medway and Gillingham are very concerned about the regeneration possibilities and the great hope that comes to that area of the country. I think that they will want at least the advantages—as well as the disadvantages, for there may be some—of unitary status to be considered.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in welcoming a number of the points which were made by the Secretary of State. May I have clarification on the question asked by my hon. Friend about The Wrekin, which the Secretary of State knows is one of the largest district councils which has not so far been give unitary status?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that his answer suggested that The Wrekin will be reconsidered, and will he bear in mind the fact that, with a population of 145,000, it is larger than many authorities which have already been granted unitary status? Will he give some indication of when, after the review process starts in June, he expects it to be completed?
Mr. Gummer: I have recently been to The Wrekin. I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments, and thank him for his support. It is, I think that he will agree, a rather different area from most in the country. That is in the nature of that new town, with its ancient heart and the connections which have been very successfully built. I shall certainly, as I have said, look at it again and consider whether it ought, like the others, to be referred to the commission.
I cannot say when the commission will finish its work, but I hope to press it to finish its work as rapidly as is consistent with sensible and consistent decisions.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the people of Blackpool

1193
who voted in such substantial numbers for the unitary status option. May I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration for taking such care in listening to the representations made to him by members of all political parties when he visited Blackpool shortly before Christmas?
In particular, while recognising that Blackpool, as an historic county borough, has now to make its case to the reconstituted commission, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Councillor Maxine Callow, the Conservative leader, for her hard work on Blackpool council? Will he also confirm that one reason why there was such a substantial vote in Blackpool for unitary status was because of the appalling way in which the socialist-controlled Lancashire county council misused council tax payers' money in an appalling propaganda campaign—and even then it lost in Blackpool and Blackburn?
Mr. Gummer: In my unaccustomed role of extreme reticence on party political matters, I will miss out that last but obviously heartfelt comment. I hope very much that Blackpool will have the opportunity to present its case, and the commission will no doubt then consider it very carefully. I noted the very successful campaign which showed that Blackpool felt strongly about recovering its ancient status. We shall have to see what the commission thinks about that.
Mr. John Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that 21 years ago today I was elected for the then parliamentary constituency of Newton which included an enormous part of the borough of Warrington? Is he aware that the mid-Mersey belt of north-west England is dominated by the three great towns of St. Helens, Wigan and Warrington, and that a Warrington borough, as a unitary authority working in conjunction with the metropolitan districts of St. Helens and Wigan, would have an enormous impact on improving the quality of life and the regeneration of the north-west?
Mr. Gummer: Although I do not know the area anything like as well as the hon. Gentleman, I know it well enough to see that there is a seeming inconsistency with the kind of structure that has been recommended by the boundary commission. That is why I think it would be a good idea if we considered the matter in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I thank my right hon. Friend for recognising the significance of the Thames gateway, the rail link and the Ebbsfleet station announcement, all three of which will bring about massive change in north-west Kent? It is quite clear that, by making that a coherent planning whole, it would be very much better carried out by one council than by three.
Mr. Gummer: I was much impressed by the problems that Gravesham would have if it did not have pretty direct control over the way in which planning operates in that part of north Kent. I am also very impressed by the argument that, with the coherence of neighbouring unitary authorities, both Gravesham and Dartford would find themselves less able to deal with the issues that beset
1194
them. After I have discussed the matter with the councils and the county council, the commission may well want to recommend something different.
Mr. Andrew Miller: The Secretary of State will agree that it is important that the proposals gather the most widespread bipartisan support. Against that background, and while I welcome the statement regarding Warrington and Halton—incidentally, half of Halton has been part of Cheshire all its life—will the Secretary of State ensure that the whole of Cheshire is reconsidered in the light of his comments about Halton and Warrington, so that that important bipartisan element is maintained?
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, and I respect the way in which he put it. The difficulty with the bipartisan element is that it is not one which has to be maintained simply in his area. It must be maintained very much more widely.
Therefore, in seeking the right answer, I have tried to take into account the views that I have received from all parts of the House. Sometimes, that is difficult, because one has heard contrary views from neighbouring areas, not just across the boundaries, but within parties. I have tried very hard to get the balance right. I think that I have it right in this respect, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will write to me to ensure that I do not miss another opportunity to consider the matter.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend has said about Norfolk, does he recall that, throughout Norfolk, there was a clear majority for the status quo, in response to the commission, both in local polls and in MORI polls? That was also true in Norwich. Therefore, if my right hon. Friend, at a later stage, looks again at the city of Norwich, will he make sure that there really is a clear majority of people within that city who are in favour of any variation?
Mr. Gummer: If I considered Norwich—I have promised my hon. Friend that I will look at the list he gave me—and if I presented it to the commission, I have no doubt that the commission would want to make sure that there was local support, and that local government would be improved by anything that it proposed. I should certainly draw to its attention all the relevant details I have, and that would obviously include any reference that my hon. Friend would like to give me.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Local Government Commission was a creature of his own Department's making, and that today's announcement will create further uncertainty? Will he try to remedy matters by ensuring that there is a quick timetable to resolve issues? Staff will be concerned about the matter; they have had a rough deal. Will the right hon. Gentleman increase redundancy terms for affected staff?
Mr. Gummer: I have done my best throughout the discussions to show that I wanted as speedy an answer as possible. I speeded up the matter, and I now propose that we should act as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman speaks less than fairly about what is a complicated matter to try to find the next stage on in local government, which is a continuing, evolving system, and I want to get the best answer. The hon. Gentleman speaks with a certain

1195
sourness, because the county council of which he was a member is without doubt one of the least popular county councils in Britain.
Mr. George Walden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although it is true that Aylesbury Vale district council put up a not unreasonable case for unitary status, we needed the disruption involved in the demolition of Buckinghamshire county council like a hole in the head? Is he aware also that many of us are greatly relieved to be released from between the nutcracker of the county council and the district council?
Mr. Gummer: I hope that I have done the best for Buckinghamshire—I have tried hard to do that. It is a fine and ancient county, and I hope that we will now have stability there and that all hon. Members from Buckinghamshire will find it possible to support what is inevitably not entirely to everyone's liking.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the two-year journey been wasted? Does the Secretary of State agree that, when all transitional costs are taken into account, it will cost more than £1 billion? It is no use blaming the commission, Banham and all the rest. The truth is that the Secretary of State and his mates have changed the rules and told the commission to review and to review again.
How many people will get the sack as a result of the new venture? How many workers will be made redundant? Would it not have been better to use that £1 billion in local government in order to reduce class sizes, instead of spending it on administration?
Why has the right hon. Gentleman not mentioned Derbyshire? Is it because he will get involved in another political carve-up there? Before he tells me about Derbyshire county council, let me tell him that the councillors have been elected with big majorities ever since 1981. The people liked them and voted for them.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has a characteristic of consistency, which is rare in such local government discussions. He is always opposed to anything that I say or any Conservative Member says, whether he has thought about it or not. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about his figures, wrong about his assessment, and wrong about the views that I have put forward. Local government is too important to be based upon the conservatism of the Member of Parliament for Bolsover.
Mr. David Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend please add Spelthorne to the list that he will review again? It meets all the requirements that he has listed this afternoon. For reasons of brevity today, I will write to my right hon. Friend, setting out all the justifications, and I hope that he will respond favourably.
Mr. Gummer: I look forward very much to my hon. Friend's letter.
Mr. Colin Pickthall: After two years of turmoil in Lancashire, and, it has to be said, much demoralisation among all councils in Lancashire, is not the referral back of Blackburn and Blackpool for further consideration simply a recipe for extending that turmoil and demoralisation?
1196
Furthermore, is it not an invitation to boroughs such as Burnley and Preston, which have a logical case in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has decided today, to press him to extend what he is saying to them? Even worse from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, he might get demands from Lancaster as well.
Mr. Gummer: I have not noticed any demoralisation in the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I did not notice any demoralisation in my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), who has already spoken. I have not noticed, either, that the proposal could be demoralising to the people who specifically sought their own unitary authorities in those two places.
However sympathetic we may be to those who work in local government—and I am very sympathetic to them—in the end they work there because of the citizens they serve. If those citizens feel strongly that they would be better served by unitary authorities, at least that idea should be considered. It would be odd to demand that it should not be considered.
I know that the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) is one of the rare strong supporters of Lancashire county council, so it is odd that he asks, "What about unitaries elsewhere?" I think that I have got the balance about right, and I hope that we shall be able to go forward together on that basis.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), is my right hon. Friend aware that most people in Norfolk were in favour of the status quo, and will be pleased? But will he also congratulate the borough of King's Lynn in west Norfolk on its excellent campaign for unitary status, which received considerable support in the town? The people there were pleased to meet the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration the other day.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend the Minister of State made a point of telling me that King's Lynn council's presentation seeking unitary status was one of the most excellent that we saw. It was extremely well put forward, and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) is fortunate in his local council. I hope that, now that the future is clear, Norfolk county council will carry out its stated desire to give much more local preference to the other local authorities in Norfolk.
Sir Peter Emery: My right hon. Friend has not mentioned Devon as such, but he has mentioned Plymouth, which is in Devon. Will he bear in mind the fact that the commission's original recommendation for Devon, with the exception of Exeter, to remain the same appeared to have obtained general approval? The second recommendation, which means that my right hon. Friend is now considering Exeter, may not really abide by the general view of the people of Devon, and we should like a reply about Devon as soon as possible.
Mr. Gummer: I promise my right hon. Friend as quick a reply as possible on Devon. In the light of what the recommendations of the commission were, it is not proper for me to refer in this statement to an area wider than

1197
Exeter, but I shall continue to consider the proposals for Devon carefully, and I shall make a statement as soon as I can.
Mr. Harold Elletson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his acceptance of Sir John Banham's recommendation that, after 100 years of service to the people of Lancashire, Lancashire county council should continue in existence.
I accept what he says about the historic status of Blackpool as a county borough, but there will be considerable concern that my right hon. Friend appears to have ignored many of the points that Sir John made in his report about additional transitional costs and about the effect on the ability to deliver services both to the people of Blackpool and throughout Lancashire. I hope that, when the fresh review is constituted, my right hon. Friend will urge Sir John's successor to consider those factors carefully. Can he tell us how long he expects the present period of uncertainty to continue?
Mr. Gummer: There is no uncertainty for the rest of Lancashire, but we shall get this period over as rapidly as possible. I have made no statement about the validity of the Banham remarks about Blackpool. All I have said is that I am offering the opportunity for a newly constituted commission to reconsider Blackpool. No doubt it will take into account all that my hon. Friend has said. It would be wrong to deny to the many people in Blackpool who have sought unitary status the opportunity to have their case considered in the present context rather than in another.
Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he said about Warwickshire will be widely welcomed within the shire county? The status quo was desired, and I am grateful to him for agreeing with that. However, he will understand that funding is critical for local authorities. To use his own phrase, the "delegation of responsibility" applies especially to local authorities. Can he therefore say when the cap might be lifted, so that true accountability might be restored to local government?
Mr. Gummer: I fear that this is neither the occasion nor the opportunity so to do.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) said that the majority of people in Lancashire preferred the status quo, but only 5 per cent. voted in favour of that. Since the county council employs no fewer than 47,000 persons, that disposes of most of that 5 per cent.
May I congratulate Blackburn and Blackpool on their good fortune, as they will in all probability escape from the profligacy and inefficiency of Lancashire county council? I much regret that, up to now, liberalisation has not come to Lancaster, which is a historic city, an academic and business centre, a thoroughly composite place and the gateway to the lake district. May I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider that most lamentable decision?
Mr. Gummer: There are many cities in this country which could well do with the earnest advocacy which my hon. Friend gives to Lancaster. I do not think that anyone in Lancaster could possibly not know that she speaks for the city whenever the opportunity occurs.
1198
My hon. Friend knows the terms under which I sought to produce the list, and she must understand that—following my careful study of the terms—the great city of Lancaster has neither the size nor the nature which would lead it to be in the same sector as the others to which she referred. [HON. MEMBERS: "Just say no."] I will not—as Opposition Members would like—dismiss what my hon. Friend has put forward, and I will look again at the terms. I ought not to give her a huge hope, as hers is a rather different case from others.
Mr. Alan Howarth: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's decision to accept the commission's recommendation in respect of Warwickshire, may I ask whether he agrees that, after 20 years of Treasury rule, local government is not in all respects flourishing as he would wish?
In the reference in his statement to the desirability of self-sustaining communities, was my right hon. Friend in effect saying that, in future, the democratic principle would be better expressed through subsidiarity and local accountability? Does he agree that sauce for the goose must be sauce for gander, and that, just as we insist on subsidiarity between the European Union and the national Government, so we should pursue subsidiarity between the national Government and local authorities—and, moreover, between local authorities and their own communities?
Mr. Gummer: I have always believed in subsidiarity, and it is important that it is applied not just as far as the United Kingdom in the European Union is concerned, but to local authorities. I wish that those authorities which most demand subsidiarity would remember their need to give subsidiarity to schools and all other organisations which are perfectly capable of running themselves, instead of being bossed about by town halls.
Sir David Madel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be great relief in my constituency that it has finally been confirmed that Dunstable, Leighton Buzzard and the villages will not be pushed into a Greater Luton, and that mid-Bedfordshire will not be pushed into a Greater Bedford? Can he confirm that elections for the reconstituted Bedfordshire county council—which we hope will be successful—will be in May 1997?
Mr. Gummer: The elections will be held as planned in May 1997.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: May I particularly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about keeping those local authorities such as Surrey, which made commitments in the heat of consultation about devolving and sharing power, up to the mark?
My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, who kindly visited my constituency only yesterday, will know that parish councils command wide popular support. Will my right hon. Friend consider putting back into his recommendations what the commission unaccountably left out—a recommendation for new parish councils in Tandridge district?
Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend that Tandridge district is a good example of a well-run local authority. Local authorities are all looking carefully at

1199
what the county councils have promised them. I must say that a number of county councils which hitherto had shown precious little regard for subsidiarity, co-operation or delegation became extremely keen on it when there was any possibility of them being abolished. I have a list of all those clear statements, and I intend to ensure that, as those county councils made the statements, they shall carry them out.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about the chairmanship and future membership of the commission, may I express my concern at the time that he is taking to decide on the future of Derbyshire? Some Conservative Members find it difficult to understand how a Local Government Commission can recommend unitary status for Rutland, at 33,000, and ignore every other district that wants the same sort of status. We ought to consider the view that the commission has reported and its consistency, and we should follow the Rutland experiment and give unitary status to districts.
Mr. Gummer: Although I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's view, my colleagues and I have met a large number of delegations so that we can make those decisions properly. I am sure that he would be the first to be concerned if we had not met the many delegations from every county who wanted to see us. My hon. Friend the Minister of State saw the delegation from High Peak only yesterday, as, like the rest of us, he has been busy listening to people and reading the papers concerned. I will produce an answer as rapidly as possible, but it must be based on an understanding of the issues, and not one rushed through on some ideological basis.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Having listened to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), may I presume that I do not need to urge my right hon. Friend to tread carefully on the sensitivities of the people of Leicestershire?
Mr. Gummer: I realise how sensitive are the people of Leicestershire, and I shall tread most delicately. I hope that I will produce an answer that my hon. Friend will like.
Dr. Keith Hampson: If we are going to be truly consistent in trying to reflect national identity, may I suggest that now is the time to consider the powers of the huge unitary authorities in the metropolitan areas, to find out whether those heavy-handed authorities can devolve powers to the diverse communities that they embrace, such as the Otleys, the Wetherbys and the Pudseys in highly centralised Leeds?
Mr. Gummer: Our commitment to devolution runs across local government. Subsidiarity is crucial, and should be pushed right down to the bottom. That is why I am so deeply opposed to regional government, which merely puts another row of persons between people and power. That is a very dangerous thing. We need much more devolution. My hon. Friend is right to say that in
1200
some of the larger unitary authorities, there is too little concern about what people in neighbourhoods, groups and historic parts think. I hope that we can help that extension.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend clarify his remarks about Exeter, and confirm that there is no question of the city being the subject of a review by the newly constituted Local Government Commission, but that he is simply acknowledging the fact that he has had firm recommendations that Exeter should have unitary status?
Mr. Gummer: I have received a recommendation for Devon, and am still considering what my response should be. The recommendation covers my hon. Friend's constituency of Torbay and also Plymouth, but does not refer to Exeter. In my statement I said that, if one was considering places where there was considerable local desire for unitary authority status and, historically, a county borough, it might be reasonable to consider Exeter and to refer it to the commission.
In the context of the decisions that I have to make, having consulted the county council and the area, Exeter is one of the places that I might wish to refer to the commission. The reason that I put it like that is that it seems right to make that statement to the House now for the sake of completeness, but the full completeness can be achieved only after I have decided on the Devon proposals. I will then say whether I think it right to refer Exeter to the new commission.
Dr. Robert Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Essex want less expensive, more effective and more accountable local government services, and that the best way to deliver those is via a unitary authority status organisation, with about seven unitary authorities? Does he deplore the campaign run by Essex county council, at a cost of about £1 million on propaganda, and the way in which Essex county council dragooned its employees into voting on that matter? Will he add Essex to his list of authorities that have made promises to district councils?
Mr. Gummer: Essex county council does not appear to be exactly good at handling its financing. I understand that it has had considerable difficulties this week in trying to meet its proper obligations. Those who suggest that it would be better off under Labour control might like to know that the Labour-led council has fallen apart because of the incompetent way in which it was run.
I condemn councils that have spent unnecessarily on these discussions, whatever party controls them. In this case, Essex county council has set a bad example. But I have on my list some clear commitments about how it will deal with the smaller bodies within it, and I shall keep it to those.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in Derbyshire, two MORI polls—there have been two investigations—have shown that people feel that Derby should have a unitary authority and the rest of the county should be a two-tier structure? Should not the Secretary of State make that the overwhelming consideration in coming to a decision on that matter?
Mr. Gummer: I have not decided about Derbyshire yet, as I pointed out earlier to the hon. Member for

1201
Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Once I have made those decisions, I shall obviously communicate them to the House. I shall look carefully at what is said, and take into account all that is said. However, my view about MORI polls is coloured by the fact that the numbers voting and the nature of the number of people employed by extremely heavy employers like Derbyshire county council might have some effect on what is revealed. I note that the hon. Member for Bolsover was more interested in the employment of people by the local council than in the services that it provided.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: If the Secretary of State is to avoid the same criticism as his predecessor genuinely deserves for the waste of both time and resources, he must give clear, consistent and transparent principles under which the newly constructed commission will operate. It would be helpful to the whole House if he would give an idea of the time scale, both in terms of the 12 outstanding authorities—the papers on those are still on his desk—and when he expects to clear up the uncertainties on that matter; as well as the time scale for the general review process, so that the uncertainty surrounding it may be brought to an end.
I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to meet relevant trade unions, which will reassure staff. Will he look clearly at the view that the present settlement has been unsatisfactory? Does he accept that, although the list he gave contains many of the authorities that need looking at again, it should be supplemented with those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—particularly The Wrekin and Norwich, where there is a strong case for unitary status?
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for most of those comments. I do not agree with his earlier comments. This is a contentious issue that divides hon. Members within parties, not just across the Floor of the House. In many cases, the commission found itself with a problem whereby not many people had a view about how local government should be structured, although all people had a view about the price they should pay and the services that they wanted. The connection between those and the organisation is sometimes difficult for people to make.
The commission was also hampered by the fact that large numbers of authorities—many more than I would have hoped—ran campaigns that were little short of scandalous in the statements that they made and their attempts to frighten people. Many local councillors will
1202
have good reason to look back on this period with considerable sadness. It did local government no good when some councils made threats to school governors, such as suggesting that there would be no education if they were made into unity authorities.
The commission had a difficult job to do, and it has carried it out much more quickly than was originally supposed. I wanted to ensure that it was done with that speed, because I understand the problems that beset people who work for local authorities, and I wanted to try to meet them.
Now that we have reached this stage, we have a sensible way of producing the answers we want. Those answers are the answers of decent local government, providing a proper service, with an enabling council able to ensure that people have the services they need at a reasonable price. I hope that I can deliver that. I hope, too, that the commission will be able to consider those councils that I have mentioned. I will carefully consider the councils that the hon. Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) have suggested.
On the time scale, the new commission will be in place in June. During the period till then, we shall be producing the guidelines. I accept that the concepts that might have been taken for granted in the past must be clearly expressed in the guidelines. I shall certainly ensure that I do that, and that will be subject to consultation, not only with Opposition Members, but more widely, with local authorities.
I hope that then the new commission will be able to start its work in July, and I expect that it would try to fulfil that as quickly as it could, but it is not for me to tell it how quickly to do it. I merely assure the House that I will provide the commission with the resources it needs to do so in a reasonable time.
There are no announcements sitting on my desk about those remaining counties, waiting for me to read them. Those counties are subject to considerable consultation, and a great deal of work has been done listening to delegations from the various parts of the counties. I have now almost completed that. I hope very much to be able to complete the work on them myself with my colleagues, and I would expect to be able to make a further statement to the House about those in the very near future. I have to try to do so as soon as possible, not least because it is necessary for the proper and conventional gap between that and the forthcoming local county council elections.

Business of the House
4.41 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 6 MARCH—Second Reading of the Criminal Appeal Bill.
TUESDAY 7 MARCH—Opposition Day (9th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "The Position of Women in Britain" on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 8 MARCH—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until 7 o'clock, motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order.
Followed by a motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 9 MARCH—Until about 7 o'clock, proceedings on the South Africa Bill [Lords].
Followed by a motion to approve the first report of the Broadcasting Committee on developing the parliamentary broadcasting archives.
FRIDAY 10 MARCH—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 8 March at 10.30 am to consider the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury on 23 November 1994 relating to the European Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1993, together with replies from the institutions.
[Wednesday 8 March:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: unnumbered, Report of the Court of Auditors for 1993; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 70-ii (1994–95).]
On Monday 13 March I anticipate proposing the Second Reading of the Gas Bill. I am still considering the exact pattern of business for the rest of the week, but the House may find it helpful to know that on Thursday 16 March I anticipate that Government business will be taken until 7 o'clock, and that that will be followed by a debate on a motion for the Adjournment.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. Who will speak for the Government in next Tuesday's debate, on the eve of International Women's Day, on the position of women in Britain?
The Leader of the House will, I hope, acknowledge that when the statement on Barings was made on Monday, the Chancellor was, understandably, unable to answer many questions because full information was not available. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made next week to give the House further information, specifically on the 43 pension funds that have been managed by Barings, including a proportion of the London Transport pension fund, about which many people must be worried, and on the charities whose assets are held by Barings and are now frozen? A specific statement on those issues would help many people.
The Leader of the House will be aware of the considerable interest, inside and outside the House, in the Prime Minister's apparent U-turn on executive pay. As
1204
Ministers do not appear to know whether they would support an amendment to the Finance Bill or to the Gas Bill a week on Monday, or indeed whether legislation is needed at all, and as the Greenbury committee may not report for some time, would it not be a good idea for the Government to initiate a debate in the House on executive pay and share options, so that the most effective way of tackling those abuses can be found and action taken as quickly as possible, not least because of the wide public concern? May we have a promise that such a debate will take place, or are we to assume that the Prime Minister's statement was merely hot air or window dressing?
The Government announced today that spending on higher education will increase next year by less than the rate of inflation. I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that the vice-chancellor of Essex university criticised that decision today, and said that the future will be bleak if we do not invest in education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has issued figures today showing that cuts of about £320 million will be made in school budgets next year. When can we expect the Secretary of State for Education to explain to the House the freeze and squeeze in higher education and the dangers associated with the increase in class sizes, which is alarming parents, school governors and teachers alike? The Secretary of State for Education has not been to the Dispatch Box to defend her budgeting since she half promised to do so in the debate that was initiated by the Opposition.
Mr. Newton: I thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education made her position and her expectations and the position about funding absolutely clear in the debate to which the hon. Lady referred, but I will bring her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
On executive pay, again, as on a number of occasions during yesterday's debate, I wondered whether Opposition Members were listening to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was saying to them. I thought that he said straightforwardly that the Government would wish to consider the recommendations of the Greenbury committee, including anything that it might say about the need for legislation, and would then consider those matters at the appropriate time. I did not think that there was any room for misunderstanding about that, and I see no reason to respond to the hon. Lady in the positive way that I would normally seek to do.
The hon. Lady will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said that issues arising from Barings had been referred to the Board of Banking Supervision. On most of the issues, it would obviously be right to see what emerges from its inquiries, but I acknowledge that the hon. Lady has referred to a number of worrying matters that obviously need to be taken into account. I will bring those remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor.
Our participation in next Tuesday's debate is still under consideration, but I anticipate that at least one of the speeches will be made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), who recently became chairman of the Women's National Commission.
Sir Norman Fowler: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a Government statement or debate about housing renewal grants in Birmingham? Is he aware of the great public anxiety about that issue, that that

1205
concern will not he satisfied by an internal party investigation, that public money and the misuse of public money are at stake, and that what is needed is an independent investigation and an assurance that such abuse is not taking place anywhere else?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend refers rightly to the need for an independent investigation, and I understand that the district auditor has followed the proper course and is investigating the allegations that have been made.
My right hon. Friend must also understand that I must be somewhat restrained in my comments about the matter. However, in one sense, the scale of the Leader of the Opposition's intervention and the implications of that action speak for themselves. In those circumstances, the Opposition might feel that it is an appropriate subject for discussion on their next Supply day.
Ms Liz Lynne: Will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate on the plight of unpaid carers, especially in view of the report from SCOPE—formerly the Spastics Society—which found that many unpaid carers suffer grave financial hardship? Unpaid carers contribute a lot to this country, for which they have a right to be recognised.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady will know, I hope, that she is addressing a sympathetic ear. When I was a Minister at the Department of Social Security, I was responsible for extending the invalid care allowance to married women and for a number of other measures designed to recognise and underpin more clearly the position of unpaid carers. It is clear from everything that my right hon. and hon. Friends have done in the spheres of social security and health in recent times that they too are concerned about supporting unpaid carers and about recognising the contribution that they make.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has not been a full House of Commons debate on the Commonwealth since 1987? Since then, not only have we been joined by Namibia, Pakistan and South Africa, but a number of strains have developed within the Commonwealth—such as the Cyprus question—that must be addressed. Will my right hon. Friend choose the week beginning Monday 13 March—Commonwealth Day—for a debate on the subject of the Commonwealth?
Mr. Newton: There will be some opportunity to refer to such matters next Thursday, 9 March in the debate that I announced on the South Africa Bill. There is continuing uncertainty about the nature of business on Thursday, 16 March. In the circumstances, I clearly cannot make a commitment, but I will bear my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion in mind.
Mr. Tom Cox: Is the Leader of the House aware of the damning indictment of the district auditor, Mr. Rowland Little, of the behaviour of Wandsworth council in breaking the law for many years when rehousing homeless families in the borough? As the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), a junior Environment Minister, was chairman of that housing authority for three years, when can we expect a statement on his future?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged that the auditor found no evidence of improper purpose or wilful misconduct, no evidence that
1206
the council took account of irrelevant considerations, no evidence of financial loss to the council and nothing to suggest that any council member or officer did not believe in the lawfulness of the council's actions.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the effect of the action by the Channel 4 television programme "The Word" in paying for another trip by the 14-year-old boy who travelled to Malaysia using his father's passport and credit cards? That sets an extremely bad example to other young people. The boy's parents are apparently under contract to some news magazine and therefore cannot comment on or support that disgraceful decision.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will be studied carefully by those at whom they are directed. I will draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Minister aware that yet another child has died as a result of choking on a pen top? Does he remember that my young constituent, Billy Walker, died in that way some time ago, as a result of which the Government introduced a trading standard? May we have a debate on the need to ban not merely unsafe pens produced in this country but those that are imported from overseas, to ensure that there are no more unnecessary deaths of this nature?
Mr. Newton: The safety of pen caps on sale in the United Kingdom—whether they are imported or manufactured locally—is covered by the General Product Safety Regulations 1994 and by a British standard requiring the ventilation of pen caps intended for children up to 14 years of age. Of course, contravention of those regulations is a criminal offence and local authority trading standards officers have the power to remove unsafe products from the market and to bring prosecutions. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will convey his concerns to the relevant authorities in Leicester, and I will also draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Harold Elletson: Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement or a debate on the consultation paper on tourism that the Department of National Heritage issued this week? Does he agree that it emphasises the Government's commitment to the tourism industry and that it marks the beginning of a new drive for higher standards, quality and real value for money in tourism and leisure, which is Britain's fastest growing industry?
Mr. Newton: I am aware of the document that was published this week, which contains an action plan for a variety of bodies and which will assist the industry to take advantage of the opportunities that the growing market in tourism represents. I share my hon. Friend's hope that full advantage will be taken of those opportunities.
Mr. John McAllion: The Minister will be aware that yesterday the Government suffered a humiliating defeat in the Committee that considered the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy or Premature Retirement on Reorganisation) (Scotland) Regulations 1995—the Government's inadequate

1207
compensation scheme for local government workers who were made redundant as a result of local government reorganisation in Scotland.
Technically, the Government can simply ignore that defeat because the statutory instrument was introduced under the negative resolution procedure. However, past Governments who have been defeated in that way have recognised their obligation to take account of the defeat by reintroducing the statutory instrument for further consideration by the whole House. Will the Minister assure hon. Members that he will continue that honourable tradition, recognise the fact that his Government have been defeated, and give the House a second chance to consider that important measure?
Mr. Newton: The only possible response to the hon. Gentleman is: nice try. As I understand it, the humiliation was the Opposition's. All but two Opposition Members on the Committee failed to turn up to debate the matter, and the rest magically arrived only just in time to vote when the debate had finished. I am sure that that brought joy to the heart of the shadow deputy Chief Whip, but others may make their own judgments.
I also understand that, during the last Labour Administration, a similar incident occurred on four occasions—which shows that my hon. Friends are just as good at their job as the shadow deputy Chief Whip is at his—none of which resulted in matters being referred back to the Floor of the House.
Sir Peter Emery: The whole House is pleased that my right hon. Friend has moved on the recommendations of the Procedure Committee and the Jopling Committee and has announced two weeks' business at the same time. He announced the business for Monday 13 March, when there will probably be a Division at 10 o'clock, and for Thursday 16 March, when there could be a Division at 7 o'clock, but he has left the 14th and the 15th blank. If possible, will he consider announcing what the business on particular days will be? If he has to adjust it later, the House will understand, but it would help hon. Members if my right hon. Friend could move in that direction.
Mr. Newton: I think that it is absolutely clear to everyone that I have been trying to move in that direction. I had hoped to move a little further today, but representations made to me led me to allow certain matters to be discussed further in accordance with the proper spirit of the usual channels.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I support the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) in his plea for a debate on the Commonwealth? Can the Leader of the House help us in regard to Tuesday's debate, which is on an Opposition Supply day? Is there a particular problem affecting women in England and Wales that does not affect those in Scotland and Northern Ireland, or is it a secret acknowledgement that the Labour party is supporting the independence of Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Mr. Newton: This is one of the occasions when I think that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) should be able to reply to questions. I am not sure whether she has even heard this one. I wonder whether the hon.
1208
Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) might draw her attention to the fact that a question has just been asked that is really for her and not for me. It related to why next Tuesday's debate is concerned only with the position of women in Britain, which has obviously caused some affront in Northern Ireland. I am not responsible for the debate or for its title. The hon. Gentleman's question, which is a fascinating one, should be directed to the hon. Lady.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate on youth provision, so that we can consider the decision of Labour-controlled Avon county council to cut its grants to the Avon Scout Association, the Boy's Brigade and to many other groups within the county, most of which are uniformed groups of youths? Perhaps we can contrast the fact that it is cutting grants to youth groups, yet introducing a grant to an organisation known as "Bristol Young Lesbian and Bisexual Women's Group". Why is Avon county council unable to fund proper youth organisations, but only loony-left nonsense?
Mr. Newton: You, Madam Speaker, will perhaps understand that, in anticipating a question from my hon. Friend, I had prepared for every possible question about Kent but not for a question about Avon.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate on football and the plight of football supporters? No one in the House will support hooliganism, but at the Bruges v. Chelsea match, many respectable and decent British citizens found themselves subject to some heavy police activity and prevented from going to the match. The House should condemn hooliganism but stand up for decent people who are badly treated at football matches at home and abroad. May we have a debate on the matter?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is a pity that they did not lock up the Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) as well.
Mr. Newton: I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should be trying to divert attention. Just two weeks ago, in response to something that happened in Ireland, he was demanding more heavy-handed action than appeared to have taken place.
Mr. Skinner: No, I did not.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps that shows the difficulty of getting the balance right. Two weeks ago, everybody was asking, "Why has somebody not done more?" Today, someone is asking, "Why has somebody done so much?" It is an inherently difficult problem and we should acknowledge that.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: May we have a debate next week on local government to bring to the attention of the House the latest sad example of incompetence and waste by Labour-controlled Birmingham city council? I refer, in particular, to its intention to pursue a legal action against Sutton Coldfield college of further education and the College of Food from Birmingham. A lower court recently found that Birmingham city council had illegally transferred £13.6 million, which was intended for those colleges for training

1209
purposes, to prestige projects in the city. As legal action so far has cost about £200,000 and interest on the bill is £2,000 a week, is it not a matter for the district auditor?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether it would be a matter for the district auditor, who appears to have a growing amount on his plate from Birmingham, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education might wish to consider what my hon. Friend has described, especially in view of some of the observations at the start of business questions on the funding of further and higher education.
Madam Speaker: Business questions are getting long and convoluted and we have other business to conduct this afternoon and evening. I shall do my best to call hon. Members, but will they please ask brisk questions? I am sure that the Leader of the House will give brisk answers.
Mr. John Denham: May I remind the Leader of the House that a year ago I introduced a private Member's Bill designed to relieve the problems of council leaseholders who cannot sell their flats and who face huge bills? At the time, faced with a huge public lobby, the Government promised action; a year later, there has been no action. May we have a debate on the problems faced by council leaders and a promise of action that will be followed up by the Government?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to put that very question to the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he feels it appropriate, on Wednesday 15 March.
Mr. George Galloway: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 582?
[That this House is gravely concerned at the unsolved murder, in a British military barracks in Germany, of Christina Menzies the 16 year old daughter of Staff Sergeant John Menzies and his wife Christine; is concerned at reports of poor police work by the Military Police investigating the murder and poor legal work by the Military Police Prosecutor; and, in the light of the acquittal of the accused, Corporal Fisher, and the statement by the Military Police that they were no longer looking for any other suspect, asks the obvious question whether the murderer of Christina Menzies is still at large within the British armed forces.]
It deals with the bungling by the military police and the incompetence of the military prosecuting authorities who investigated the murder of my constituent, Christina Menzies. As a result of that bungling and incompetence, Corporal Darren Fisher, who killed my constituent, has literally got away with murder and is currently at large in a military establishment in Telford, Shropshire. Does the Leader of the House understand that British military justice and law is increasingly seen as an ass and many cases and issues are now backing up? We urgently need a debate, so that the system of courts martial and the way in which justice is dispensed in the armed forces, especially when crimes are committed against civilians, as in my constituent's case, can be brought under democratic control and modernised so that police and prosecuting work is up to standard, as it should be.
Mr. Newton: I shall obviously bring those remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the
1210
Secretary of State for Defence, but I understand that the prosecuting officer in the case was a qualified lawyer who had experience of prosecuting charges of unlawful killing.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the first conference on the climate change convention, which will be held towards the end of March, particularly in view of increasing anxiety and alarm and the accumulating evidence that global warming is occurring? Will he arrange for the Government to make a statement on how they plan to achieve carbon dioxide emission reductions by the end of the century and introduce further targets for reductions as soon as possible?
Mr. Newton: Those matters are under consideration at present, in relation not just to the conference in Berlin at the end of the month but to the Council of Environment Ministers next week. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make the British Government's position clear as and when it is appropriate.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the Leader of the House find time to debate the alarming boom in the economy of Colombia as 70 per cent. of its gross national product comes from the growth of coke, which has expanded from 1,000 hectares to 200,000 hectares in a very short time? That expansion has manifested itself in drug abuse and drug-related crime throughout Europe and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Newton: I think that the right course would be for me to ensure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As chairman of the Government's committee on drug misuse, I attach great importance to anything that can be done in Britain or abroad to reduce both the demand and the supply of drugs.
Mr. David Jamieson: Has the Leader of the House seen the article in today's edition of Today, quoting Judge Stephen Tumim saying that Derek Lewis was not the first choice as director general of Her Majesty's prisons, but was appointed because of his support for the privatisation of prisons? May we expect a statement next week from the Home Secretary on why the recommendations of the interviewing panel were turned down and why we did not have the best person for the job?
Mr. Newton: I must simply repeat what was said previously. The appointment of the director general was approved by the civil service commissioners in the normal way. Three candidates were assessed as being of an acceptable standard. They were then interviewed by the then Home Secretary and the board then reconvened.
Ms Glenda Jackson: The Leader of the House will recall the Prime Minister's confirmation during Tuesday's Question Time that automatic train protection is being reconsidered. As the Government have given an absolute commitment to the installation of automatic train protection throughout the entire British Rail network for the past six years, will he ensure that there is a statement, or preferably a debate, on

1211
the matter, so that we can examine why the Government are reneging on yet another promise that impacts so strongly on the safety of the travelling public?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is considering advice from the Health and Safety Commission and from Railtrack on British Rail's report on automatic train protection. An announcement will be made in due course and that would be the appropriate time at which to consider a debate.
Mr. Peter Hain: May I press the Leader of the House again for a statement on the district auditor's report on Wandsworth council? The right hon. Gentleman failed to mention in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) that in paragraph 6.9 the district auditor specifically states that the council had acted unlawfully in selling thousands of empty properties to Tory supporters and putting homeless families on the streets. How can the Minister with responsibility for housing in London remain in office when as leader of Wandsworth council he was responsible for that policy and escaped surcharge by the skin of his teeth? He must go, or is law breaking penetrating the heart of the Government?
Mr. Newton: I will not repeat what I said in my earlier answer. In the light of what I have already said, any suggestion that my hon. Friend should resign is quite nonsensical.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretaries of State for the various parts of the United Kingdom to make statements on the progress of clinical trials of beta interferon to treat some of the more virulent symptoms of multiple sclerosis? When I raised this matter before on behalf of my constituent, Kenneth Deering, I was promised that clinical trials would start, but my studies have shown that there seems to be sporadic individual prescription for beta interferon in one of its four forms to people who have multiple sclerosis. However, there is no indication of progress towards clinical trials that will allow it to be prescribed to the thousands of multiple sclerosis sufferers who are waiting for it to be made available.
Mr. Newton: As the quite active president of my local MS society, I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter. I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Derek Enright: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is said that the six members of the Greenbury committee earn more than £4 million between them? Will he ask the Prime Minister to look urgently into that, set up an inquiry, and report back to the House?
Mr. Newton: I shall not add to what I said earlier. I do not accept the suggestion that members of the Greenbury committee are incapable of looking seriously and objectively at serious public issues.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Leader of the House must be aware that three times this week hon. Members have raised the question of the treatment of Sita Kamara, an asylum seeker in this country. Hon. Members
1212
make daily representations to the Home Office about the conditions under which asylum seekers are kept and about the fact that more than 700 are currently in custody in detention centres and prisons in this country. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is necessary for the House to be able to debate the whole question of the treatment of asylum seekers, the refusal of asylum and the plight that those who are forcibly deported from this country face when they go back to the country from which they tried to flee in the first place?
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman says, the matter has been raised on a number of occasions. I have no doubt that a number of responses have been given and I certainly do not intend to add further to those.
Mr. Harry Barnes: After tomorrow's business, two private Members' Bills are likely to be presented to the House. They are highly significant and have wide support in the House and throughout the country. They are the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill and the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Given that support, should there not at least be discussions through the usual channels with the Leader of the House to see whether a second Committee can be set up to deal with private Members' Bills? They are not pushed for Government business and we need to make progress in the two areas covered by the Bills in accordance with the will of the House.
Mr. Newton: I realise that it will disappoint the hon. Gentleman when I tell him that I have no plans for changing the ordinary arrangements for dealing with private Members' Bills, which have applied for many years.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement next week about an allegation in a newspaper today that the Department of Employment intends to withdraw one of the calculations of regional unemployment on the basis that it shows higher, more truthful unemployment than the calculation that it is proposed to replace?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend will be here to answer questions on Tuesday and I shall give him advance notice of that one.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Leader of the House aware that his reassuring reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) on the SCOPE report on carers and his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) are not consistent? Does he accept that the procedures of the House for private Members' Bills, to which he has just referred, were quite disgracefully abused last year by Conservative Members? In an effort to bring some sanity back to the situation, will he agree to allow appropriate time to the Government Bill on disability, which has just left Committee and which is based on reasonable exchanges on both sides? If necessary, will he grant two days for discussion, and ensure that the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East, which did not have one vote against its Second Reading, and the Bill to be introduced tomorrow by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), will be given

1213
sufficient parliamentary time for reasonable debate? If that does not happen, the House will continue to be held in disrepute.
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) in respect of procedures generally. The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question implies that he expects the Government to adopt an unconstructive approach to the Bill to be presented by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks). Perhaps he will examine with care what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say if he gets the opportunity tomorrow.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we have a debate on early-day motion 685?
[That this House calls for St. David's Day to be declared a bank holiday in Wales; notes that no other country in the British Isles or the European Union in 1995 will have fewer holidays than Wales (and England); congratulates the seven cities in the USA that will declare St. David's Day a special holiday; and believes that the ancient and popular celebrations of the Welsh national day should be honoured and elevated to the full status of a public holiday.]
The motion calls for St. David's day to be made a bank holiday in Wales and states that Wales has fewer holidays than almost every country in the British Isles and the European Union. Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the early-day motion has been signed by 30 Welsh Members, which represents more than 90 per cent. of Welsh Members who are eligible to sign early-day motions? Is he not concerned that yesterday the Prime Minister in a one-word reply said that he would not act on this call from democratically elected Welsh Members? Is not that a contemptible way to treat the elected representatives of the Welsh nation?
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I do not agree that it is. If we were to accede to the request and if that was followed by a request for Parliament to have a day off in consequence, which seems to be the natural concomitant, the hon. Gentleman would find himself in conflict with his hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).

Points of Order
5.16 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: It would not be a normal day without a point of order from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Banks: That is slightly unkind, but I shall have to stand here and take it.
Perhaps you could give the House guidance and direction, Madam Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has reminded us, tomorrow we shall debate the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill. It is possible that under our procedures someone from the pro-hunting lobby will attempt to talk it out. It will be necessary for us to have 100 hon. Members here, which is rather a large number for a Friday. Letters are circulating and advice is being given to hon. Members by those from the pro-hunting lobby that there will be no vote tomorrow. That is untrue. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is quite insistent that there will be at least one and probably two votes. It seems that there is an element of dirty tricks and I hope that you will make it quite clear to all hon. Members that you would not approve or condone attempts to sabotage a private Members' Bill.
Madam Speaker: It is very difficult to sabotage private Members' Bills. As the hon. Gentleman may well know, that was not a point of order but a point of information and publicity, which he handled rather well. Perhaps we may now move to the Adjournment motion.
Mr. Michael Stephen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has it ever been known for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to sabotage a private Member's Bill?
Madam Speaker: I am in the business not of sabotage but of getting on with the debate on Welsh affairs. The Welsh have waited a long time for that.

Welsh Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
5.19 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): Yesterday, we celebrated a great figure from Wales's past. St. David believed in being joyful. The Labour party would do well to heed him. I trust that it will break the habit of a lifetime and use the debate to spread some joy and hope.
Today, we herald a great future. In the past year, manufacturing output has surged; big urban renewal schemes are under way; and each manufacturing worker produced 6 per cent. more. Since the end of 1992, 25,000 people have come off the dole. We are leading Europe in exporting televisions and we are beating the world at producing steel. That is not a description of South Korea or Taiwan. That is Wales in 1994, and 1995 will be even better.
The television programme could ask, "How did they do that?" We did it by changing attitudes, by attracting investors, by cutting interest rates, and by believing in Wales. [Interruption.] We hear already how much Opposition Members dislike it. They know that Wales is on the move in the right direction and that Conservative policies are bringing economic success.
The pace of change is pulling the successful forward at an ever-accelerating speed. The danger is that we shall leave behind the less successful—some people, some towns, even some areas. I want to show that all of Wales and all of her people can benefit.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the Secretary of State assist the House? Despite all those wonderful benefits that he and his Administration have brought to Wales, why do the wicked people of Wales refuse to give him the credit, and why, after two years of his rule, is the Conservative rating the lowest in history?
Mr. Redwood: It is real votes in the ballot box at a general election that count. I look forward to that challenge, as there is much more work to be done and more good news before we reach that happy occasion when more Conservative Members of Parliament are elected to represent Wales, to continue and to support the good work of their colleagues.
Mr. Peter Hain: The Secretary of State spoke of joy in Wales and of the upbeat view of the economy. How does that square with the report last week that more than 200 people queued through the night at Neath and Port Talbot jobcentres, not for actual jobs, but for application forms from British Steel for jobs that might arise? A 64-year-old woman, a constituent of mine, queued in the morning and found that the jobcentre had run out of application forms. We are going back to the 1930s; we are not going forward to the next century.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is right. There are still too many people without jobs. I have always accepted that and I have said that we need many more jobs. Today, I shall be sketching more ideas on how those jobs will arise, but the hon. Gentleman should recognise that Welsh unemployment overall is down to the United Kingdom average, that the UK average is well below the continental
1216
average, and that 25,000 families in Wales are much happier because one of their members has found a job since December 1992, when unemployment was unacceptably high.
Mr. David Hanson: In his list, the Secretary of State did not mention wages. Does he accept that people in Wales are still paid far less than people in any other region in the UK? If he will not support the minimum wage that the Labour party wants, what other measures will he introduce today to ensure that wages rise in Wales?
Mr. Redwood: Of course we want higher wages, which have to be earned. They are earned by skills and by adapting to more sophisticated manufacturing techniques. That is happening in many parts of Wales, including in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I shall outline some more measures that we are continuing with and that will help.
Mr. Alan Williams: If we are doing so well, will the Secretary of State explain a simple situation? How is it that, 15 years into the life of this highly successful Government, unemployment is still 50,000 higher than it was when they came to office? How much longer will it be before they get unemployment back down to the 1979 level?
Mr. Redwood: Chronic overmanning and deep structural problems existed in some industries in Wales in 1979, but the good news is that we have done a much better job than many countries on the continent in reducing unemployment. Our relative performance is good, but I want more real jobs, just as the right hon. Gentleman does.
New industry and new services need not pass any part of Wales by on the other side. If the Vale of Glamorgan can have a high living standard and low unemployment—as it does—so can Bridgend. If Caerphilly can, nothing is stopping Merthyr from doing so. It is not written in the stars that some places will do well and others badly. Holyhead has been a bustling port in the past. Merthyr was once the centre of new industry and new technology. Both have promising tomorrows. Today's equivalent of pioneering by puddling in the steel industry is messages by multi-media.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for taking time to mention Holyhead, which clearly has a bright future. He will recognise the important development that is taking place at the port, with substantial investment, which I hope will be backed with European Union funding. Will he give the House an assurance that the Welsh Office will do everything possible both to facilitate the grant and to make strong representations to the European Commission that that grant should be approved?
Mr. Redwood: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman admits that a good future is in prospect for the port. I agree that more work needs to be done and that more investment needs to he made. Of course the Welsh Office will do anything in its power to assist in the way that he suggests and in other ways.
Mr. Allan Rogers: It is without any great pride that I represent one of the most deprived constituencies not just in Wales, but in the UK. We have

1217
had a lot of talk from a succession of Secretaries of State of this Government about inward investment and improvement, but the real fact is that unemployment in the Rhondda is still running at about 20 per cent. and that youth unemployment is as high as 80 or 90 per cent. What will the Secretary of State do about that? He said that the Rhondda can perform as well as the Vale of Glamorgan, but without practical investment in our valley communities, this downward spiral of depopulation will continue because of the lack of investment in the infrastructure.
Mr. Redwood: Of course we need more investment. There will be public investment and private investment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have taken action to encourage more of such investment and, like him, I am impatient to get on with the job.
It has taken the actions of the cyber cops in the United States of America to dramatise the Internet. Once a complex idea for computer super-literates, it has exploded into all too earthly life with stories of theft, fraud and pornography on that new ring main of world power. The net and its successors are ways of ensuring that no city, town or hamlet of Wales need be cut off from the next century. Geography does not debar Wales from economic success in a world shifting eastwards. History proves that false, and common sense confirms it.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said. Does he mean that areas such as rural mid-Wales will gain assistance from the Welsh Office in attempts to include them in the information super-highway? If so, that is a welcome announcement.
Mr. Redwood: I have already said that if grant is needed I shall consider carefully how we could give that under the various powers that we have.
The cabling of Newport, Swansea and Cardiff is under way. Applications have been invited to cable the rest of the valleys and the Vale of Glamorgan. Before the year is out, I want to see a franchise for north Wales. Mid-Wales and west Wales should join in.
British Telecom has always said that it wants to be able to offer a full range of services, using its existing cables where possible. It is more than welcome to offer to do that in any unlicensed area of Wales. Recently, I have been talking to cable companies. They are considering using radio links in less populated areas, which might solve the problem. I am told that it is possible to sling trunk fibre over pylons and maybe on to telegraph poles where routes are available. Between those methods, we must find a way to ensure that mid-Wales and west Wales are part of the system.
What matters just as much as installing the cable or making the links is the use that we make of that. Work is on hand to wire Celtic Lakes industrial park so that it can take the whole range of multi-media business services. I hope that other parks will follow. Cardiff bay can become a teleport.
This week, Super-JANET has become something of a new heroine in the House. A sum of £5.5 million is being spent this year by colleges in Wales to turn JANET into Super-JANET and to equip the colleges for the next century with multi-media technology.
Dr. Kim Howells: I want to ask the Secretary of State not about "SuperTed" or Super-JANET
1218
but about equipping colleges. The biggest education institution in Wales is the university of Glamorgan. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the distribution of the millennium fund takes into account the university's dire need for new buildings and capital projects, which it wants now? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it fulfils a vital role in Welsh educational life and—if he wants to use super-highway terminology—in the interface between industry and education.
Mr. Redwood: In so far as it is proper for me to intervene in the millennium fund, I shall do everything in my power. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who has more influence than I have in these matters, will be shown the text of the hon. Gentleman's intervention and my response. I hope that Wales proposes many good projects for millennium funding, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that education is one service that could benefit. He is also right to say that the university of Glamorgan is most important. I have stepped up capital investment in colleges in the past year or so and I intend to continue to do so as there is a backlog of work to be done.
I want BT to offer enough cable capacity at a sensible and realistic price. I am looking into allegations that there are some difficulties with band width and pricing for some of the links in mid-Wales.
Mr. Hain: I apologise for intervening again and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I find his remarks about BT interesting. I know that BT would be willing to offer fibre optic cabling in, for example, some of the Neath valleys but it is barred by Government regulation from offering entertainment as well as telephony. Will the Secretary of State consider restricted ring-fenced projects in unlicensed areas which would enable it to do so and thereby bring fibre optic super-highway opportunities to many remote areas?
Mr. Redwood: I regret to say that, geographically, much of Wales is still unlicensed, which is why I am trying to drive forward the work quickly. We are now close to a licence for a large new area in Wales. Yes, there is an offer to BT to offer the whole range of services to the unlicensed areas if it were the most sensible prospect on the table. I openly invite BT again to bid on that basis if it would like to do so. Let it not be said that there is a ban on BT operating well in Wales, other than in that small area of Wales which is already licensed under different terms.
Whereas St. David preached from a patch of grass and turned it into a hill, the modern Welsh academic will communicate across a phone line and will, I trust, broaden its band width into a range of new services. Today, I am also offering an additional £3 million for this year for books, equipment and new library space. Libraries are crucial and they, too, need more books and new equipment to carry them forward into the new era. It is time to turn up the lamps of learning.
What has all this to do with the job prospects of the teenager in Tredegar? The answer is, more than one might think. Getting the Welsh economy up to the speed of the new technology will raise the income level of the whole community. It will produce a host of new opportunities extending well beyond software and telephony. The cable investment entails excavating roads, making the cable and

1219
designing and manufacturing the switches and boosters. The system, once installed, needs maintaining and using: a host of businesses are growing and will grow on its foundations.
It should be as easy to entice the schoolboy in Mountain Ash as the schoolboy in Cardiff to make the journey from Nintendo and Gameboy to personal computer and multi-media link. A software generation is now growing up around the world comprising children who are used to writing essays on word processors and solving problems on computers. If English or Welsh is their first language, BASIC is their second. They have an entrée waiting to the world of technology. The Internet scarcely recognises political borders or language barriers.
Ideas flash through the cable, cross the continents and are intolerant of Government control. The information revolution moves at the speed of light. No Government can "invest" in it with an eye to controlling it—that would be like trying to bet on the results of last Saturday's 3.40 at Chepstow when it is already Tuesday afternoon. The shadow Chancellor on the Internet would do to multi-media what successive British Governments did to British Leyland and British Steel in the 1960s and 1970s.
Mr. Donald Anderson: What the Secretary of State is telling the House is of great interest, but will he put himself in the position of an unemployed man in Cwmrhydyceirw or an unmarried mother in St. Mellons and ask how relevant what he is saying is to their needs?
Mr. Redwood: That, in a slightly different form, was the question that I was asked a little while ago, and which I am now answering. It is very relevant because the scheme will increase prosperity and job opportunities across Wales—in the valleys, north Wales, mid-Wales and west Wales. Many Opposition Members accept that it is a job generator in its own right and that it will serve to raise the incomes of the country. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, as incomes rise, people spend more on goods and services which, in turn, generates new jobs.
Across the Atlantic, Congress has stepped out on a legislative revolution. The Republicans have realised that in this fast-moving technological world, less rather than more government is what is needed. What people are looking for is leadership rather than the self-serving interests of politicians. More should be expected of individuals and families, and politicians should interfere less and be true to their word. The information revolution demands bright, articulate self-motivated people. Their demands of Government are different from those of 1950s factory workers.
The same process of change brings many more lower-paid jobs in services, requiring the remodelling of welfare to encourage rather than impede work for the young and the part-timer. These jobs can and do lead to better-paid opportunities and should not be run down, as they regularly are by the Opposition. A sense of community, of family and of neighbourhood does not require more government to give it voice or substance; it has a value of its own, fashioned by history and quietly rejoicing in its independence.
British Conservatives should take heart from the American revival of conservative beliefs because American fashions in politics are often followed a year or
1220
two later in Britain. The short-lived liberal reaction was seized on by Labour as an augury for its future success. It now looks like an invitation to a wake before the baby was even born on our side of the Atlantic. Americans are discovering that liberal theory does not make for good government. America may be out to reinvent government, but so far there is a failure to reinvent enthusiasm for heavy-handed state control of the old kind.
The Leader of the Opposition is a figure from the past, not the shape of things to come. He is an invitee to the 1960s bring-a-bottle caucus, trying out long trousers over his party's student politics of grievance, grudge and gesture. Already he has disrupted the "happening" with his sartorial approach and caused quite a few hangovers, as I believe the party for Welsh Members did last night.
The traditional revellers' dismay at the changes—the end of clause IV, the acceptance of choice in education and the clumsy ideas about devolution—is ripping the heart out of the customary Labour celebrations. Moss is gathering on the Leader of the Opposition's rolling stones. That, I think, dates him precisely. To a socialist, putting a gag on redistribution or a brake on public ownership is like Christmas without a tree or a present. I sympathise—if I were a socialist, I should be equally disappointed.
What is the point of being a socialist if one does not want to soak the rich and take over the big industries? Labour's dilemma is that it knows where the party's soul lies and it knows that it is against the spirit of the age. It may not be possible to rebuild the mental Berlin wall that kept socialism in.
Lower taxes and curbs on the excessive—
Mr. Rogers rose—
Mr. Redwood: I am enjoying myself. I shall give way in a moment.
Lower taxes and curbs on the excessive cost of running big government are just what is needed.
Mr. Hanson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not very often raise points of order, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State intends to talk about Welsh affairs, given that this is a Welsh affairs debate. Perhaps you could remind him of that and suggest that he stop talking about the Labour party.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Redwood: I shall regard the hon. Gentleman's point of order as an unwanted intervention and say only that I thought that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to be the Prime Minister of Wales as well as of England. If so, his views are of considerable interest to the Welsh people.
Mr. Rogers: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Redwood: As I have been interrupted, I shall do so.
Mr. Rogers: We were also enjoying the Secretary of State's speech, especially those of us who enjoy a good comic. Does he accept that the Government have created enormous differentials in wealth and that there should be some redistribution? For example, people such as the chairman of Welsh Water are paid £500,000 while some old-age pensioners in my constituency who live in

1221
one-bedroomed flats have to pay £230 a year for their water. Does he not think that there should be some equalisation of wealth?
Mr. Redwood: Of course I want everyone to participate in the growing wealth of the country: that is what Conservative policy is about. I also agree that monopoly utilities need strong price regulation. They should not be able to fleece people, so it is important for them to be strongly regulated unless and until they become fully competitive. The market will then set more sensible prices.
Mr. Gingrich has begun by pruning congressional committees and staff numbers, leading by example. It is a good beginning—and it is a warning to the Labour party, which is already waist-high in promises of more Ministries, quangos, Parliaments and assemblies. Labour in Wales signs up to those promises, then tries to plead ignorance or protest innocence when asked about them.
I will try once more. Will the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) tell us in his speech whether, in his ideal Labour world, Wales would or would not acquire a regional development bank,
"Local structures to assist innovation and transfer of technology"
and
"Locally based and local responsive Agencies to work with Local Authorities to help match needs with resources, to tackle skills shortages, to link capital with opportunities"?
Those are the Labour party's words; I would not dream of writing like that.
Would Wales be given a network of small and medium-scale dance houses, a community education forum, a project task force for joint public and private investment, a national investment bank, an "investment in industry" unit, Faraday centres, a defence diversification agency and a business development bank? I see some flickerings of recognition on the face of the hon. Member for Caerphilly at last.
Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State has done it before.
Mr. Redwood: Yes, I have done it before; but I did not receive an answer last time. I live in hope.
Would Wales be given a business development hank for small business, a cultural education commission, a network of law centres, a transport authority, an environment audit committee, an environment ombudsman and a general teaching council? I could go on for another hour or so, but I will spare the House the rest of the list. We should pity the poor people who would have not only to pay for that lot, but to obey all their rules.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly has completely lost his way. Like a latter day Don Quixote, he tilts at imaginary policy windmills. In his latest joust in The House Magazine, he attacks me for wanting to privatise Snowdonia—a policy as credible as the assertion that the moon is made of green cheese. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks that the moon is made of green cheese. I can reassure him: men have landed there and ascertained that it is not.
The hon. Gentleman condemns me for appointing more administrators and managers in the health service when I have introduced strong controls, resulting so far in a reduction of 172 in such posts in Welsh health authorities. He claims that I am busy transferring powers to quangos;
1222
yet he resists practically every proposal that I come up with to switch powers and tasks from quangos to elected local government in Wales. He must explain that to Welsh local government—but, given the standards of Labour local government in Birmingham and Avon, I understand his reluctance to do so.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: None of this is about Wales.
Mr. Redwood: It is all about Wales. All the references to the bodies that I have listed, which are in Labour's policy documents, presumably apply to Wales; but the hon. Gentleman cannot see the connection.
The central ambition of Welsh policy must be to make government work better for the public whom it serves. Governments should show some humility about their own capability in comparison with the actions of families, individuals and the markets. Markets often like to keep Governments guessing, but that does not make them dispensable or anti-social. The origins of many Welsh communities lie in market day, and without fair exchange we would all be a good deal poorer: if I had to rely on what I grew to eat, I would have starved long ago.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I would not.
Mr. Redwood: If we all had to make our own transport, few of us would sport even a bicycle, let alone a car. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) claims to be a good gardener, but I do not suppose that he has built many cars in his back garden.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State speaks of the importance of markets. Will he consider the problem facing Welsh sheep farmers, who will be unable to deliver their sheep to the markets that they have at present if some of the difficulties of recent weeks persist? What are the Government, and the Welsh Office in particular, doing to try to achieve a rapprochement that would make those markets available again?
Mr. Redwood: We shall do all in our power to ensure that fair trade is possible. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has done a great deal in that regard, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
Not all discipline in a society can or should come from Government. I believe in true devolution: in a Wales where free institutions—the family, churches, companies—can and should also be sources of strength and moral consideration. We do not want all leadership to come from politicians, and we do not want so much of life to be politicised. In that regard, we speak for many Welsh people. The latest poll shows that the majority do not want an assembly.
We certainly do not want Cardiff and London to be mere lobby towns, where the politically correct mingle with the glitterati and the hired hands. Lobbyists and spin doctors deserve each other; the politically correct obey the lobbyist, while the politically astute obey the people. The politician who mistakes the popular will for the sectional interest is either a knave or a fool.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Which opinion poll does the Secretary of State mean? Anyone who knows anything about Wales is aware that the reverse

1223
is the case. The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. The result of the last opinion poll showed 49 per cent. in favour of an assembly, 25 against and the rest undecided. That is a far cry from the right hon. Gentleman's assertion. Perhaps he would like to tell the House the truth.
Mr. Redwood: If we add those who do not know to those who do not want the assembly, we find that they constitute a clear majority. If the assembly were so popular, people would not say that they did not know; they would say that they wanted it. It is Opposition Members who are abusing the figures, because they are extremely disappointed with them.
Recently, Labour in Wales has tried to argue that, far from providing more income for all, the 1980s and 1990s have been good news for the rich and bad news for the poor. Labour Members did not read their Rowntree report carefully enough: as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has pointed out, it showed that among the bottom 10 per cent. in the United Kingdom are 750,000 people who are declaring zero or negative incomes. They include many accountants, taxi drivers and builders, and a much larger number of students—people whose incomes are currently low to prepare them for much more highly paid jobs when they finish their studies and make progress with their careers.
Mr. Paul Flynn: In his analysis of that opinion poll, the Secretary of State counted the "don't knows" and the "don't wants" as a single group. Less than 50 per cent. of the electorate voted in Islwyn. Why has the Secretary of State not claimed that 3.9 per cent., plus those who did not vote, represents a majority? Why has he not complained about the fact that the Conservatives were not elected?
Mr. Redwood: It is tempting to go along with that argument, but I see the fallacy in it. It is very different from the argument that I put. I merely stated that the latest opinion poll did not show that the majority wanted an assembly; that is clearly the position.
The picture is not of two immovable nations, but of change and flux. In a recession, some entrepreneurs hit hard times; some students live on low incomes before doing well for themselves; some families, tragically, lose one or two jobs, only to recover at a later date. Some areas of Wales contain pockets of obstinately high unemployment, where too many families have no job for too long. We should recognise, however, that long-term unemployment is down by 49 per cent. from its peak. Like Opposition Members, I want it to fall much further during the current recovery.
The best way out of poverty is through a job, and the best way to a better job is from another job. Regeneration policies are designed to increase the chances of employment for people in the affected areas. I have asked councils to show passion for the business of regeneration. I do not accept that democratic institutions in Wales that are spending £3.3 billion next year are bereft of discretion or the ability to do good. Listening to what is said by some council leaders, one would think that I was giving them less money next year—not £110 million more, if revenue and capital are taken together, which is what Parliament voted. Moreover, I have certainly not been telling them how all that money should be spent.
1224
Following strong representations to me from the owners of Cardiff airport, the Government are considering whether a new relaxation of the capital receipts rules is possible. We shall make a statement shortly, which I am sure will interest the House.
Parliament sends local government money, and gives it freedom in the choice of its priorities. The debate in recent weeks has been about the priorities that some councils have chosen. I am glad to note that some Welsh counties are now finding the necessary money, and reassuring people that teachers will not be sacked. The money is there, and that is how we want them to spend it.
Strong, confident local government would move on from moaning about the settlement, once it is agreed, to being positive about what can be done with the cash. Within the totals, I expect local government to set out its plans for energising tired communities and repairing rundown places. The Welsh Office and its agencies are there to help. If a council has an ambitious plan which it requires more cash to implement, Welsh Office and WDA money is available to assist.
I am looking for bolder schemes than many on offer. I want the strategic development scheme to back vision; to back a cluster of projects that will make a real difference in an area.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Secretary of State has been talking about local authorities and some of the increased powers that have been given to them. He must have in mind the mid-Wales development grant. When will he insist that the anomaly of the Lampeter-Aberaeron tunnel travel-to-work area being excluded from the mid-Wales development grant will end? I understand that it requires the Secretary of State's advocacy to the Commission of the European Union. Will he undertake to ensure that that absurd anomaly ends as soon as possible?
Mr. Redwood: I will look into that point and let the hon. Gentleman know when I have investigated it further.
I am also prepared to transfer responsibility for smaller schemes to local authorities as the Council of Welsh Districts has requested. I shall be having further discussions with it on that matter.
The economy is roaring ahead—it is time to harness its energy. The boldest scheme under way is in Cardiff bay. Today I am granting an additional £1.7 million in the current year to the corporation for Bute avenue preparations. Swansea Vale is painting on a broad canvas. In Llanelli, there is a very comprehensive development scheme.
In too many places there is a reluctance to build enough of the types of housing that people want to buy and a caution about encouraging young people to reach for the stars. Many of the new jobs will come from small companies and local enterprise. One cannot rebuild a community entirely from the outside. One cannot bake a good Welsh cake on foreign investment and Government subsidy alone.
The 1960s were not kind to Llanelli. One of the best rugby teams in Wales could not arrest the decline. Steel mills were abandoned, tin plate plants were left open to the elements, there were bare ruined works and mile after mile of coal-stained mud—750 derelict acres behind a polluted coastline where heavy industry once hammered out a living. Today, in place of that, there are 166 new

1225
homes with many more to come, acres of new grass and even a host of golden daffodils. Llanelli is creating a new town in the landscape of Sandy Water park and in the new shops of the town centre. How I welcome that, as, I trust, do Opposition Members.
At the other end of Wales another town by the sea, Holyhead, is welcoming new horizons and is showing how regeneration can happen where there is a will and a way. In the autumn, Stena Sealink announced plans to invest £120 million in its Holyhead service, with a new high-speed service and a £35 million redevelopment of Holyhead port. In February, Irish Ferries announced a new £46 million super-ferry service for its Holyhead to Dublin service, which will double freight output by the end of 1996. In Holyhead, 100 additional jobs are predicted to be created by the end of the century as a result of that investment and I trust that much more will follow.
Cardiff, a city of arcades and architectural magnificence, is building for the 21st century. Walking from Cathay's park to Queen's street takes one past building sites and new developments. The Queen's arcade, the Prudential building and new offices which are rising from an empty lot are all to be seen in the centre of the city. In the bay, the barrage is emerging from the drawing board, Penarth village is growing and the Ely Field, Windsor Quay and Ferryside developments are set to add 1,500 new homes. In the east at Pontprennau, a business park and 1,600 homes are in development. They are capital projects for a leading city.
The Penrhys housing estate is home to more than 2,000 people, but too many are unemployed. By 1986, when John and Nora Morgans came to the estate, it was renowned as having some of the worst social problems in Wales. Since then, with their leadership, the community has built a café, a creche, a launderette and a new church. The Penrhys project has renovated and transformed the centre of the estate, bringing a new village street with health facilities, a chemist and a food co-operative. Graffiti and vandalism have disappeared from the central area and local residents have taken responsibility for ensuring that it is better looked after. It now needs better education and training, to build on the homework club and to work closely with the schools to give youngsters new opportunities to break out of the dead end and into jobs and training. That is what I want to see and I believe that Opposition Members want that as well.
I have spent a great deal of my time since becoming a Member of Parliament working on how less prosperous places can catch the habit of success already imbibed by the more prosperous.
Mr. Rowlands: I am not certain how much of his speech the Secretary of State has left—I am just checking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not much."] In that case, will he make a statement, fundamental to his whole argument, about the training for work programme in the next financial year? Is he aware that the word is going out that there will be a reduction in, if not elimination of, all bursaries for the manufacturing training programme? Will he make a statement, so we at least know where we stand, on what sort of vision he has for training and skilling our young people?
Mr. Redwood: We are encouraging many new initiatives in training, which will be even better than the training for work programme. The engineering
1226
apprenticeship scheme, which I have talked about in meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee and elsewhere, will be central to our ambitions for better training in Wales. This year, we have been spending a great deal of money on ensuring that manufacturing equipment is available in the colleges and other institutes, so that the young people can be well trained. That, of course, is a vital part of the process. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I came to his constituency to encourage the work going on there in a very fine, newly equipped centre. I trust that that centre will lead to many well-trained young people being available for, and finding, much better jobs.
From the time that, as a Back Bencher, I went with a camera crew to the Hulme estate in Manchester to denounce it, to the time that I awarded a cheque to pay for its demolition on behalf of the Government, and from my first visit to Cardiff bay to see the scope, to my present job supervising the progress, I have worried away to find out what works well and what does not work. There is the task of physical regeneration, clearing derelict sites, building new homes and modernising factories and offices, but there is a parallel, central task of giving the community confidence in itself and passing on to people belief in themselves and their town. It is often better to employ someone who wants to learn but lacks knowledge than to employ someone who has knowledge and no will to work. It is clearly fatal to employ someone who lacks both skill and a sense of purpose.
When the mainspring of a community goes, it takes some effort to replace it. It cannot all be done from outside. Restore the council homes without restoring pride and they will soon go downhill again. Build the factories without building a will to work and the workers will come from elsewhere. Hope is an essential commodity. It is easily destroyed or driven out and less easily brought back. If a community loses its driving force, it is difficult to recover. Bright children decide to leave as soon as they can to make their fortune elsewhere. Whole families may have to live on benefit, as the entrepreneurs leave or bypass the place. Incomes fail or stay low, leaving insufficient to maintain the fabric or encourage new business. In some inner cities, those with any business nous who remain are tempted into the black economy to continue enjoying the benefits. The community may even fall prey to loan sharks, drug dealers and others, who can turn a difficult case into a hopeless one.
The problems of deprivation in the valleys are not as hopeless as some inner-city problems around the world. As we intrude new cash and new ideas, we must ensure that it rekindles enthusiasm in the valleys. It is no good at all if building workers come in from outside and the graduate jobs go to people from England.
The spring has to be replaced with one of Welsh steel. Sometimes there will be a Government answer to the problem; sometimes the answer has to come from local people. Those who think that the only answer is money are wrong. I have always accepted that money is part of the answer. If only money were the only answer, it would all be so easy to solve. Money alone cannot recoil the spring and create the determination to succeed and the dynamism that is needed.
Mr. Nick Ainger: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, particularly on that point. He is aware, following his press release yesterday, that there is a distinct possibility of up to 200 jobs being lost at the Pendine defence establishment. He said in his

1227
statement that he is considering extending the West Wales task force. Will he give me and my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) an assurance that if that West Wales task force is to be extended to include the west Carmarthen area, there will be additional finance?
Mr. Redwood: I am very happy for it to be extended, but I wanted to consult further with local interests before being categoric about it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that that is the wish. I am, of course, very happy to discuss further projects and whether we can help financially with them, as I accept that we may need to do so. I would, however, like to see the projects or the outline of the scheme first before giving a categoric assurance.
There is no substitute for leadership—the leadership of an inspired teacher at school, of the careers adviser, of the intrepid entrepreneur, of the councillor with a conviction of success.
Wales was fortunately spared the worst of the horrors of barbaric architecture. However, the fashion penetrated to Montgomeryshire where the Oldford estate stood as an intrusion of slab architecture and slab mentality. Regimented blocks with deck access on the fringe of Welshpool jarred with the people and the landscape. The mistakes of the 1960s have now been pulled down and new houses, roads, off-street parking and individual gardens have been created. That is what the tenants wanted. They were consulted extensively about the changes—a far cry from the "we know what is best for you" days when the estate was constructed. A problem estate has been restored with some pride and hope.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On "we know what is best for you" and barbaric architecture, has the Secretary of State any comments to make on the trust's decision about the opera house in Cardiff?
Mr. Redwood: The only lines that I have to remember on this occasion are that I have no intention of using Welsh Office money to pay for the project because that would be a necessary condition for it to attract millennium funding. That being so, it would be quite wrong for me to have a public view as to whether I liked the building or not.
I do not want anyone to be roofless in Wales. In Cardiff I have supported contacting people sleeping rough and offering accommodation to them. I want Swansea, Newport and anywhere else with people sleeping out to come forward with proposals to banish the problem. Of course money will be available to help. We must ensure that no one need sleep rough.
Saint David said, "Be joyful, keep your faith, do the little things." There is much to celebrate already including Welsh success in industry, education and culture. There is a need to keep faith and to believe in Welsh virtues and Welsh talents. There is a need for many to recognise that there is a shared responsibility for the little things that need doing.
Mr. Llwyd: The Secretary of State is building up to his usual crescendo of shouting and of "winning for Wales". We have heard it all before. However, why has he not mentioned Meirionnydd Nant Conwy? We have a
1228
big problem. The right hon. Gentleman has been all around Wales geographically, but he has not mentioned my constituency. Is that because there is nothing good to report?
Mr. Redwood: No, but I assume that the hon. Gentleman will represent his own constituency, as he has done in interventions.
When Henry Tudor pressed on from Pembroke to London, he had a kingdom to win. His dynasty showed that Wales and England united are far greater than the sum of the parts—[Interruption.] I knew that the nationalists would like this particular peroration.
Henry reformed the nation's finances and paved the way for the nation's glory. Elizabethan translations of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer gave the language and literature of Wales a new foundation. The dragon and the lion united went on to create a thriving, successful country that lived by its ships, its wits and its manufactures. The prophecies of the bards were fulfilled. Wales today is winning in the same way.
6.2 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: I am glad that the Secretary of State enjoyed his speech. We have been entertained by quite a bizarre performance from him. He is obviously more concerned to talk about the Labour party than about his own record of stewardship of the Welsh Office. That is a cause of great disappointment.
In reply to the substance of the Secretary of State's remarks, I want to make two points. First, I welcome, as I am sure all hon. Members do, his comments on cabling. We shall support any initiative that he takes to encourage investment in information technology. Secondly, I am more than happy to debate Labour's plans for Wales at any time and anywhere in Wales.
It is a source of disappointment to me that whenever the Secretary of State has an opportunity to debate our policies, and the Opposition's policies generally in Wales, he turns that opportunity down, as he did last week when he refused to take part in the BBC's "State of the Nation" debate. If it is good enough for representatives of the Labour party, the Liberal party and Plaid Cymru to face the people of Wales to account for their policies, it is a pity that the Secretary of State does not deem it appropriate or good enough for him to account for his policies.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not have the courtesy to extend a welcome to the new hon. Member for Islwyn. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) will attempt to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I very much look forward to hearing from him.
It was uncharacteristically churlish of the Secretary of State not to refer to our colleague Neil Kinnock, the former right hon. Member for Islwyn. This is the first time that we have debated Welsh affairs since Neil Kinnock ceased to be the Member for Islwyn and I want to place on record the affection and appreciation of my right hon. and hon. Friends for his work. He is now a European Commissioner and I am sure that he will perform that task with great distinction.
Neil Kinnock represented Islwyn for 25 years and he had the distinction of being the leader of the Labour party. It is right that, during this St. David's day debate and at

1229
the first opportunity since he ceased to represent Islwyn, we should place on record our thanks for his contribution to Welsh public life and our heartfelt good wishes to him in his new role.
Mr. Redwood: Of course, I am very happy to welcome the new hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). Of course, I associate the Conservative party with the Labour party in placing on record our thanks to the former right hon. Member for Islwyn for his public service and the wish for a successful tenure in his new role on behalf of all of us in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Davies: That is very gracious of the Secretary of State, and I accept his comments in the genuine spirit in which they were offered.
I am sure that the Secretary of State does not want to talk about the Islwyn by-election, because it represented a fairly dramatic low point in the fortunes of the Conservative party, in what can only be described as another dismal year for the Conservative party and for the Secretary of State. Despite the Secretary of State's characteristic bluster, the promised upturn in the economy has not materialised. People in Wales are poorer as inflation is now outstripping pay increases and tax increases are biting ever deeper.
Public services are failing to deliver the quality and extent of provision required of them as funding is cut and the Secretary of State's reforms fail to work. Our democracy is in a shambles. Social divisions are deeper as the super-rich become ultra rich at the expense of the poor and successive Tory privatisations show that all too clearly.
Personal insecurity has never been higher, with negative equity, fear of crime and economic insecurity blighting the lives of hundreds of thousands of our citizens. Presiding over all that is a party whose members, Government and Cabinet are split from top to bottom, and a Secretary of State for Wales who is barely in touch with reality.
In the foreword to "Views from Wales", a collection of the Secretary of State's speeches published last year, he claims that "the Welsh liked him". He wrote that his brand of Conservatism struck a chord
"way beyond the confines of the Conservative Party in Wales."
It must be said that quite a lot is beyond the confines of the Conservative party in Wales. The people of Wales demonstrated in a very funny way their affection for the Secretary of State in the Islwyn by-election on 16 February.
In that by-election, the Conservative party candidate received precisely 3.9 per cent. of the vote. Fewer than one elector in 50 supported the Government and the Conservative party. It was the Conservative party's worst parliamentary election result in Wales since it took only 1.1 per cent. in the Pontypridd constituency in 1918.
At Islwyn, the Conservative party was barely in fourth place. If Screaming Lord Sutch had polled 404 more votes, the Conservatives would have been fifth. They would have been sandwiched between the Monster Raving Loony party and the UK Independence party. It is tempting to speculate that those Tories with Welsh interests could well slip quite effortlessly from one fringe party to the other. However, to be fair to the Secretary of State, he would probably take the hon. Member for Vale
1230
of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) with him down into the UK Independence party rather than up into the more successful loony party.
The Secretary of State's brand of Conservatism has not struck much of a chord, either, with senior Welsh Tories. One of them, the prominent Cardiff Tory and former adviser to the Prime Minister, Marc Cranfield Adams, actually left the party because of the distinctive contribution of the Secretary of State for Wales. On leaving the party, he said:
"When you see people following a system where the rich get richer at the expense of the poor, if you care you want to do something about it. The reason why I am quitting is because I care. Passionately."
It is not only the electors and his own party members with whom the right hon. Gentleman has fallen out during the past 12 months. He has fallen out with the Secretary of State for Health over his short-lived "health initiative". Our very own Secretary of State decided that he had had enough of the men in grey suits running the health service, and he was going to do something about it. It took a very well-publicised rap over the knuckles from members of the Cabinet to remind him that it was their and his own policies that he was attacking. It is their reforms that have seen the number of health administrators rise from 187 to more than 1,000 in only four years.
The right hon. Gentleman has fallen out with the Secretary of State for the Environment over his refusal to issue planning policy guidance on transport, noise and pollution control, and his deliberate attempt to wreck the Government's commitment to the Rio declaration and European directives on flora and fauna habitat. The Independent on Sunday of 29 January quoted Whitehall officials saying that the Secretary of State for Wales was "declaring UDI" by refusing to involve the Principality in a national attempt to reduce fire deaths.
The right hon. Gentleman has fallen out with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for his refusal to join in the preparation of the rural White Paper, and he has offended the farming unions in the process. He has fallen out with the Secretary of State for Education on the funding of teachers' pay. For good measure, a couple of weeks ago, he showed his own lack of grasp by criticising schools that held balances, when those balances were held in accordance with the advice of his own Government.
The President of the Board of Trade forced the right hon. Gentleman to rewrite his speech on regional aid when the Western Mail of 11 September last year reported him as describing Wales as
"Keynes by the Sea, dishing out candy floss grants to everyone."
Of course, he was developing his perverse theory of "reverse Darwinism" to justify his personalised campaign against regional policy. It is small wonder that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was forced to describe him as
"a mad professor in his laboratory"
when he attempted to rewrite the Government's budgetary policy.
"Batty", "hypocritical", "inaccurate" and "lacking in political judgment" are words that have been used by the right hon. Gentleman's parliamentary colleagues to describe him this year. It is only 2 March. I suspect that we shall have a very rich crop of adjectives as the season progresses.

1231
Unemployment is the biggest single problem that we have in Wales. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) pointed out in his intervention, we are still 160,000 jobs down on when Labour left office, and 58 per cent. of respondents to yesterday's Western Mail poll identified that as Wales' No. 1 problem. The Secretary of State's response, having seen the damage done by his own Government's destructive policies, has characteristically been to decide that more of the same is necessary.
Investment in infrastructure is down. Regional aid has been cut by 50 per cent. Training and enterprise council budgets have been cut by 7.5 per cent. This week's announcement of the details of the forced asset stripping of the Welsh Development Agency makes it abundantly clear that the public sector or public-private partnerships have no secure long-term future in the right hon. Gentleman's long-term ideological plans.
The Secretary of State will not find a single supporter in major Welsh companies for his free market, anti-European attitudes. He does not even realise the political folly of a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales falling out with his few remaining allies. Even the Confederation of British Industry in Wales has now said, "Enough is enough." It is small wonder that the Conservative party faces an electoral wipe-out as soon as it is forced to face the people.
Mr. Donald Anderson: At the risk of stealing my hon. Friend's bull point in his litany of vituperation from the Secretary of State's Cabinet colleagues and others, does he recall that the Prime Minister even went so far as to doubt the paternity of the Secretary of State?
Mr. Davies: I am far too sensitive a soul to refer to that episode.
The Secretary of State's whole strategy has been based on a publicity offensive to convince Welsh electors that we are experiencing an economic success and to convince his potential Tory allies in England that he is bringing about a social revolution. That is precisely why he has failed us in Wales. He does not have his eyes on Wales. He has one eye on his place in the Cabinet and the other on the leadership of his party. His aspirations for social revolution would be risible if they did not offend so deeply our own standards, values and aspirations in Wales. The facts deny any claim that the right hon. Gentleman has to economic success.
Whatever he argues about employment figures or growth rates, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the serious, most objective test of the success or otherwise of Welsh Office policies is the extent to which Welsh GDP, expressed as a percentage of British GDP, has grown? Does he accept that that is the best objective test? I am asking the Secretary of State a direct question. He does not accept that the best objective way to assess the success of the Welsh Office is by comparing the success of the Welsh economy, measured in terms of GDP, at the start of the Conservatives' term of office, with the current position. That seems to be the best, honest, most objective test. I can understand why the Secretary of State does not want to accept it.
We now have figures relating to 14 years of Conservative Government since 1979. In 11 of those 14 years, Welsh GDP was lower, as a percentage of United
1232
Kingdom GDP, than it was during the last year of the previous Labour Government in 1979. The latest figure shows a further fall of 1.4 per cent., so we are still worse off now in relative terms than we were in 1979. I can understand the Secretary of State's reticence to accept the basis of that argument, but it is odd, is it not, that he is always prepared to take credit when anything goes right. That does not happen very often, but when it does, he is anxious to take the credit.
There is another great paradox. The Secretary of State is a great devolutionist. He wants policies made in Wales. He is quite happy to develop a distinctive agenda for health, local government or education, but it must be his own agenda. He is quite happy with devolution, provided that it allows him to practise his own maverick right-wing views. Somehow, we are supposed to place the state of the Union in great peril if those self-same decisions that he now takes in secrecy are taken openly and publicly by the elected, accountable representatives of the people whom those decisions affect. The Secretary of State still has to explain why an assembly in Northern Ireland will help to secure the future of the Union, whereas a similar proposal for Wales will endanger that same Union.
No doubt, the Secretary of State will argue that he is answerable to Parliament.
Mr. Redwood indicated assent.
Mr. Davies: It is true. I am glad that we have a basis for agreement. However, I wish to examine what happens in practice.
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman might be interested in a reply that I recently received from the Secretary of State, after I asked him how often he had been to the Council of Ministers on behalf of Wales since he had been in post. The answer is, not once. The second paragraph of his letter stated, "But when I was Minister for the DTI, I went there very often." That is an insult to the people of Wales.
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes his point very cogently.
I shall examine the Secretary of State's argument that he is answerable to Parliament, because that is his defence of the policies that he operates. Last year, on legal advice, he was forced to accept, against his own previously stated wishes and instincts, the recommendation of the Countryside Council for Wales on the future of eight acres of land at Mostyn docks on the Dee estuary. In order to exact his revenge for that defeat, he decided to cut the budget of the CCW by more than 16 per cent.—more than £3 million—and required it to obey a series of detailed prescriptions. He did not even consult his own quango, let alone other conservation organisations in Wales. Undoubtedly, they would have told him how deeply damaging his ideas were. That was devolution in action, albeit over a decision that never would have been taken in a democratic framework.
Mr. Redwood: Devolution in action is what would happen if the hon. Gentleman and Welsh local government wanted some of the functions that they could carry out transferred to them from the Countryside Council for Wales, which is the kind of body that he

1233
normally criticises. Why will he not support me in the true devolution that was the purpose of my plans for the CCW?
Mr. Davies: Because devolution as currently practised, and as it has been practised since the Welsh Office was created by a Labour Government, has involved a policy of successively devolving matters from central Government Departments to the Welsh Office. The Secretary of State chooses to use the powers devolved to him by virtue of his office. For example, he chose unilaterally to distribute the budget for the coming financial year for Wales—almost £7 billion in public expenditure—without reference to the people of Wales—
Mr. Redwood: Rubbish.
Mr. Davies: It is not rubbish. The Secretary of State does not stand for election in Wales and he does not listen to the majority of the elected representatives of the people of Wales, to Welsh conservation organisations, to Welsh local government or to Welsh industry. I doubt if he even listens to his Welsh Back Benchers. He can claim no mandate in such matters.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark. Of course I listen to Welsh public opinion all the time. I meet all the bodies that he has mentioned on a regular basis and I spend a lot of time travelling around Wales finding out people's opinions. I also listen to Opposition Members and Conservative Members who represent their constituency interests. That is the basis of the policies that I put before the House, in a democratic process approved by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Davies: I am glad that the Secretary of State has said that he is prepared to listen to the views of the people of Wales, because the people of Wales spoke yesterday in the Western Mail poll: only 12 per cent. of them were satisfied with his conduct of government. If he pays attention to the results of that poll, on the basis of his own statistical arguments, why does he not resign and give the people of this country a chance to get rid of him and his crew?
The only defence that the Secretary of State has offered for the form of devolution that he practises is the notion that he is answerable to Parliament. But let us look at what happens in practice. On 14 December 1994, I asked him in the House about his intentions towards the CCW. He refused to answer. He did not even avoid the question; he simply refused to answer it. On 30 January in the Welsh Grand Committee that met in Cardiff, specifically charged with considering Welsh public expenditure, the Secretary of State was again asked that question directly. He specifically refused to give any information whatever, let alone to debate or to try to justify his actions.
The right hon. Gentleman has been asked the question 16 times since he took his decision. Sixteen parliamentary questions have been tabled asking him about the consequences of and the justification for that decision, and 16 times he has avoided answering for the consequences of his actions. The Secretary of State cannot maintain that he is answerable to those elected to the House of Commons to represent the people of Wales.
The decision that the Secretary of State took was a horrendous gaffe, which led to justified public outrage. If he really listens to the people who express views to him,
1234
I refer him to a report in The Independent on Sunday on 19 February—[Interruption.] It is interesting, and I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who is supposed to have some responsibility for such matters at the Welsh Office, will listen carefully.
The article said:
"In an unprecedented move, the leaders of 22 top environment, heritage and scientific bodies, representing a combined membership of 4 million people, have written a joint letter to Mr. Major warning him that his Cabinet colleague's policies threaten to cause breaches of the law.
This follows exclusive reports in the Independent on Sunday last month that cuts imposed by the Welsh Secretary were causing severe reductions in protection for wildlife and habitats …
The signatories of the letter"—
those are the people whom the Under-Secretary wishes to laugh at—
"include Sir Angus Stirling, director general of the National Trust and chairman of the Royal Opera House, Peter Melchett, the executive director of Greenpeace, Barbara Young, chief executive of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Richard Mon-is, director of the Council for British Archaeology, Dr. Franklyn Perring, president of the Botanical Society of the British Isles, and Colin Logan, chief executive of the Youth Hostels Association.
They attack both Mr. Redwood's decision to slash the budget of … the Countryside Council for Wales—which has successfully opposed him over several major schemes—and the way in which he went about it, which they say is 'undermining confidence and generating suspicion'."
Is that the action of a Secretary of State who listens to the people of Wales, when he is condemned by such a range of bodies?
Mr. Dafis: There is a connection between the letter that the hon. Gentleman has read out and the fact that the Secretary of State was recently awarded the booby prize at the green awards ceremony a fortnight ago.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Who won?
Mr. Dafis: Modesty prevents me from answering that question.
There is an even better reason for giving the Secretary of State the booby prize than what he has done to the Countryside Council for Wales. In February last year, the Prime Minister published a sustainable development strategy for the United Kingdom. The Scottish Office then announced the formation of an advisory group on sustainable development, which was a very important development, but the Secretary of State for Wales failed to announce the formation of such a body for Wales. Several times in correspondence I have asked him to do so, yet he has still failed to act. That represents a failure even to begin to tackle the enormous challenge that sustainable development will pose to Welsh society and to the Welsh economy in the future.
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is right. Although of course I take issue with the quality of the Secretary of State's decision, I am now arguing about the process whereby that decision was taken, and the fact that, having taken it, the Secretary of State is not answerable to the people whom it will affect and has not even consulted the people for whom he has statutory responsibility. That is

1235
the case that I am making at the moment—although I understand the case that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) is making.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones)rose—
Mr. Davies: I would rather not give way to the Minister.
Mr. Jones rose—
Mr. Davies: In previous debates, the Under-Secretary of State has shown a casual regard for the truth, but I hope that today he will demonstrate that he is prepared to be the honourable gentleman that we call him when we use the term by which we address each other in the House.
Mr. Jones: I had not meant to bring up that aspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the House well knows that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) cannot usually manage to answer my attacks, so all that he can do is accuse me of lying. That is the height of his powers of public debate. Will he be so kind as to confirm that the article in The Independent on Sunday that he quoted, which I have read too, made no mention of the ludicrous April fools day claims that that newspaper had previously made about Snowdonia being privatised? While he is doing that, will he also confirm that the Secretary of State gave increased spending power to the CCW exactly in line with what it had asked for?
Mr. Davies: On the substance of the case, the Secretary of State took two decisions that severely affected the CCW's ability to discharge its statutory responsibilities, to such an extent that the scientists—the people employed by the CCW and charged with advising the Secretary of State—are making it clear that their ability to perform their statutory legal functions is being prejudiced. That is a measure of the financial cut that the Secretary of State has imposed.
The Secretary of State also sent those people a detailed management prescription. I have a copy of that, and I have seen how the right hon. Gentleman, defying the advice given to him by his officials in the Welsh Office—they knew what damage would be done—wrote to the CCW imposing his decisions on those people and overriding their scientific judgement. That is what happened. If the Secretary of State's proposals had been carried through, there would have been a very real threat to the future ownership of our national nature reserves in Wales. That is a fact.
It so happened that enough people involved in the CCW were prepared to blow the whistle. It so happened that the representatives of 4 million people were prepared to draw the matter to public attention. It so happened that enough people were prepared to ring the Chief Whip's office and the Prime Minister's office to ask who the lunatic in Wales was who wanted to privatise Snowdonia. Only as a result of that public outcry did the Secretary of State withdraw his proposals.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to the green ribbon awards for parliamentarians. It was reported earlier this week that the Secretary of State wanted to leave his mark on Wales, and he went to Dyffryn gardens to plant a giant redwood that will last for
1236
3,000 years. I suspect that that tree will last longer than our memory of a Secretary of State who wanted to privatise Snowdonia. The right hon. Gentleman got the booby prize in the annual green ribbon awards, but I do not suppose that somebody who last year publicly fantasised about being Mr. Blobby will find being Mr. Booby too disconcerting.
It is a sad commentary on the whole process when the varied, fragile, precious and unique Welsh environment is in the hands of someone so manifestly unfit to hold that responsibility.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman should accept that I met the whole board of the Countryside Council for Wales. I granted the CCW the amount that the board said it needed to meet its obligations, and the board members clearly stated that the CCW could meet all its statutory obligations.
Mr. Davies: Why on earth have we then had the conflict between the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary? Why did not the Secretary of State give a clear account of his actions when we debated the matter on 14 December, on the 16 parliamentary occasions since then when it was raised, or during the Welsh Grand Committee on 30 January?
I accept at face value what the Secretary of State has said this afternoon because he is an honourable man, and I know that he would not want to mislead the House. I shall seek advice from those who monitor closely the work of the CCW. If the right hon. Gentleman has been in error in assessing the impact of the budget cuts on the CCW, I hope that he in turn will recognise that, and take the necessary steps to restore those cuts to the CCW.
Mr. Redwood indicated assent.
Mr. Davies: I see that the Secretary of State is nodding.
We have a clear picture of a Secretary of State who is isolated in Cabinet and adrift in his own party, and whose perception of Wales is far removed from reality. There is a great gulf between the aspirations of the people of Wales and the right hon. Gentleman's own self-serving political agenda.
Mr. Wigley: Is not that the nub of the problem? It is not so much that the Secretary of State is not a capable or hard-working man, but that he does not and cannot represent the balance of political will and the aspirations in Wales. Given that the Conservative party has not had a majority of the Welsh seats in 120 years, is not the impossibility for the present system to deliver democracy to Wales seen most clearly? Does not that point underpin the whole argument about why it is necessary for us to have our own democratic Parliament in Wales?
Mr. Davies: I fully endorse the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman that we make no personal criticism of the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State thinks that I am being unkind now, he should see me when I am being serious.
The case against the Secretary of State is that his ideology is alien to the ideals that we hold in Wales, and the system that allowed him to be appointed, and that holds him to be accountable, is defective. That is the case against him that I have made today. His perception of Wales is far removed from reality.

1237
I believe that there is a growing consensus in Wales, which recognises personal choice and asserts equal opportunity. That consensus wants to build public services and nurture the concept of community. It is a consensus which recognises our identity and wishes to safeguard our heritage. It wishes to operate through a democratic and pluralistic framework. That consensus excludes the Secretary of State and his party, but it will prevail as soon as the people of Wales have a chance to vote for it.
6.34 pm
Sir Wyn Roberts: The annual Welsh day debate on the Floor of the House is—quite properly—an occasion for state of the nation speeches, although I am somewhat surprised to find Newt Gingrich added to the Welsh pantheon quite so soon.
First, I welcome the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and, at the same time, bid farewell to his predecessor, Neil Kinnock, who was elected to this House in the same year as I was, in 1970. The right hon. Gentleman had a distinguished career here, rising to the leadership of his party, and we all wish him well as a Commissioner in Europe. Of one thing we can be certain: he will never forget that he is Welsh.
The debate has begun interestingly enough. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened with a tour d'horizon of Wales, referring to some of the favourable developments in the Welsh economy—the continuing fall in unemployment, the remarkable buoyancy of our inward investment, and so on, which were also mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time today. There is not much doubt that if we are able to keep down inflation, the prospects for sound and sustainable economic growth in Wales will remain good. That is important to all of us in Wales, and it is even more important for us than it is for the more prosperous parts of the United Kingdom.
I fully appreciate the remarkable transformation which has taken place in the Welsh economy in the past 15 years or so. We now have a firm foundation for continuing growth, especially in modern manufacturing industry. I am aware—as are other Members—of the long way we have to go to achieve the levels of prosperity attained by certain other parts of the United Kingdom and by Europe.
I am accustomed to hearing Opposition Members highlighting statistics which show that Wales is trailing the league in one aspect of life or another, and I am as concerned as anyone about the reality behind the figures, especially those relating to comparative income levels, and I fully endorse every genuine effort to improve those matters over time. However, having listened carefully to the speeches of Opposition Members over the past few months, so far as I can see it is only the Government who have any real policies of substance to deal with the situation rather than short-term palliatives to deal with current deficiencies and inadequacies in the Welsh economy.
I greatly welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to say about the development that he foresees in information technology in Wales. I am delighted to tell the hon. and learned Member for
1238
Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that the Development Board for Rural Wales is one of the few prominent organisations in Wales already on the Internet system.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I share the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for the fact that the Development Board for Rural Wales is on the Internet, but we have yet to hear any policies from the Government that will help to arrest the decline in the biggest industry in rural Wales, which is agriculture, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said. What advice would the right hon. Gentleman give the Government, who have produced nothing on the subject today, as to the policies that they should introduce to ensure the survival—it is now a question of survival—of the sheepmeat industry in upland Wales?
Sir Wyn Roberts: I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman was present yesterday when we heard the chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales talking about the prospects for rural Wales. The need for development to compensate for the decline in farming, which has been going on for a considerable time, was one of the subjects that he covered. On the present state of the sheepmeat regime and sheep farming, I am surprised that the industry is surviving as well as it is—despite the bans and obstacles to the export of sheep, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is doing his utmost to deal with at a European level.
The Opposition are fond of recasting existing Government policies in what I would call Sedgefield-speak and then claiming them as their own. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) did not mention Labour's attitude to the inward investment which has produced some tens of thousands of jobs for Wales. I do not think that he mentioned it at all; yet inward investment brought some 110,000 jobs to Wales between April 1983 and April 1993 and a further 10,000 between April and December 1993. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about unemployment and I agree about the importance of that subject and the need to do everything that we possibly can to reduce it. One of the ways in which the Government have been very successful in reducing unemployment is by attracting inward investment. The question is this: why did the Labour party not commit itself to supporting the Government's inward investment policies?
Mr. Ron Davies rose—
Sir Wyn Roberts: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I have two other questions for him to answer.
Mr. Davies: On that question—
Sir Wyn Roberts: I have two more questions that the hon. Gentleman will have to answer and I intend to press him on this.
Should the Opposition come to office, will the present policy on inward investment be continued or abandoned? We are entitled to know. Secondly, the Welsh Office export promotion policy has brought millions of pounds' worth of orders to small and medium-sized Welsh businesses, enabling many of them to expand and take on more employees. What is the Labour party's policy on that? Welsh business needs to know, and so do its employees. Thirdly, I recall the Opposition, and the hon. Member for Caerphilly in particular, placing some

1239
emphasis on the encouragement of local business formation. We heard nothing about that today. Is that policy extant or is it defunct? We are surely entitled to know.
Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. I wanted to focus my remarks on one aspect of Welsh affairs, which I did, but I must draw his attention to the fact that the last Labour Government started the process of inward investment and established the Welsh Development Agency, which has been so successful in bringing about many of the achievements to which he referred. The right hon. Gentleman bitterly opposed the establishment of that agency when he was in opposition under the last Labour Government.
Sir Wyn Roberts: We have still not had an assurance that the hon. Member for Caerphilly will continue the inward investment that the Government have so successfully pursued over the past 15 years.
Mr. Davies: Yes.
Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman tells me that the answer is yes and I am delighted to hear it. That is the first time we have had any such assurance from the Opposition.
The question of how the continued reduction in unemployment achieved by this Government is to be maintained is a key issue and it is of prime importance to the people we represent. It demands a proper answer from the Opposition and we have certainly not had one today or in any other debate that I have attended. I must warn the hon. Member for Caerphilly that there is a black hole in his economic policy. It is all very well to talk of reducing unemployment, but he must tell us how he intends to do it. It is no use simply assuming that the progress made under this Government will continue automatically, whichever party is in power. The Government's actions are supported by a raft of pragmatic policies which have evolved from experience. The people of Wales should be warned that much that they take for granted may be lost due to the lack of understanding and of a properly developed commitment to the aims of those policies on the part of the Opposition.
Mr. Llew Smith: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the progress made in employment. Will he comment on the Government-sponsored research which shows that in former coal mining areas in south Wales male adult unemployment is about 33 per cent?
Sir Wyn Roberts: I well remember 1979, when we came to office, and I know that there was a great deal of overmanning in the coal and steel industries. The elimination of overmanning and the changes in those industries are the answer to the question posed earlier by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. I have already acknowledged that we still have a long way to go to catch up with the more prosperous regions of the United Kingdom and Europe. Of course we have black spots in different parts of Wales, but there are fewer as time goes on.
Mr. Rogers: In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), the right hon. Gentleman missed the point. It is not a matter of reducing
1240
manning in industry. The Government have wiped out an industry in south Wales. It is not a black spot, but a black region. The right hon. Gentleman talks about inward investment into Wales, but does he acknowledge that it was the Government's malicious policy of inward investment in coal from China, Australia and Chile which annihilated jobs in the south Wales valleys? That policy was born out of spitefulness.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I entirely disagree with that last remark, which is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Rogers: It is true.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I will not be drawn into an argument on the viability or otherwise of the coal mining industry. I merely remind the hon. Gentleman that more pits were closed by the Labour Government before 1979 than have been closed since.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Wyn Roberts: No, I want to make progress and change tack.
The Opposition have stated their top priority for Wales: to establish a bond of trust with the people—that is an electioneering euphemism, if ever I heard one—and establish a Welsh Assembly in their first year in office to make all the quangos more accountable. We all know what that will mean in practice. The quangos will be packed with somewhat inferior Labour placemen, as they were when the Conservative Government came into office in 1979. I well remember the state of the quangos then and how some people had to be removed from them because there was no obvious reason why they should be there, other than the fact that they were Labour party placemen. It will be a repeat of the old story: jobs for the boys. We are familiar with that in Wales. The Labour party will appoint its party faithful with a ruthlessness that would have been the envy of the old Soviet commissars. That is what "new Labour" really means.
I wonder whether the Opposition have decided where the assembly will meet. Will it be Cardiff, as per their election manifesto? I am sure that other places will lay claim to the location of the assembly, and the Opposition may have to borrow the National Eisteddfod canopy to shield the assembly until that issue has been decided. Meanwhile, we can be sure that there will be burgeoning bureaucracy and mounting costs, all to be paid for by the British taxpayer—or perhaps the Welsh taxpayer alone, as the legislation may provide.
What strikes me in listening to some of the arguments about a Welsh Assembly is that its populist appeal is pathetic in its false simplicity. Some people think that it will protect them against unpopular taxes such as a future poll tax imposed by central Government; to others, it means that they will no longer have to contribute to Trident. At times, it seems as though all the old left-wing phobias have found a new and respectable focus in the devolution issue, and that the assembly is to become the legitimate forum for the expression of their political neuroses.
The question that bothers me is this: who is to safeguard and promote the interests of Wales as a whole as the local assembly men and women squabble endlessly among themselves for bits of the cake handed down to

1241
them annually by central Government in Whitehall? What if the cake is not so big as the appetites of those who are to share it? I doubt whether it will meet their requirements. There will certainly be no Secretary of State, as we have known holders of that office, if the powers now vested in him are vested in an assembly. So far as I can see, there will have to be a Welsh Government with a premier at its head and a string of Ministers, all answerable to the assembly. The minor parties will argue for a panel and a committee structure similar to that proposed for discussion in Northern Ireland, but I do not foresee the Labour party conceding one iota of power to the minor parties unless it has to.
Mr. Rogers: Quite right.
Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman confirms that I am right.
Mr. Ainger: I believe that tomorrow morning the right hon. Gentleman is to meet the president of Catalonia. As president of a region with a delegated Parliament, will Señor Pujol be told the same as the right hon. Gentleman is telling us today?
Sir Wyn Roberts: He will know the circumstances of his country as I reckon to know mine. If he asks me, however, I shall tell him certain things that I am about to tell the House. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to those facts in a moment.
I have given an outline sketch of the political scenario that the Opposition have unveiled to the House in their various statements to date. The old, essentially centralist-socialist philosophy encapsulated in clause IV is about to be finally defenestrated—thrown ceremoniously out of the window—and replaced by a hitherto undefined, let alone tested, political philosophy based on social justice as propounded by the philosopher king of Sedgefield himself. If the British electorate fall for it, they will he opting for an inferno—a bonfire not of the vanities of those who fancy that Wales will do better on its own, which it will not, but of the present-day realities, which are that Wales benefits enormously from being part of the United Kingdom.
We cannot get away from those facts. One has only to compare the public expenditure figures per head in Wales with the lesser figures for England to see the extent of the support given to Wales and the still greater support given to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Those figures are available in the statistical supplement to the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96", Cm. 2821, published last month. The figures show steady growth in public expenditure per head in Wales, from £2,685 in 1989–90 to £3,913 in 1993–94. That last figure compares with £3,458 in England—£455 per head less than the sum spent in Wales. The amount spent in Scotland is even higher, at £4,185 per head, and in Northern Ireland it is £4,781.
The breakdown of that expenditure shows that it is higher in Wales than in England in a range of areas, and higher than in the English regions, too. For example, £809 per head is spent on health and personal social services in Wales, compared with £717 in England. I advise Opposition Members to study the tables in that document.
Mr. Rogers: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Wyn Roberts: No. Let me ask this key question: how long could a Welsh Assembly sustain that
1242
comparatively high spending? How long could an assembly justify it? What guarantee can the Opposition give me and the people of Wales that the same differential between expenditure per head in Wales and expenditure in England would be maintained in the event of an assembly being established? We might well lose that favourable treatment. It will be eroded over time. That is the price that the Welsh people will have to pay for an assembly.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I have not been impressed by what the right hon. Gentleman has had to say against the assembly. Does he accept that the economic arguments that he is making are arguments against independence, not arguments against an assembly?
Sir Wyn Roberts: If the hon. Gentleman does not think that our power here at Westminster will decline when an assembly has been established in Wales, he is gravely and grossly mistaken.
Mr. Williams: May I reply to that?
Sir Wyn Roberts: I have answered the hon. Gentleman. He can make his own speech.
I believe that the Labour party is being very short sighted in reacting as it has to the passing phenomenon of electoral support for the Scottish National party in Scotland—running at about a third of the votes cast in the European elections, I understand. The Labour party has been through its own hell, losing four elections in a row, but it is foolish to imagine that it can ride the nationalist tiger. My guess is that it will cause untold damage to the Labour party in its strongholds in the longer term, but that is a matter for right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches to consider. I leave it at that.
There is a major consideration—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Yesterday, we debated a major consideration in those matters—our relationship with the European Union. Few of us would deny that Wales has been a major beneficiary economically. Most of the investment from overseas has come because we were part of the Union. In January 1994, no fewer than 343 foreign-owned manufacturing plants had been established in Wales—over 100 more than in 1983—providing about 70,000 jobs. We all appreciate the value of that investment.
The single European market has further potential for good, I believe, for us and for other member countries, and it is in our interests to realise that potential. We should assess the costs of forgoing such development as well as the political costs of further development along the lines of economic and monetary union. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with the position admirably yesterday, as did the Governor of the Bank of England when he outlined the parameters of the argument with great clarity in his recent speech in Luxembourg.
As a result of that Luxembourg speech and the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, I find the prospect of a single currency, especially the idea of a hard ecu co-existing with national currencies, possibly for a generation or longer, less daunting than before.
What is still fear-provoking is the concentration of power at a Europe-wide level that may be involved, and the lack of control of it. It is the old fear that
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

1243
The history of Europe tends to confirm Lord Acton's dictum, and the European Commission's strength in contrast with the European Parliament's weakness is not reassuring.
We are right to be sceptical, but we should not allow our scepticism to become septic and to poison our minds. Neither should we behave like innocents and think of Europe as a garden of Eden before the fall. We must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of further integration with the utmost care and secure the best deal for Britain. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Government will do that.
We celebrated our patron saint yesterday, and I hope that the House will allow me a moment for an historic excursion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Half an hour."] He, too, lived in troublous times. He was renowned for his humility, and we could all do with a generous measure of that virtue. The modern nation state in Europe was far off in Dewi's time in the 6th century, and the first requirement a century or so later was a defence against the Muslim invaders of Spain, France and south-eastern Europe, who threatened Christendom with far greater force and persistence than even the Vikings, who came a little later and struck unimaginable terror along the coasts of northern Europe. So the tradition of the pax romana survived into the holy Roman empire which, with the backing of the mediaeval Church, organised the defence of Europe against the might of Islam.
The subsidence of the threat from Islam, from the 15th century onwards, was one of the preconditions for the growth of the nation state. There were many others, including the discovery of the new world. In our own times, the subsidence of the threat from the USSR may have a great deal to do with the revival of the ambition of small nations for a greater degree of self-government. Defence against external aggression is not the great primary concern that it was as recently as a decade ago, and the great nation states have undoubtedly lost something of their raison d'être. We are now rather more afraid of a trade war than of the traditional form of hostilities, and defence in those circumstances consists in being in a major trade bloc such as the European Union.
In the current debate on devolution in the United Kingdom, which I regard as a major diversion from the main task of improving people's lives and conditions—a task that should be in the forefront of our minds—the issue will ultimately turn on the ability of small nations to support themselves. Scotland is confident that it can do so, but on what is that confidence based? I heard a similar confidence expressed in Quebec in the 1970s, but it weakened as major companies withdrew from that province to the comparative safety of Ontario. I remember, as others do, René Leveque, the premier of Quebec, losing a referendum among his 80 per cent. French-speaking electorate.
There has been a great deal of talk about the German Länder, the revival of which in post-war Germany was insisted on by the French as an antidote to the powerful centralised German state. The establishment of the Länder was meant to be a handicap, but it turned out to be a major advantage. Although large in population terms, they still recognise the value of the Federal Government in Bonn and the cohesion that it provides. Some of the
1244
Länder contribute more to Bonn than they receive from it, but they do not seek on that account to break away from the federal structure. They realise all too well that unity is strength.
I would not argue [Interruption.]—this is my final point—that everything is perfect in the governance of Wales. I should like the energies of our people to be better harnessed, better expressed and better employed. Perhaps the new unitary authorities will contribute to those ends. They are bound to have some type of national forum, and that forum may provide the cohesion required at national level. But a further expensive tier of government is not the answer: it would weaken our power here at Westminster and do nothing to raise the standard of living and improve the quality of life of the people of Wales.
7.9 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) spoke for some time and ranged widely, but I will be charitable and merely say that it is difficult to break the habit of 15 years on the Front Bench and in the Welsh Office.
The Secretary of State spent much of his speech suspended in cyberspace. I do not know where he is now, but his speech seemed to be immune to the laws of gravity. When the Secretary of State was not suspended in cyberspace, he was communing—or perhaps commuting, if that is possible—with his friend Newt on the Internet. There was certainly not much reality in the Secretary of State's speech.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about one thing: there is a lot more grass in Llanelli now than there was in 1979. Unfortunately, grass is not a valuable means of international exchange. I think that we would trade our grass in Llanelli for the jobs—the "real jobs", as Sir Keith Joseph used to call them—in the steel works and in industry that we had throughout the 1960s and 1970s.
The sad reality is that Wales is one of the poorest countries or areas in the whole of Britain—it is not quite as poor as Northern Ireland, but the difference is small. Like the gap between Britain and central states of the European Union, the gap between Wales and the rest of Britain in terms of gross domestic product is widening.
The Secretary of State mentioned the fact that the centre of power in Europe is moving east, and he seemed to think that that problem could be solved by using Internet. The gap in Britain today is not between north and south, but between east and west. Whatever we may think about the single market—we are supposed to venerate it on both sides of the House—we must acknowledge that it will make it more difficult for the western areas of the UK to compete with those in the east. If the Secretary of State thinks that that problem will be solved easily, I will give him an example to consider.
Last year, the Mercedes car company announced the quite momentous decision to build a factory outside Germany. It had never done that before—although it has since built a factory in the United States. In the end, the Mercedes factory was built in France, just inside the Franco-German border, but the company looked initially at locating in Britain.
There are a number of car component factories in Llanelli, but it was extremely difficult for me to conduct negotiations with Mercedes, especially as they were overseen by the Invest in Britain Bureau. I will return to

1245
that in a moment. It proved extremely difficult to persuade Mercedes to look at locating anywhere other than the east, preferably the north-east, of England, because that region faces the continent and is thus closer to the countries of Europe. Our communications in Llanelli and Swansea are not bad—we have good roads, railways and the port of Swansea—but we could not persuade Mercedes to look at our area, and I understand the company's point of view.
Since then, other investors, such as Samsung Electronics, have established factories in the north-east of England. I do not decry those investments; I wish that we could have them. Those investments are going to the north-east because of the aggressive policies pursued by the Invest in Britain Bureau and the North-Eastern development corporation.
The Times of a few weeks ago contained a report about a gentleman by the name of Mr. Foster. He used to work for the North-Eastern development corporation based in Hong Kong and the far east, and he has now been hired by the Invest in Britain Bureau. The Invest in Britain Bureau is now the Welsh Development Agency, WINVEST, or the inward development arm of the Department of Trade and Industry. It is no longer a bureau which seeks investment in Britain; it is being used by the Department of Trade and Industry to channel investment aggressively into parts of England. I think that the Welsh Office and the WDA should wake up to that fact.
I read the London newspapers like the Secretary of State reads the Welsh newspapers, and the press in the capital recently carried a report about the speech made by the Minister for Energy and Industry in which he extolled the virtues of the Thames corridor. Development is taking place along the Thames from Canary Wharf to the sea. He pointed out how a car component factory could be established next to the Ford factory in Dagenham.
That area is ripe for development; it is close to the new City airport, and the thrust of our trade is towards Europe and the single market. As a consequence, I believe that Wales faces an even harder task in attracting future investment to the west of Britain.
We face a further problem in Wales because government—the state—has ceased to be fashionable. Politicians from all parties now decry government. We heard the Secretary of State do that today, and we have come to expect him to hold those views.
Unfortunately, there is a consensus among politicians generally that somehow or other the state is a bad thing. Countries must now have level playing fields. Wales will not get anywhere with a level playing field. We do not want that; we want Governments to intervene to ensure that the playing field is tipped in our favour, because the gap is widening between Wales and England, and between Wales and the countries of central Europe.
There is a constant attempt to decry the powers of government. "Government" is now a dirty word. That was not so in the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s, but apparently we should not put our faith in Governments any more. We are constantly exhorted to follow other theories—I call them false gods. We have been told that the concept of community will replace government and that we should look to that for salvation.
We have great communities in Wales; we are a great nation of communities. But I do not see how the very nebulous concept of community will replace the power of government and the state in performing necessary tasks in Wales.
1246
I recently read a full-page article in The Times written by an American of Italian extraction who was born in Israel, which extolled the virtues of community. It was the most awful drivel that I have read for a long time. According to him, community will perform the functions that the state is no longer allowed to perform. That will not benefit Wales.
We also hear about the dynamic market economy, which apparently we enjoyed throughout the 1980s. It has merely increased the gap between the poorer regions and the rest of Britain. It has kept wages in Wales low compared with those in England.
I do not know why people call it a "dynamic" market economy; I do not think that the word "dynamic" is necessary. We have a market economy which is sometimes dynamic and sometimes not dynamic. Occasionally it is dynamic for a few people—perhaps it is too dynamic for some bankers in the far east—and at other times it is not dynamic at all. It was certainly not dynamic for Wales in the 1980s. The dynamic market economy that the Secretary of State seems to worship was not good for my constituency in the past 10 to 15 years.
We are also told that public expenditure is bad. When the Government came to power in 1979—and even before then, when the Conservatives were in opposition—Baroness Thatcher, Lord Howe and others said how terrible public expenditure and public borrowing was. I am sorry to say that those once heretical views have now become fashionable. It is sad to say that it is not only the fashion in the Conservative party, but the fashion and the consensus in many political parties.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not wish me to mention Maastricht in your presence for a long time, and I shall skate over it very quickly, but the basis of the Maastricht treaty was to reduce public expenditure and public borrowing.
The Secretary of State was waxing lyrical about his friend Newt, but his friend Newt is madder than the Maastrict treaty, because he and his colleagues are now trying to hand over the control of public expenditure in the United States to the Supreme Court. I am a great admirer of the Supreme Court of the United States, which has seen great judges like Frankfurter, Brandeis and others, but neither they nor the present judges would have been very happy to police any possible budget deficit in the United States.
The Secretary of State waxes lyrical about what is happening in America. Let me explain what is happening there. For the past 20 years or more, most working people in America have seen no increase whatsoever in their standards of living. The great American dream has come to a stop for most people in the United States.
There are many reasons for that, and they may relate as much to the global economy as to internal causes, but Newt and his crazy mates are trying to cut public expenditure and get rid of the budget deficit so that they can hand some money back to the great American middle class in tax cuts as compensation for the fact that there has been no growth in their earnings. It cannot work. It is extraordinary desperation. They are trying somehow to give some money back to those people. After year one, it will not work; where will the money come from in years two, three and four?
The Secretary of State tried to put forward his philosophy. We heard much about the Internet, and we accept the importance of technology, but he did not

1247
address the danger that not everybody will benefit from intellectual capital. Only a few people will benefit—not the old capitalists of socialist hatred in the past or the old rentier classes, but the new intellectual capitalists. If I were able to operate a computer programming system called C++, and if I were only 22 years old, I could earn £50,000 a year or more in London today. Very few people can operate C++, and when a new system is developed and then another, the same will happen.
The benefits of technology to which the Secretary of State refers will fall on only 10 per cent. of the population.
Mr. Gwilym Jones indicated dissent.
Mr. Davies: The Under-Secretary shakes his head, but he has not really thought very much about it. Perhaps the Secretary of State has. The benefits of new technology may well fall on only 10 or 15 per cent. of the population, and not many of them will be in Wales.
Research and development investment in Wales is the lowest in Britain, and we are not involved in those developments. I appreciate the Secretary of State trying to get us in, but if I and other commentators are right, the danger in future is that most people will not see any economic growth—only the 40 or 50 per cent. who have been accustomed to it, and a few at the top.
Some old-fashioned rentier capitalists will benefit, because western investment will still be needed to develop the markets and the industries of China and India, and no doubt income will flow hack to Britain as well as income from intellectual capital. What may well happen is that the country's GDP will reduce in proportion to its GNP, and the gap will get wider as more income comes in from outside without producing wealth in Britain. That is why we need government, and we return to the contempt for government.
Only government can redistribute that wealth to create some economic and social justice in a society where most people—not just the unemployed, the underclass or those who do not want to work—will not benefit from the fruits of society and the global economy. The Secretary of State tried to present the problem in a glib way, but I believe that only by actively interfering in the economy can the Government do anything about it in future.
I well remember hearing from Lady Thatcher, Keith Joseph and Lord Howe, and from my right hon. and hon. Friends, that the British economy would benefit from lower rates of taxation and that we should abolish progressive rates of taxation which were inhibiting as the rates were too high.
The Government have abolished the progressive system of taxation. We now have a top rate of 40 per cent. and it has not done my constituents or the Welsh economy much good over the past 10 or 15 years, because the gap between Wales and other parts of the economy has grown wider. The idea that we can benefit from a lack of progressive taxation is again trying to make us worship false gods. All the emphasis is on inflation. We must not say anything about inflation. Of course we are all against inflation, but the whole emphasis on inflation as opposed to every other economic policy has not done the people of Wales much good, either.
How much do entrepreneurs or small and medium-sized business persons in Llanelli have to pay the National Westminster bank or the Midland bank in Llanelli for a
1248
loan? It is probably 10 per cent., or 4 per cent. above base rate, yet the bank suffers a decline of only 2 per cent. in the value of the money it lends—perhaps even less than that. The banks are able to borrow money and suffer very small losses through inflation, and the business man who is supposed to invest and create growth has to pay 10 or 11 per cent.
I agree with those who say that we must not look outside but create our own economy. Why are only banks allowed to beat inflation? Sometimes they try too hard or are too foolish, and we see what happens. Why should a business man in Llanelli have to pay 10 or 11 per cent. to borrow money when inflation is only 2 per cent.?
Why is it the fashionable political consensus that central bankers can determine all the levels of growth and investment in the economy, when the Government are concentrating everything upon inflation? It has not done, and is not doing, my constituents much good.
Finally, I must mention the single currency. The Secretary of State waxed lyrical about all the growth in manufacturing. There has been some growth in manufacturing, and I welcome it, but he will be the first to admit that one of the main reasons for export growth is that the Government were ejected from the exchange rate mechanism.
I was pleased to see in the newspapers today that the Spanish Finance Minister is beginning to get worried because there is 25 per cent. unemployment in Spain. He was foolish to have said that it would not really matter if Spain were also shunted out of the exchange rate mechanism, because the peseta is now down on the floor.
I was a member of the much-reviled Labour Government of 1975–79. I was the Treasury Minister who, after considerable consideration, took the decision not to enter the exchange rate mechanism—and not merely for political reasons, but because of some brilliant analysis and destruction of the idea by Treasury civil servants. It is no thanks to the Government that we have an increase in manufacturing.
We are now talking about a single currency; the right hon. Member for Conwy touched upon it. Why does nobody ask the Welsh about the single currency? We have had a single currency since Henry VII or Hywel Dda. I am not sure what the currency in Wales was before the Act of Union.
I have spent much of my political life in the House for 20 years—and so have my colleagues—trying to fight the centralising tendencies of single currencies. That single currency was in London. Am I now being told that I must give up that battle and fight against the centralising tendencies of the ecu or whatever it will be called in Brussels? What hope is there for the Welsh economy on the western periphery of the empire if there is such a central currency?
All those concepts that we are being asked to pursue are false gods. We should return to the simple, old-fashioned idea that Governments should try as best they can in a global economy to keep the levers of economic power to themselves. They should not be afraid to use them democratically and face the democratic consequences of doing so, instead of shunting power away to quangos and communities and indulging in other sorts of escapist notions. At the end of the day, the people who sent us here want us to exercise power, and they want to hold us to account for it.
7.30 pm
Mr. Walter Sweeney: I join other hon. Members in welcoming the new Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), not only to the House but to his first debate on Welsh affairs. I wish him every joy in representing his constituents, in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor.
In every debate on Wales, I listen to Opposition Members and wonder which country they are talking about. It does not seem to bear much resemblance to the Wales that I see when I go home to the Vale of Glamorgan. We are used to hearing gloomy messages, such as those in the speech by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). He talked down the Welsh people and the Welsh economy.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) seemed to depart from his usual script, because instead of concentrating on running down Wales, he concentrated on running down the Secretary of State for Wales. When will he realise that it is not through running down Wales or the Secretary of State, but through building and developing policies for the future of Wales, that we can hope to see a better future for its people? That future will be built on the successes of the past 15 years.
Perhaps the Labour party cannot bear to face reality. I should like to address some aspects of that reality in terms of Wales as a whole and from my vantage point in the Vale of Glamorgan. By any standards, my constituency is a marginal seat, which means that it may serve as an economic and political barometer of Wales. First, I should like to look at the economy.
Conservative policies have secured record inward investment. Between April 1983 and April 1993, more than 11,000 new projects have invested nearly £5.5 billion in the Welsh economy, creating or safeguarding nearly 110,000 jobs. The Ford plant at Bridgend, and Bosch near the M4 on the edge of my constituency, have provided extra jobs in the Vale of Glamorgan.
The expansion of Dow Corning and Cabot in Barry are good news for the chemical complex there, and for jobs. The British Airways aircraft maintenance base near Cardiff-Wales airport has provided new, highly skilled jobs. RAF St. Athan, the biggest employer in the vale, is doing magnificent work in aircraft maintenance, using a successful mix of RAF and civilian staff.
Conservative Governments have created a climate for investment. The number of days lost through strikes in Wales has fallen from an average of 1,590 working days per 1,000 employees in 1979 to 10 in 1989. Welsh unemployment is now in line with that of the rest of the UK, and is below the European average.
Mr. Llew Smith: The hon. Gentleman compares the days lost through strikes in 1979 with those lost at the present time. Would he care to compare the number of days lost through unemployment in 1979 and those that are lost at present?
Mr. Sweeney: I agree that there has been a substantial increase in unemployment, but there has been an increase throughout the European Union. Over the past 20 months, there has been a steady fall in
1250
unemployment throughout the UK. Britain has been leading the way and setting an example for the rest of the European Union.
In education, Wales has made considerable progress. More young people are obtaining better grades in GCSE and A-level examinations, and more are going on to further education. Sixty-one per cent. of our 16 to 18-year-olds continued their education in 1992–93, compared with 45 per cent. in 1987–88.
Local management has enabled schools to have more control over their budgets, and those which have advanced to grant-maintained status have proved popular and successful. There are now 15 such schools in Wales. My only regret is that many more schools which could benefit from grant-maintained status are not doing so, because of misguided, doctrinaire, left-wing campaigns against them.
So far there are no grant-maintained schools in my constituency, but elsewhere in the Vale of Glamorgan, in Penarth, the schools that have acquired that status are demonstrating how worth while it can be. I look forward to seeing many grant-maintained schools in my part of the vale in the near future.
I particularly welcome the Secretary of State's recent announcement about more resources to provide extra places in popular schools. That is a fundamental, central part of Conservative policy. We believe in encouraging parents to send their children to the best available schools in their neighbourhood, and it is clear that at least some Opposition Members understand that very well.
Spending on the national health service has increased by over 70 per cent. in real terms since 1979 to more that £2 billion in 1994–95. That amounts to £716 for every man, woman and child. Our health reforms have cut waiting lists and increased the number of patients treated. Since 1979, general practitioners have increased by 337 and there are nearly 6,000 extra nurses. The number of in-patients has gone up from 350,000 to more than 500,000. We have halved the infant mortality rate, and men are living some three years longer and women some 2.8 years longer than they were when the Government came to power.
In the Vale of Glamorgan, the Llandough hospital trust is providing various sophisticated day care treatments. The complaints for which those treatments are used once required hospitalisation, but day care means that people do not suffer the trauma of going into hospital and staying overnight. It also means that beds are released for patients who need in-care treatment. In Barry a brand new neighbourhood hospital is virtually complete and will provide a high standard of service for the people of Barry.
More people than ever own their own homes. Home ownership rose from 59 per cent. in 1979 to more than 71 per cent. in 1993, which is higher than anywhere else in the UK. That is good news, and we should be singing it from the rooftops instead of running down Wales all the time. Nearly 102,000 public sector tenants have bought their own homes, giving themselves the freedom of choice and pride of ownership that that involves.

1251
In local government, we have succeeded in introducing unitary authorities, which will provide more local accountability and more efficient local services for everyone in Wales.
Mr. Win Griffiths: There is no evidence for that.
Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no evidence for that, but we must wait and see. The shadow authorities are due to be elected on 4 May, and a year later we shall see the success of that Conservative policy.
In my region, we look forward to the new Vale of Glamorgan county borough council with joyful anticipation. The Vale of Glamorgan will be slightly enlarged, which will contribute to the efficiency of that new authority. We will he free from the domination of the Labour-controlled, Cardiff-based South Glamorgan county council. Local government reorganisation is a cause of celebration. By the time that we next celebrate St. David's day, the new shadow authorities will he close to taking over full control of local government. People will recognise the success of that Conservative policy.
We have invested nearly £2 billion in improving the motorway and trunk road network in Wales, completing 25 miles of motorway and 154 miles of trunk road. [Interruption.] I notice that some Opposition Members are not listening. They should be aware of such good news. Those are the achievements of a Conservative Government.
Effective transport links are a vital aspect of the competitiveness of Welsh businesses. I welcomed the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State some months ago, in response to my question in the House, that he would entertain a bid from South Glamorgan county council for funding for a good road between Culverhouse Cross and Cardiff-Wales airport. I hope that South Glamorgan was listening to that, and that it will put in a realistic hid that will attract support from the Welsh Office.
Judging from my postbag and my surgeries, the biggest concern of my constituents has been the crime level in the Vale of Glamorgan. It is good news for Wales that, thanks to recent legislation, the crime level has at last turned downwards. I particularly welcome the announcement of my right hon. Friend, in conjunction with the Home Secretary, of a big increase in funding for the police, which is to be paid directly to the police. That is good news for my constituents, and we truly appreciate it.
There is a great deal of good news for Wales. Let us take the message back to Wales that we are proud of Wales, of the Welsh people, of our Secretary of State and of our Government.
7.41 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I join in the welcome that has been given to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). He follows a man who was popular in the House and unpompous in his attitude to all hon. Members, even when he was leader of his party. I am sure that the hon. Member will prove a worthy successor.
We heard the Secretary of State for Wales give some welcome assurances about the information super-highway, especially in relation to the fact that it will
1252
reach rural mid-Wales. That has much wider implications than merely allowing a few people to move into rural areas to work as derivatives traders, or in similar enterprises. It has yet to impinge on farming, the biggest industry of rural mid-Wales, which faces a critical situation.
I welcomed, as did others, the statement by the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and of the Development Board for Rural Wales, Mr. Rowe-Beddoe, in this building yesterday. He said that close attention was being given to the possibility of bringing into Wales significant meat processing facilities that are currently not available. I hope that action will be taken quickly on that promise. I invite the Secretary of State to remember that significant meat processing facilities already exist in Wales. For example, Edward Hamer International Ltd. in my constituency has such facilities. It is run by Edward Hamer, a tough, hard-headed and experienced business man. I hope that efforts will be made to build on such indigenous businesses. We should not merely look outside for possibly another disastrous and failed Fortex-type enterprise.
Like the Secretary of State, I welcome the destruction, for it was needed, of the Oldford estate on the edge of Welshpool. I am not sure that he can claim much credit for that. That move arises from a partnership between Clwyd-Alyn housing association and Montgomeryshire district council, which the Secretary of State has seen fit to abolish, despite a decision to the contrary by the Standing Committee that dealt with the matter, but I do not especially want to reopen old wounds.
I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to what sounded like the rough sleeper's initiative, which has been successful through the efforts, for example, of the Salvation Army and of the Salvation Army housing association in Mile End road, Whitechapel. One should bear in mind the fact that a large number of people were not sleeping rough in Wales before the Government came into office, but now a large number are. Tonight, I do not want to debate whether a cause and effect relationship exists there, but I hope that a full commitment is made to removing homelessness from the streets of Wales.
It would be tempting to use this debate to address a host of concerns about various aspects of Government policy, but I want to deal with just one issue, which is of wider relevance, but has a particular and important relevance in Wales. The Government's policy on community care funding is evidence of their talent for frustrating the democratically expressed views and wishes of the people of Wales for a decent level of service from local and national Government. It is important to test promises against reality. The Government's promises on community care and the reality of the funding that is being delivered are different.
Increasing evidence exists that community care in Wales is underfunded, undervalued by the Government and variable in its application in different parts of Wales. I would not cry "crisis" if none existed. The critical realities of community care in Wales warrant the immediate attention of the Secretary of State. He could start by reviewing his failure to cover the transitional cost of the shift to community and council organisation of care. He could then realistically appraise growing long-term demand.

1253
It is not a problem of substantive policy. Community care is a policy with sound aims, but we should not lose sight of the significant group of people who will always need institutional care and who seem not to be fully catered for in current policy. For me, a particular constituency interest is involved in that context.
There is no comfort in a policy of community care if there is no corresponding policy of investment in its implementation. Demographic changes are well documented as a sign of need and demand. In the United Kingdom, the number of people aged over 85 amounted to approximately 900,000 in 1991 and that number is expected to rise steadily to 1.2 million by 2001. The number of elderly people living alone has risen from 35 per cent. in 1971 to 45 per cent. by 1991. The dependency ratio is rising dramatically across the country. That should be reflected realistically in Government policy. It is a particular problem in rural Wales, where people tend to live longer.
Today, the British Medical Association published its report, "Taking Care of the Carers". It has cogently brought to our attention the growing number of unpaid carers—a group of people whose position is often ignored by the Government. It is estimated that, nationally, unpaid carers provide the equivalent of a huge £34 billion worth of care. That is an astonishing amount when compared with the cost of institutional and professional care, which amounts to £10 billion. Less than a quarter of care is being provided by the state and local authorities; three quarters of it is being provided by volunteers.
It is estimated that there are 340,000 unpaid carers in Wales, of whom just over half are main carers, that 80,000 care for more than 20 hours a week, and that there are 485,000 people whose lives are limited in some way by long-term illness and who need some care. That is the scale of the problem. Government policy relies—reasonably to some extent but, unfortunately, too much—on the love and affection of those carers, who are often wholly unrewarded for the devotion that they give to those for whom they care.
Of the eight counties in Wales, four have projected overspends on their community care budget. In more than half of the counties, planned development of the service has been cut when it needs to be increased. Extremely tight limits have been placed on the costs of care packages, and the limits have been based on cash, not need. That cannot be right. Eligibility criteria have been tightened and charges for care have been increased. These are not the actions of financially irresponsible councillors but are sometimes cruel economies which have been caused by Government policy.
The figures are self-evident. Clwyd projects a £500,000 shortfall on its community care budget. Powys has introduced new eligibility criteria for services under the new social care plan and has implemented cuts in the provision of social domiciliary services that are especially important if people are to remain independent in remote rural areas. Residential and day care services have also been cut. The cuts in day care have given rise to many complaints by elderly constituents and their families. Despite those cuts, Powys still faces a possible shortfall of £300,000 on its budget for 1995–96.
I am advised that in Gwynedd there is an estimated shortfall of £500,000 in 1994–95, and it has had to borrow money from next year's budget. In South Glamorgan, there is an estimated shortfall of £1.3 million and the cost
1254
of care packages has been cut to the bone. In short, in all eight counties there is a tight squeeze, not on the basis of need but on the basis of obedience to central Government.
A recent and, I think, objective report by the Assembly of Welsh Counties on the implementation of community care in Wales has shown where the blame lies. The assembly acknowledged successes where it was appropriate to do so but also highlighted the failure of the Welsh Office to take realistic account in its funding settlements of the additional costs of the implementation of community care.
The total funding so far announced for community care in Wales is no more than the amount spent in 1992 on supporting people in residential care. Taking into account the implementation costs for community care, the result is a chaotic, variable and inadequate service. The Government must have realised when they decided to go for a community care policy that it was bound to be more expensive. Having made the policy decision, they failed wretchedly to fund the policy. If a policy merits being introduced—as I said, I support many of its objectives—it must surely merit the necessary investment.
The reality is that achieving the aim of providing choices and individual care packages looks very unlikely when some authorities are struggling to find the money. As an example, I cite the plight of small care homes in the private sector which have two or three residents. The owners are placed in the hopeless position of not even having funding for respite care, so they cannot have a few days' holiday and come back refreshed to look after their residents.
The community care settlements for Wales no longer have an adequate element of infrastructure funding—the money required to make the system work, as opposed to the money required to purchase the care that people need. That is despite the constant warnings of Welsh authorities that care in the community needed to be phased in over a number of years.
The Welsh Office should also examine the mismatch between health and social services authorities in respect of payments for care. While the Government's recent guidelines are at least an attempt to deal with the issue, reliance on the decisions of individual health and social services authorities means that different areas have different arrangements for the payment of care. That leads to the breakdown of sound common standards and fuels the anxiety and uncertainty felt by those who need care. They feel that they are merely numbers in a national lottery of care.
In rural Wales in particular, where there is a very high level of owner-occupation, uncertainty about payment for community care is leading people to believe—in some cases wrongly but, I fear, in some cases, rightly—that they will have to sell the family home or the family farm, family institutions which, in rural areas, might have existed for centuries.
If the Secretary of State does not wish to deal with such matters; if he is saying that he cannot afford to provide the money for decent care services or that he has no commitment to invest enough in the future of community care, he should make it clear that that is his view. If that is not his view, he should summon up from somewhere

1255
the leadership and imagination that he so strongly advocates as a general principle in The House Magazine this week, and of which he spoke earlier today.
Mr. Redwood: The House should remember that, in the current year, an additional £86 million was made available for care in the community, and that will rise to £124.4 million next year. That was the original planned amount even though inflation—I am glad to say—is much lower. I was recently pleased to visit the many new nursing and residential care homes being built on the back of the money that will be available in future for the people who need those places. I agree that some people need institutional care, and I have asked that we do not lose sight of that fact.
Mr. Carlile: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's final remark, to which I shall return in a moment. However, I remind him that the gap between grant and need was £20.7 million for 1993–94 and £38 million for 1994–95 and will be £71.8 million in 1995–96. Local authorities have no prospect of filling that gap. The Welsh Office has outlined a grant rise of £25.2 million for 1996–97, which will increase the overall funding for community care to £149.6 million, but that has to be set against the £346 million originally assessed to be the long-term additional cost of implementing community care in the period to which I have just referred. Although funding is being increased, it is falling ever shorter of what the Government knew perfectly well was needed. The mismatch to which I referred is therefore proved.
The Secretary of State holds the old-fashioned view that care of the elderly is the responsibility of families first and, where no alternative is available, possibly of the community. Of course families should take more responsibility for the care of the elderly if they can, just as they should take more responsibility for the actions of their children, if they can. But that philosophy—if it be his philosophy—is that of the poor law and workhouse for those who do not have loving, caring and responsible families.
Finally, I shall deal with those who require long-term institutional care. There are two excellent mental handicap hospitals in my constituency—Brynhyfryd near Welshpool and Llys Maldwyn at Caersws. Some people have been transferred between those hospitals in unsatisfactory circumstances. Some have been transferred from them, and have lost the standard of care that they received before. There has been one sad fatality as a result. Many face great uncertainty. We should not transfer, for instance, adults with serious mental handicaps from institution-based care to the community if adequate community resources do not exist. There is no sanctuary in the community if the community means isolation, limited support and poor staffing.
The patients and former patients of those hospitals—especially the least independent—provide a benchmark for the way in which the care in the community policy is working. If so, the verdict of the carers, of the energetic advocates of the residents' interests and of their relatives is one of bewilderment, uncertainty and, in some cases, anger. Surely a policy that leaves experts and the lay public alike in that state of mind cannot be judged a success. I appeal to the Secretary of State to re-examine both its funding and its implementation.
8 pm
Mr. Don Touhig: As I rise to make my maiden speech in this St. David's day debate, I am conscious of the privilege of standing here as Labour and Co-op Member of Parliament for Islwyn. I am privileged to follow in a great tradition—from Sir Charles Edwards, who was elected in 1918 and became a Labour Whip, to the much-respected Sir Harold Finch, who became a Welsh Office Minister in 1964 and was an acknowledged expert on miners' compensation. I am, of course, also privileged to succeed Neil Kinnock, my immediate predecessor.
Right hon. and hon. Members have already paid tribute to Neil Kinnock and his service in the House. I echo that tribute. Neil Kinnock was a great leader of the Labour party, and a fine and hard-working constituency Member of Parliament. He is held in high regard and a great deal of affection by the people whom he represented in Islwyn for 25 years. The fact that he did not become Prime Minister is one of the great political and social misfortunes to befall our country in this, the last part of the 20th century.
My constituency comprises a series of small towns and villages scattered along the mountains and valleys of west Gwent. Its people are warm-hearted and friendly, generous and good-natured. They possess a strong feeling of community and belonging, forged by generations who have known struggle and hardship. They are proud of their own and their children's achievements, which have often involved considerable sacrifices, but, like people everywhere, they want the best for their children and grandchildren. They want work, not benefits; they want opportunities to enrich their lives through education; and they want a decent standard of health care.
Those benefits are not available to a great many of the people who sent me to the House of Commons. We have 2,000 people unemployed in Islwyn; one third are under the age of 24, and one third have been unemployed for more than a year. The day after the Islwyn by-election, 80 job losses were announced at Hawker Siddeley in Blackwood. We have schools struggling to deliver education with budgets that have been squeezed because the Government have held back funds for public services. As for our health service, a hospital adjoining my constituency recently appealed to the public not to come to the casualty unit because there were not enough doctors to treat emergency cases.
My predecessor stood here to make his maiden speech in 1970 during a debate on health. Nearly a quarter of a century later, I too wish to speak about the national health service and the care that it provides for my constituents. A man from Gwent dreamed the dreams and gave us all the vision that became the NHS—Aneurin Bevan: he did it with drive and energy, in the face of the fiercest opposition from the Conservative party. He succeeded because all right-thinking people agreed that if our claim to be a civilised society had any legitimacy, no sick person should be denied treatment because he or she was unable to pay for it.
In his book "In Place of Fear", published in 1952, Bevan wrote:
"A free health service is a triumphant example of the superiority of collective action and public initiative applied to a segment of society where commercial principles are seen at their worst".

1257
That, 50 years on, the present Government have eroded the ideal of a free and accessible health service and once again allowed some of the worst aspects of commercialisation to creep into health care is proof of how far they have turned the clock back.
In his maiden speech, my predecessor said:
"Public confidence in the National Health Service will be eroded by governmental neglect and by the garish shop window of private health schemes."—[Official Report, 13 July 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1183.]
Ministers make much of so-called reforms of the health service, but—speaking for those who use it, as opposed to the Conservative Members who legislate on how it should be funded—I can tell the Secretary of State that he and his party have lost the confidence of the people of Wales, who do not trust them to care for our health service.
A few days ago, the Under-Secretary of State wrote to me—and to other Welsh Members of Parliament—about the NHS's responsibilities to meet continuing health care needs. He said that health authorities had been issued with new guidelines that confirmed that the NHS had a clear responsibility to arrange and fund a range of services to meet the needs of people who require continuing health care. Would that the Minister was so diligent in ensuring the availability of adequate funds for primary health care.
A lady whom I shall see in my surgery on Saturday morning has been suffering pain for a long time. She needs an operation on her spine, which has been postponed four times because the providers of the funds cannot reach an agreement with the hospital where the operation will be performed about the mechanisms of treating her and providing the money.
Similarly, if the Minister had been diligent the wife of a good friend of mine would not have been in considerable pain for some time. Her family recently had to make a difficult decision. She was told that she would not be able to obtain an appointment to see a consultant for six to eight weeks, and that if she needed treatment it could not be delivered for a year to 18 months. She was also told that she could be treated privately. The pain has been considerable, and the family has now decided that she will become a private patient. She saw a consultant on Tuesday this week, and will be admitted to hospital tomorrow morning to have the treatment that she so badly needs: and the Conservative party says that it is not delivering a two-tier health service!
On Wednesday, The Times reported that four fundholding general practices in London were sharing nearly £ 1 million of budget savings that they had made on drug provision and health care. Last night I talked to an old friend of mine, Dipak Ray, a respected GP in Pengam. He said that there might be some justification for making savings on drug provision—but savings on hospital care? Who is suffering as a result of that?
I understand that on Monday the Public Accounts Committee heard of another fundholding practice in Essex that had used £30,000 of savings in its budget—a budget given to those GPs for health care—to open a health shop selling woks. The GPs offered patients £1 off the cost of a wok if they brought in their own frying pans. It reminds me of the pantomime about Aladdin and his lamp. I recently attended a performance of that pantomime at Cefn Fforest junior school in my constituency.
1258
I am sure that hon. Members know the story of Aladdin and his lamp, and how the wicked Uncle Abenazer managed to get possession of the lamp by offering new lamps for old. The Secretary of State is a modern-day Uncle Abenazer, peddling cranky economic theories to fund our health service, which he offers in exchange for the values of a free health service accessible to all.
In Gwent, we have 17 GP fundholding practices. The Welsh Office has recently announced a change in the guidelines and now GPs with just 4,000 patients may apply to become fundholders. Under the guise of giving GPs control of their budgets, the Welsh Office is continuing to develop a two-tier health service.
In Islwyn we have no general hospital. Recently, a plan for health care in the Islwyn area showed that in 1993–94, 30,000 people from the constituency went to their nearest general hospital out-patient department, some 15 miles away from Blackwood at Newport. The No. 1 priority identified in that health plan is the need for a hospital at Islwyn with in-patient, out-patient and minor casualty facilities. Gwent health authority proposed a neighbourhood hospital for Islwyn in its "Gwent 2000" document some years ago. I hope that the new health commission will honour this commitment, for which I have launched a petition and gained support throughout the constituency.
In Islwyn, the percentage of babies with low birth weight is higher than anywhere in Wales. Islwyn has the lowest vaccination rate in Gwent for children under two years old and for pre-school vaccination boosters. Islwyn has the highest level of untreated dental disease among children. Breast cancer, the commonest cause of death among women between 45 and 54 years old, causes great concern. Although the number of cases may be comparatively small, their incidence has considerable impact on families. Unfortunately, there is a great lack of knowledge among the public about how to cope with those difficulties. People do not seem to know where to get help.
The Islwyn Cancer Link group, which is run by a voluntary team of women who operate from a portakabin, is doing the job that should be done by the health service in Islwyn. It is so desperately in need of funds that the mayor of Islwyn, Joyce Morgan, has made Cancer Link and raising funds for it her charity this year. We are returning to flag days to raise funds for the health service.
In Islwyn, people over 65 years old already form 15 per cent. of the population. That number will increase to half the population by 2026 and population projections show that the proportion of people over 75 in Islwyn will be the highest in Gwent by 2006. We must begin to prepare care for those people.
There is an increasing incidence of asthma among the young and an increasing death rate from respiratory diseases such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema among men. Known cases of Huntingdon's disease are four times the national average and there are twice the number of deaths from the disease than are expected in a constituency the size of mine, yet there is only limited genetic counselling available.
Those figures are given as an updated audit on the state of health care in the constituency of Islwyn. Health service resources should be available to the patient when he or she needs them. Provision of health service care is the responsibility of the community and its Government. Refusing people treatment when they need health care

1259
because of problems with organising funding or if they cannot go private is acting like those who passed on the other side of the road to Jericho. It may make sound economic sense to the Conservative party, but it is morally indefensible for the Government of Britain to behave so at the end of the 20th century.
8.13 pm
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and thank him very much for his important speech and his critique of Government policy on the health service. I enjoyed my occasional stay in Islwyn during the campaign, saw something of the hon. Gentleman and appreciated the spirit in which the campaign was fought. My one regret is that, during his maiden speech, there were not more Conservative Members present to listen to what he said.
Mr. Ron Davies: There are too many.
Mr. Dafis: Indeed, but more should have been here to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
I want to speak about the education service in Wales, especially about what is going on in Dyfed. Three weeks ago, I attended a packed meeting—so packed that some people had to be excluded—at Trinity college Carmarthen that was convened by the federations of school governors in Dyfed and the parent-teacher associations. It was attended by parents, teachers, school governors and councillors united—I emphasise—in anger at the crisis facing schools as a result of cuts in county funding.
The catalyst for the meeting was the Welsh Office's refusal to fund the teachers' pay rise of 2.7 per cent. The immediate objective of the meeting was to urge Dyfed county council to use some of its reserves to fund the shortfall. It was said that unless Dyfed dug into its reserves, about 150 teachers would be dismissed in September, there would be cuts in the schools' budgets of 2.8 per cent. despite an anticipated increase in pupil numbers and one third of Dyfed's schools would find themselves in budget deficit.
The immediate objective was achieved. The following day, Dyfed county council agreed to release £1.3 million from its £4 million reserves to fund the 2.7 per cent. pay award over what had been originally intended. The meeting recognised too that there was an underlying and severe funding problem that pre-dated the teachers' pay award of 2.7 per cent. Underlying that crisis, there was something much deeper.
Since 1993, Dyfed county council has found its budget squeezed in an intolerable fashion. In 1994–95, for example, the budget was increased by 1.75 per cent. in a year when inflation ran at more than 2 per cent. In 1995–96, the increase will be 0.4 per cent., when inflation is anticipated to be between 3 and 4 per cent. On top of inflation, of course, which is crucial, the county council in particular, along with other local authorities, has faced additional responsibilities and demands—many of them statutory. It has found itself facing the results of demographic changes—an increase in the number of elderly people and the associated cost—and an increase in the number of schoolchildren.
1260
I shall cite one example of the additional statutory requirements faced by a county such as Dyfed—indeed, by all counties in Wales in recent years. The Education Act 1993 created a statementing procedure for special educational needs that local authorities are obliged to implement. The increase in the amount of statements over recent years is worth noting and is very significant. The number of statements has increased from 646 in 1990 to 2,117 in 1995. In other words, it has more than trebled, which requires resources and involves costs. That constant increase has been driven, first, by parent demand—parents' awareness of what could be available to them and their awareness of their rights in that regard—and, of course, by statutory provision.
In 1993–94, Dyfed budgeted £5.4 million for special educational needs. It actually spent in that year, because it was obliged to, nearer £6 million. In 1994–95, the budget was set at £6.167 million, but it is likely to be £6.76 million. The 1995–96 budget has meant that Dyfed has had to cut education spending by 3 per cent.—£4.5 million. That cut in education is the lowest proportional cut across the departments of the county council.
I want to give some examples of what is being cut. People have been perfectly justified in demanding additional resources for discretionary awards in further education. However, Dyfed is having to cut £150,000 in respect of discretionary awards. Over recent years, community education has increasingly been becoming a Cinderella. That is regrettable. However, Dyfed is having to cut £100,000 from its community education.
Dyfed is also having to cut the repair and maintenance of school buildings by £1.4 million. That is a hopeless approach to housekeeping. Dyfed is also having to cut £100,000 from in-service teacher training. In doing so, it loses the opportunity of GEST—grants for education support and training—funding from the Welsh Office of a further £150,000.
More important than any of that is the fact that there is no provision in Dyfed's budget this year for inflation in school budgets for non-pay items—books, materials and equipment. At a time when we are talking about the need to raise education standards, the basic materials are now being cut because there is no provision for inflation.
The lack of provision for inflation means that schools will have to fund a significant part of the teachers' pay rise from their own budgets. They will have to find that money from their reserves—some schools have reserves, but others have deficits and no reserves—or from a further cut in the funding for books, materials and so on. The euphemism used in that regard is efficiency savings.
When the basic provisions in schools are cut, the situation becomes critical. At the very best it means that a school's parents and supporters will have to raise funds to make up the shortfall. They are raising funds now, not for additional luxuries that one might think it reasonable for parents to contribute to, but for the fundamental necessities of education in schools. That is entirely unacceptable because it is an unfair burden. Parents find that they must contribute constantly to all kinds of causes. It is also pernicious because it is inequitable. Parents in some areas are clearly better able to make up the shortfall than parents in other areas. Inequity is increasingly becoming a feature of the school scene.
That state of affairs has led governors in Dyfed, not councillors, to ask for a meeting with the Secretary of State for Wales. I do not know whether he has received

1261
the request yet. If not, he will receive it soon and I hope that he will agree to the meeting. Tomorrow, representatives of people in Dyfed will hand in 2,000 letters to the Welsh Office in Cardiff and a petition will be presented in the near future.
People are very angry. I have rarely felt such anger among people in respect of the implementation of policy. There is deep anger, resentment and hostility towards the Government. People now understand perfectly what is happening. They understand what is afoot. They understand the hidden agenda, which has been exposed to all and sundry. The agenda is to undermine and remove local authority responsibility for schools. The intention is that that should be achieved by a combination of Government-imposed financial constraint and privation and the promotion of grant-maintained status, complete with inducements. These are the pincers the Government are using in order to bring their aim to fruition.
Part of the process involves obliging local authorities to dip into their reserves to reduce those reserves to perilously low levels. That weakens the position of local government in the process of reorganisation.
The Government are zealous in their promotion of grant-maintained status. Last July, the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) announced new measures in relation to GM status that meant that governors were obliged to consider the issue annually; the issue had to appear on the agenda every year. There was always an increased aid package for schools considering becoming grant-maintained.
The former Minister of State's successor, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), the hammer of local government, is even more fanatical in his zeal for GM status. In September, he announced that information packs were to be sent to schools—and these are his words; I would not use them—
"outlining the advantages and opportunities offered by grant-maintained status."
Those information packs include significant inducements. Special purpose grants, capital grants and transitional grants are on offer. Those grants are significantly more generous than anything that could be available from a local education authority. For example, an 80-pupil school would, if it opted for and obtained GM status, receive a total of £53,400 in its first year. That is quite an inducement and it is difficult to resist.
Dyfed county council has calculated the difference between what the Welsh Office would provide in that way and what the local education authority would be able to provide. If all schools in Dyfed were to become grant-maintained, the difference between what the Welsh Office is offering as an inducement and what Dyfed can offer would be £14,936,000. That is a nice sum which Dyfed could use to combat its shortfall.
An extrapolation of that concept on an all-Wales basis shows that the Government are offering £124 million if all the schools in Wales were to choose GM status and the Welsh Office agreed to that. It is worth asking what would happen if that occurred. Would the Welsh Office be prepared to foot such a bill?
Significant inducements are on offer and all that is happening at the same time as local government reorganisation. Local authorities will soon have to prepare and present their service delivery plans for the new
1262
unitary authorities. Those plans are the descriptions of how they are going to deliver services, and that includes education.
How can local authorities possibly decide how to deliver education services? How can they decide the size of the establishment which will be available or which they will have to recruit? How can they decide how best to collaborate with adjoining local authorities to arrange the delivery of services if they cannot even be sure how many schools they will have to service?
It is quite clear that it is the Government's intention—I believe this; it is not just rhetoric—to achieve their aim of making GM status the norm and having all schools in Wales grant-maintained by creating disorder in the existing system. When the Conservative party presents itself as the advocate of social order and the orderly implementation of policies, it is astonishing to find a Conservative Government employing tactics of the worst kind of anarchism to achieve their aim. They believe that if they undermine the present system, they will be able to create their new Jerusalem according to their own values and model. The greatest deceit is that that is done in the name of choice and diversity.
I was very disappointed to hear the leader of the Labour party recently defend the grant-maintained sector as providing a welcome element of choice. Of course, we know that choice exists for those who can afford it and for those who are themselves chosen. Grant-maintained status and its development are really about selection. That is what it will inevitably lead to, and that is implicit in the Education Act. The reintroduction of selection at 11-plus is its intention. In part, grant-maintained status is a vehicle for that. The statement of the Labour leader clearly shows the need for distinctive Welsh policies and for the power to legislate in Wales, whatever party is in power in London.
Hardly any aspect of policy demonstrates more clearly the need for Welsh self-government than education. The so-called reforms of the past decade have been designed in a way that, at best, is inappropriate for Wales and they are certainly incompatible with our values and aspirations. That is true of the encouragement of competition between schools, the design of the curriculum, which is inappropriate to the Welsh situation, and the setting up of two parallel systems of public sector schools and then letting them fight it out to the death. That is what the Government are imposing.
Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman said that the design of the national curriculum for Wales was inappropriate. Does he mean, therefore, that making Welsh a core subject in the national curriculum was inappropriate for Wales?
Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman would be surprised if I answered yes. I am referring not to that but to the structure of the curriculum and the fact that the curriculum has not been designed on the basis of the knowledge that pupils in Wales should receive. I am referring, too, to one very simple fact: that the design of the curriculum, which is uniform across England and Wales, ignores the fact that we have an additional subject in Wales, to use rather old-fashioned language, which takes up four to five

1263
lessons a week, yet the content of all the other subjects is designed for a curriculum that does not include that additional subject. That is a perfectly good example.
Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman must know that the orders for the national curriculum in Wales are designed for Wales and are different from those for England—in Welsh subjects.
Mr. Dafis: I anticipated that that would be said. Of course, we have some variation in the orders in some subjects. We have what is called a Curriculum Cymreig. It is totally inadequate. What we need in Wales is a curriculum based on Welsh values and Welsh ideas and the knowledge that is appropriate to our needs. We need something much more radical than the present curriculum. By the way, we also need to strengthen the powers of ACAC—the Curriculum Assessment Authority for Wales—which is little more than a subsidiary of the London-based body, the Schools Curriculum Assessment Authority.
I think that I have made my point about what the Government's agenda is. The good news is that the Government's agenda is now well understood. The Government have been rumbled good and proper. The people of Wales are enraged by the combination of subterfuge and bullying that now occurs. Matters have reached the stage at which, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) mentioned, the Welsh Office was actually afraid—I use that word advisedly—to send a Minister to an important BBC television debate on the state of the nation, which was broadcast on Tuesday. That is an extraordinary state of affairs—the Government were not prepared to be represented in such a debate.
It is infuriating that the situation in Wales is being driven by a Secretary of State who has the democratic mandate of the people of Wokingham only, who, within the Cabinet, has led the drive for public expenditure cuts, and who is now leading the drive for tax cuts before the next election. The Secretary of State is the arch-proponent of competition as a motive force of public sector services, including education. The Secretary of State, of course, has been overwhelmingly rejected by the Welsh electorate.
While that mayhem is occurring, the real education issues in Wales that should be occupying our minds are largely unaddressed. We should debate how to raise school standards in Wales—standards need to be raised—without recourse to the irrelevant market mechanisms that the Government regard as their only instrument. What examination and assessment system is likely to contribute to raising standards in Wales? We need to look carefully at the ideas that have been put forward by the Institute of Welsh Affairs in its recent document on the Welsh education system.
How best can we deliver education for 16 to 18-year-olds within an integrated framework instead of the present mish-mash in which education for that age group is funded from two different sources and in which we have the ridiculous competition between further education colleges and school sixth forms and so on? What structure should there be for a truly Welsh national curriculum? How can we best expand the advantages of Welsh-medium education and knowledge of the Welsh language so that they become available to all?
1264
Those are the real issues. They remain undiscussed because we do not have a democratic forum in which to debate them. Those issues will remain unattended until we have a self-governing Wales that sets its own priorities and is charged with the task of building our own national future. The achievement of a self-governing Wales is now being assisted daily by the Government's opposition to it. Every time they open their mouths, they strengthen the case for Welsh self-government, but the achievement of it must be the central theme of Welsh politics.
8.35 pm
Mr. Llew Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) on a remarkable contribution, which I would have expected from him. He represents a constituency with a fine tradition and a fine past. If things go well in the next couple of years, he will also represent a constituency with a fine future. We all look forward to that day.
If the Government had been in office for only the past 15 months, I could understand their refusal to accept responsibility for many of the problems that we face in communities throughout Wales, but they have not been in office for 15 months—they have been in office for 15 years. Because of that, they must accept responsibility not only for the problems but for the devastation that they have inflicted upon our communities.
That devastation shows itself in many ways. It shows itself, for example, in poverty levels in communities such as mine in Blaenau Gwent. I am continually reminded of that devastation. Indeed, I was reminded of it at a meeting last year with the local authority, the Welsh Development Agency, the training and enterprise councils and the Department of Employment. In response to a question that I asked about the wage levels for all job vacancies on one day in Blaenau Gwent, the Department of Employment replied that the average hourly wage rate was just over £3. How would the Minister advise people in that situation on bringing up their families in decency and dignity, with that money? I go one further: I ask him to visit my community in Blaenau Gwent and to tell those people how to bring up their children when faced with hourly wage rates of £3.
That problem is not peculiar to my community; it is happening in working-class communities throughout the United Kingdom. I am sure that all hon. Members could give many examples of wage levels below £3 an hour. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) gave such an example some weeks ago, when he referred to a vacancy that was advertised in the local jobcentre. It was for a security guard, who was to be paid the grand sum of £1.80 an hour, and who was advised to bring his own guard dog. That is not an isolated example. Such jobs crop up in Blaenau Gwent and in the communities that my hon. Friends represent.
We can see how bad the situation is, but for the unemployed it is even worse. May I allow some of those unemployed people to speak, and try to explain to the House the feelings and frustrations that they experience every day of their lives? I shall do that through a document which some of us produced a year ago, and which contains what some of the families facing the problems of unemployment say.

1265
First we hear from an unemployed couple with one child at home. Father, aged 49, is on invalidity benefit, suffers from spondylitis arthritis and has not worked for 11 years. He said:
"The Hoover's broken, it'll cost about £70 to repair so we'll just have to go without. We don't go on holiday—just day trips. We don't go out, we don't drink … We have got into debt, but we learnt from that. If we want something now we sit down and talk about it. You've got to watch every penny … I think we go from day to day. We feel a bit depressed. It affects your whole life—it's monotonous. Some days we get up thinking if only something was different."
Next comes a single parent aged 23, with three children, living on £90.60 a week. She said:
"It's a struggle to live. I don't manage on the money. I've got a lot of debt but I get help from my mam and aunties. We never go on holiday."
The next family consists of an unemployed couple with a son who is also unemployed. Father, aged 62, had been unemployed for 10 years. He worked on the buildings for 30 years, often on low pay, and he said:
"People like us will get into debt. The social will only give you a loan and then you have to fight for it. We put in for a £70 loan for a cooker and they wanted £8 a week back off us. Well we didn't bother—we couldn't afford to pay that… We went on holiday once—we paid for a caravan—that's in more than 30 years of marriage…I came from Manchester and people who did well gave back to the community. They built the library and created parks but people don't do that now … I'm not optimistic for me, nor for my grandchildren. The chosen few will be getting all the resources and all the others will get left out."
In many ways, that sums up the frustrations felt by the people who face the problems of unemployment and the linked problems of poverty.
We are all aware that we cannot measure unemployment by the statistics provided by the Department of Employment, because it has been proved time after time in the House that those statistics have been fiddled on a regular basis for the past 15 years.
I was interested to read the results of a survey sponsored by the Government, on unemployment in the former coal mining areas of south Wales. The survey said that male adult unemployment stood at 33 per cent. When I put the figures to the Secretary of State some weeks ago, he did not deny them, and agreed that there were still pockets of unemployment. The south Wales coalfield is not a pocket; it is a vast area experiencing vast problems.
Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on one pocket of unemployment in my constituency. In our study of poverty, we interviewed families in one street, and the results were staggering. The survey said:
"Of the 58 households, we were able to interview 54, making a total of 91 adults and 86 children. Of those 91 adults, 22 people were working, 60 people were out of work, of whom 13 were single parents, five were retired and four classed themselves as housewives. At least 16 people were suffering from some kind of disability or illness. Of the 86 children, 57 came from homes where no one was working.
In 40 of the homes at least one person was without work, in 32 homes all the adults were out of work, including single parents, and in 15 of the homes at least one member was working."
When I see so many people unemployed, it always serves as a reminder of how crazy the system is. For example, we are going through one of the worst housing crises for decades, yet we have hundreds of thousands of building workers on the dole. Our national health service has been devastated and has long waiting lists, yet there are nurses and other people with tremendous skills on the dole. That is just crazy.
1266
When the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) was talking about the coal industry, he said that it had been necessary to respond to the problems of overmanning. The response was novel. I have never known anyone else who has responded to the problems of overmanning in an industry by totally wiping out that industry.
When we discuss poverty, we are not talking about unemployment and low wages alone. We are also talking about bad housing, poor health and an environment that is often savage. For example, the 1991 census revealed that 41 per cent. of all households in my constituency have a member suffering from long-term sickness or disability. That compares with a proportion of about 33 per cent. for the rest of Wales. Blaenau Gwent has one of the highest levels in England and Wales.
A Gwent health survey for the years 1985–89 confirms that the most deprived parts of the county experience he worst health. Again that is true of Blaenau Gwent, where deaths from lung cancer, respiratory disease and heart disease are all above the national average, and even the county average.
In the face of such problems, one would have thought that the area health authority for Gwent would be composed of people who had devoted their lives to the health service and knew what was required to make it better and to respond to the health needs of the people in my community. But that is not so. The area health authority is made up of building specialists, roofing experts, former gas purchasing officers and even fruit farmers. But where are the people who have devoted their lives to the national health service? Would not that service have been far better managed over the past decade or more if nurses, ancillary workers, doctors and consumers had had a greater say in its running and the business people out to make quick money had had less of a say?
While I am talking about health, may I ask the Minister when he sums up to explain why student nurses attending the purpose-built centre at Caerleon have had to move to Llandaff hospital, where the facilities are inferior, in order to continue their studies? The costs and the travel time for nurses in my constituency are now much greater, and their examinations are only a couple of months away. That is another loss for Gwent and another disincentive for people contemplating nursing as a career. Will the Minister also explain why those nurses had only five days' notice of the move?
Another way of measuring poverty in an area is to examine its housing stock. The 1991 census shows that housing conditions in the borough of Blaenau Gwent have improved, but remain poor. For example, 2.6 per cent. of pensioner households do not have their own bathroom or inside toilet. More than 40 per cent. of housing was built before 1990, almost all by the private sector, and much of it is in poor repair.
Much of the public housing also has its problems, for two main reasons. First, there is a high percentage of prefabricated concrete council housing. Secondly, most council estates are on hillsides, where the conditions make homes hard to heat and where homes need regular maintenance. Government policies and low income among owner-occupiers have made it increasingly difficult to maintain or improve the quality of the existing housing in the borough. At the same time, homelessness and the demand for homes are growing.

1267
I have heard many Ministers extolling the virtues of a dynamic market economy. If it is a dynamic market economy, why are we faced with the problems that exist in my constituency? Why are millions of people unemployed throughout the United Kingdom? Why are we experiencing the worst housing crisis for decades? Why are the differences in wealth and income growing? Finally, if the economy is so dynamic and successful, why is it that the Government will soon be dumped from office?
8.49 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I would have loved to chase at greater length aspects of the Secretary of State's speech, which, in some ways, was extremely revealing. Where did he turn to for his economic and social models? The United States. That was a very interesting choice.
The shape and character of the communities for which the right hon. Gentleman now claims to speak are based on anything but American styles of society. The economic and industrial experience shaped social cohesion and it was often the battle against capitalism which gave the distinctive character to the communities that I and my hon. Friends represent. We are now told that the economic, and presumably social, model to follow is one that has led to a huge and growing underclass and a largely alienated population who are turning more to guns and drugs than to any form of social values. Is that the model that the Secretary of State wants us to follow?
I want to make health the focus of my remarks. It is to the American-style model that the Government have turned to find a health model. We have in the purchaser-contractor-provider system a half-baked version of the American health system. One of the characteristics of the American system is that it is extremely expensive in administrative terms. Everything that I have read suggests that 15 per cent. of the costs in the United States go on the contracting, accounting and administration of the health service.
The NHS has always been inexpensive in administrative terms, with only 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. of costs going on administration. But the figure is now rising progressively. We should be worried that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to apply American models to our services, and in particular to the health service.
I shall pay the Secretary of State, who is a curious mixture of a man, a compliment. The right hon. Gentleman did something that few Secretaries of State would have done. He came up to see a hospital that was under threat of closure, and talked to the people involved. That was much appreciated. The meeting on that occasion was revealing and illustrative in many ways. The Secretary of State was greeted by the chairman and chief executive of the area health authority and by the accountant unit manager of the district. They were on one side.
On the other side were the people whom I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to see and who represented the views that I was expressing. They included the nurses at Mardy hospital, the people interested in maintaining the fabric of the building, the carers and the patients. The
1268
Secretary of State was hearing two separate voices, and he will have to make up his mind on which he wishes to listen to.
One of the growing consequences of the right hon. Gentleman's reforms—he cannot wash his hands of it—is the increase in the number of men in grey suits. The growing need for accountants, negotiators and contractors is a consequence of the purchaser-provider model that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to impose on the NHS.
I am pragmatic in most respects. I have heard all the arguments, claims and counter-claims about expenditure, and about the huge amounts that the Government claim to have spent on the health service. Like the Secretary of State, I have talked to the people who are trying to deliver the service. In one way, half of what I have been told proves the Government's case. Those involved in the service have said that they never thought about costs, or about the way in which they ought to have utilised their resources in the most efficient manner.
That is certainly a factor in the matter. But while we might accept the diagnosis, the Government's prescription is equally senseless. Top specialists now spend more of their time accounting for the service than delivering it, and more time administrating than administering the service. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) referred to a similar situation in education. In that area also, the prescription is half-baked.
The purchaser-contractor-provider concept is now a problem rather than a solution. While that is bad enough—it is absorbing energies and costs that ought to be delivering front-line services—it is now also distorting clinical judgments and affecting the delivery of the service.
I shall illustrate that in a couple of ways. First, an elderly person who was suffering from advanced lung cancer was admitted to a district hospital, although it was not a hospital that I represent or, indeed, even in Wales. Her family were told that she was terminally ill but not acutely ill, so she should be discharged from the hospital. The semantics of that are interesting.
I can just about understand something like that happening, because the prognosis was that the person did not need the acute facilities of a major district general hospital. But the family were told that they should make arrangements to send the patient to a private nursing home, which would cost about £300 or £400 a week, because she was terminally ill and not acutely ill. Those are the distinctions which are creeping in and which have grown in the service. We are counting costs more than thinking about the quality of service to patients.
This week the Department issued a revealing document as a result of some health ombudsman cases in Leeds. Let me read out what it was necessary to tell the health districts and authorities not to do. The document that the Secretary of State has just published states:
"In addition patients who have finished acute treatment or inpatient palliative health care in a hospital or hospice, but whose prognosis is that they are likely to die in the very near future should be able to choose to remain in NHS funded accommodation".
I support that. The very fact that such advice has had to be issued shows that it cannot have been happening.
Terminally ill people, as in the case that I have just described, have been pushed out of hospital. Why? Because of the cost argument and the implications for beds in district general hospitals as opposed to elsewhere.

1269
Fancy having to issue such a document in 1995, and having to tell the people providing the service that that is the guideline that they should follow. It is a powerful illustration of the corrosive influence of contracting and purchasing and of the way in which they are affecting our service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) made a powerful speech. It was almost the speech that I would have liked to make on health.
I shall give the Secretary of State another illustration. Let us turn from the Mardy to the Prince Charles hospital. We are trying to save money. Opposition Members understand the need for minding costs and being efficient. We also understand the need for new technology. One of the consequences of new technology in eye surgery is that everyone can be treated on a daily basis. Patients do not need to stay in a hospital, which sounds ideal. But in practice, 80-year-old patients are having to get up at 5 am or 6 am to turn up at the hospital by 8 am for day surgery. They are discharged by lunchtime or early afternoon and told to put drops in their eyes. I am 55 and my hands are shaky enough—I could not put drops in my eyes—so imagine telling 80-year-olds to put drops in their own eyes and to come back the following day and the day after for new dressings. That is the other side of the coin of driving through this contracting and purchasing model, and everyone is conscious of it. Service and the concept of care are becoming less important than cost. We need to strike a balance, but at the moment it is being struck the wrong way.
We can all quote cases. On Saturday, a chap whose shoulder was destroyed in an accident came to see me. It means that he cannot work. He went to the hospital in Newport—not to the Prince Charles in my constituency—and was told that he would have to wait six months for an operation. He cannot go back to work and will become a dependant of the state. He was also told, however, that he could meet the same surgeon and have the same operation within a few days, if he paid his £1,000 or £2,000. That is an illustration of the corrosive influence of the growing queues—people are profiting from protracted pain.
I do not think that the Secretary of State wants that sort of national health service. I have had extensive correspondence with him, his predecessor and with junior Ministers who have dealt with health, including the Under-Secretary of State. I have seen them about more than one patient and told them about my worries and concerns and about the corrosive influence of this evil business of private patient care and the national health service beginning to mix—the so-called green book guidelines and all the rest, and the fact that people can drive a coach and horses through them. That is the sort of worry that we have over a major area of public service and care.
Frankly, there is an alternative model. The Secretary of State has tried to produce one and now I shall. Whether in education or health, in hospitals or schools, unlike Wokingham, London and other suburban areas, we do not have the choice in my constituency. The services are near monopolies. There are only one or two general practitioners whom we can go to and only one hospital. Our children are likely to go to one primary or secondary school. The Government try to use the concept of competition, contracts and that type of model to attack the concept of the monopoly. I understand why, if there is a
1270
monopoly, one must make it very accountable, both in terms of cost and sensitivity to the public, but the Government have got their model wrong. They are trying to graft a competition model on to what, for the vast majority of people, is a monopoly service, whether it be the health service or schools.
Instead of contractors and providers and all these corn-petition models, we should try to adopt another system. I have a couple of recommendations for health. Let us pack up the nonsense of purchaser-contractor-provider. By all means have a powerful, lean and hungry bunch of people, who can act as health auditors. The Government have taught us the power of regulation in gas and electricity, which has delivered power to consumers. I must admit that we were poor supporters of consumers in many curious ways. The regulator is an interesting model to follow. The concept of regulation can be used in both health and education as an alternative to the purchaser-provider model and the pretence of competition, which exists in neither health nor education in most of our communities.
We could also borrow from local management of schools, which has worked in education, devolving responsibility downwards, by putting sisters and matrons back in charge of hospitals. I now meet chief nursing officers whom I have never seen in uniform as they no longer work on hospital wards. I come from a family of sisters and matrons and know that, when sisters and matrons were responsible for the accounts, they were the best and meanest at them. We need neither accountants nor trusts at the top, but responsibility should be devolved back to where it belongs.
Above all, for philosophical reasons we must change the language. Let us talk about a public service and engage people who want to serve. I do not want my health service or hospital run by a chief executive who demands a car, performance-related pay, share options or some kind of bonus in order to activate him into being committed to the show. Patients should not be referred to as clients or customers. Let us put the concept of service back where it belongs—in the service, whether it is education or health. We must get away from the ethos of contracts, money and commercialism driving the system, but by all means retain a tough regime in terms of cost. That is the model which my hon. Friends must promote as a distinct and clear alternative to commercial values, competition and the corrosive influences that the Secretary of State and others have brought into our health and education services.
9.6 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I suspect that the Secretary of State shares many of the values which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has just set out in terms of community and service. Our argument against the Secretary of State is that his ideological impulses push him in the opposite direction and lead to results which are wholly contrary to the values that I believe he espouses.
I join my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), in paying fulsome tribute to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). He comes from the valleys and brings with him

1271
much of the breath of the valleys. The examples that he gave show that he will represent powerfully the constituency of Islwyn.
St. David's day is our annual Welsh day and this is the only opportunity that we have to review the state of the nation. In my brief contribution I shall try to sermonise on two headlines in yesterday's Western Mail. The first may be a little partisan. It says:
"Tories in Wales face wipe-out at elections".
The second is a charming little headline which reads:
"John Redwood wants the dragon to roar".
With regard to the first headline, the current 12 per cent. support for the Conservative party in Wales illustrates a fundamental contradiction in Welsh politics: although the Labour party has consistently had about half the popular support, for the past 16 years the Conservative party has ruled Wales. Are the Government and Conservative representatives in Wales not embarrassed by that? Have they sought to combat the inevitable frustration and potential alienation of the Welsh people? Are they aware of the sensitivities of Wales? Have they tried to promote community and a sense of Welsh identity? The record is patchy.
On language, the Government have a pretty good record. Here I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts): on the whole, he handled with great sensitivity an issue which could have been explosive in Wales. The package, which continues to evolve, will—for a time, at least—meet the general consensus in Wales.
Overall, however, the Government's record is not good. They have sought in many ways to emasculate the local elected representatives by means of increasingly severe financial constraints and have also sought to attack their personal competence for the work. The Secretary of State well knows the record of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), in that respect and I shall not repeat what is well known to Members of the House. The Government have also sought to bypass the elected representatives by creating and encouraging a series of quangos, which are a form of outdoor relief for friends and relations of members of the Conservative party and create disillusion and frustration in Wales.
Nationally, the political maturity of the people of Wales is attacked by the Government by injecting into the argument about devolution—I well understand that there are cogent arguments on both sides—the suggestion that an elected assembly in Cardiff would inevitably, as night follows day, lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. Surely Wales is more sophisticated than that.
Mr. Rowlands: They used that argument against appointing a Secretary of State for Wales.
Mr. Anderson: Indeed. The right hon. Member for Conwy will shortly visit Catalonia. Does the fact that Catalonia has an elected assembly, which encourages the language there, of itself inevitably entail the break-up of Spain? Has not every one of the motor regions with which Wales is linked—Lombardy, Baden-Wurttemberg, Rhône-Alpes, and so on—at least some focus at regional-national level where people can feel that their problems are tackled more sensitively than at the overall national level? Why must the Conservative party try to
1272
frighten people with a Domesday scenario, saying that the heavens will fall, the Rhine will overflow and the United Kingdom will break up if we, like every other country in Europe, have an elected regional assembly? Surely the argument can be conducted on a more elevated level.
On the theme of Welsh identity, Government policies have eroded the sense of Welsh identity of institutions in Wales in many ways. Let us take the privatised utilities. Some, like Welsh Water, encourage Welsh identity, but others are moving their centres of operation increasingly away from Wales; one thinks of the gas industry in that respect. British Rail, which remains a nationalised undertaking, is moving increasingly away from Wales.
I wish to mention to the Secretary of State one further institution—the traffic commissioners. I hope that the Secretary of State will, in his usual courteous way, seek to inquire into that problem and perhaps respond to me. The Secretary of State may be aware that, five years ago, we fought successfully against the threat to move the traffic commissioners away from Cardiff. I understand that that threat has now reappeared, and I hope that the Secretary of State will try to fight for their retention. Will the Secretary of State inquire into the matter and try to provide an assurance that south Wales will continue to have its own licensing authority and traffic commissioner, notwithstanding what may or may not appear in the review of traffic area offices currently being carried out? Large and small institutions are moving away from Wales. I welcome the arrival of the Chemical bank and other groups in Cardiff, but they do not underpin the financial structure. Such moves are relatively shallow and fragile. I hope that we will seek to develop institutions—both private and public—as a focus of Welsh identity in Cardiff rather than stand by and watch as they are increasingly dragged away from Wales.
Having described the erosion of many institutions, I thought that there had been a great change when I read the headline,
"John Redwood wants the dragon to roar".
Had there been a Damascus conversion? Was the Secretary of State donning the cloak of Wales and seeking to promote Welshness? Alas, no—he was making a rather petty attempt at parading his anti-European feelings. The Secretary of State has many virtues. He is intellectually rigorous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, he will look at things in person and he has an open-door policy. However, he must recognise that his political views are those of an English nationalist and that his ideology is not consonant with the interests of the Welsh people. It is no wonder that the polls show only 12 per cent. support for the Conservative party in Wales.
The Welsh people sometimes feel like the African leaders of the 1950s who pleaded, "Please, let us make our own mistakes." The Secretary of State is out of touch with our radical traditions and the forces which have helped Wales to develop its own sense of identity. He will always put market-based solutions first, even if they are against the interests of the Welsh people.
One example is the likely announcement about a cardiac unit at Morriston hospital. The Secretary of State will be aware that there are strong suspicions that he has been pushing for the BUPA solution, which constitutes a vote of no confidence in the in-house bid from Morriston hospital. I shall be delighted if the Secretary of State will

1273
confirm that there is no foundation to the rumour about the unit going to BUPA and that the in-house group will win.
Mr. Redwood: I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not pushing for any solution. There will be a proper assessment of the relative strengths of each case and the right answer will be reached. I am not trying to bias the assessment in any way and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept my reassurance.
Mr. Anderson: I hear the Secretary of State's reassurance and I hope that that is true.
The Secretary of State was most eloquent about the super-highway and the virtues of computer technology. Of course, Wales cannot be exempt from such technology, but we should not be beguiled when the fact is that in many ways computers can destroy jobs.
The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Morriston announced last year that the Government's expenditure of £12 million on a new computer would mean the loss of 700 jobs in an area of high unemployment over a two-year period. That sector is not subject to competitive pressure and the decision does not make sense. The Secretary of State must be aware that a job means a personal identity for many individuals. I am not arguing for inefficiency, but the Government can help to provide identities for people by creating new jobs in depressed areas.
Finally, I make an appeal to the Secretary of State on the subject of drugs. He has been most eloquent about the drug menace and the evil men behind it. However, a key project in my county—the west Glamorgan drug prevention unit—is to close this month. The Home Office has withdrawn funding and the people there are already dispersed. In the current financial year the Government are spending less than £400 million on drug prevention. Yet the Secretary of State's only response—again, he will correct me if I am wrong—was that on 20 October last year he announced with a flourish that he would he establishing a small new team of officials to take practical steps for prevention and cure. My understanding from experts in west Glamorgan is that the rest is silence and there has been no evidence of any action on behalf of that group. Experts in the field tell me that nothing has been heard of it; yet one knows the extent to which drugs can lead to crime and destroy lives. On the face of it, it seems to be a example in which saving public money has been put ahead of the social needs of the country.
Finally, what is the audit of Wales on this annual Welsh day? Clearly the Government are divided, and in many ways they are alien to the people of Wales. They are insensitive to Welsh needs and that insensitivity leads to frustration and impotent anger on the part of our people. The Government are not a good model for democracy. Yes, the dragon will indeed roar: it will roar at the next election, both within Wales and outside, and I am confident that those poll findings or something like them will be confirmed.
9.20 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I shall be brief as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) wishes to wind up for the Opposition. I wish to make a few comments about unemployment in my constituency.
1274
Earlier this week, an announcement was made by the Ministry of Defence about Pendine. We are delighted that it has been reprieved and we thank the Welsh Office for lobbying on our behalf. Virtually all the work at Pencline will continue, but with a very much reduced work force. The current 340 jobs will be reduced to 110, partly because of a slim-down and partly due to some of facilities at the port being used to support the work there. There could be job losses of around 200 at Pendine over the next two years.
A Welsh Office press release issued yesterday promised to examine the possibility of Pendine becoming part of the west Wales task force area. I hope very much that when the discussions are followed through Pendine will become part of that initiative and so will Whitland, which is adjacent and where 150 jobs were lost last November. We also want extra finance because 400 jobs have been lost in an area where it is impossible to replace them.
My second point is about Capel Hendre near Ammanford. The Amman valley is an unemployment black spot with something like 15 or 20 per cent. unemployment in many villages. We now have an excellent industrial estate at Capel Hendre, thanks to the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency and Dinefwr borough council. We now want to attract a big inward investor bringing something like 500 jobs. I make a plea to the Welsh Office to carry on its good work at Capel Hendre and to find a customer for that site to create 500 jobs to revive the Amman valley in my constituency.
9.23 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Let me start, as several of my hon. Friends and the Secretary of State have already done, by complimenting my hon. Friend the new Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), although he is not in his place at the moment, on an outstanding maiden speech. Let me also repeat the kind and courteous references that he made to his predecessor, a personal friend of mine and our party leader for nine years from 1983 to 1992. I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend following a proud Gwent tradition by laying so much emphasis on the national health service, as did many Opposition speakers, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn, however, has to take pride of place tonight. Not only was it a very good speech, but my hon. Friend won a unique by-election victory. The Government percentage of the vote at that by-election was probably below the ruling interest rate. That record may stand for some time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn spoke about the important issue of GP fundholders, the loose cannons in the system. We have an estimate that about £7 million of fundholders' so-called savings are currently sloshing around in the national health service. It is up to the fundholders to decide what to do with that money, whether to expand their premises, or so on.
It is doubtful whether that money represents savings because it is generally produced by fundholders prescribing cheaper drugs for their patients. That is fair enough, but non-fundholders are also prescribing cheaper drugs and they are not allowed to keep the savings from that. The degree to which fundholders are getting on with the job of prescribing cheaper drugs is no greater than that

1275
of non-fundholders, but fundholders are allowed to keep the money, which is now a large sum. According to Welsh Office figures, it was £4.7 million last year and it is probably about £7 million this year. That is a dangerous new feature and we need to get hold of it. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn mentioned that issue.
As good parliamentarians we need to be sure that we know what is happening to that £7 million that is sloshing around the system. Ministers should possibly take more responsibility for finding out what is happening to that money. The Secretary of State's speech did not contain a great deal about health, although Opposition speakers tended to emphasise it. There has been some reference to waiting times and I think that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) said that waiting times had come down. That is contradicted by an article in this morning's Western Mail which was based on the publication yesterday of waiting times information produced by the Secretary of State's Department.
We are concerned about those figures because the Government are giving their Back Benchers the impression that waiting times are going down. We are at a critical moment because in four and a half weeks, on 1 April, the Welsh health service will be put to the test of last year's initiatives by the Secretary of State, by which he caused all consultants to offer a maximum waiting time of six months for a first out-patient consultation. That is what the right hon. Gentleman said last year, but now that we are getting close to 1 April, the message seems to be slightly different.
It seems that some consultants in Wales are already booked up to the year 2000. That applies especially in long-wait specialties such as orthopaedics and there are out-patient waiting times for consultations of more than two, three or four years. In at least one case that I am aware of in south Glamorgan, the waiting time is more than five years. Anyone who gets an appointment now will keep it in the new millennium. However, four weeks from now we shall be expected to believe that the maximum will be six months.
As I have said, booking dates now are for the year 2000. How we can get from that to a booking date in October this year for anybody coming into the system on 1 April I do not know. It is a bit of a mystery to us all. What is to be done is partially revealed in the waiting times initiative which lists all the consultants and the length of their waiting times. Under the heading "Patients choice" the document states:
"This bulletin does not include details of consultants who are unable to meet the existing patients charter guarantees on maximum waiting time."
Mr. Rowlands: How many are there?
Mr. Morgan: Of those published, 29 consultants are listed in only two specialty areas, orthopaedics and ophthalmics. Those 29 consultants have waiting times of two years for treatment and the waiting time for 12 or 13 consultants for a first out-patient consultation is more than two years. The Government reckon that in four weeks that waiting time will be down to six months. They have left out all those whose waiting times are longer than that. They have simply taken the long-wait consultants out of the system. They do not publish their names so that we
1276
do not know that the guarantee is a load of rubbish. The consequence of the Secretary of State's action is that it will pay every health authority in Wales to have a duff consultant in each specialty. He will have a short waiting list so that they will be able to say, "We have met the patient minimum time guarantee because this consultant"—whom nobody wants—"can be offered in less than 26 weeks." The consultants whom everyone wants to see still have waiting lists of two, three, four and, in one or two cases, five years plus. That is the problem that everyone has when seeking some credibility in the Secretary of State's alleged guarantee of a two-year waiting time.
Mr. Redwood: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that a successful and popular consultant should have to work even longer hours so that he is available more rapidly? Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that the guarantee is that, for every patient, there is a consultant of a decent standard, who is capable of seeing that patient and of giving him the necessary treatment. It is never possible to say that one specific consultant will always be available next week.
Mr. Morgan: The Secretary of State confirms my hypothesis that for every half dozen consultants in a specialty in a major hospital, there will be one tail-end Charlie or Charlotte, who is not a popular consultant and who will therefore have a short waiting list. The average waiting list will not differ from what it is today—104, 150 or 300 weeks. The position will not be any different, despite the sales pitch that the Secretary of State put on it. The Secretary of State has that problem. It is no wonder that he did not touch on the state of the health service in his speech.
Nor, strangely enough, did the Secretary of State do much in the way of an attack on devolution, which we had half expected. We did hear a weak, half-hearted attack on devolution by the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts). He did not mention the dreaded words, "the Ulster framework document", but perhaps good reasons exist for that. That document contains proposals for a non-tax-raising, devolved assembly that covers a wide range of central Government powers—everything barring defence, central Exchequer tax-raising powers and foreign policy. Those proposals offer a wide range of devolved powers, which are well beyond what has been proposed by Opposition Members in relation to Wales and to Scotland.
In general, all we heard were half-hearted suggestions that Labour was interested in breaking up the United Kingdom, but nothing could be further from the truth. No amount of wriggling by the Government can avoid millions of people in Wales drawing the conclusion that, if such proposals are good enough for Ulster, they are good enough for Wales.
Given the choice in Wales between Secretaries of State from Worcester, from Wirral, West or from Wokingham and a body that will be accountable to the people of Wales, no doubt exists as to which option the people of Wales would choose. It must be said of the Secretary of State, and I say it with great courtesy, kindness and respect, that he is our trump card in arguing for a Welsh Assembly. If he wants to know why, he should read his speech in Hansard tomorrow. Most people in Wales will have concluded that he is not from the same planet as them. It is no wonder that the Conservative party lost its

1277
deposit in Islwyn or that the Secretary of State sought solace 3,000 miles away in the rantings and ravings of Newt Gingrich, the Republican House of Representatives Speaker.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Conwy, who said about Newt Gingrich and the Secretary of State's reference to him, "What's it got to do with Wales?" He was right about that. I enjoy finding things on which we agree. Newt Gingrich is a friend of the shock jocks, the rednecks and the roughnecks. I never thought that "John Redwood" would become "shock jock redneck".
As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, not satisfied with moving 3,000 miles away, the Secretary of State then moved off into cyberspace and tried to interest us all in the idea of Super-JANET suddenly landing in Cardiff bay, possibly to meet SuperTed. Many people, however, will find his alternating between cyberspeak and penny-in-the-slot, pseudo-philosophical, right-wing, mid-Atlantic, think-tank gibberish extremely unappealing. That was not what people in Wales wanted to hear. It was like a trainee accountant on crack.
I think that it is fair to say that the Secretary of State realises that what people in Wales are interested in is why, after 16 years of Conservative Government, their incomes are still 15 per cent. lower than the average income in the UK, whether one measures it by family expenditure or by gross domestic product. Incomes were 15 per cent. behind in 1979. Despite the so-called economic miracle, they are still 15 per cent. behind and they are falling, according to the latest statistics. That is the bottom line. The Secretary of State was very interested in the bottom line in his previous careers in merchant banking, industry and the City. For the people of Wales, the bottom line is: why are they still so far behind?
Why is there talk of an economic miracle when it is difficult to find one in the streets of Wales? The Secretary of State goes in for philosophical rantings that are meant to appeal primarily to audiences in the home counties and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East said, possibly to a kind of English nationalist audience.
In any event, the Secretary of State's rantings are certainly part of the battle for the leadership of the Tory party after the Government's defeat at the next election. They are meant to state his position and are nothing to do with Wales. They are grandstanding for the readers of The Sunday Times, The Sunday Telegraph, and the Daily Mail—the Murdoch, Conrad Black and Rothermere newspapers. They are the audience that he is trying to reach and he is using us as a way of doing so. If he did not have Cabinet status, he would not be able to make such speeches or get noticed. It is a case of "Welsh Cabinet Secretary Makes Major Attack on Single Parents in St. Melions". His comments are tuned up to be a great philosophical statement about the need for community and family.
The same happened with the popular schools initiative. It was meant not to go down well in Wales but to appeal to an audience that reads the right-wing newspapers. The Secretary of State is positioning himself and getting ready for the future battle for the leadership of the Tory party. However, such issues are not of great interest to us in Wales.
The Secretary of State does not have to go very far to find out why his party is so far behind in the polls. It is because we are so far behind in the economic stakes and
1278
because he is not on the same wavelength as the people of Wales, who overwhelmingly support the Labour party, not him.
Mr. Ron Davies: We have a lead of 54 per cent.
Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend refers to the latest opinion poll, which confirms what most of us know simply by living in Wales. I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that to be the case from the blank faces of Welsh audiences when he starts making one of his philosophical speeches. That is why he makes many of his speeches not only in his constituency of Wokingham but in Reading, in Woking, in Guildford and in Winchester, which are so similar in their social character. Speaking in such places makes it easier for him to get his press releases through on the Friday night drop to the newsrooms of The Sunday Times and The Sunday Telegraph. He can then develop his obsession and appear on "The World at One" and the other heavy political Sunday programmes to prove his philosophical right-wing credentials.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said earlier that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had been appointed under a defective system. If there were a Welsh Assembly and, apparently, a different system, how would the Secretary of State be appointed?
Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the Minister for bringing up that point. It is eight years since the people of Wales had a Secretary of State who represented a Welsh constituency. They have had Secretaries of State who represented Worcester and Wirral, West and the present Secretary of State represents Wokingham. They have not been represented by the right hon. Member for Conwy. It was a shock to the system for all of us that he was missed out—perhaps it was because his constituency does not begin with the letter "W". In any event, it was awful for the people of Wales to realise that they were not going to have a Conservative Secretary of State who represented a Welsh constituency. Perhaps the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), thinks that he is still in with a chance and can alter that, but if he does not realise that the system is defective, he has another think coming. An overwhelming proportion-90 per cent.—of the people of Wales acknowledge that the system is defective.
Many of us were amazed at the extent to which the Secretary of State quoted Newt Gingrich as the inspiration for his philosophy. One could say that he wants to station himself as mid-Atlantic, right-wing American and anti-European. However, I can tell my parliamentary colleagues that that is all a bit of a con. In fact, he has a secret second life as a pro-European. I have here a pamphlet that refers to him as "European Redwood". That is almost a contradiction in terms. It is like referring to the sincerity of the Home Secretary, or to the Prime Minister's authority. What are we being told? It could be said that the Secretary of State has two junior Ministers who are two planks—obviously, I shall not use the word "short" in this context—and it could certainly be said that "European Redwood" goes against the grain.
I raise the matter only because the Secretary of State raised it himself. He had a wonderful photo-opportunity down in Dyffryn gardens, planting a seedling that will still be there in 3,000 years—by which time the Conservatives might have gained more than 5 per cent. of the vote in

1279
valleys by-elections. I must tell the Secretary of State, however, that although that seedling was planted on Tuesday, an army of death watch beetles came down from Islwyn on Wednesday and ate it.
The Secretary of State pointed out that St. David was a successful missionary for Christian values many centuries ago. I can only tell him that he himself is the most unsuccessful missionary for Newt Gingrich's values who could be imagined. We are talking of a man in America who does not believe in the welfare state or in any public involvement in the health care system. The Secretary of State, however, tells us that he wants to sell those ideas and still make us believe that the national health service is safe in his hands.
If the Secretary of State wants us to believe that, he had better not keep talking the language of Newt Gingrich to the people of Wales or in the House of Commons. If he does, the people of Wales will reject him and his party at the next election, and at every by-election before that, as they have done consistently ever since the secret ballot was introduced.
9.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) about the fact that we may have to do something different, or we shall risk defeat in the next election. I take that very much to heart. We always appreciate a wind-up from the hon. Gentleman. It is a wind-up in every sense of the term: there may be no substance in it, but it is invariably hugely entertaining.
This is our traditional Welsh day debate. It is traditional in the best sense. There has been many a repetition: comments that have always been made are trotted out once more. I must, however, express my pleasure at the fact that nearly all Opposition Members welcomed some of what they heard—especially what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about his aims for communications. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) went further, welcoming various other developments. I hope to touch on those later. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) acknowledged the efforts of all of us to encourage the process at Pendine; I thank him for that.
It has been a traditional debate. Reading the report of last year's debate, I noticed that the result of an opinion poll had just been announced then as well, and that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) trumpeted that as our worst-ever opinion poll result. [HON. MEMBERS: "This one is worse."] No; the latest opinion poll result is better. It shows an improvement for us of some 10 per cent. I should be consoled by that if I am worried about the poll.
The most traditional feature of our Welsh day debates, however, is the increasing number of hon. Members who try to tempt the hon. Member for Caerphilly to enunciate a policy, usually with the least possible success. The most successful of them today was my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), who, by means of a series of interventions, dragged out more policy from the hon. Gentleman than he had revealed in his 33-minute speech.
1280
That, too, is traditional. I note that last year the hon. Member for Caerphilly spoke for 32 minutes. A minute before the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) asked him to say something about a policy. The hon. Gentleman probably remembers the response that he received as well as I do. The hon. Member for Caerphilly said:
"I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to invite me to attack my own party. I can assure him that I have enough friends without having to launch an attack on my colleagues."—[Official Report, 3 March 1994; Vol. 238, c. 1111.]
That was the hon. Gentleman's sole contribution to policy last year, and he almost managed to put his consistent duck on the record this year.
This has been a traditional debate in other ways as well. We have had rant, lament and a statesmanlike—elder statesmanlike—contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy. We also heard a maiden speech from the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who is now returning to his place.
I have a fellow feeling with the hon. Member for Islwyn. I have the closest of connections with Crosskeys in his constituency and with other parts of the western valley. I readily appreciate what he said about his constituents wanting the best for their children and their grandchildren, especially when he said that they want jobs and not benefits. Those are the people of Islwyn whom I know as well as he.
Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, I felt that in him we had a most appropriate hon. Member to follow in his predecessor's footsteps. I reject the spurious calculations of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), which somehow suggested that the hon. Member for Islwyn had not been elected. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport, West does want to pursue that.
The hon. Member for Islwyn devoted his speech to health. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) also made significant reference to health, but he dwelt on the facts such as the considerable increase in the number of patients being treated by the national health service in Wales. There is not only a dramatic increase in the number of patients treated, but a most marked increase in day surgery. The figures do not convey the lesser trauma involved in the treatment of patients under day surgery and how they are able to return home to their families far more quickly.
Good progress is being made on introducing the new total waiting times patient charter guarantee in April. Health authorities and GP fundholders are reporting shorter waiting lists and waiting times. The reduction in out-patient waiting lists in the last three months of 1994—more than 6 per cent.—was especially striking. The latest forecasts of health authorities and GP fundholders show that very few out-patients will wait longer than a year and virtually no in-patients or day cases will wait longer than 18 months by the beginning of April. I expect further progress early in 1995–96—the second year of the three-year waiting time initiative.
Mr. Rowlands: Time and again our constituents see a consultant and are told that they cannot be seen for another six months, yet when they pay the same consultant some money they are treated within a day or two. Does the Minister find that as offensive as we do?
Mr. Jones: As the hon. Gentleman knows, he and I have met to discuss such problems and I fully share his

1281
apprehensions of any improper queue jumping through the use of national health service facilities. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that any such case can be tracked down and tackled properly.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) mentioned cardiac treatment in Morriston. Hon. Members will know that there has been considerable interest in our development programme for specialist cardiac treatment, which is centred around the University hospital of Wales. I am delighted to announce that, following detailed evaluation, a new cardiac unit is to be developed by Morriston hospital NHS trust. That has been a difficult decision because we had received a number of innovative proposals. We are most grateful to all those who contributed. The Morriston team's proposal will provide top quality as well as offering the best value for money. It will be fully funded by the Welsh Office. We are convinced that the right option for the people of Wales has been chosen.
The Government attach the highest priority to the completion of the investment programme, which is making a significant contribution to the fight against cardiovascular disease. I expect everyone involved to co-operate in ensuring that the centre is completed as soon as possible.
Mr. Donald Anderson: I thank the Minister for that announcement. There will be great delight in west Glamorgan that the flirtation with the private sector has been overruled and that there has been a vote of confidence in the in-house bid.
Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thanks. I think that he understands that a decision has been made on the best application. I believe that the Government and Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Members for Islwyn and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) are united in wanting to see the NHS in Wales continuing to go forward, continuing to expand and continuing to improve.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East also mentioned drug abuse and prevention. In England, a Green Paper on drug abuse has just been published. It was said that Wales and Northern Ireland would produce their own strategies. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are drafting and aim to produce a consultation document very soon. That is in addition to my right hon. Friend's announcement on 19 October that he would establish a Welsh drug and alcohol unit which will be responsible for implementing the strategy which is now being developed.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery referred to the funding and quality of community care. My right hon. Friend was able to tell him about the extra sums that have already been provided. We intend to go further than that: in 1996–97, we will add a further £25 million and in 1997–98 we will add an additional £19 million on top of that. The annual figure will then be an additional sum of almost £170 million.
The closest attention is being paid to how that money is being used, not least by the carers who can see the situation at the sharp end. Very possibly the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery went to meet the carers, as I did, at their function in the House last week. I can understand their calls for the money to be ring-fenced in Wales as it is in England.
1282
However, that money is not the full extent of the financial support that we provide. The Welsh Office also has grant schemes which amount to £4.5 million in the current year for projects for older people and those with disabilities. In addition, total funding for the mental illness strategy is £5.5 million this year. That includes £1.1 million to local authorities across Wales.
Funding in that regard is used by local authorities to offer practical support for individuals with mental health problems and it includes the enhancement of day care services and facilities, night time cover, supported accommodation and social worker posts for resettlement teams. In addition, there is our much respected mental handicap strategy the total funding for which this year is almost £56 million, almost £49 million of which goes to local authorities across Wales. That encourages the development of new patterns of local community-based care with increased choice for better quality and more independent lives for individuals.
With regard to the importance of resettlement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are at one with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery in the belief that care should be right for each individual. We will need a range of forms of care, involving some forms which have already been developed and some that we will probably need to develop further. I had an opportunity to visit the charity RESCARE in Manchester last year when I had responsibility for such matters. I saw the imaginative way in which it was developing slightly larger homes than we are at present used to. We must try to do all that we can to ensure that each individual has the right care.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) asked what the Government have done for Llanelli. I must point out that, under the strategic development scheme this year, we are providing no less than £1.25 million for servicing new industrial land, commercial renewal grants, pedestrianisation and improvements to the centre to complement the new retail development. There is also the valleys private finance initiative. The local authority identified the Llanelli development as the key economic development opportunity and we are marketing it aggressively together with the Welsh Development Agency and the local authority.
The hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), in interventions, expressed readily understandable feelings about excessive unemployment in the valleys. However, I totally reject the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda when he suggested that spite had motivated the Government's approach towards the coal industry.
We all have to face up to the realities of life, but no Government seek to create unemployment in coal or any other industry and certainly not for ridiculous motives such as spite. That would be as incorrect and as futile as to suggest that Lord Callaghan sought for similar reasons to close down Eastmoor steel works in Cardiff or that the former right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, Michael Foot, closed down the Ebbw Vale steel works. It would

1283
be just as ridiculous for the hon. Member for Rhondda to suggest that Michael Foot was acting as someone's agent in that regard—
Mr. Touhig: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jones: Well, I fear that I am running out of time. However, as the hon. Gentleman made his maiden speech today, I will give way to him.
Mr. Touhig: I believe that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) made remarks about getting his own back on Wales by closing the pits and changing all the constituencies. I wrote to him during the Islwyn by-election, but I have yet to receive a reply.
Mr. Jones: Knowing my hon. Friend, he will not be shy about giving the hon. Gentleman a reply. I will leave him to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan stressed the need for good road links. I readily appreciate his comment about South Glamorgan council and a proper updated link to Cardiff airport. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today updated his plans for future improvements to the trunk road network. Fifteen schemes totalling £267 million are programmed to start before April 1998, improving nearly 47 miles of road. The plans take forward the strategy set out in "Roads in Wales: 1994 Review".
Resources will continue to be focused on the major strategic routes: the A55, the M4, and the A465. We attach great priority to the Heads of the Valley road, and we have consulted on route options for dualling between Abergavenny and Hirwaun. It is intended to publish a preferred route by midsummer. Plans for scheme starts next year include the A40 Whitland bypass, the M4 Magor-Coldra widening, the A550 Deeside park interchange, the A40 Fishguard western bypass, and the A470 Lledr valley stage 1.
We continue to attach high priority to ensuring that roads in sensitive areas are managed in such a way as to protect the beautiful environment of Wales. We will shortly commission a study of the A5 on the mainland to help to determine how best to ensure that it does not develop in ways that encourage through traffic. We wish to see a logical and cohesive strategy developed for the future management of that section of trunk road that takes full account of the beauty of Snowdonia and the need to preserve it for future generations.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) will be interested in the matter of St. Dogmaels, which I visited with him during the summer recess. I can now announce that supplementary credit approval of up to £500,000 will be issued to assist Preseli Pembrokeshire district council in meeting additional costs that it has sustained relating to its response to the St. Dogmaels landslide and the investigations that it has commissioned into its mechanism and possible corrective measures. That is in addition to assistance towards the cost of proposed surface drainage works eligible for grant aid under the Land Drainage Act 1991, which are due to be undertaken over the next two years. I am writing to the local authority to provide it with full details of that assistance.
1284
We have inevitably heard many references to the vexed question of devolution. Perhaps it should more properly he referred to as centralisation; taking powers from local authorities in Wales and giving them to a Welsh Assembly—the ultimate quango. [Interruption.] Of course, Opposition Members may crow at the results of the BBC Wales-Western Mail opinion survey, which was published yesterday. The poll purports to show 47 per cent. of those surveyed in favour of some form of assembly for Wales. Opposition Members will say that that is a huge swing in favour of an assembly.
We all know that polls taken in isolation produce unreliable results. We must remember that last year's opinion poll involved a sample of 1,500. This year's poll involved a sample of 521. Thirty-five per cent. were highlighted as wanting an assembly that was independent of Westminster. That means 86 people—that is all. How representative is that?
Have Opposition Members forgotten the real test of opinion, when 1.2 million people voted on 1 March 1979? The results were clear then. It was not a case of 86 people out of a total of 521. True, almost 250,000 people voted in favour of an assembly, but almost 1 million decisively rejected it. That is a far more reliable test of public opinion.
Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jones: No, I cannot give way.
At least we have a policy from Opposition. They say that, some time, they will define what sort of assembly they will put forward. It is their only positive contribution. It is a job-creating policy, is it not? At least it is meant to be a job-creating policy for the old dinosaurs of the Labour party whom they mean to accommodate in a Welsh Assembly. That will be the only job-creating aspect of it.
Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister give his views of the Ulster framework document proposals for a devolved assembly to Northern Ireland?
Mr. Jones: Not in the time available.
The proposed Welsh Assembly will be a home for the old dinosaurs of the Labour party—rewards for their records of non-achievement. They are just like the Simpsons on Channel 4—underachievers, and proud of it. Those who failed to get into this place or into the European Assembly would be sent to it.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The ultimate quango.
Mr. Jones: Yes, it is the ultimate quango. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy said, we would be back to the bad old days—every quango stuffed with Labour placemen. Do we not recollect that the 30-odd members of the Trades Union Congress shared 140 quangos between them—about four per head? That is not bad going, but that is the way things were.
The assembly is the Labour party's latest answer, and it is the only job creation proposal that the Labour party has, unless we want to take in the long list of crazy proposals that my right hon. Friend read out in his speech. We noticed that again there was no answer from the hon. Member for Caerphilly to the question whether he would have all those regional development banks, Faraday centres, defence diversification agencies, general teaching

1285
councils and all the rest of the loony list that is being dragged out. It is all job creation for the boys—or rather, for the boyos.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

DEREGULATION
Ordered,
That Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. Michael Brown, Judith Church, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. Alan Keen, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Graham Riddick, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Allan Stewart, Mr. John Sykes and Dr Ian Twinn be members of the Deregulation Committee.—[Mr. Wells.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That Sir David Mitchell be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Tim Smith be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wells.]

PROCEDURE
Ordered,
That Mr. Gordon McMaster be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. Peter L. Pike be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wells.]

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
Ordered,
That Mr. Mike Watson be discharged from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Mr. Michael Connarty be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wells.]

Rugby Cement Works
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
10 pm
Sir Anthony Grant: The subject of the debate is of great importance to my constituents, and I know that it is also important to my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), both of whom have taken a keen interest in it on behalf of their constituents. The subject is also of concern to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), whom I see here tonight.
The consequences of burning secondary liquid fuels, and indeed of burning conventional fuels, need to be considered calmly and rationally. It is useless to consider them in an hysterical manner; the last thing that one wants to do over such an issue is to cause panic in an area.
Rugby Cement works is an efficient industrial plant long established in the village of Barrington in my constituency. When it was first built in the late 1920s, it was regarded as manna from heaven by the unemployed and by the impoverished farms in the region. Indeed, many of the families of those who were first employed there and given relief are still employed there now. The firm therefore provides valuable employment, and also produces a vital material for housing and for the construction industry in general.
Rugby Cement is environmentally conscious, and has planted many trees in the area. It has always been open with the community, the people who live in the neighbourhood. Happily, I can say that, in its 70 years in Cambridgeshire, there has been no evidence to link its activities in any way with ill health in the local communities.
About four years ago, during the recession, when conditions were extremely competitive, Rugby Cement became aware of the potential use of secondary liquid fuels as substitutes for coal and petroleum coke—solid fuels that have historically been used in the process. The company studied that use in the places where it was commonly accepted practice—Germany, France, the United States, Belgium and Scandinavia; it sought the advice of risk assessors, consultants, the Health and Safety Executive, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, the National Rivers Authority and the fire brigades; and it came to the conclusion that secondary liquid fuels—SLFs, as they are known—could safely be burnt in its cement kilns.
Various trials took place, starting in 1993. The company submitted the results to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which considered them and said that the activity was safe within the limits set. Nevertheless, the issue remains one of considerable concern to the people in the villages in the area concerned. Those include Barrington itself, Harston, Haslingfield, Harlton, Hauxston and Trumpington.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although we have three licensed hazardous waste incinerators in the UK, the cement kilns can undercut them, since the emission limit for the cement

1287
industry is considerably less stringent? Does he further agree that the cement industry is becoming the UK's hazardous waste disposal industry?
Sir Anthony Grant: I do not agree with the hon. Lady's second point, but I shall be raising the other matter to which she referred later in my speech. I understand the hon. Lady's concern, because the prevailing winds from Barrington go up towards Cambridge. I hope that Cambridge city will be immune because I happen to live there, and the last thing I want is to be affected.
The parish council of Barrington—the site of the cement works—has gone into the matter with care, and engaged experts. They came to some conclusions, to which I shall refer. They said that the level of dioxin measured in the trials was comfortably below the European limit, and that heavy metals emissions were within Euro-limits also. The matter has also been considered by Cambridgeshire county council and, in particular, by South Cambridgeshire district council, which is more directly involved.
South Cambridgeshire held a debate on the subject, and said that it was going to hold a watching brief
"to ensure that pollution from SLF firing should not exceed that permitted during the burning of traditional fuels at Rugby Cement, Barrington".
The council further expressed the view that
"Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution should be made aware of the Council's concern … and of the further particular concern expressed by Committee at the possible increase in heavy metals and dioxins in emissions".
Everyone in the area is taking the matter seriously.
According to the Minister of State—with whom I have corresponded for the past year—in a letter sent to me on 8 February, the results of the test
"indicated that, compared with conventional fuel burning, the use of SLF resulted in a decrease in the emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter"—
I call that dust in my simple language—
"and HCI and no significant difference between stack emissions of dioxin and heavy metals. Emissions of dioxin and heavy metals were within the limits set for incineration plants".
Further trials are taking place, but Rugby Cement has applied to Her Majesty's inspectorate to vary the cement process authorised and to allow the permanent use of SLF up to 25 per cent. of calorific value. There is a consultation period of 42 days, in which people can make their views felt and express their objections.
The trouble with the subject is that there is a mass of technical detail which can be resolved only by experts. I am not an expert. I do not believe—with great respect—that the Minister is an expert, and I do not think that you are an expert, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, anxieties do exist in my constituency and in those of my hon. Friends who are also deeply concerned about the matter.
The main anxieties revolve around health. What is the effect of the emissions on health, and children's health in particular? Are there any long-term effects? I can understand that my hon. Friend the Minister may wish to leave the matter with the Department of Health. If he says that this is a matter on which he would wish to take advice from the Secretary of State for Health or a Minister from the Department, I will completely understand. I hope, however, that the point will be taken on board.
1288
I know enough about the matter to know that dioxins and heavy metals are very nasty things indeed. They are linked with cancer. Dioxin also results from smoking, and is found in the transport and steel industries, to name but a few, so it is not something that one can stop entirely without closing down some activities in our society.
The question that I must put to the Minister is, what are the safe levels? We are told that all the activities are within the safety limits, but can he assure us that that is correct? Secondly, are the tests that are being considered by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution adequate, or should they be more stringent? Are the inspectors properly qualified and have they the resources to deal with the tests? Will atmospheric tests be conducted in the various areas—there is concern about that? Most important of all, will monitoring of the atmosphere continue?
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon Friend accept that the public have genuine fears, and have a right to know that what comes from the stacks is environmentally safe? Does he also accept that there is an onus on cement firms to ensure that the plumes coming from the stacks do not ground, and an onus on Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to ensure that that does not happen?
Sir Anthony Grant: Yes, I agree with all that, and I think that Rugby Cement would agree, and would be anxious to comply with that obligation.
Has the inspectorate sufficient qualified staff? It has been suggested in Bedford—the area in which it carries out the tests—that that is not so. Will the Minister check, and clarify the position? If the inspectorate does not have the necessary resources, as some of the inspectors in Bedford seem to imply, will he try to get them, even if he has to bully the Treasury about it? If he is satisfied that the inspectors have the resources, will he tell them to get on with the job or, if they cannot do it, get them out and get in someone who can do it properly?
The organisation Friends of the Earth, with which hon Members will be familiar, has also expressed concern to me. It has gone into the matter with a great deal of care and states:
"there is totally inadequate evidence to prove that emissions from cement kilns burning hazardous waste in the short or the long term will not have a deleterious impact on the health of local residents".
Equally, one could argue that there is totally inadequate evidence to prove that the emissions will have a deleterious impact on health in the long term, so that argument is as broad as it is long.
Friends of the Earth also complained that
"the frequency and sufficiency of monitoring by both the companies and HMIP is open to doubt."
Perhaps the Minister can reassure us about that. It also points out:
"the classification of such hazardous waste as 'fuel' brings the whole regulatory system into disrepute."
That is a very stern criticism, but it leads me to a matter that has been referred to me by another source. Companies such as Cleanaway Ltd., which is involved in waste disposal, have pointed out their concerns. Such companies are directly in conflict commercially with the cement industry and complain of unfair contrasts in the regulations because waste is treated differently from fuel. They also say that there is not a level playing field.

1289
Rugby Cement says that Her Majesty's inspectorate applies the same stringent emission limits to cement works, regardless of the classification. Who is right? There is nothing wrong with commercial competition—I am entirely in favour of it—but human health and safety must come first, as I am sure the Minister will agree.
To sum up, one of my constituents, who is a science graduate, wrote to me saying that he had no objection to the activity, provided that there was stringent and exact testing, and long-term monitoring. It is important not to have just one test, and then go away and not monitor the problem. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give assurances on that? I have raised many technical questions, so I will understand if he says that he will have to write to me. But this is a continuing concern, and if he can set the anxieties of my constituents at rest, I shall be very grateful.
I am happy for my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton to make his point if he wishes.
10.15 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) for allowing me to be tail-end Charlie in a debate that he has initiated, and I congratulate him on the manner in which he has done it.
I wish to raise a simple point of principle. If our constituents have fears, they must be addressed. What my hon. Friend is seeing in his constituency at Barrington is what my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and I both saw at Castle Cement in our constituencies about six months ago. If the burning of liquid fuels is safer for our constituents, it would be an act of ultimate political irresponsibility to join a bandwagon of demonstration that denied them that benefit. If, however, it is more harmful, it is absolutely right that our constituents' concerns be properly addressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley and I persuaded HMIP to apply more stringent rules to how it permanently monitors the problem. I simply implore my hon. Friend the Minister to reconfirm that there will be continuous monitoring; that the information will be made public; that the information is scientifically valid; that the fears of our constituents can be allayed; and that our thanks can be passed to the Minister for the Environment and Countryside for the way in which so far he has handled that topic.
10.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I congratulate all those who have participated in this debate. They have taken a sensible, careful and considered attitude towards the problem, rather than allowing themselves to succumb to alarmist points. I hope that I can provide some reassurance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) has provided me with an opportunity to underline that we have a continuing determination to protect the environment in this country and to explain how we are dealing with the issues that he and others have raised.
1290
My hon. Friend will recall that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 singles out complex industrial processes with significant pollution potential by placing them under a particularly rigorous regime known as integrated pollution control. Part I of the Act requires that such processes, which include cement works, are regulated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
When regulating these industries, HMIP's priorities are first to prevent and then to minimise and render harmless any releases from the process. The operator must use the best available techniques that do not entail excessive cost. The Act also requires that the inspectorate considers harm to the environment as a whole and has regard to the best practical environmental option when judging the techniques to be used.
The whole regulatory process is open to public scrutiny. Copies of the application, any authorisation or returns required by the authorisation and, where appropriate, notice of any formal enforcement action taken by HMIP are placed on public registers.
It is important to recognise where the responsibilities lie in delivering environmental protection. The onus is on the operator. It is up to the operator to conceive, design, build, and operate his cement plant in such a way as to meet the requirements of the law.
As my hon. Friend is probably aware, cement manufacture is an energy-intensive process in which energy costs represent approximately 65 to 75 per cent. of variable costs. The process uses a kiln heated to temperatures of over 1,400 deg C by burning a fuel, which, as he mentioned, is normally coal or petroleum coke.
The cement-making process incorporates several features that may make it suitable for burning substitute fuels. For example, it is a continuous process, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and has high thermal stability for destroying organic materials; it provides a high-temperature environment in which the materials are heated for a long time in the burning zone; and raw materials used for the process are alkaline, and therefore tend to react with any acid gases emitted.
Secondary liquid fuels are residues and various side streams from the recycling of industrial solvents. They are flammable, and, while containing some pollutants that require control, make excellent fuels.
Large companies commonly use the solvent residues as fuels in their own boilers and furnaces. Smaller companies sell their used solvents to companies that specialise in solvent recovery. The specialist companies separate out the various components of waste solvents for recycling and then dispose of the residues to landfill or to high-temperature incineration. There are disadvantages to the disposal of those residues in landfill, while high-temperature incineration of the residues, on the other hand, effectively destroys the solvent residues.
As was mentioned, companies in other European countries and the United States that distil solvents have been converting the residues into fuel for other processes—predominantly cement kilns. Recently, that practice has been adopted in this country. Companies now specialise in purchasing solvent residues and blending them into tightly specified fuels required by the cement industry. There are several substitute fuels on the market with different trade names. Although the actual composition may vary to some extent, the generic nature of the material remains the same.

1291
Because of the need to be sure about the possible consequences of burning solvent residues in cement kilns—which is the main issue in the debate—HMIP has decided that it will not authorise the use of those fuels, except for the purpose of carrying out trials. The trials are to be for a limited period, the fuels used are to be tightly specified and emissions from the plant are to be monitored during the period of the trials. Once the trials have ended, the cement company may no longer use the fuel until the results of the trials have been evaluated.
Government policy on the burning of substitute fuels in cement and lime kilns was detailed in the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside on 23 June 1994. He made the following things clear. There will be no more such trials than are necessary to allow HMIP to determine best available techniques not entailing excessive costs. The operator must provide satisfactory data on baseline operations before trials commence, which must include emission data and kiln operating data. All trials must be to an agreed schedule. If any trial is adversely affecting the environment, it must stop. HMIP must agree the specification for substitute fuel in advance. The operator must provide continuous monitors for particulates, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and oxygen.
I can assure the House that that is still the case, and HMIP will not authorise the permanent use of substitute fuels until it has considered, and is satisfied by, the outcome of trials.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Minister agree, and will he tell the House, that the standard set for cement kilns is considerably less stringent than that for hazardous waste incinerators?
Sir Paul Beresford: I was coming to that, but the hon. Lady should recognise that the fuel that we are discussing, which is used as a fuel in cement kilns, is also used as a fuel in the incinerated waste incinerators. What is put into the waste incinerators is different from that which is put into the kilns. HMIP is anxious to ensure, and is ensuring, that what comes out as fumes is safe.
Mrs. Campbell: Surely, if a certain level of particulates, nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide is considered to be safe for the hazardous waste incinerators, we should be applying the same stringent levels to the cement kilns.
Sir Paul Beresford: They are in effect, as I understand it, applied. The hon. Lady appears to be missing the point: that a different exhaust results from what one puts in in the first place.
HMIP has imposed strict requirements on operators undertaking trials with substitute fuels. Apart from complying with those policy objectives, the operator must provide a wide range of information, including results of monitoring for dioxins and heavy metals and on-going progress reports, and install control systems to specified standards.
I understand that there is no sign of any additional harm to the environment from the burning of secondary fuels at Barrington or anywhere else where those trials have been taking place. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture,
1292
Fisheries and Food recently undertook the monitoring of milk in the area around the cement works at Clitheroe, which has the longest history of burning substitute fuels, and found no sign of any increase in dioxins or heavy metals.
The other interesting fact of which I was informed is that more than 90 per cent. of the dioxins to which we are exposed come from food, and that living near a cement kiln, regardless of the fuel, will not alter that picture.
Of course, there are commercial, as well as environmental issues which might explain some of views that we have heard tonight. The UK has a significant specialised incineration industry, which historically has used rather similar materials as fuel. It has been argued that permanent burning of substitute fuels will commercially damage the United Kingdom's specialised incineration capacity.
On balance, it is thought that the short-term impact would be to impose higher costs on the merchant hazardous waste disposal industry. It is likely that the industry would have to purchase some additional support fuel rather than receive it as waste. That may raise prices for the disposal of the other wastes treated by that route, and it would affect the competitiveness of the disposal method. In the longer term, impacts may be less significant.
I now return to the burning of secondary liquid fuel at Rugby Cement, Barrington. The first phase of trials at Barrington took place from 1 September 1994 to 16 December 1994, when the works reverted to burning 100 per cent. conventional fuels. Rugby Cement submitted a request for a further phase of trials to HMIP on 21 December 1994. The request accompanied monitoring data on the trials to that date and a comparison of the environmental impact of emissions when burning 100 per cent. coal and petroleum coke and 25 per cent. secondary liquid fuel.
HMIP asked the operator to supply further information to justify the proposal for a further phase which related in particular to raw material and fuel analyses and to dioxin releases and the use of test data in the company's evaluation of the effects on the environment, as shown by the first phase of the trials. HMIP received that additional information on 18 January 1995 and evaluated it in conjunction with the initial submission.
HMIP noted that the results submitted indicated that, compared with conventional fuel burning, the use of secondary liquid fuel resulted in a decrease in the releases of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and hydrogen chloride. There was no significant difference between stack releases of dioxins and heavy metals, which were well within the limits set for incineration plants.
Based on that, the first phase of the trial has shown that there are no adverse environmental effects associated with the use of secondary liquid fuel and, as mentioned by the tail-end Charlie—as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) called himself—there may even he the potential for environmental gains.
HMIP gave permission on 20 January 1995 for a further phase of trials to take place in four stages. Further conditions have been imposed—that the specification of secondary liquid fuel may be to even tighter limits than previously, that the full results of monitoring the first stage will be available and evaluated prior to progressing

1293
to the second stage, and that the trials will be limited to four months, excluding evaluation time. The second phase of the trials commenced on 23 January 1995.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West referred to resources, and I raised that matter specifically with the head of HMIP, indicating the source of the concerns. To put it bluntly, he was astonished, and said that there were no resource difficulties.
Rugby Cement has now applied to HMIP for a variation to its cement process authorisation to allow the permanent use of secondary liquid fuels at up to 25 per cent. substitution. The application and the supporting documents have been placed on the public registers, and the operator is required to advertise in the local press within 42 days of the application being lodged. Following that advertisement, HMIP will allow 42 days for public and statutory consultation.
The overall period available for the determination of the application is four months. In determining the application, HMIP will consider whether the financial
1294
benefits to Rugby from the use of secondary liquid fuel justify further expenditure by the works to abate emissions from the process.
In all this, HMIP will ensure that the secondary liquid fuel will be used only in a way which does not jeopardise human health or the environment. In theory, a cement kiln offers ideal conditions for the destruction of these materials: temperatures are higher and residence times longer than in high-temperature incinerators—which may also answer the point about plume grounding. The presence of the clinker within the kiln also adds to its potential to destroy wastes. In any event, HMIP will not allow the process to continue if the results are not as good as those produced by incinerators.
In conclusion, HMIP has placed strict conditions on the trial use of substitute fuels in cement kilns and is monitoring developments closely. I can assure hon. Members that HMIP will not allow the permanent use of the fuels in cement kilns unless it is totally convinced that the environment, and therefore people's health, is fully protected.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Child Care Facilities
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick on Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what decisions have been taken by the House of Commons Commission following the debate on child care facilities on 12 January.

  Mr. Beith
  The Commission has now considered its policy on child care facilities, and has taken into account the survey of demand by Research Services Ltd., the claim for child care voucher scheme by the trade unions representing House staff, and the views expressed by hon. Members during the debate on 12 January.

  Since 1991, it has been the policy of the Commission as the employer of the staff of the House of Commons that, if a viable scheme for child care help could be devised, it would want it to go ahead. The Commission has concluded that a child care voucher scheme is immediately practicable and commands wide support. The Commission has decided to implement a voucher scheme in line with those currently in operation in the National Audit Office and the House of Lords. Vouchers will be available to employees of the Commission who work for at least 15 hours per week and who demonstrate that they need to pay someone other than their partner to look after their child or children. The scheme will cover children under the age of five or who are not yet attending full-time education, at a rate of £6 per day worked per family, which is taxable. It is hoped to have the new arrangements in place from 1 April. Further details will he issued to staff by the Establishments Office.

  The Commission, in seeking to follow best employment practice, has taken full account of the arguments for assistance with child care. It hopes that the voucher scheme will provide effective help to existing staff, and benefit future recruitment. The introduction of these arrangements also firmly underlines the House's commitment to a policy of equal opportunity.

  Divisions
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Divisions of the House have taken place on Thursdays since the new procedures introduced on 19 December 1994 came into force.

  Mr. Newton
  Between 19 December 1994 and 1 March 1995 there were three Divisions on Thursdays. During the same period last year there were eight Divisions on Thursdays.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs. C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Low Bell, (o) People Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd., and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Mr. Newton
  I have had no such meetings.

  Privy Council
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the duties and functions of the Privy Council.

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council advises the sovereign on the making of royal proclamations and Orders in Council, and on the grant and amendment of royal charters. It approves rules made by statutory registration councils responsible for the medical and certain other professions, and makes instruments of Government for higher education corporations. The Privy Council is also responsible for certain appointments to statutory councils and to the governing bodies of universities and colleges, and for the appointment of high sheriffs. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the final Court of Appeal from courts of the United Kingdom dependencies and from courts of those independent Commonwealth countries which have retained the right of appeal. The committee also hears appeals from courts of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and from the disciplinary and health committees of the medical and allied professions, together with some ecclesiastical appeals.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Servants
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many employment vacancies in the civil service in grades 1 and 2 have been (i) externally advertised and (ii) filled by external applicants since the publication of the White Paper on the reform of the civil service.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Since the publication of the civil service White Paper "The Civil Service: Continuity and Change" in July 1994, five vacancies at these levels or with equivalent pay rates have been externally advertised.

  So far, appointments have been made to three of these posts, of which one was an external applicant and one was an agency chief executive originally recruited as an external applicant.

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster 1Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) Profile Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd., and

  Cabinet Office (including No. 10)/CCTA

  RAS

  Chessington

  CS College

  OHSA

  COI

  HMSO

  Men

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Women

  19

  2

  6

  5

  1

  3

  9

  No staff have had their employment terminated while on a career break.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department, or agencies for which it is responsible, in 1994 giving, in each case the total cost to the Exchequer of their production, publication and distribution; and what was the equivalent cost in 1980.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Two White Papers were produced by the Office of Public Service and Science in 1994. These were "The Civil Service: Continuity and Change" and "Next Steps Review 1994". All costs were borne by HMSO, which aims to recover these from sales revenue.

  The following pamphlets were issued by the Cabinet Office and Office of Public Service and Science in 1994:

  Publication

  Total cost £

  Response to Priorities for the Science Base

  904

  Science Connections

  17,633

  Key Events Leaflet

  2,090

  Technology Foresight Programme

  2,236

  The Context of Foresight

  1,725

  Innovation and Foresight

  3,250

  Turning Research into Wealth: The Japanese Way

  4,334

  Technology Foresight: An Information Technology Way

  4,830

  Proceedings of the Foresight Forum

  11,900

  Foresight No. 1

  3,115

  Foresight No. 2

  3,552

  LINK Newsletters (3 per annum)

  26,000

  Europe: Funding from the 4th Framework Programme—Collaboration in the 21st Century

  23,321

  The UK/Japan Relationship

  10,364

  The Zuckerman Lecture

  1,291

  The Rising Tide

  1,894

  The Human Genome

  3,592

  Innovation and the Tax System

  1,254

  Government response to The Rising Tide

  1,896

  Routes Response

  502

  638
  discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  No.

  Career Breaks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many(a) men and (b) women applied for career breaks in his Department or its agencies: and how many have had their employment terminated in the last five years.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  For the departments and agencies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible, and other areas which fall to the Cabinet Office vote, the information is as follows:

  Publication

  Total cost £

  Review of UK Culture Collections

  4,485

  Review of Fast Stream Recruitment

  7,200

  Responsibilities for Recruitment to the Civil Service

  2,100

  "The Facts You Need to Know"—Booklet for Prospective Executive Officer Candidates

  3,500

  Racial Equality in the Civil Service

  1,500

  Top Management Programme Brochure

  800

  Citizen's Charter Second Report 1994 (inclusive of audio, braille and large print versions)

  408,000

  Complaints Task Force (CTF) Interim Report

  6,882

  CTF Leaflet

  652

  CTF Effective Complaints Systems: Principles and Checklist

  2,083

  CTF Discussion Papers

  22,082

  CTF Literature Review

  12,161

  Open Government Code of Practice and Explanatory Leaflet

  18,522

  Total

  615,650

  Two minor pamphlets were also issued where production and distribution was 60 copies or less and the total cost negligible.

  The Department did not exist in its current form in 1980 and therefore no comparable information for that year is available.

  Contract Research Posts
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what proportion of contract research posts paid for from research council funds were for three years or less in each year from 1990–1994:

  (2) what proportion of contract researchers paid for by research councils left employment before completing their contracts in each year from 1990 to 1994;

  (3) how many contract researchers were paid for by the research councils in each year from 1990 to 1994.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The information is not held centrally. Primary responsibility for employing contract staff, howsoever funded, rests with the individual universities as employers. The Universities' Statistical
  639
  Record collects staff data on behalf of the universities funded by the former University Funding Council, but has no separate category for "contract researchers".

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Children's Play
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what decision he has taken on future central support arrangements for children's play.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am grateful to all those who submitted comments in response to our recent consultation on the implications of Sports Council restructuring for children's play. I am today inviting interested organisations to a meeting to discuss the new arrangements which we propose to introduce. Under these, existing bodies will he invited to hid for funds to carry out work in the areas of information dissemination, playground safety, playwork education and training, and policy advice. The new arrangements will take effect from October 1995 and will be based on a continuation of the existing level of funding of £400,000 per annum.

  Boxing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will set up an investigation into reforming the rules of boxing to avoid injuries to the head but allow participants to demonstrate combative skills.

  Mr. Sproat
  No. It is for the boxing authorities to determine their own rules and regulations.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to reconsider any grants that are made in support of boxing and other activities with risks of injury and death to their participants.

  Mr. Sproat
  Most Government moneys specifically for sport are channelled through the Sports Council who allocate these funds according to their own policies and priorities. However, an important criterion in deciding which governing bodies are eligible for grant is for the council to satisfy itself that proper safeguards for the sport are in place.

  National Trust
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to commemorate the centenary of the National Trust; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I was pleased to join with the National Trust on 12 January, in the presence of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, to celebrate the trust's centenary. As the guardian of some of our most important historic buildings and landscapes, the trust has made an invaluable contribution towards the preservation of the nation's heritage for the enjoyment and understanding of this and future generations. The trust's work in safeguarding our heritage over the past 100 years has also played a major part in increasing the awareness of the value of our heritage for both the cultural and the economic well being of the country.

  Royal Fine Arts Commission
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he intends to publish the report of Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield into the Royal Fine Art Commission, and what was the final cost of the report.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am giving careful consideration to Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield's report and will in due course place it in the Library of the House with my conclusions. The final cost of the report was £4,700.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what date Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield delivered to him his report on the Royal Fine Art Commission.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield delivered his report on 3 June 1994.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy in respect of(a) tax incentives for European film producers and (b) levies on non-EU films; and what assessment he has made of the impact of levies on non-EU films on transnational distribution of European audio-visual products.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Tax arrangements are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The rate of duty applied to non-EU films imported into the UK ranges between 0.28 and 1.9 ecu per 100 m, depending on the type of film. No assessment has been made of the impact duties on non-EU films may have had on transnational distribution of European products.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the Library Association poll relating to closures of branch libraries in the financial year 1995–96, a copy of which has been sent to him; if he will consider amending the guidelines of the national lottery funding agencies to help public libraries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  My officials were already aware of some of the issues identified in the Library Association poll, and have already discussed them with several authorities. Where there is reason to believe an authority may he failing in its statutory responsibility, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will investigate in line with the requirements of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.

  The national lottery is not intended to fund projects which would normally be funded from existing public expenditure, such as core public library services, for which local authorities have a statutory responsibility. The national heritage memorial fund's guidelines to applicants for lottery funds state that grants can be made where library buildings or collections are of recognised importance to the heritage. Copies of the these guidelines are available in the Library of the House. The Arts Council of England has stated that it can make grants out of lottery funds for the enhancement of library facilities through the provision of space for activities such as readings, literary events, exhibitions, concerts and performances.

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Belle, (o) Profile Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what role he envisages for projects to encourage the popular use of information technology in the distribution of the millennium fund.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission, placing a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

TRANSPORT

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs C. S. M Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C, (f) G.J.W, (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International Ltd., (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) Profile Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department or agencies for which it is responsible in 1994 giving in each case the total cost to the Exchequer of their production, publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department is compiling a list of publications issued in 1994. I will send the list to the hon. Member as soon as it is available and place a copy in the Library. Information is not available on the total costs involved or what was issued in 1980.

  ScotRail (Fort William Services)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, (Mr. Kennedy) on 6 February,Official Report, column 11, what form consultation on whatever railway proposal is or is not included in respect to Fort William will take; when it will take place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  The Franchising Director will be consulting the Rail Users Consultative Committee for Scotland and Scottish regional councils in early summer on his draft passenger service requirement for the ScotRail franchise, including services to Fort William.

  Highway Access to Hospitals
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what rules govern the funding of major highway access works to hospital premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  The funding of access works to major highways is governed by sections 274 and 278 of the Highways Act 1980.

  Settle to Carlisle Railway
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual cost of maintaining(a) the track and (b) the viaducts on the Settle to Carlisle line.

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack advises me that the costs on its maintenance contracts cannot be separated out to the level of detail requested. These costs will, anyway, be affected by negotiations now in progress.

  Railtrack has assured me that it has met and will continue to meet its maintenance obligations in respect of this route.

  Parcel Services
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account will be taken of potential job losses and the possible environmental impact of transferring parcel delivery from rail to road when deciding who will be successful in taking over Red Star parcel services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  BR is the vendor of Red Star. In selling the business it will take account of the statutory objectives set out in section 113 of the Railways Act 1993.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures the Government intend taking to ensure that the purchasers of Red Star parcel service cannot pull out of rail delivery of parcels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Under BR ownership, Red Star turnover has declined significantly in recent years. It is in the commercial interests of Red Star that the purchaser should be able to develop the business without continuing restrictions imposed by Government.

  Advanced Motorists Test
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines his Department issues to drivers taking the advanced motorists test.
  643
  Mr.Norris
  None.

  Rail Privatisation
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funds he has made available to the office of the Rail Regulator to implement rail privatisation; and what is his estimate for the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  Mr. Watts
  The Office of the Rail Regulator is a separate non-ministerial Government department funded by moneys voted by Parliament.

  The Rail Regulator informs me that the forecast outturn for expenditure by his Department until the end of 1994–95 is £10.8 million. Planned expenditure for 1995–96, 1996–97, and 1997–98 is £8.6 million, £7 million, and £7 million respectively.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funds he has made available to the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising to implement rail privatisation; and what is his estimate for the financial years 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  Mr. Watts
  The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising is a separate non-ministerial Government department which is funded by moneys voted by Parliament.

  The forecast outturn for expenditure by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising until the end of 1994–95 is £19.1 million. Planned expenditure for 1995–96, 1996–97, and 1997–98 is £10.6 million, £9.7 million and £9.7 million respectively.

  Access Grants
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many track access grants to reduce Railtrack charges have been made since the announcement of this facility.

  Mr. Watts
  [pursuant to his answer, 27 February 1995, c. 466]: No grants have been made, but eight are under consideration, one has been withdrawn and one has been rejected.

  Roads Programme
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 874, in respect of the roads programme, if he has changed the Highways Agency's 1994–95 published targets.

  Mr. Watts
  Yes. I have reduced the original target for the number of new publicly funded scheme starts to 13 and have today placed a revised version of the "National Roads Programme: Summary of Milestones for 1994–95" in the Library.

HEALTH

  Audit Reports and Management Letters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from which NHS authorities and trusts she has now received(a) the audit report and (b) the audit management letter for 1993–94.
  644
  Mr. Sackville
  At the end of each annual audit, the statutory auditor issues a management letter to each health authority and national health service trust. This summarises the audit findings over the year and is addressed to the authority or trust board rather than to the Secretary of State. Apart from this, auditors do not issue any other report on authorities and trusts on an annual basis.

  HIV and AIDS (Funding)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of funds allocated by her Department for HIV and AIDS work in each year since 1985 has been devoted to the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Sackville
  The percentage of the Department's HIV-AIDS funding directly allocated to the voluntary sector through section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 is shown in the table. Actual expenditure is also shown. The percentage increases over time are as a result of substantial increases in the Department's total HIV-AIDS funding over the same period. Details of this total funding arc also shown.

  Government support for the voluntary sector is not confined to section 64 grants as we also provide funding for special projects from centrally administered funds. Thus, for example, in 1993–94 more than £100.000 was provided from these funds arid for 1994–95 funding from this source totalled £200,000.

  In addition to direct funding from the Department, voluntary organisations in the HIV-AIDS field receive funding from health and local authorities purchasing services for people with HIV-AIDS. This is in accordance with Departmental guidance which stresses that the voluntary sector's participation is vital to the efficient and effective delivery of care and support for people with HIV-AIDS.

  Section 64 Percentage

  £

  Total funding £

  1985–86

  19.23

  100,000

  620,000

  1986–87

  2.11

  160,000

  7,760,000

  1987–88

  3.58

  1,300,000

  37,610,000

  1988–89

  1.52

  1,090,000

  72,790,000

  1989–90

  1.13

  1,600,000

  143,400,000

  1990–91

  1.22

  1,800,000

  149,100,000

  1991–92

  1.2

  1,900,000

  160,400,000

  1992–93

  0.96

  1,987,000

  210,012,000

  1993–94

  0.81

  1,927,000

  240,233,000

  1994–95

  0.71

  1,789,000

  252,729,000

  1995–96

  0.56

  1,547,000

  1274,547,000

  1 Excludes allocation to HEA—helpline which has yet to be settled.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what restrictions there are on a person being a member of more than one trust board or on a trust board and a health authority board;

  (2) what restrictions there are on a person being on a trust board or health authority board where they also are a provider for that trust or health authority.

  Mr. Malone
  Details of those disqualified for appointment as chairman of non-executive director of
  645
  national health service authorities and trusts are contained in the relevant membership and procedure regulations.

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Ministers in her Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd, (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) Profile Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd., and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science gave him today.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by her Department or agencies for which it is responsible in 1994, giving, in each case the total cost to the Exchequer of their production, publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  Mr. Sackville
  All White Papers and Green Papers are published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  In respect of those and other publications published by HMSO, all costs are borne by HMSO which aims to recover these from sales revenue. The estimated costs of copies of these publications purchased by my Department during 1994–95 are £73,000.

  Estimated costs for 1994–95 for leaflets, booklets, newsletters, issued by the Department and its agencies, excluding the Medicines Control Agency, including production and distribution are £5,678,000. This largely represents public health campaigns designed to improve health and information for the national health service, general practitioners and the medical professions.

  A full list of all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Figures for 1980 are not available.

  GP LISTS
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will include in the patients charter a requirement for patients to be given the reasons in writing for their removal from a general practitioner's list.

  Mr. Malone
  No. The General Medical Services Committee issues advice in this context to all general practitioners.

  Ambulance Service (Salaries)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the annual salaries of leading ambulance paramedics in each ambulance service.

  Mr. Malone
  Most ambulance services are now provided by national health service trusts, which are free to employ staff on such terms and conditions as they see 646
  fit. Information about the salaries of ambulance staff on locally determined terms is not available centrally, hut most staff are still engaged on pay and conditions of service negotiated in the ambulance Whitley council. The national salary rate for a leading ambulance man is £15,036 per year and, for extended trained staff required to use paramedical skills, further allowances of £208, £301, £509 or £707 per year may be payable according to the level of training and skill. Additionally, for staff in the London area, allowances of £188, £667 and £1,646 are payable depending on location. Since 1990, all ambulance authorities have within the national agreements had the ability to introduce further local payments to staff linked to improvements in efficiency.

  Electro-Convulsive Therapy
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were given electro-convulsive therapy in the national health service in each year from 1990 to 1994.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is not held in the precise form requested, but data on finished consultant episodes where electro-convulsive therapy is given arc published in "Hospital Episodes Statistics", volume 1, finished consultant episodes by diagnosis, operation and specialty England, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines or protocols are in place in the national health service to prevent the misuse of electro-convulsive therapy;

  (2) what guidelines or protocols are in place in respect of the use of electro-convulsive therapy for patients under 18 years of age;

  (3) what guidelines or protocols are in place in the national health service to govern the use of electro-convulsive therapy for patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Mr. Bowis
  Specific guidance on professional practice is a matter for the appropriate professional body. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recently approved revised guidelines for psychiatrists on electro-convulsive therapy. These will he published shortly. The guidelines will include recommendations on the use of electro-convulsive therapy in young people. For patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, the Act and the code of practice published in 1993 clearly state that electro-convulsive therapy may he administered only where the patient's consent or where a second opinion is given under section 58 of the 1983 Act.

  Boxing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to discourage participation in boxing or other activities that create risks of deaths and injuries to their participants and subsequent cost to the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Individuals should have the freedom to participate in the activities of their choice so long as they are within the law and they are fully aware of the risks involved.

  Particulates
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out by her Department into the health impacts of particulates of(a) vanadium and (b) nickel of less than 0.3 microns and between 0.31 microns and 10 microns.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has not recently funded research into these specific areas.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowlands Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) People Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd., and discussed issues relating to clients of these companies.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minster if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

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

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made for the framework document on Northern Ireland to be available to the public in Great Britain.

  The Prime Minister
  Copies are issued by first class post in response to requests to the Northern Ireland Office freephone or freepost facilities. A full summary of the document is running on the teletext system nationally and the full text of the document is on the Internet system worldwide.

  Career Breaks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister, how many(a) men and (b) women applied for career breaks in his Department; and how many have had their employment terminated in the last five years.

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes, my Department is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

EDUCATION

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if Ministers in her Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) Profile Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by her Department or agencies for which it is responsible in 1994, giving in each case the total cost to the Exchequer of their production, publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department did not issue any White Papers or Green Papers in 1994. Information on pamphlets produced in 1994, and total equivalent costs in 1980, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department's agencies are responsible for their own expenditure on publications. Such information is not held centrally.

  Boxing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals she has to discourage participation in boxing in schools and draw attention to the risks of long-term injury.

  Mr. Forth
  Boxing is not a part of the compulsory school curriculum and there are no plans to make it so. The revised national curriculum for physical education requires that proper regard is given to safety in all physical activity.

  Bedfordshire Education Budget
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what conclusions her Department has drawn from the consequences of the budget figures of Bedfordshire county council on 23 February as they affect school budgets and children's education in Bedfordshire; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is for the voters of Bedfordshire to draw conclusions from the priority given to schools in the county council budget.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) Profile Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department or agencies for which it is responsible in 1994, giving in each case the total cost to the Exchequer of their production, publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  Mr. Baldry
  The major publications produced in 1994 by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the Overseas Development Administration, will be listed in the departmental report, Cm 2802, 1995, to be published on 8 March. In addition, a range of promotional booklets are published for distribution overseas.

  In respect of those White Papers, Green Papers and other publications published for the FCO by HMSO, all costs—apart from pre-production costs of £13,034 for the 1994 departmental report—are borne by HMSO which aims to recover these from sales revenue. The cost of publications promoting Britain abroad and of consular material for the 1994–95 financial year is £2,240,000 compared with £2,583,500 for 1984–85, the earliest year for which figures are available.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are being made to extend the current four-month truce in Bosnia-Herzegovina beyond the 1 May deadline; what use of the remaining period before that date is being made in the peace process; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  UNPROFOR is continuing its efforts to extend the implementation of the cessation of hostilities agreement. The contact group remains actively engaged in the pursuit of a political settlement.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what pressure he is putting on the Croatian Government to permit the presence of UN forces in Croatia beyond 31 March; what pressure is being applied by the European Union and the contact group; what has been the response; and if he will make a statement.
  650
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Along with our EU partners and other contact group members, we have made clear our deep concern over the Croatian decision not to renew UNPROFOR's mandate in Croatia, and are pressing President Tudjman to reverse this decision. To date he has declined to do this.

  We remain concerned that the departure of UNPROFOR from Croatia will increase the tension in the United Nations protected areas and could lead to a renewal of the war in Croatia. We urge the Croatian Government to reconsider.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Oromo people in Ethiopia about their treatment by the Government of Ethiopia; and how he has responded.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have received representations from the Oromo Liberation Front and others about the treatment of Oromos by the transitional Government of Ethiopia. Together with our EU partners and other major aid donor countries, we have registered concerns about human rights in the Oromo and other regions.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Ethiopia about human rights abuses by that Government; and what were the areas of concern.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have made a number of representations to the transitional Government, both bilaterally and with our EU partners, particularly with regard to the arrest and detention of political figures.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken by the international community on human rights issues in Ethiopia.

  Mr. Baldry
  The members of the European Union and aid donors generally continue to monitor the human rights situation in Ethiopia. Concerns have been raised with the transitional Government of Ethiopia on a range of issues.

  Veal Crates
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Fisheries and Food what approaches he has made to the Government of EU member states to secure the same legislation in those states with regard to the prohibition of veal crates as is currently the case in the United Kingdom; if he has raised this matter within the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been pressing hard for the abolition of the close confinement veal crate system across the Community. He raised the issue in the Agriculture Council on 23 January and again on 20 and 21 February and, with the support of many other member states, has secured the advancement to this year of the review of the current EU rules on welfare of calves. I have undertaken a programme of visits to EU capitals to enlist support for a Community-wide ban. Reactions to my visits have been most encouraging.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the number of refugees from Sierra leone now in Guinea; and what assistance is being given by the international community to deal with their humanitarian needs and with the causes of their flight from Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates the total number of refugees who have fled since January 1995 at 45,000, bringing the total to 206,000 Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea since the outbreak of the civil war in 1991. UNHCR is dispatching food, blankets, shelter materials and a water engineer to the region and a World Food Programme chartered vessel is discharging 3,000 tonnes of rice in Conakry both for Liberian and for Sierra Leonean refugees. The United Nations department of humanitarian affairs is currently preparing a regional consolidated inter-agency appeal to cover humanitarian needs.

  The United Nations, the Commonwealth. the Organisation of African Unity and others are engaged in bringing about a peaceful solution to the conflict.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how well the Government of Ethiopia meet his criterion of good governance in respect of aid decisions; and what discussions he has had with the Government of Ethiopia on this matter.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since the transitional Government of Ethiopia came to power in 1991, progress has been made in establishing a legitimate, representative and accountable system of government. National elections are scheduled for 7 May 1995. A programme of economic reforms supported by the international financial institutions is also in place. We discuss these areas and human rights issues on a regular basis with the transitional Government.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs. C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) Profile Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  The Attorney-General
  There have been no such meetings.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department or agencies for which it is responsible in 1994, giving in each case the total cost to the Exchequer of their production, publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service published the following pamphlets for the benefit of the general public in 1994:

  Statement of Purpose and Values/Datganiad

  Cost £

  o Bwrpas a Gwerthoedd

  2,542.92

  CPS Welsh Language Policy/Polisi iaith Gymraeg

  1,153.83

  The Crown Prosecution Service did not issue any White or Green Papers in 1994. There is no equivalent cost for 1980 as the Service was not then in existence.

  None of the legal secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department or the Serious Fraud Office issued White Papers, Green Papers or pamphlets in 1994 for the benefit of the general public. The Serious Fraud Office was not in existence in 1980 and information on equivalent costs in that year for the legal secretariat to the Law Officers and the Treasury Solicitor's Department is not available.

  Expenditure, Wales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Attorney General if he will estimate the money his Department spent in Wales with respect to(a) the Crown Prosecution Service and (b) magistrates courts in the latest available year.

  The Attorney-General
  During 1993–94, the last full year of which figures are available, the Crown Prosecution Service in Wales spent a total of £14,652,000.

  Expenditure on magistrates courts is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. I understand that for 1993–94, the last year for which data are available, the money spent on magistrates courts in Wales was £17.698 million. This figure includes both revenue and capital expenditure.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messers C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) Profile Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary
  653
  Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science in response to a similar question.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department, or agencies for which it is responsible, in 1994 giving, in each case, the total cost to the Exchequer of their production, publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is as follows:

  White Papers

  Home Office annual report 1994: the Government's expenditure plans 1994–95 to 1996–97 for the Home Office and the Charity Commission, HMSO, 1994—Cm 2508, ISBN 0101250827. The costs to the Home Office of production and distribution were £21,917.

  Green Papers

  Tackling drugs together: a consultation document on a strategy for England, 1995–98, HMSO, 1994—Cm 2678, ISBN 0101267827. This Green Paper was jointly produced with other Departments which bore the publication costs.

  Other Consultation papers

  All except the first and last papers listed were produced and distributed in-house and their costs are not separately identifiable.

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984: codes of practice: draft revisions for consultation. Home Office, 1994. The total costs to the Home Office of production and distribution were £2,407.

  Criminal appeals and the establishment of a criminal cases review authority: a discussion paper. Home Office, 1994.

  National standards for the supervision of offenders in the community: near final revised drafts. Home Office, 1994.

  Proposed changes to the law on greyhound totes. Home Office, 1994.

  Revised proposals for Fire Precautions (Places of Work) Regulations and associated guidance. Home Office, 1994. Distribution was contracted out at a cost of £9,500.

  A selective list of other publications is given in the Home Office annual report which will be published later this month. I shall be happy to provide further information to the hon. Member if he requires more details of papers listed there.

  Information on the cost of publications issued in 1980 could he assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code of practice in respect of powers provided by the Food Safety Act 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  Section 67(9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that persons other than police officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences shall have regard to any relevant provisions of codes of practice issued under the Act.

  Code B, on the searching of premises and the seizure of property, sets down arrangements for obtaining search
  654
  warrants and for conducting searches with the consent of the property owner, including a requirement to inform him of the purpose of the search and to seek his consent before the search commences.

  An amendment to code B has been made to provide that the code does not apply to officers exercising statutory powers of entry and inspection, such as food safety inspectors, where the powers are not dependent on there being suspicion that an offence has been committed and the person exercising the power has no such suspicion. The order implementing the revised code has been approved by both Houses of Parliament and comes into effect on 10 April 1995.

  Football Violence
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for the police to seek restriction orders to be placed on any British citizen(a) arrested, (b) charged and (c) convicted of any offence before, during or after the recent England v. Ireland football match in Dublin.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the terms of section 22 of the Football Spectators Act 1989, courts in England and Wales may impose restriction orders on persons convicted of a football-related offence abroad, providing that there exists a bilateral agreement with the country concerned. There is no such agreement with the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, columns 329–30, what information has been provided as to why the second person subject to a restriction order did not comply with the restriction order on the day of the recent England v. Ireland match; and what action is being taken against the person concerned.

  Mr. Maclean
  The restriction orders authority is not yet in a position to confirm whether the second person subject to a restriction order breached the terms of that order. As indicated on 23 February, column 330, where an order is breached it is an operational matter for the police, and ultimately for the courts, to take action. It is not a matter in which Ministers can intervene.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 226, what plans he has to introduce legislation or amending legislation to give powers to the police to remove a passport from a convicted troublemaker or any person the police reasonably believe to be seeking to travel overseas to engage in violence;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 22 February, Official Report, column 235, what plans he has to introduce legislation or amend existing legislation to give powers to the police to stop convicted troublemakers from travelling outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  I shall consider what additional measures may be needed to deal with football hooligans travelling abroad in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and in the light of the report of the inquiries being conducted by the English and Irish football authorities. As the hon. Member will be aware, part II of the Football Spectators Act 1989 already empowers the courts to impose restriction orders on those convicted of football-related offences to prevent them from attending key matches abroad. Those subject to restriction orders are required to
  655
  report to a police station—of their choice—roughly when an appropriate match is taking place. It is an offence to fail to do so.

  Combat 18
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 236, when he expects the Metropolitan police to complete its investigation of the publication and distribution of written material by Combat 18.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Metropolitan police that it is not yet possible to say when a report of this investigation will go to the Crown Prosecution Service; and that the American embassy has informed it that the Dixie Press has closed down.

  Immigration Detention Centres
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the rules governing the running of Her Majesty's prisons are applicable to the running of the Campsfield and Harmondsworth detention centres.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The immigration detention centres at Campsfield house and Harmondsworth are not Prison Service establishments and are therefore not subject to Prison Service rules.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the manual which governs the administration of Campsfield and Harmondsworth detention centres.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Operating instructions for the management of immigration detention facilities, including Campsfield house and Harmondsworth, contain information which is sensitive from both commercial and security points of view. It would not therefore be proper to disclose their contents.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the lower age limit for the detention of asylum seekers at Campsfield and Harmondsworth;

  (2) how many children below the age of 18 years have been detained at Campsfield and Harmondsworth within the last five years; and from which countries they came to seek asylum in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There is no lower age limit for detention at Campsfield or Harmondsworth. However, in practice unaccompanied young persons under the age of 18 are detained only in the most exceptional circumstances. Temporary admission is normally granted into the care of a suitable sponsor—usually a relative or close family friend—or the social services department.

  Since November 1993, when Campsfield house opened, nine people who were, or claimed to have been, under 18 have been detained there. Of these, five have been confirmed as asylum seekers. Their nationalities were Turkish, Ghanaian, Angolan, Chinese and Cote d'Ivoirean.

  The information requested is not available in relation to Harmondsworth and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of Judge Tumim's recent report on Campsfield detention centre.
  656
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The report by HM chief inspector of prisons, following his inspection of the detention facilities at Campsfield house, has not yet been finalised. Consideration to placing the report in the Library of the House will be given in due course.

  National Lottery
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to permit licensed bookmakers premises to sell national lottery tickets; if any review undertaken by him will apply to Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have no plans to amend the regulations issued under section 12 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 which prohibit the sale of national lottery tickets in licensed bookmakers premises. These regulations apply equally to all areas of the United Kingdom.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of dogs currently held in respect of charges under(a) the Dogs Acts and (b) the Dangerous Dogs Acts; what is the daily costs of keeping those animals in custody; how many of those animals are alleged to be pit bull or pit bull type; how many of those animals have been in custody for more than (a) three and (b) six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There are presently 133 dogs held in police custody in England and Wales under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. No dogs are being held under other dogs Acts. Ninety-seven dogs are alleged to he of the type known as the pit bull terrier.

  Thirty-one dogs have been held in custody for more than three months and 73 dogs for more than six months.

  The daily cost of keeping dogs in custody ranges between £1.76 and £9, depending on the police force concerned.

  Prevention of Terrorism
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has reached on the recommendations of Mr. J. J. Rowe QC concerning the future of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

  Mr. Howard
  I have now considered Mr. Rowe's report, which was placed in the Library of the House on 17 February, and decided to accept his recommendation that the legislation should be renewed in its entirety for a further 12 months. A draft order to give effect to that is today being laid before the House.

  Crime Victims
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue a leaflet for victims who have suffered from criminal activities to instruct them on their rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The "Victims of Crime" leaflet is already available. It was first published in 1988 and a revised and augmented version was issued last October. The leaflet is given by the police to all victims of reported crime and tells them, among other things, how the crime
  657
  will be investigated, what will happen if the case goes to court, how they can apply for compensation, and what further sources of help and advice are available.

  Later this year, we shall build on the victims charter by publishing a statement to service standards for victims of crime. This new, charter-style, document will tell victims in greater detail what they can expect of the criminal justice agencies and how they can complain if they do not receive the level of service which it specifies.

  North East London Probation Service
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many offenders were being supervised by the North East London probation service on 30 June 1994;

  (2) how many court reports were completed by the North East London probation service during 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) on 28 February,Official Report, column 531.

  Vafi Sita Kamara
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Vafi Sita Kamara arrived in the United Kingdom; what was her age on arrival, when she first applied for asylum; what decisions were taken on her application and when; when she was detained; what was her age on detention; how long she has spent continuously in detention; and if he will make a statement on her current state of health.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  It is not our normal practice to give detailed information on individual cases. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) regulations or (b) guidelines govern his Department's accounting system in respect of the allocation of payments for redundancies in the data processing occurring in contract year one of the accounts and allocated over other years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is assumed that this question relates to the contract with Sema Group plc awarded following the market test of Home Office administrative information technology services. The Home Office did not make any staff redundant as a consequence of this market test and the allocation of expenditure for such redundancies does not arise. All payments to the Sema Group in connection with this contract, including payments associated with their transitional and restructuring costs, will be allocated to the financial year in which the payments are made in accordance with the normal rules of Government cash accounting.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the longest time someone currently seeking asylum has been detained;
  658
  (2) what is the number of people seeking asylum who are presently detained, either awaiting a hearing or awaiting deportation.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  As at 23 February 1995, the longest currently detained person who had sought asylum has been held in detention since 14 August 1990. The individual concerned was detained following the Home Secretary's decision that his deportation would he conducive to the public good on grounds of national security. He subsequently applied for asylum, and his application was refused on 27 March 1991. My right hon. and learned Friend has given an undertaking that he should not be removed pending the exhaustion of rights of appeal before the domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights, should the individual wish to exercise these rights.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member from Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 2 February 1995, Official Report, column 813, which gave the available information on the number of people detained pending an appeal or awaiting removal.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish a list of all the prisons and other establishments which people for asylum in the United Kingdom are being detained, and the numbers of detainees in each place;

  (2) how many of those people seeking asylum in United Kingdom and who are detained at Haslar prison have, in the past 12 months, (a) been given permission to remain in the United Kingdom as political refugees, (b) been deported to their country of origin, (c) died in detention, (d) committed suicide, (e) attempted to commit suicide, (f) applied for bail and (g) been granted bail;

  (3) how many people who are seeking asylum in Britain are currently held in prisons.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The majority of people detained under immigration powers are housed in immigration service detention centres at Harmondsworth and Campsfield house, or at Haslar, a Prison Service establishment run almost exclusively for this purpose. At 23 February 1995, 635 persons who had sought asylum were being detained. Of these, 268 persons were being detained in prison in the United Kingdom, including Haslar holding centre, and the remainder were being held in other immigration service detention centres. A list of the numbers of detainees in each place of detention is given in the table.

  Details on persons who had sought asylum and were detained at Haslar holding centre in 1994 are not available. There were no incidents of death by suicide or otherwise among the asylum detainees at Haslar holding centre in 1994, but one person attempted suicide.

  Number of persons detained who have claimed asylum as at 23 February 1995, by place of detention.

  Place of detention

  Number detained

  Prisons

  HMP Haslar

  77

  HMP Rochester

  71

  HMP Brixton

  17

  HMP Wormwood Scrubs

  7

  HMP Hull

  4

  HMP Pentonville

  4

  HMP Birmingham

  28

  HMP Horfield, Bristol

  4

  659

  Number of persons detained who have claimed asylum as at 23 February 1995, by place of detention.

  Place of detention

  Number detained

  HMP Bullingdon

  2

  HMP Billingdon

  1

  HMP Blunderston

  1

  HMP Winchester

  3

  HMP Wandsworth

  6

  HMP Belmarsh

  5

  HMP Chelmsford

  2

  HMP Dorchester

  1

  HMP Armley, Leeds

  4

  HMP Erlestoke

  1

  HMP Highdown

  1

  HMP Liverpool

  1

  HMP Norwich

  3

  HMP Crumlin Road

  1

  HMP The Mount

  1

  HMP Whitemoor

  1

  HMP Bullwood Hall

  1

  HMP Exeter

  1

  HMP Greenock

  4

  HMP Hindley

  1

  HMP Holme House

  1

  HMP Lewes

  1

  HMP Manchester

  3

  HMP Risley

  1

  HMP Wayland

  1

  HMRC The Wolds

  3

  HMYOI Brinsford

  5

  268

  Other places of detention

  Campsfield House

  151

  Harmondsworth

  95

  Beehive, Gatwick

  15

  Queens Building

  11

  Newhaven

  10

  Dover Harbour Board

  10

  Stansted

  5

  Others1

  70

  367

  Total

  635

  1 Includes other immigration service detention centres and police cells.

  Data Processing
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to his Department of putting together the work in-house bid for his Department's data processing work.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 492, how many people were employed at Corby on data entry operation; how many were made redundant following its acquisition by Sema Group; and which organisation will be paying toward the redundancies.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following the award of a contract to Sema Group for the supply of Home Office administrative information technology services, staff in the undertaking were transferred to Sema Group on 1 November 1994; this included 42 data entry staff employed at Corby.
  660
  Although subsequent redundancies by Sema Group are a matter for it, we understand from the company that all data entry staff in Corby were invited on 3 January 1995 to apply for voluntary redundancy, that as a result all 42 staff are to be made redundant by Sema Group; the costs of the redundancies will be paid by Sema Group. It is the intention of Sema Group to use a subcontractor for the provision of data entry services which is in accordance with the terms of its contract with the Home Office. We understand that the subcontractor is offering similar employment locally to all staff.

  Immigration (Overstayers)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many overstayers have been removed from the United Kingdom in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information available relates to persons removed following deportation action in respect of a breach of conditions to enter or remain. Such persons comprise mainly overstayers but also include persons working in breach of conditions. Data on such persons removed, and those who departed voluntarily when served with a notice of intention to deport, in 1984–93 are given in table 7.3 of "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom, 1993"—Cm 2637—a copy of which is in the Library. The corresponding numbers of removals and voluntary departures in 1994 were 1,264 and 199 respectively.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been received by the Metropolitan police for police recruitment in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following is the information requested:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Men

  4,425

  7,006

  2,174

  5,583

  10,254

  Women

  1,729

  2,470

  799

  1,989

  2,881

  Total

  6,154

  9,476

  2,973

  7,572

  13,135

  These figures exclude applications to join the special constabulary.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers are available(a) to Her Majesty's Government and (b) individual citizens to combat (i) criminals and (ii) pornographers using the Internet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Users of the Internet are subject to the relevant provisions of the criminal law. Thus, for example, those who use the Internet to transmit obscene material will be liable to prosecution under the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964, while those who use the system to plan criminal activities may be liable to prosecution for conspiracy. Those who believe that the system may he being used for illegal purposes should report the matter to the police.

  Pop Festivals
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers Parliament has granted local authorities on the Isle of Wight(a) to refuse pop festivals and (b) to regulate pop festivals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 enables district councils in England and Wales outside Greater London to adopt powers requiring the licensing of outdoor musical entertainments held on private land. The grant or refusal of a licence is at the discretion of the council. Licences may be issued subject to conditions concerning safety, public hygiene and prevention of unreasonable noise disturbance. I understand that each of the two district councils on the Isle of Wight has adopted these powers.

  Prisons (Television)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his decision not to authorise in-cell television in new prison cells was a policy or operational matter.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provision of in-cell television is something which has both operational and policy implications. It has operational implications for the way prisons are managed and it also has policy implications in terms of the privileges which are allowed to prisoners, which is properly a matter of policy concern.

  Parkhurst Prison (Geophones)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions since 1979 when the governors of Her Majesty's prison, Parkhurst requested the installation of geophones; and what action was taken in each case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Chris Mullin, dated 2 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of occasions since 1979 when the Governors of Parkhurst have requested the installation of geophones and what action had been taken in each instance.
  Disproportionate cost would be incurred to fully answer your Question. The issue was first raised in 1987, but at this stage, it was felt that geophones should not be installed until the major redevelopment programme at the prison had been completed. Mr. Marriott, who became the Governor of Parkhurst prison in 1990, made a number of requests for geophones to be installed around the internal perimeter fence (geophones were already in place around the Special Secure Unit).
  At the time of the escape in January, geophones were being installed around the perimeter fence at Parkhurst. The Prison Service decided not to install geophones in the prison earlier because, as Ministers made clear at the time, the building work would have severely limited their effectiveness. It was those building works which dictated the timing of the installation. While building work, itself related to security, was going, on, it did not make sense to install geophones because they could not work effectively in those circumstances.
  Installation of geophones around the perimeter fence will be completed in April 1995.

  Fire and Civil Defence Authorities
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that financial arrangements and support will enable each fire and civil defence authority to achieve and to maintain Home Office minimum standards in 1995–96; and if he will list those authorities which on present estimates are unlikely to meet that requirement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: It is for each fire and civil defence authority, in the light of the provisional criteria for council tax capping, to set a budget for 1995–96. The budget should allow it to comply with its statutory duties to provide fire cover. Where an authority is convinced that it cannot set a budget within the provisional capping limits, it can set a budget above the provisional cap and make a case to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for those limits to be redetermined.

TREASURY

  Growth Rate
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of growth of the economy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Gross domestic product grew by 3¾ per cent. in 1994.

  Neo-classical Endogenous Growth Theory
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies he has made of neo-classical endogenous growth theory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies he has made of neo-classical endogenous growth theory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The post neo-classical endogenous growth theory is receiving the study it deserves.

  Fund Flows, Japan
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of fund flows between the United Kingdom and Japan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Recent figures suggest that the UK current account with Japan for the first half of 1994 moved into surplus.

  Taxation
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has had from Opposition parties about current tax policies.

  Sir George Young
  Since the Budget, the Chancellor has received a very small number of written representations from the hon. Members on the Opposition Front Benches.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total taxation cost for an average manual worker currently; and what it was in May 1979.
  663
  Sir George Young
  'The tax paid by any particular individual depends on their income, household type and spending pattern. Real take-home pay is what matters. Real take-home pay for a one-earner couple on average earnings with two children has risen by 40 per cent.—over £80 a week—since 1978–79.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the plans the Government have to extend the 20 per cent. income tax band.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) earlier today.

  Incomes
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in real disposable income over the past 15 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Real household disposable incomes per head have risen by nearly £50 a week, or 47 per cent., since 1979. They rose by only £8 a week, or 9 per cent., between 1974 and 1979.

  Cash Machines
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had about hole in the wall cash machines.

  Mr. Nelson
  The number of representations has declined in recent years. For example, in 1992 my colleagues and I received some 26 letters from other hon. Members on this issue. In 1993, we received 23 and in 1994 only one. So far this year, we have received none.

  Governor of the Bank of England
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss prospects for the economy.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Chancellor's next monthly monetary meeting with the Governor of the Bank of England will take place on 8 March.

  Inequality
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has in respect of inequality.

  Sir George Young
  Government policies provide a firm basis for lasting economic recovery and are the best way to safeguard living standards of all groups, including the least well-off. The best way to tackle inequality is, as the Government are doing, by ensuring increased opportunities, not by restricting choice and levelling everyone down.

  Demand
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the level of total demand in the economy.

  Mr. Aitken
  Total domestic demand grew by 1.2 per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1994.

  Football (Finances)
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what inquiries he has made in respect of financial irregularities in English football.

  Sir George Young
  The Inland Revenue special compliance office is carrying out investigations into alleged financial irregularities in football clubs. These investigations are continuing and it is not appropriate to comment further until they are complete.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which countries have asked his Department for advice on privatisation over the past 12 months.

  Sir George Young
  In the last three months, the Treasury has talked privatisation to colleagues from Australia, Azerbaijan, Canada, China, Croatia, Cuba, Ethiopia, Hungary, Indonesia, Malaysia, Romania, Spain, Thailand, Trinidad, Turkey, the Ukraine, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.

  Home Help
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce tax relief on home help.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Government have no plans to introduce a tax relief on home help.

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Minister in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs. C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C. (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) People Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No such meetings have taken place involving Treasury Ministers.

  Tax Bulletin
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will request the Board of Inland Revenue to review its interpretation of section 360(3)(b) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 as set out in the tax bulletin for December 1994, with special reference to the expressed interpretation of management as being of a company as a whole rather than of one particular area of the company's operations.

  Sir George Young
  It is for the Inland Revenue to apply existing law as voted by Parliament to the facts of individual cases, and it is not customary for Ministers to intervene in this. The tax bulletin article in question—in fact, published in November 1993—sets out the Revenue's understanding of the particular legislation considered. But the normal rights of appeal are of course available, as the tax bulletin always spells out, to any
  665
  taxpayer who wishes to take issue with the Revenue's view.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual cost of exchanges between sterling and other EU currencies for(a) exports and imports of goods and services, (b) stock exchange and banking transactions and (c) expenditure by (i) tourists and (ii) business travellers.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government have not made any overall or detailed estimate of currency conversion costs between the pound sterling and other EU currencies. However, the European Commission estimates that currency conversion costs amount to 0.4 per cent. of gross domestic product for the EC as a whole.

  European Monetary Institute
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual cost to the European Monetary Institute of(a) wages, (b) benefits in kind, (c) travel allowances and (d) rent for its premises.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information on the running costs of the European Monetary Institute is expected to be published in its annual report in the spring.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons are currently employed by the European Monetary Institute.

  Mr. Nelson
  The European Monetary Institute currently employs around 150 people.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil service jobs are now performed by agencies, quangos, trusts and other bodies,(a) overall in the United Kingdom and (b) in each Government Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The total number of civil servants employed in next steps agencies, or on next step lines, at 1 October 1994 was 331,956, of which 25,466 were employed in trading funds. The civil service staff in post summary gives details of the number employed in these Agencies, listed by Government Department. Posts in non-departmental public bodies, trusts and other bodies are outside the civil service. "Public Bodies 1994" gives details of those employed in non-departmental public bodies, listed by Government Department. The annual article on "Employment in the Public and Private Sectors" in the Central Statistical Office's publication "Economic Trends", January 1995, gives information on total numbers employed in general government and public corporations. The article also gives details of major changes between 1983 and 1994. All these publications are available in the Library.

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the 1995 departmental reports to be published.

  Mr. Aitken
  [pursuant to his answer, 23 February 1995, c. 275–76]: The departmental report for HM Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's other
  666
  small departments and net payments to EC institutions will now be published on 9 March.

SCOTLAND

  Health Service Contacts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what health service contracts have been awarded to(a) Hospital Design Consortium and (b) IDC Ltd., by the Scottish health boards or trusts in the past five years; and if these contractors remain on current contractors' lists for Scottish health service contractors.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no information about either Hospital Design Consortium or IDC Ltd. being awarded a health service building contract in Scotland.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons with learning difficulties were looked after in the community in 1993–94.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As at 31 March 1993 there were 2,535 people being cared for in residential care homes for people with learning disabilities. At the same date, there were 8,439 people attending day centres for people with learning disabilities. The number of people with learning disabilities who are being cared for at home is unknown. Complete information for 1994 is not yet available.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the equity partners of Scottish Enterprise in projects supported by them over the past three years;

  (2) if he will list the number of occasions 3i has acted as equity partners in Scottish Enterprise projects.

  Mr. Kynoch
  Equity participation in projects that it supports is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise. I have asked the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to write to the hon. Member.

  Quarry Proposal, Elderslie
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to announce his decision in respect of the application by Scottish Aggregates to develop a quarry at Windyhill farm, Elderslie; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kynoch
  The reporter appointed to hear evidence at the public local inquiry into the proposed quarry will very shortly circulate to parties, for comment, part I of her report containing the summary of evidence and her findings of fact. The reporter will, thereafter, complete the report and submit it to my right hon. Friend with her recommendation. A decision is expected towards the end of the summer.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the budgeted expenditure per head of population of each of the Scottish(a) regional and (b)

  667
  district councils in 1994–95 and 1995–96; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested for 1994–95 is given in the table. The comparable information for 1995–96 is not yet available.

  Total 1994–95 budgeted expenditure per head of population

  £

  Regional Councils

  Borders

  1,064

  Central

  964

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,052

  Fife

  972

  Grampian

  918

  Highland

  1,170

  Lothian

  960

  Strathclyde

  1,026

  Tayside

  1,008

  District Councils

  Berwickshire

  152

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  153

  Roxburgh

  164

  Tweeddale

  159

  Clackmannan

  203

  Falkirk

  168

  Stirling

  227

  Annandale and Eskdale

  148

  Nithsdale

  160

  Stewartry

  136

  Wigtown

  197

  Dunfermline

  163

  Kirkcaldy

  173

  North East Fife

  185

  Aberdeen

  213

  Banff and Buchan

  157

  Gordon

  153

  Kincardine and Deeside

  127

  Moray

  163

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  179

  Caithness

  167

  Inverness

  151

  Lochaber

  210

  Nairn

  152

  Ross and Cromarty

  219

  Skye and Lochalsh

  239

  Sutherland

  213

  East Lothian

  198

  Edinburgh

  276

  Midlothian

  177

  West Lothian

  166

  Argyll and Bute

  295

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  166

  Clydebank

  268

  Clydesdale

  201

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  172

  Name

  Occupation

  Date of appointment

  Period of current appointment

  Salary £

  Sir James Mellon KCMG (Chairman)

  Former Diplomat

  1.4.89

  1.4.93–31.3.96

  38,330

  Mrs. Frances McCall MBE

  Member, Management Committee, Calvay Co-operative

  1.12.88

  1.4.91–31.3.951

  6,660

  Professor Duncan Maclennan MA MPhil FRSA

  Director of the Centre for Housing Research at Glasgow University

  1.12.88

  1.4.93–31.3.97

  6,600

  Dr. Tom Begg OBE JP BA PhD

  Lecturer in Economics at Queen Margaret College, Edinburgh

  1.12.88

  1.4.91–31.3.95

  6,600

  668

  Total 1994–95 budgeted expenditure per head of population

  £

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  188

  Cunninghame

  203

  Dumbarton

  210

  East Kilbride

  177

  Eastwood

  136

  Glasgow

  318

  Hamilton

  235

  Inverclyde

  221

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  202

  Kyle and Carrick

  206

  Monklands

  238

  Motherwell

  213

  Renfrew

  221

  Strathkelvin

  203

  Angus

  157

  Dundee

  251

  Perth and Kinross

  177

  Notes:

  1. The total 1994–95 budgeted expenditure is taken from figures returned by local authorities in March/April 1994.

  2. The population figures used were the latest available from the General Register Office of Scotland dated 29 April 1994.

  Councillors' Allowances
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase the level of councillors' allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) gave on 19 January,Official Report, columns 665–66, which covered allowances for all councillors. In respect of the existing scheme, which continues to apply to the members of the regional and district councils until 31 March 1996, the usual annual review is currently under way.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) names, (b) employment or previous employment, (c) date of appointment, (d) date for reappointment and (e) salary, honorarium and/or allowance payable to each member of the board of Scottish Homes, including the executive and non-executive directors; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table. Appointments and reappointments are considered by my right hon. Friend in terms of the most effective mix of expertise required by Scottish Homes at the appropriate time.
  669

  Name

  Occupation

  Date of appointment

  Period of current appointment

  Salary £

  Mrs. Heather Sheerin OBE

  Co-director family-owned retail carpet business

  1.12.88

  1.4.93–31.3.97

  6,600

  Mrs. Daphne M.W. Sleigh

  Freelance Market Researcher

  14.9.90

  14.9.90–31.3.951

  6,600

  Cameron Parker OBE

  Non-executive Vice Chairman, Lithgows Ltd.

  1.4.92

  1.4.92–31.3.96

  6,600

  Professor John R. Small CBE

  Deputy Principal, Heriot Watt University and Professor of Accountancy and Finance

  1.4.93

  1.4.93–31.3.97

  6,600

  Alistair Dempster

  Chief Executive, TSB Bank Scotland plc; Deputy Chairman TSB Bank Channel Islands Limited

  1.10.93

  1.4.93–31.3.98

  6,600

  Peter McKinlay (ex-officio)

  Chief Executive, Scottish Homes

  7.10.91

  7.10.91–6.10.97

  76,599

  1 Mrs. Frances McCall and Mrs Daphne Sleigh have been offered and have accepted re-appointment for a period from 1.4.95–31.3.98 and 1.4.95–31.3.99 respectively.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the precise duties and responsibilities of(a) the chairman and (b) the chief executive of Scottish Homes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The chairman of Scottish Homes is responsible to my right hon. Friend for its overall direction and management within the policy framework set by him. He is the principal spokesman for Scottish Homes and the main contact with Ministers, raising issues with them as appropriate. The chief executive is designated as accounting officer and is personally responsible for the proper stewardship and expenditure of public funds and the day-to-day operation and management of Scottish Homes.

  Community Councils
  Mr. Mcmaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new powers, duties or responsibilities will he given to community councils under the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1994; what plans he has to give local authorities a statutory duty to consult community councils on matters of local interest, planning applications and community planning policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kynoch
  Following local government reorganisation, community councils will have a statutory right to be consulted on planning issues if they so wish and on the decentralisation schemes which the new authorities will draw up for their area. Local authorities will also be encouraged to keep community councils fully informed about local licensing issues.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the policy of the Scottish Office in relation to fox hunting.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government have consistently adopted a position of neutrality towards field sports. We believe that participation in these activities, including fox hunting, is a matter on which people should make their own decision according to their conscience.

  Carpet Industry
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the importance of the carpet manufacturing industry to the local economy of Renfrewshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kynoch
  The carpet manufacturing industry makes a valuable contribution to the economy of Renfrewshire. It currently employs about 440 people, who represent approximately 2 per cent. of Renfrewshire's total manufacturing employment.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of state for Scotland if the prior options study of Scottish Homes which he announced on 12 July 1994 has yet been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I am pleased to announce that the prior options study, undertaken as the first stage of the five-yearly policy and financial management review of Scottish Homes, has now been completed.

  The study was carried out by my Department under the guidance of a steering group chaired by the Secretary of the Scottish Office Environment Department. My announcement on 12 July included an invitation to interested parties to submit comments and the Department wrote to a number of individuals and bodies with a clear interest in the functions of Scottish Homes. I am grateful to all those who took the trouble to respond. A total of 36 responses were received and the views expressed were taken into account. The majority of respondents saw a continuing need for a strong national housing agency.

  I have accepted the overall conclusions of the study. Scottish Homes will continue as a single national housing agency playing a major role in taking forward the Government's housing policies in Scotland and supporting local authorities in their role as statutory housing authorities. It will continue to provide development funding to housing associations and other housing providers, promote housing research and innovation and carry out the statutory function of registration and monitoring of housing associations. It will, however, become a more focused organisation as it

  671
  sheds its landlord role in line with the Government's policy to diversify the rented sector in Scotland.

  The second stage of the review, which will examine Scottish Homes's performance and financial management in detail, will now get under way. Many of the comments submitted as part of the prior options study will be relevant to the second stage.

  Separately, the Government will be examining the issue of housing associations wishing to operate in more than one part of the United Kingdom.

  Copies of the report of the prior options study will be placed in the Library and can be obtained from the Scottish Office Environment Department, room 423B, St Andrew's house, Edinburgh, EH1 2DG, Tel. 0131 244 2234.

  Housing Associations
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if a housing association which was not a co-operative housing association subsequent to 2 January 1989 granted a tenancy to an individual, either alone or jointly with others, who immediately prior to being granted tenancy had held, alone or with others, the secure tenancy of a different house from the same housing association if(a) the new tenancy would be secure, (b) the new tenancy would be subject to the provisions of the part IV of the Rent (Scotland) 1984, and (c) that house would be subject to the right to purchase under section 61 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and related provisions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 February 1995]: While it is not for the Government to interpret statute, it is the Government's view that housing legislation provides that where a secure tenant of a housing association transfers to another property owned by the same landlord, the tenancy remains a secure tenancy and is subject to the provisions of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984. It is also the case that under section 61 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 a secure tenant has a statutory right to purchase this home, subject to certain exemptions.

  Raves
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations made by Sheriff Neil Gow following the fatal accident inquiry on Hanger 13; and if he will make a statement on the outcome.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 March 1995]: The determination in this fatal accident inquiry has underlined the dangers of taking drugs such as Ecstasy and helpfully complements the recommendations in the report of the ministerial drugs task force led by my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State. Particular consideration is being given to Sheriff Gow's recommendation that model conditions in licences for raves should be prepared in legislative form. The task force made a similar recommendation, while recognising that responding to the problems associated with rave events through the licensing system was not straightforward. Consultations are now taking place with
  672
  the police and local authorities, in the light of which we shall consider what action is appropriate, including possible legislative amendment.

  Medical Negligence Proceedings
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average length of time needed to bring to a conclusion legal proceedings concerned with a claim of negligence against medical practitioners employed in(a) general practice and (b) hospital posts; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: Information on general medical practitioners is not collected centrally. They are independent contractors and as such insure themselves independently. For hospital practitioners, the length of time taken to settle claims on medical negligence will vary depending on the nature of the case. If agreement is reached before the case goes to court, it can be settled within six to nine months of the claim being lodged. Where the claim is determined by the courts, the average time taken to reach a conclusion is around five years.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many legal cases involving negligence on the part of medical practitioners have been brought to a conclusion in each of the past 10 years; what were the sums of compensation paid to complainers who were found by the courts to have suffered from such negligent conduct; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: The information collected centrally on the compensation paid on medical negligence claims makes no distinction between agreed out of court settlements and damages awarded by the courts.

  Information on the costs of settlements and the number of cases concerned can he provided only from 1 January 1990 when financial responsibility for medical negligence was assumed by health boards. The costs, as recently updated and including claimants' costs, for this period were as follows:

  Year

  Settlements {court and out of court) £

  Number of cases

  1989–90

  957,956

  22

  1990–91

  1,327,080

  50

  1991–92

  1,143,151

  49

  1992–93

  1,215,627

  40

  1993–94

  646,038

  27

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he can make concerning the percentage of women being offered cervical smears on a three-yearly basis or less in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: All women throughout Scotland in the age range 20 to 60 years are offered cervical screening on

  673
  a three-yearly basis. The only ineligible women are those who have had a total hysterectomy.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce further legislation to encourage employers to recruit more disabled employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Disability Discrimination Bill is currently being considered by Parliament and the Government have no
  674
  plans to introduce further legislation relating to the employment of disabled people.

  The Government encourage the recruitment of disabled employees through their long-standing programme aimed at educating and persuading employers to recognise the abilities of disabled employees and to adopt good employment practices. We will also continue to provide effective and practical help both to employers and to disabled individuals. More than 53,000 disabled people were helped to find work last year by Employment Service advisers and we are aiming to help more than 56,000 this year.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs. C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casey, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) Profile Corporate and Political Relations, and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There have been no such meetings.

  Expenditure, Wales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the expenditure of his Department in Wales in the most recent available year.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Expenditure by the higher courts and central Government grants to local authorities in support of magistrates courts in Wales in 1993–94 was £39.7 million. This figure included preparatory work on the parking enforcement centre, which is attached to Cardiff county court and was completed in 1993–94.

  In addition, £4.9 million of legal aid payments were made through the Crown court in Wales. Expenditure from the legal aid fund cannot be identified separately for Wales because the Legal Aid Board's area offices administer applications and bills from parts of both England and Wales.

  Small Claims Limit
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will raise the £1,000 limit for claims within the small claims court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what plans he has to make special arrangements for the recovery of costs by successful plaintiffs in small personal injury cases if the small claims limit is raised;

  (2) what plans he has to raise the small claims limit; by what amount; and when he plans to introduce the rise.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This issue, among others, is within the scope of Lord Woolf's comprehensive review of civil justice. The Lord Chancellor is awaiting the first report of this review, and any decisions will be taken in that context.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department or agencies for which it is responsible in 1994, giving in each case the total cost to the Exchequer of their 676
  production, publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Department published no White or Green Papers during 1994, but two leaflets were published and are listed with their costs. There were also reports and consultation documents apparently outwith the scope of the question. Information regarding the equivalent costs of White and Green Papers and leaflets produced by the Department in 1980 is not held centrally.An Introduction to the Lord Chancellor's Department £985.75
  An Introduction to the Lord Chancellor's Department
  (An Italian version for British Week in Milan) £5,543.00

  The Lord Chancellor has responsibilities for three agencies, HM Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office. As the question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executives of the agencies are best placed to provide an answer I have accordingly asked them to reply direct.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Roland Boyes, dated 1 March 1995:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning the white papers, green papers and pamphlets issued by the Registry in 1994.
  The Land Registry produces a wide range of explanatory literature containing advice for practitioners and the general public on various aspects of land registration practice and procedure and on the services that it provides. No white papers or green papers were issued in 1994.
  There is no cost to the exchequer of production, publication or distribution as the Agency meets all of its costs from fees.
  I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary but please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Roland Boyes, dated 1 March 1995:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your question about white papers, green papers and pamphlets issued by the Public Record Office.
  The Public Record Office did not issue any white or green papers in 1994. It produced the following guidance:

  Beyond the PRO: Public Records in Places of Deposit

  Author: S. Shaw

  Printing costs: None

  Authorial costs: None

  In 1980 the Public Record Office did not issue any white or green papers or pamphlets.

  Letter from Julia Lomas to Mr. Roland Boyes, dated 1 March 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your parliamentary question, listed on 22 February 1995, regarding a list of the white papers, green papers and pamphlets issued and the cost of their production, publication and distribution.
  The Public Trust Office did not issue any white or green papers in 1994.
  The cost of producing and publishing pamphlets in 1994 (including Charter Statements explanatory booklets and leaflets sent to our customers) was £37,500. The cost of distribution will have formed part of the Public Trust Office's total postal budget and has not been separately costed.

  677
  The Public Trust Office is required to cover its running costs from fees levied on its clients and the cost of producing, publishing and distributing these pamphlets will, therefore, have been recovered from these fees.
  No equivalent figures are available for 1980 as the relevant information is only retained for seven years.

  Court Service
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which public relations company was hired by his Department to advise on the logo and other public relations matters for the launch of the new Court Service agency on 3 April; how long the contract with the company is set to last; and what the total cost to the Department of the company's service will be.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No public relations company has been engaged to advise on matters relating to the launch of the Court Service as an executive agency. Following a competitive tender exercise, the Epps Partnership has been retained to design a logo, guidelines for its use and the layout of the documents which will be published attendant on the launch of the agency and also in respect of the courts charter. The contract will come to an end in July 1995. The cost to the Department at 28 February 1995 is £32,741.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Electricity
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what considerations underlay the absence of competition in respect of the invitation for tenders for the supply of electricity to Northern Ireland, prior to the signing of heads of agreement between Scottish Power and Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Mr. Ancram
  I understand that Northern Ireland Electricity initially approached a number of generating companies including National Power plc, PowerGen plc, Electricity de France and Scottish Hydro Electric plc in addition to Scottish Power plc before entering into detailed negotiations with the last named.

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd.,(d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) Profile Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Sir John Wheeler
  No.

  Cardiac and Orthopaedic Survey
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the waiting list for cardiac and 678
  orthopaedic surgery in each of the area health and social services boards for the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the total number of patients in Northern Ireland waiting for treatment in the cardiac surgery and trauma and orthopaedic specialties at 31 December in each of the last three years.

  Trauma and Orthopaedic surgery

  Cardiac surgery (Ordinary admissions)

  (Ordinary-Admissions)

  (Day cases)

  1992

  797

  3,902

  n/a

  1993

  701

  3,190

  n/a

  1994

  443

  2,493

  517

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of cardiac operations purchased by Northern Ireland GP fundholders and area boards in the last three years for which figures are available in the Royal Victoria hospital, in Great Britain hospitals, in the private sector and the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the total number of patients who have had cardiac operations at the Royal Victoria hospital in each of the last three years.

  Year

  Number

  1991–92

  726

  1992–93

  994

  1993–94

  1,140

  Cardiac surgery is not undertaken in any of the private sector hospitals or clinics in Northern Ireland and information about operations performed outside Northern Ireland is not collected centrally.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of orthopaedic operations purchased by GP fundholders and area boards for the last three years for which figures are available in Musgrave Park hospital, the Royal Victoria hospital and the private sector.

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the total number of patients who had operations within the specialty of trauma and orthopaedics at the Royal Victoria hospital and Musgrave Park hospital in each of the last three years.

  Year

  Royal Victoria hospital

  Musgrave Park hospital

  1991–92

  1,160

  4,386

  1992–93

  1,130

  4,039

  1993–94

  1,351

  5,452

  Information about orthopaedic operations undertaken in private sector hospitals or clinics is not collected.

  Single Programming Document
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the members of the working groups created to support the monitoring committee on the single programming document for Northern Ireland, their organisations and the planned dates of the meetings of the working groups; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  In addition to Government and European Commission officials, the working groups, or sub-programme working committees, also include outside members drawn from various key sectors. Meetings will normally be held twice a year. Details of the outside members and the planned dates for the inaugural meetings of the committees are set out.

  Name

  Organisation

  Economic Development—Meeting 24 March

  Mr. B. Johnston

  First Trust bank

  Professor I. Allen

  NI Neuropathology Service, Royal Victoria hospital

  Mr. P. Gorecki

  NI Economic Council

  Mr. J. McKinney

  Society of Local Authority Chief Executives

  Tourism—Meeting 23 March

  Mr. D. Fallows

  Society of Local Authority Chief Executives

  Mr. D. Broderick

  Tourism and Hospitality Training Council (NI)

  Ms P. Morris

  Glenavon House Hotel

  Mr. A. Goan

  Belleek Pottery Ltd.

  Mr. I McQuiston

  National Trust

  Physical and Social Environment—Meeting 22 March

  Dr. D. Stephens

  Irish Council of Churches

  Mrs. A. McGinley

  Fermanagh District Council

  Ms M. McWilliams

  University of Ulster

  Mr. S. McAleavey

  NI Council for Voluntary Action

  Mr. J. Redpath

  Community Leader

  Investment in the Development of People—Meeting 23 March (provisional)

  Ms S. McKee

  Cantrell and Cochrane Ltd.

  Ms A. Kilmurray

  NI Voluntary Trust

  Mr. L. Hasson

  Austin and Co. Ltd., Londonderry

  Mr. N. McBride

  Job Link Training Scheme, Coleraine

  Transportation—Meeting 31 March

  Mrs. M. Bell

  NI General Consumer Council

  680

  Name

  Organisation

  Mr. J. Irvine

  NI Transport Holding Company

  Energy—Meeting 3 March

  Mr. W. Napier

  Tyrone Brick Ltd.

  Mr. M. Smyth

  University of Ulster

  Ms M. McCloskey

  Neighbourhood Energy Action

  Agriculture—Meeting 13 March

  Representative to be confirmed

  Ulster Farmers Union

  Representative to be confirmed

  NI Agricultural and Producers Association

  Rural Development—Meeting 14 March

  Mr. J. Armstrong

  Rural Development Council

  Professor F. Gordon

  Agricultural Research Institute for NI

  Fisheries—Meeting 10 to 11 April

  Mr. G. Golligher

  Industrial Development Board

  Mr. P. McCardle

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  Mr. F. Ledwidge

  NI Seafoods

  Environmental Services and Protection—Meeting 16 March

  Professor A. Long

  Queen's University, Belfast

  Dr. C. Carter

  University of Ulster

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the members of the monitoring committee in respect of the single programming document for Northern Ireland, their organisations and the planned dates of the meetings of the committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  In addition to Government and European Commission officials, the Northern Ireland single programme monitoring committee also includes five outside members drawn from various key sectors. These are Mr. Sean Curran, industry sector; Professor Wallace Ewart, training sector; Ms Avila Kilmurray, voluntary sector; Mr. Desmond Mitchell, district councils; and Mr. Norman Shaw, agriculture sector. The monitoring committee's inaugural meeting was held on 1 December 1994 and the next meeting is provisionally scheduled for 18 May 1995. The committee will normally meet twice a year.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department, or agencies for
  681
  which it is responsible, in 1994 giving, in each case, the total cost to the exchequer of their production, publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  Sir John Wheeler
  No White Papers issued by the NI Departments and NIO during 1994.

  The following Green Papers were issued:

  1. Social Services (NI)—draft codes of practice on conduct and accountability for the health and personal social services in NI, costing £550.

  2. A strategic analysis of the education service. Costing £17,569 for production and publication only.

  3. Small schools policy statement, costing £2,710 for production and publication only.

  4. Policing in the community, costing £6,300.

  Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office issue a wide range of pamphlets, broadly covering the services and facilities provided and outlining statutory requirements. To list the pamphlets and associated costs for those issued in 1994 would incur disproportionate costs.

  Total equivalent costs for 1980 are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Framework Document
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many copies of the framework document have been produced and distributed in Northern Ireland; and at what cost.

  Mr. Ancram
  Between 22 February and 1 March, almost 150,000 copies were printed, of which about 100,000 are already in circulation.

  The total cost of printing and distribution over the same period is estimated at £216,000.

  The importance of the document and the need to secure wide and informed public debate requires widespread distribution to the public. Printing will continue until the demand for copies is met.

  Abortions
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the total number of abortions carried out on residents of Northern Ireland in England and Wales since 1968;

  (2) what is the estimated number of abortions on women from Northern Ireland which are included in the notifications of abortions in England and Wales since 1968.

  Mr. Moss
  Official estimates are not made of the number of abortions on women from Northern Ireland carried out in England and Wales. Since 1970, a total of 33,255 abortions have been notified under the Abortion Act 1967 as having been carried out in England and Wales on residents in Northern Ireland. Information is not available on abortions by country prior to 1970.

  Private Lee Clegg
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date the process began for the 682
  release on licence of Private Lee Clegg; and on what dates the meetings were held with (a) the trial judge, (b) the Lord Chief Justice and (c) the parole board.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The internal review of Private Clegg's case commenced on 20 January 1995, immediately following the dismissal of his appeal to the House of Lords. The purpose of this review is to determine when the case should be considered by the Northern Ireland life sentence review board; there is no parole board in Northern Ireland.

  The power to release a Northern Ireland life sentence prisoner on licence rests with the Secretary of State who is advised on such matters by the life sentence review board. Consultation with the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland and the trial judge, if available, has not yet taken place as it is the final step before Ministers decide on release.

  Ulster Paper Products
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out all the public money used to assist Ulster Paper Products, now known as Smurfit Paper Products, since September 1992 and any assistance known to be given by the International Fund for Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  Financial assistance from public funds to Smurfit Corrugated Cases (Lurgan) Ltd., formerly Ulster Paper Products Ltd., since September 1992 is as follows.

  Between June 1993 and June 1994, Ulster Paper Products Ltd. received £14,838 from the Training and Employment Agency towards training costs.

  In April 1994, the Industrial Development Board offered Smurfit Corrugated Cases (Lurgan) Ltd. assistance of £3 million towards a £16.08 million investment by the company of which £946,000 has been drawn down.

  In June 1994, the Training and Employment Agency offered further assistance of £214,800 to the company under the company development programme.

  With regard to the International Fund for Ireland, this is an international organisation which is administered by an independent board appointed jointly by the two Governments. All disbursements by the fund are a matter for that board and questions regarding disbursements should be directed to the fund's chairman, Mr. William T. McCarter, PO Box 2000, Belfast, BT4 3SA.

DEFENCE

  Iraqi Soil Samples
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soil samples from Iraq have been studied by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; and how many of these samples show evidence of the use of chemical or biological weapons.

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its
  683
  framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 2 March 1995:

  QUESTION 12, 22 FEBRUARY 1995

  1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence of 22 February 1995 asking how many soil samples from Iraq have been studied by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment and how many of these samples show evidence of the

  Site

  Date sample collected

  Date analysed

  No of samples

  Finding

  Triangle area northern Iraq

  November 1998

  December 1998

  3

  All contained traces of CW agent, mustard and its decomposition products.

  Various sites in northern Iraq

  August 1992

  September, October 1992

  16

  No traces of CW agent found.

  Birjinni northern Iraq1

  June 1992

  February 1992

  12

  Six samples from two bomb craters contained mustard and its decomposition products. Six samples from the other two bomb craters contained nerve agent decomposition products and one contained traces of the nerve agent, Sarin.

  1 The bomb craters from which these samples were taken resulted from an attack in 1988; the samples were over four years old when CBDE carried out its analysis.

  4. CBDE has also played a key role in assisting the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq. Over 200 soil samples were analysed by CBDE staff in Iraq and a few at CBDE in support of inspections of the Muthanna site and of another site in Iraq. These analyses were not carried out to determine if chemical or biological weapons had been used.

  Lethal Equipment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications or additions he has made to the definition of lethal equipment given in his answers of 2 May 1990,Official Report, column 602, and 23 July 1990, Official Report, column 72.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Export Sales Agreements
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what written guidelines exist to decide whether the advice of the Foreign Office or the Department of Trade and Industry should be obtained before approvals are given to defence export sales under Government-to-Government defence export agreements to which normal export licence procedures do not apply.

  Mr. Freeman
  All applications for defence exports under a Government-to-Government arrangement to which normal export licence procedures do not apply are circulated for advice to the FCO as laid down in an internal MOD manual. The DTI, in these cases, is not consulted because an export licence is not involved.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the defence export agreements memoranda of understanding contain a no-transfer without prior approval provision; and which do not.
  684
  use of chemical and biological weapons has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has analysed a total of 31 soil samples from Iraq collected on three occasions. Details of the dates on which these samples were collected, of their analysis and the findings are set out as follows:

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of Government-to-Government memoranda of understanding are confidential. However, it is normal practice to provide for a "no-transfer without prior approval" clause when they cover the sale of defence equipment.

  Defence Contractors
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if staff seconded from defence contractors at the time mentioned in his answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) of 1 March 1994,Official Report, column 670, are still in post; and what additional staff have been seconded from defence contractors.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 30 November to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson),Official Report, column 778.

  Debt Collection Visits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1994,Official Report, column 1167, if the expenditure or transactions giving rise to the debt collection visits was incurred in the countries listed or in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Accounts Agency. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Michael Dymond to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 28 February 1995:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1994 (Official Report column 1167), the expenditure or transactions giving rise to the debt collection visits was incurred in the countries visited or in the United Kingdom. This

  685
  matter falls to me as Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency for reply.
  The debt collection visits were in respect of debts incurred both in the countries visited and in the UK.
  It was necessary to visit the countries in order to facilitate efficient liaison with the individuals holding the authority to either pay or clear the debt situation.

  International Military Services Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the testing facilities built to designs supplied by International Military Services Ltd., are still available for use in Iraq.

  Mr. Freeman
  International Military Services Ltd. supervised the construction of a reinforced testing and servicing facility in Iraq between 1981 and 1987. As my predecessor made clear to the hon. Member on 12 March 1992,Official Report, column 607, we have no record of the precise location of this facility and so cannot say whether it is still available for use.

  Military Attachés
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 87, if he will list for each overseas post (a) the number of attachés, (b) the number of supporting staff and (c) the cost of residences for attachés and support staff.

  Mr. Soames
  A table showing the number, location, service and rank of service attachés, defence advisers and support staff is being placed in the Library of the House. The cost of residences for attachés and support staff is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 87, if he will give the strategic purpose of each posting.

  Mr. Soames
  Service attachés are appointed by the Ministry of Defence, subject to the concurrence of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. They serve the Ministry of Defence by supporting the sale of British defence equipment and related services; aiding defence co-operation, including military assistance overseas, performing representational and liaison duties; and providing advice to the head of mission and diplomatic staff.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 87, if he will place in the Library a copy of the Goddard study.

  Mr. Soames
  Due to the classification of the report, I am unable to place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i)
  686
  Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) Profile Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department, or agencies for which it is responsible, in 1994 giving, in each case, the total cost to the Exchequer of their production, publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  No central record is kept of all the White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets produced, published and distributed by my Department. The central cost of printing such documents, among others, in 1994 was £12.56 million, but no record is held of the comparable figure for 1980. In addition to this, budget holders have considerable freedom and are able to pay for the cost of printing and distributing documents from their own budgets; these costs could not, however, be separately identified. In respect of those White Papers, Green Papers and other publications published by HMSO, all costs are borne by HMSO which aims to recover them from sales revenue.

  Staff Cars
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 22 February,Official Report, columns 252–55, regarding staff cars for officers in the armed services, what the annual mileage of their dedicated staff car was the for latest year for which the information is available for the posts numbered 11, 12, 31, 47, 76, 79 and 90.

  Mr. Soames
  The mileage of the cars in question during the latest 12-month period for which information is available is as follows:

  Miles

  Serial 11, Commander British Forces Cyprus

  16,318

  Serial 12, Commander British Forces Falkland Islands

  10,046

  Serial 31, Commander British Forces Gibraltar

  6,283

  Serial 47, General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland

  12,000

  Serial 76, Commander British Forces Hong Kong

  11,968

  Serial 79, Governor of Gibraltar

  2,175

  Serial 90, Director General Saudi Armed Forces Project

  13,500

  In some cases, topographical and security reasons may necessitate additional vehicles or other methods of transport being used. The serial numbers will have changed in the pursuant question which I answered yesterday.

  Sonobuoys
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is his policy to retain a manufacturing capacity for sonobuoys in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  All sonobuoy requirements are subject to competition where this is feasible, and foreign competitors are not excluded. Our policy is to obtain best value for money in defence procurement while satisfying the requirements of the armed forces.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place the same restrictions on foreign companies bidding for United Kingdom defence contracts as would apply to British companies bidding for similar contracts in those countries; and what the present position is in this respect with regard to sonobuoys and bidders from France and the United States of America.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's policy when procuring defence equipment is to aim for best value for money, wherever possible through the use of international competition for defence contracts. We prefer not to impose restrictions on potential bidders, not least because, if we were to protect our own defence market, this would undoubtedly invite retaliation damaging to United Kingdom defence exporters. Therefore, there are no restrictions on French and United States companies bidding for UK sonobuoy contracts. We continue to strive, through bilateral and multilateral channels, for greater mutual access to defence markets and, where appropriate, seek proposals for UK industrial participation in work let to overseas companies. We take into account a refusal to expand reciprocal rights.

  Phoenix Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 885, what are the alternative systems under consideration concerning the purchase of remote-controlled surveillance aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have nothing further to add to my reply of 17 February,Official Report, column 885.

  RAF St. Athan
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of the damage done to Tornado aircraft at RAF St. Athan since 1990; arid how many aircraft involved in a contract with Airwork Ltd., are no longer suitable for operational use.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave him on 12 December 1994,Official Report, column 460, and 14 December 1994, column 668.

  Peacekeeping
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his Department's policy to make a distinction between(a) peacekeeping operations and (b) peacemaking operations.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department recognises a spectrum of potential peace support operations ranging from preventative military deployments, through peacekeeping operations of varying degrees of complexity and intensity, to peace enforcement. The critical distinction is, however, whether such operations take place with the consent of all the parties involved, since this determines whether a peace 688
  support force is recognised by all sides to be impartial. In practice, decisions on whether to participate in particular operations are taken case by case in the light of the circumstances and other commitments.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy concerning joint international peacekeeping training; and if he will specify the dates, units involved and countries which have worked with British forces on joint international peacekeeping training.

  Mr. Soames
  The preparation of individuals and units for peacekeeping operations is a national responsibility and, particularly in view of the differing training requirements of the armed services of different states, should remain so. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Defence favours international cooperation over peacekeeping training where this can usefully be done, and we have supported and contributed to the United Nations' efforts to harmonise national training programmes in this area. To date, co-operation has included joint seminars and map exercises, participation by foreign personnel in British peacekeeping training courses and peacekeeping field exercises. Co-operation has involved a wide range of allied and friendly nations, including activities under the auspices of "Partnership for Peace". There is no central record of the countries and units involved, or the dates on which joint training took place.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received from UNPROFOR in respect of military aircraft flights into west Tuzla air force base; what breaches of the arms embargo such reports have revealed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The activity of aircraft over Bosnia-Herzegovina is primarily a matter for the UN and NATO. We understand, however, that a transport aircraft may have been in the vicinity of Tuzla on the night of 10 February, but we have no knowledge of its intentions or whether the arms embargo was breached.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what obstacles have been placed in the way of UNPROFOR forces freedom of manoeuvre in(a) Vitez, (b) Tuzla, (c) Sarajevo, (d) Gornji Vakuf and (e) Gorazde in recent weeks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Bosnian Government forces have established vehicle check points on routes into Sarajevo, Tuzla and Gornji Vakuf which are causing minor freedom of movement problems for UNPROFOR. At Gorazde, Bosnian Serb army forces continue to prevent UNPROFOR from using a direct route into the town. There are no reported problems at Vitez. Despite these localised restrictions, the freedom of movement both for UNPROFOR and the aid agencies has improved significantly throughout most of Bosnia since the cessation of hostilities agreement came into effect on I January.
  689
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to maintain Britain's contribution to UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina if UN forces are withdrawn from Croatia in response to President Tudjman's request; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government remain concerned at President Tudjman's decision not to renew the UNPROFOR mandate in Croatia after 31 March 1995 and we hope that international pressure will persuade him to change his mind. We do not intend to withdraw our contingent from Bosnia but we continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Expense Claims
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many investigations into the expense claims of service personnel have lasted more than six month, in each of the last eight years.

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  BA2000
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what future plans he has for the Scottish regiments in his project BA2000.

  Mr. Soames
  BA2000 is an internal and conceptual document addressing in general terms the requirements of the Army at the beginning of the next century; it will not be addressing the Army's regimental system. We have no intention of changing the number or organisation of British Army regiments.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Allason
  to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to require all local authorities to highlight or otherwise identify non-statutory expenditure when their budgets are published.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  None. It is for individual local authorities to decide what budgetary information to publish about their discretionary expenditure under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the standard spending assessments of each district council in England and Wales as a sum per head of population numbered in descending order.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The requested information for English non-metropolitan districts has been placed in the Library. The standard spending assessments for authorities in Wales are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the outstanding non-housing capital debt and (b) outstanding housing capital debt for each (a) shire county, (b) metropolitan borough and (c) London borough.
  690
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The available information on total longer-term debt is as follows. It is not possible to separate housing and non-housing debt.

  Long-term debt in shire counties, metropolitan districts and London boroughs as at 31 March 1994

  Authority

  Total long-term borrowing at 31March 1994 £000's

  Shire counties

  Avon

  114,600

  Bedfordshire

  143,485

  Berkshire

  144,742

  Buckinghamshire

  148,150

  Cambridgeshire

  48,996

  Cheshire

  124,415

  Cleveland

  206,651

  Cornwall

  120,442

  Cumbria

  129,007

  Derbyshire

  239,643

  Devon

  183,017

  Dorset

  0

  Durham

  75,513

  East Sussex

  133,419

  Essex

  195,049

  Gloucestershire

  135,935

  Hampshire

  135,587

  Hereford and Worcester

  82,474

  Hertfordshire

  82,585

  Humberside

  180,347

  Isle of Wight

  39,689

  Kent

  394,074

  Lancashire

  370,188

  Leicestershire

  192,529

  Lincolnshire

  7,000

  Norfolk

  76,553

  Northamptonshire

  144,138

  Northumberland

  54,168

  North Yorkshire

  127,230

  Nottinghamshire

  163,241

  Oxfordshire

  73,454

  Shropshire

  113,325

  Somerset

  28,444

  Staffordshire

  245.818

  Suffolk

  0

  Surrey

  64,261

  Warwickshire

  115,454

  West Sussex

  0

  Wiltshire

  38,821

  Isles of Scilly

  2,654

  Metropolitan districts

  Barnsley

  174,356

  Birmingham

  1,178,683

  Bolton

  144,575

  Bradford

  402,724

  Bury

  59,095

  Calderdale

  120,925

  Coventry

  381,318

  Doncaster

  171,571

  Dudley

  259,391

  Gateshead

  248,009

  Kirklees

  233,504

  Knowsley

  167,678

  Leeds

  648,201

  Liverpool

  756,618

  Manchester

  1,227,649

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  425,449

  North Tyneside

  163.949

  Oldham

  241,554

  Rochdale

  201,452

  Rotherham

  227,188

  Salford

  376,104

  691

  Long-term debt in shire counties, metropolitan districts and London boroughs as at 31 March 1994

  Authority

  Total long-term borrowing at 31 March 1994 £000's

  Sandwell

  300,577

  Sefton

  147,769

  Sheffield

  749,612

  Solihull

  65,975

  South Tyneside

  385,728

  St Helens

  199,788

  Stockport

  102,675

  Sunderland

  258,385

  Tameside

  182,404

  Trafford

  82,409

  Wakefield

  324,042

  Walsall

  257,039

  Wigan

  236,142

  Wirral

  210,709

  Wolverhampton

  320,468

  Inner London boroughs (including City)

  City of London

  0

  Camden

  603,513

  Greenwich

  457,643

  Hackney

  707,097

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  311,559

  Islington

  889,837

  Kensington and Chelsea

  214,461

  Lambeth

  802,670

  Lewisham

  494,997

  Southwark

  855,585

  Tower Hamlets

  650,464

  Wandsworth

  220,296

  Westminster

  301,597

  Outer London boroughs

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  Barnet

  122,400

  Bexley

  85,935

  Brent

  498,585

  Bromley

  8

  Croydon

  131,254

  Ealing

  273,314

  Enfield

  125,747

  Haringey

  559,779

  Harrow

  185,864

  Havering

  51,590

  Hillingdon

  142,372

  Hounslow

  215,685

  Kingston upon Thames

  88,630

  Merton

  225,095

  Newham

  514,688

  Redbridge

  65,881

  Richmond upon Thames

  85,465

  Sutton

  70,143

  Waltham Forest

  207,098

  Gloucestershire County Council (Budget)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under what provisions the budget set by Gloucestershire county council on 22 February is deemed illegal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The power to designate authorities in accordance with capping principles determined under section 54 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 can be exercised only after an authority has set its budget. The announcements on 1 December and 1 February made clear that the statements relating to 692
  capping principles were statements of Ministers' current intentions and that the criteria remain provisional. Authorities are not required to set a budget within the limits implied by the provisional criteria and they are not acting illegally if they do not do so. My right hon. Friend will take account of all the circumstances when he decides whether to designate any authority which fixes a budget above the level implied by the criteria which he in due course adopts. Designated authorities have 28 days within which to accept their cap or to make representations. If any right hon. Friend then requires an authority to reduce its budget he will place an order before the House.

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs. C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) Profile Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd., and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science today.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department or agencies for which it is responsible in 1994, giving in each case the total cost to the Exchequer of their production, publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A list of White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by my Department in 1994 has been placed in the Library of the House. The entries for agencies are incomplete as some relevant infirmation is not readily available. With regard to cost, this information cannot be provided within the acceptable cost limits.

  Energy Management Assistance Scheme
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding the actual savings made under the energy management assistance scheme, and the original estimates provided by him in his answer of 24 May 1993,Official Report, column 617; whether the savings identified from investments undertaken to date under this scheme have remained at the level reported to the House in his answer of 30 June 1993, Official Report, columns 522–23; and what plans he has to expand the scheme.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The energy management assistance scheme was launched in February 1992 and was to be reviewed after three years. It was designed to encourage small industrial and commercial enterprises to reduce their energy costs and so contribute to a reduction in the UK's emission of carbon dioxide. The number of
  693
  applications has been higher than expected, but generally from relatively small commercial enterprises, so the overall effect of the scheme now seems likely to be much less than the projection of £250 million savings by the year 2000 given in the answer of May 1993. Those enterprises which used the scheme achieved cost savings of between 10 and 40 per cent., thus maintaining the average reported in June 1993.

  In reviewing the scheme, it was decided to take the opportunity to widen it to include other environmental matters. I announced plans to adapt EMAS in my recent answer to a question from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 15 February, Official Report, column 676. The existing EMAS will be phased out during the next year and the small company environmental and energy management scheme will be introduced.

  Vanadium and Nickel
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average annual concentration in nanogrammes per cubic metre at each of the Atomic Energy Authority monitoring sites for(a) vanadium (b) nickel.

  Mr. Atkins
  Airborne concentrations of trace elements are measured at five urban locations in the United Kingdom operated by AEA Technology. The most recent measurements available for nickel and vanadium are for the year 1992–93. The mean annual concentrations of nickel at the five sites were 14.3 ng m-3—nanogrammes per cubic metre—at Motherwell, 11.3 ng m-3 at Glasgow, 18.4 ng m-3 at Leeds, 11.4 ng m-3 at Brent, and 5.2 ng m-3 at central London. The mean annual concentration for vanadium at the central London site, the only site where vanadium is measured, was 12 ng m-3.

  Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the health risk level accepted by his Department for ground level concentrations of(a) vanadium and (b) nickel in nanogrammes per cubic metre.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has no air quality standards for these substances but the World Health Organisation guidelines are as follows:

  vanadium—1 nanogramme per cubic metre, averaging time 24 hrs;

  nickel—4 X 10-4 cancer risk estimate for lifetime exposure to a concentration of 1 nanogramme per cubic metre.

  Crown Buildings, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from NCM Credit Insurance concerning an extension of the lease on the floors it occupies at the Crown buildings, Cathays park; what consultations he has had concerning the corresponding extension on the waiver on the covenant debarring commercial activities in Cathays park; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer given to his earlier question on 28 February 1995,Official Report, column 475.

  NCM Credit Insurance has asked for, and been granted, a short-term extension of its lease at Cathays park until 31 March 1995, pending completion of its new accommodation within the Cardiff hay development area. A corresponding extension on the waiver has been
  694
  obtained. NCM has now asked for a further extension and negotiations are in progress.

  Northumberland National Park
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to remove the areas used for military training from the Northumberland national park.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have no plans to remove the areas used for military training from the park.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest position on the reorganisation of local government in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and County Durham.

  Mr. Gummer
  On Bedfordshire, I have concluded that the balance of evidence lies in favour of accepting the commission's recommendations for a unitary Luton, but rejecting the recommendations for unitary status elsewhere so that the remainder of the county will continue as two tier. I am satisfied that this solution best reflects the identities and interests of the local communities concerned and best secures effective and convenient local government.

  Although there were unanimous support of an all unitary solution among the districts, I am not persuaded that this is the best solution for the county as a whole. There is a very strong case, which few would challenge, for a unitary Luton, given its size, population density and former county borough status. However, for the remainder of the county I consider that the balance of the evidence points to retaining the present two-tier structure. The districts of Mid and South Bedfordshire, which would be merge in the commission's proposals, have no particular focus or strong identity. On the issues of service delivery and viability, considerable doubts whether the relatively small authorities proposed in the commission's recommended structure could deliver effectively, entailing some risk to local taxpayers. An all unitary solution would also lead to higher transitional costs, as well as greater disruption.

  I am accepting the commission's recommendations on other matters, namely police and fire services, land use planning, ceremonial matter and electoral arrangements, with minor modification to take account of the decision on structure.

  With regard to Buckinghamshire, having weighed all the arguments I have accepted part of the commission's structural recommendations—a unitary authority for Milton Keynes—but rejected the rest so that the remainder of the county would remain two tier. Again, I am satisfied that this solution best reflects the identities and interests of the local communities concerned and best secures effective and convenient local government.

  There is a strong case for a unitary Milton Keynes, which is now also accepted by the county council. The town has a strong and distinct community identity and is in many ways different from the rest of the county. Its

  695
  population is already large and we have little doubt that it would be able to provide all local authority services, particularly with further substantial growth expected.

  However, it seems to us that the position in the rest of the county is much less clear. Popular opinion is finely balance and doubts have been expressed about the fragmentation of services. We are also conscious that it is likely that an all unitary solution would give rise to considerably higher transitional costs.

  I am accepting the commission recommendations on police and fire services, land use planning, ceremonial matters and electoral arrangements, with minor modification to take account of the decision on structure. I am still considering the commission's recommendations for parishing Aylesbury and High Wycombe.

  In the case of County Durham, I have decided to accept the commission's recommendation that there should be a unitary authority based on the present borough area of Darlington and that there should be no change to the existing two-tier arrangements in the rest of County Durham. I agree with the commission that this solution will best reflect the identities and interests of the local communities concerned and best secures effective and convenient local government.

  The case for a unitary Darlington is strong. Darlington is based on a former county borough and has a population in excess of 100,000. The commission has identified a strong sense of community identity with the borough council area.

  Its natural and communications links are with the unitary authorities which are to be established in Cleveland—it shares with Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and Stockton, a dependence on the infrastructure based on the Tees port, the A66—A1 road connection, the east coast main line railway and Teeside airport. Therefore I also propose to accept the commission's recommendation that Darlington should establish joint structure planning arrangements with the proposed unitary authorities of Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and east Cleveland and Stockton on Tees for the whole of their areas.

  I also propose to accept the commission's recommendations for the police and fire services, and for electoral arrangements. I am still considering the commission's recommendations for ceremonial arrangements and for parishing in the county.

  Birds (Illegal Imports)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, columns 89–90, how many birds listed as (a) threatened and (b) subject to limited trade he estimates were imported illegally into Britain in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no reliable method of estimating the numbers of birds imported illegally if the figures are required to
  696
  include birds which were smuggled in successful evasion of import controls. However, the numbers of CITES-listed birds detected by customs as being in breach of CITES controls and therefore seized as illegal are given in the table. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment explained on 20 February, Official Report, columns 89–90, CITES appendix I equates with "threatened" and appendices II and III with "subject to limited trade":

  Year

  Appendix I

  Appendices II-III

  19891

  Nil

  24

  1990

  4

  72

  1991

  11

  32

  1992

  3

  102

  1993

  Nil

  228

  1994

  1

  45

  1 Data for earlier years are not available.

WALES

  Cardiff Wales Airport
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the statutory provisions which allow him to require the residuary authority to sell Cardiff Wales airport.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have decided that any shares in Cardiff Wales Airport Company which remain in the ownership of any of the three Glamorgan county councils immediately prior to 1 April 1996 should vest in the residuary body for Wales. This would he achieved automatically under paragraph 11(1) of schedule 13 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.

  I have the power in paragraph 12 of the same schedule to direct the residuary body in respect of the exercise of its functions. It would be open to me to issue a direction requiring it to dispose of certain property, rights or liabilities.

  I was delighted to learn recently that the three Glamorgan county councils are now agreed that the disposal of their shares before local government reorganisation is the most appropriate course.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 125, how much of the £61 million expenditure by health authorities on services for individuals with a learning disability was spent solely on hospital care.

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

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount was held by each local authority and in total in each of the last five years, with respect to receipts from council house and property sales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is given in the following table.
  697

  Usable cash backed accumulated receipts at 31 March1

  £000

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,774

  768

  24

  0

  967

  Colwyn

  1,177

  802

  627

  452

  924

  Delyn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Glyndwr

  1,261

  1,083

  1,023

  350

  283

  Rhuddlan

  711

  510

  485

  634

  334

  Wrexham Maelor

  3,244

  3,123

  62

  110

  981

  Carmarthen

  1,750

  606

  609

  1,120

  1,857

  Ceredigion

  1,873

  479

  137

  371

  2,069

  Dinefwr

  871

  719

  746

  761

  370

  Llanelli

  242

  292

  0

  0

  1,056

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  3,183

  1,745

  1,365

  1,910

  2,725

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,476

  1,791

  1,591

  1,741

  1,641

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,718

  766

  1,129

  1,406

  2,876

  Islwyn

  2,548

  46

  0

  648

  359

  Monmouth

  794

  329

  872

  2,248

  4,905

  Newport

  10,375

  9,349

  7,742

  5,250

  8,125

  Torfaen

  3,758

  14

  0

  1,634

  3,271

  Aberconwy

  2,274

  1,884

  1,109

  1,223

  1,793

  Arfon

  2,533

  357

  346

  141

  207

  Dwyfor

  81

  120

  71

  144

  314

  Meirionnydd

  368

  15

  0

  0

  0

  Ynys Mon

  1,559

  57

  166

  71

  60

  Cynon Valley

  1,267

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  604

  298

  170

  781

  1,072

  Ogwr

  1,978

  1,377

  2,712

  3,453

  3,326

  Rhondda

  405

  0

  0

  0

  1,570

  Rhymney Valley

  1,468

  1,155

  878

  949

  1,107

  Taff Ely

  1,673

  177

  469

  91

  3,003

  Brecknock

  1,850

  1,046

  892

  996

  1,769

  Montgomeryshire

  2,462

  1,746

  1,370

  1,016

  1,574

  Radnorshire

  1,029

  761

  402

  125

  450

  Cardiff

  10,523

  1,357

  749

  2,601

  20,363

  Vale of Glamorgan

  9,378

  6,575

  6,436

  5,659

  5,716

  Port Talbot

  616

  1,176

  1,209

  1,794

  550

  Lliw Valley

  1,508

  1,054

  1,406

  1,778

  2,211

  Neath

  1,251

  102

  758

  77

  481

  Swansea

  3,658

  1,719

  2,178

  1,514

  268

  Clwyd

  1,037

  0

  0

  0

  2,216

  Dyfed

  21

  296

  267

  549

  1,318

  Gwent

  7,337

  6,792

  7,080

  5,877

  7,205

  Gwynedd

  82

  95

  333

  382

  2,615

  Mid Glamorgan

  325

  415

  414

  1,266

  3,915

  Powys

  123

  143

  27

  213

  431

  South Glamorgan

  100

  2,290

  1,551

  328

  2,563

  West Glamorgan

  765

  137

  236

  1,140

  1,971

  Dyfed Powys Joint Police Authority

  138

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Wales Joint Police Authority

  50

  48

  26

  0

  846

  South Wales Joint Police Authority

  0

  0

  99

  0

  437

  Total Wales

  93,216

  53,614

  47,766

  50,803

  102,094

  Source:

  Local authority returns

  1 Receipts from all sales of capital assets including repayments of grants and advances.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library copies of the April 1992 edition of his Department's urban development guidelines as issued to the Welsh Development Agency for the exercise of the urban development function.

  Mr. Redwood
  The 1992 urban development guidelines were superseded by a revised version issued in July 1994, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. I shall, however, arrange for a copy of the 1992 guidelines to be sent to my hon. Friend.

  Lobbying Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs. C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G.J.W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C.. (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) People Corporate and Political

  699
  Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  Neither I nor my Ministers have met representatives from these companies, to the best of our knowledge.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department, or agencies for which it is responsible in 1994 giving, in each case, the total cost to the Exchequer of their production, publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  Mr. Redwood
  A list of all White Papers and consultation papers which my Department issued last year, together with a preliminary list of other documents issued last year, has been placed in the Library of the House. When the preliminary list is finalised and printed, later this year, it will be placed in the Library of the House.

  In respect of White Papers, Green Papers and other publications published by HMSO, all costs are borne by

  Project

  Location

  Funding

  1995–96 £

  1996–97 £

  To assess the costs and benefits of a system which allows X-ray pictures to be transmitted electronically around a hospital.

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  36,000

  26,000

  To understand why people with a high risk of developing a serious inherited disease either choose or refuse genetic tests.

  University of Wales College of Medicine

  15,000

  15,000

  To assess an education scheme designed to raise the take-up of cervical screening by women at high risk and to reduce anxiety among those at low risk.

  University of Glamorgan and University of Wales, College of Medicine

  45,000

  45,000

  To evaluate a new approach to preventing depression recurring in patients

  University of Wales Bangor

  46,000

  46,000

  To find out whether a rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic respiratory disease can reduce hospital admissions and improve quality of life.

  University of Wales College of Medicine and Llandough NHS Trust.

  22,000

  23,000

  To assess the benefits for residents and staff of a training scheme for people with learning disabilities living in supported housing.

  University of Wales College of Medicine

  34,000

  26,000

  To test a new approach to helping people stop smoking based on their readiness to change.

  University of Glamorgan and University of Wales College of Medicine.

  26,000

  16,000

  To assess an intensive schools-based programme to reduce smoking based on a successful American model.

  University of Wales Cardiff

  17,000

  15,000

  To evaluate the effectiveness of using patients' own blood for transfusion in routine surgical operations.

  University of Wales Swansea, University Hospital of Wales and the Morriston NHS Trust.

  46,000

  42,000

  To develop a reliable questionnaire for assessing levels of mental health in the community and for measuring the extent to which treatment for mental health problems works.

  University of Wales. Bangor

  38,000

  37,000

  700
  HMSO, which aims to recover these from sales revenue. The costs of producing and distributing other documents is not held centrally.

  Health Research Projects
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will announce his adjudication on the health research project applications submitted to his Department for 1995–96 funding; and if he will give the title of the successful application for funding and their total estimated cost(a) in 1995–96 and (b) in 1996–97;

  (2) what guidance was given to applicants for funding on health research projects in 1995–96; on what date the invitation to apply for financial assistance was advertised and in what media and in what terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Professor Ian Russell, the director of research and development, wrote to a wide range of research interests in Wales in May 1994 seeking bids for health research funding. Guidance on the priority areas and the criteria against which bids would be assessed were provided at a series of meetings convened throughout Wales and details were circulated to all those who expressed an interest. I have agreed that the following projects should be funded from the R and D budget:
  701

  Project

  Location

  Funding

  1995–96 £

  1996–97 £

  To produce a reliable measure of how sensitive GPs are lo patients' expectations, fears and concerns as a means of improving the effectiveness of primary care.

  University of Wales, College of Medicine.

  19,000

  18,000

  To develop guidance on which patients are most likely to benefit from being referred to a dermatology clinic by their GP.

  Wrexham Maelor NHS Trust and University of Wales, College of Medicine

  41,000

  34,000

  To evaluate improvements in the quality of information on cancer in Wales that could result from better reporting guidelines and the use of computer-based reports.

  Llandough NHS trust and the NHS Cancer Registry.

  33,000

  25,000

  To assess a new package of treatment for the most severely disordered children.

  University of Wales, Bangor and Gwynedd Community NHS Trust.

  53,000

  47,000

  To evaluate orthotic therapy for diabetic patients to reduce the risk of development of serious foot problems.

  Cardiff Institute of Higher Education and Royal Gwent Hospital.

  24,000

  18,000

  To review how patient care and nursing practice is affected by the way information on patient care is recorded by nurses.

  University of Wales, Aberystwyth and Swansea.

  33,000

  —

  To assess the benefits of screening patients at home for severe breathing problems during sleep, which can result in serious health problems.

  University of Wales, Swansea and Prince Philip Hospital.

  50,000

  36,000

  To evaluate the reliability of a method of identifying patients at risk of developing pressure sores.

  University of Wales, Bangor and Wrexham Maelor Hospital.

  2,000

  —

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what notification his Department receives on stage payments on the urban investment grant paid to Grosvenor Waterside by Cardiff Bay development corporation for the purpose of the development of a headquarters building for NCM Credit Insurance; how many such stage payments have already been notified to his Department; what is their aggregate value; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. The staging of payments is an operational matter for the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The total grant offer is £2.5 million.

  A48
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he received representations from Cardiff city council concerning the availability of funding for the proposed dedicated flyover connecting the Eastern avenue A48 trunk road and the University hospital of Wales, Heath, Cardiff; and on what date he replied.

  Mr. Redwood
  A request was received from Cardiff city council on 20 January 1995 to meet my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. Arrangements for the meeting are in hand.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each principal non-clinical function of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, stating the guidelines issued by his Department to the authority with respect to(a) market testing, (b) contractorisation, (c) management/employee buyout and (d) privatisation: and
  702
  if he will list the dates on which such written guidance was issued formally to the authority.

  Mr. Redwood
  The principal non-clinical functions of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority are: procurement; information and information technology; building design; project management; and specialist engineering and surveying services provided to the NHS in Wales.

  When the outcome of the review was announced to the authority, it was asked to start the process of market testing.

  No guidance has been issued that is specific to the authority. However, information and guidance on this subject already exists and the process is being undertaken in accordance with established practice.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many NHS patients have been waiting(a) six months, (b) nine months, (c) one year, (d) 18 months and (e) two years or more for specialist treatment in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest information available on the number of Welsh residents waiting for in-patient or day case treatment is given in the following table:

  Waiting more than

  Number of patients at 31 December 1994

  one year

  6,376

  18 months

  1,659

  two years

  1

  703
  Information on the number of NHS patients waiting more than six or nine months for in-patient or day case treatment is not collected centrally.

  NHS Security
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent annually on security for national health service hospitals in Wales in each year from 1990 to 1994.

  Mr. Redwood
  These figures are not held centrally.

  Valuation Tribunals
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for valuation tribunals in Wales in view of the reorganisation of local government on 1 April 1996.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A consultation paper has been issued today by the Welsh Office seeking comments on proposals for changes to the organisation of valuation tribunals to match the boundaries of the new unitary authorities. Views are also sought on changes to the arrangements for the appointment of tribunal members and the number of tribunal offices. Comments are invited by 18 April 1995. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library of the House and sent to Members of Parliament for Welsh constituencies.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fish-eating Birds
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria he intends to apply towards applications to control the number of cormorants threatening the viability of Stillwater fisheries in England, pending the findings of the research on fish-eating birds which he is commissioning.

  Mrs. Browning
  Cormorants are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, although the Act does allow for the issuing of licences to permit the killing or taking of these birds in order to prevent serious damage to fisheries. Pending the findings of the research programme, MAFF, as a licensing authority, will continue to issue licences to shoot a limited number of birds as an aid to scaring where: there is evidence that serious damage is being or is likely to be caused to the fishery; other non-lethal anti-predation measures have been shown to be ineffective or impractical, and not just difficult to implement; and there are no other evident causes of the serious damage, and shooting will contribute to preventing any damage that might be being caused.

  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the five sub-topics on which his Department, the Department of the Environment and the National Rivers Authority propose to commission research on fish-eating birds; what account will be taken in this research of information already publicly available in the United Kingdom and elsewhere; and for what reasons this project is expected to run for up to three years.

  Mrs. Browning
  A copy of the specifications for the five research projects currently being advertised has been 704
  placed in the Library of the House. These specifications make it clear that the results of previous research, both in this country and elsewhere, must be taken into account. The projects will run for between six months and three years, depending on the nature and complexity of the issues being researched.

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs. C. S. M., Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations. (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) People Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science today.

  Fish Conservation
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money was allocated to the United Kingdom Government by the EU under projects relating to fish conservation in each year since 1989; and how these moneys were allocated to the fishing industry.

  Mr. Jack
  The Community funds, or contributes to the funding of, a number of measures in the fisheries sector concerning, for example, decommissioning, enforcement and research projects which ultimately benefit fish conservation. However, no EU funds have been allocated to the United Kingdom Government specifically for projects relating to fish conservation.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report column 71, if any of the 6,314 cattle exported for immediate slaughter to Northern Ireland were over six months of age; and how many of them subsequently went from Northern Ireland to another EU state;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 12 January, Official Report, column 210, and 23 January, Official Report, column 71, if the 6,662 cattle exported for immediate slaughter were all under six months of age.

  Mrs. Browning
  Information on the age of the 6,314 cattle exported to Northern Ireland is available only at disproportionate cost. There is no recorded evidence of movement of these cattle to another member state.

  Information entered into the ANIMO database is provisional and subject to amendment. As regards the remainder of the 6,662 cattle referred to, more detailed comparison of the ANIMO database with copies of the available export health certificates has revealed that the 83 cattle exported to France and originally recorded as being for immediate slaughter were, in fact, certified as calves of under 42 days of age, and thus most likely

  705
  destined for further production; the 233 animals exported to the Netherlands were certified as calves of less than six months of age; and the 32 cattle exported to the Republic of Ireland originated in the Netherlands, were being transhipped through Great Britain, and should therefore not have been entered into ANIMO as exported from Britain.

  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if provision was made for the individual feeding of calves during the shipment of calves from Brightlingsea to Nieuwpoort, Belgium on 10 February; how many of the crew were trained in the handling and/or feeding of animals; and if his Ministry vets treated the ship as a floating lairage.

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 23 February,Official Report, column 311. The veterinary officer accompanying the shipment confirms that there was an experienced animal attendant accompanying the calves who supervised their on-board feeding. The ship was a fitted livestock vessel with satisfactory arrangements for the penning of the calves so that all could like down and rest during the voyage.

  Arctic Fox Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 54, what is his estimate of the number of Arctic fox fur farms there have been in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Browning
  As the keeping of arctic fox is not subject to control in Great Britain, the information requested is not available.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what items of correspondence were received by the Ministers in his Department for Messrs. Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 28 February 1995]: None.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what basis in his answer of 3 November 1994 to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon),Official Report, column 1369, the estimate of the annual income support saving from the habitual residence test was arrived at;

  (2) if the estimated cost of administering the habitual residence test from 1 August 1994 to 1 August 1995 mentioned in his answer to the hon. Member for Bow and Popular (Ms Gordon) of 3 November 1994, Official Report, column 1369, included the £800,000 allocation referred to by the chief executive of the Benefits Agency in his answer of 12 December 1994 to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) Official Report, column 538.
  706
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated income support savings were based on the assumption that at least 5,000 single claimants aged 25 and over receiving benefit for 13 weeks would not qualify because of the habitual residence test. This calculation leads to a saving of about £3 million rather than "excess of £7 million" incorrectly stated in the earlier answer, which represented the estimated full savings including housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  Before the test was introduced, initial annual administrative costs for the period 1 August 1994 to I August 1995 were estimated to be £368,000. Management information has since identified a shortfall for the current financial year. This is because the numbers subject to the test were greater than initially projected. On 21 November 1994 a secondary allocation of £521,787 was made. The figure quoted in the Official Report of 12 December 1994, column 538, was the rounded, estimated administrative costs of the Benefits Agency for 1994–95. The actual figure will be available shortly. On the current level of claims being processed, the eventual costs for 1994–95 are likely to be substantially higher than £800,000.

  Income Support (Parents with Care)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to reduce the amount of the reduced benefit direction for parents with care in receipt of income support from 20 per cent. of the income support personal allowance for 26 weeks and 10 per cent. for a further 52 weeks to an amount broadly in line with other deductions from benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to change the policy on the amount or duration of reduced benefit directions for parents with care.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time currently taken by the Child Support Agency from the issue of a maintenance inquiry form to the completion of a maintenance assessment.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) by the chief executive of the Child Support Agency on 8 February 1995,Official Report, columns 299–300.

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs. C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) People Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Mr. Hague
  No.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all White Papers, Green Papers and
  707
  pamphlets issued by his Department or agencies for which it is responsible in 1994, giving in each case the total cost to the Exchequer of their production, publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  Mr. Hague
  The cost of production, publication and distribution of White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets produced by this Department in 1994 is as follows:

  £

  Headquarters publications

  White Paper on pensions

  17,349

  White Paper summary

  6,215

  Pensions catalogue (PEC1)

  7,476

  "Measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people"

  47,620

  Summary of the above

  17,936

  "You and disability"

  75,973.50

  "Help with childcare charges"

  9,308

  "Incapacity Benefit"(IB200)

  53,358.18

  Incapacity Benefit: Medical Assessment consultation document

  8,822.13

  "Taking the Plunge": booklet to accompany DWA video

  4,740

  Departmental Annual Report

  49,843.63

  Benefits Agency

  Business Plan

  37,595

  Annual Report

  28,271

  Catalogue

  32,240

  Pensions information for women (pack)

  3,829

  Deduction from compensation

  72,764

  Evidence of identity

  8,027

  Tell us about it

  54,437

  BEL leaflet

  5,510

  Child Support Agency

  Annual Report

  6,543

  Charter inserts

  7,229.78

  Contributions Agency

  Business Plan

  26,180

  Framework Document

  13,954

  Annual Report

  42,006

  "Useful contracts" CA 46

  89,540

  NI News

  855

  War Pensions Agency

  Charter Standard Statement

  18,171

  Business Plan

  11,318

  Framework Document

  7,294

  Annual Report

  5,904.04

  Notes:

  1. These figures do not include the costs of producing reprints and revised editions of existing leaflets, the costs of which cannot be apportioned to a particular calendar year.

  2. Distribution costs are included where possible and appropriate. However, for many campaigns distribution covers a variety of material, including claim packs, and this cannot be broken down.

  The Department does not hold information about total costs to the Exchequer other than the costs given in the table.

  A total equivalent cost for 1980 cannot be provided because the Department of Social Security did not exist until 1988.

  Income Support (Pensioners)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the total number of(a) single women over retirement age, (b) single men over retirement age and (c) couples over retirement age in receipt of income support (i) in each region and (ii) nationally, at the latest date for which figures are available;

  (2) what was the total number of (a) single women, (b) single men and (c) couples in receipt of income support in each region and nationally, at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is in the tables.

  Income Support Recipients

  Single men aged 65+

  Single women aged 60+

  Couples over retirement age

  Great Britain

  202,000

  1,183,000

  224,000

  Scotland

  19,000

  119,000

  20,000

  Wales

  10,000

  69,000

  12,000

  England:—South

  173,000

  995,000

  192,000

  Western—North

  15,000

  91,000

  18,000

  Eastern

  31,000

  184,000

  34,000

  —Midlands—North

  35,000

  193,000

  41,000

  Western—London

  32,000

  173,000

  29,000

  North—London

  31,000

  183,000

  40,000

  South

  29,000

  171,000

  30,000

  Single men

  Single women

  Couples

  Great Britain

  1,849,000

  2,911,000

  1,031,000

  Scotland

  188,000

  289,000

  81,000

  Wales

  96,000

  163,000

  57,000

  England:

  1,565,000

  2,459,000

  893,000

  —South Western

  128,000

  206,000

  77,000

  —North Eastern

  262,000

  427,000

  156,000

  —Midlands

  278,000

  450,000

  181,000

  —North Western

  263,000

  421,000

  127,000

  —London North

  333,000

  504,000

  194,000

  —London South

  302,000

  452,000

  158,000

  Notes:

  1. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand. Due to rounding figures may not total.

  2. Regions are DSS administrative regions are used by the Department prior to 1988.

  3. Couples are cases where either the claimant and/or partner is over retirement age.

  4. Source: Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry February 1994, 5 per cent. sample.

EMPLOYMENT

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs. C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications

  709
  Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) Profile Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department or agencies for which it is responsible in 1994, giving in each case the total cost to the Exchequer of their production, publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department and its agencies produced one White Paper, one Green Paper and about 530 pamphlets between 1 April 1994 and mid-February 1995. The total cost of production and publication of these items was £2,600,000, rounded. Distribution costs are not identifiable by item.

  The full information will be contained within a large list which I will send to the hon. Member and a copy of which I will place in the Library.

  Figures are not available for the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  Public Holidays
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many hank holidays there are in 1995 in(a) Scotland and (b) Wales and England; and what are the reasons for the difference.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are eight permanent bank and public holidays in all parts of Great Britain. For 1995 only, the early May bank holiday in England, Wales and Northern Ireland has been moved from the first to the second Monday in May—from 1 to 8 May 1995—to link with commemorative events for the 50th anniversary of VE day.

  In Scotland, 8 May will be a bank holiday in addition to 1 May 1995; unlike other parts of the United Kingdom, the first Monday in May in Scotland, which is specified as a hank holiday in schedule 1 to the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971, has a long tradition going back to 1871. In practice, however, bank holidays have less general significance in Scotland where various local and traditional holidays tend to be observed instead. It seems unlikely that most employers in Scotland will observe both the 1 May and the 8 May 1995 bank holidays.

  The law does not give employees a right to a holiday on those days and all holiday entitlement is a matter for agreement between employers and employees.

  Adjudication Officer
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases have been referred to the adjudication officer; and of these, what number had their benefit disallowed for each three-month period since the actively seeking work requirement was introduced.
  710
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 2 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of cases referred to the adjudication officer and of these how many had benefit disallowed, following the introduction of the requirement to actively seek work.
  The actively seeking employment condition was introduced in the 1989 Social Security Act. Unfortunately we do not collect information on the number of cases referred to the adjudication officer or number of decisions to disallow income support claims. We do however record the number of decisions and disallowances issued to unemployment benefit claimants, including those in respect of the definition of actively seeking work. This is contained in the quarterly summary entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions", copies of which are held in the Library of the House. This information covers the period from 1 October 1989, when the actively seeking work condition was introduced, to the quarter ending December 1994.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to what period a jobseeker's allowance will be backdated in instances in which the claimant believes the jobseeker's agreement to be unreasonable; and what criteria apply in making this decision.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: The independent adjudication officer will have power to direct when a jobseeker's agreement is to be treated as having effect, if such conditions as he considered appropriate are satisfied. Each case will be decided on its own merits, though regulations may prescribe matters which are to be taken into account by the adjudication officer when making such a direction.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, where there is right of appeal for claimants seeking entitlement to jobseeker's allowance, allowance or benefit will be paid at the full rate until the adjudicating officer gives a decision.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: Questions arising in connection with a claim to jobseeker's allowance will be submitted for decision by an adjudication officer. Claimants will have a right of appeal to a social security appeals tribunal against any adverse decision by the adjudication officer.

  Payment of benefit will not be made clear or will be suspended pending a decision on one of the basic conditions of entitlement—whether the claimant is available for work or is actively seeking it, or whether the proposed terms of a jobseeker's agreement are satisfactory. Claimants in defined vulnerable groups will, however, be able to receive reduced rate income-based payments during the suspension, if they can show that they or a member of their household would otherwise suffer hardship. Other claimants will be able to claim on this basis after the first two weeks of the suspension.

  Disputes during a claim over the terms of a variation of a jobseeker's agreement will generally also involve doubts about availability and actively seeking. Benefit will, in such circumstances, be suspended pending the decision of an adjudication officer. If, however, availability and actively seeking are not in doubt the

  711
  agreement remains in force, and in these circumstances benefit will continue to be paid in full unless or until the adjudication officer brings the agreement to an end when the claimant has failed to comply with a direction given by him.

  Claimants who otherwise satisfy the conditions of entitlement will continue to receive benefit in full pending a decision on whether to impose a sanction under clause 15 of the Jobseekers Bill for instance, for leaving employment voluntarily without just cause or failing to carry out a jobseeker's direction.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in cases where the jobseeker's allowance appeal tribunal decides in the claimant's favour and an amended agreement is signed, if entitlement to jobseeker's allowance will be backdated; and if the tribunal decides against the claimant and he then signs the original agreement, if benefit will be backdated.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: In cases where the social security appeals tribunal decides in the jobseeker's favour, the jobseeker's agreement will be backdated and payments of jobseeker's allowance will be backdated, provided that the claimant satisfies the other conditions of receipt of JSA.

  If the tribunal finds against the claimant, he will not receive payments of JSA until a satisfactory agreement has been signed by both parties.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guarantees will be provided to ensure that where a claimant for the jobseeker's allowance has not yet signed the agreement for the purposes of administration or adjudication, payment of benefit will be backdated to cover this delay.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: The employment officer and the jobseeker will seek to draw up a jobseeker's agreement. If they cannot reach an agreement, the proposed terms and conditions of the agreement will be referred to an adjudication officer. The jobseeker will not be entitled to jobseeker's allowance unless he is in a prescribed vulnerable group and can apply for JSA hardship payments. If there is no decision after two weeks, however, all jobseekers will be entitled to apply for hardship payments.

  The adjudication officer will be able to make a direction about when the agreement is to be treated as having come into force. If he decides the agreement should be backdated, payments of JSA will be backdated, providing the jobseeker meets the other conditions of receipt of JSA.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guarantees in respect of time scales will be given to ensure that waiting times will not be detrimental to the financial well-being of the claimant while he or she is waiting for an outcome of the assessment undertaken for the purposes of entering into the jobseeker's agreement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: If a reference on the terms and conditions of a jobseeker's agreement is made to an adjudication officer and no decision is made within two weeks, the jobseeker will be able to apply for hardship payments. Certain vulnerable groups will be able to claim hardship payments from the date of claim.
  712
  When the adjudication officer makes a determination on the agreement, he will also be able to direct when it is to be treated as having effect.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what procedures will apply when a claimant thinks that the jobseeker's agreement is unreasonable; what minimum standards will apply in respect of time scales for referral; and if benefit will continue to be paid during this or any subsequent period of appeal.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]: If the jobseeker and employment officer are not able to agree a jobseeker's agreement, either may refer it to an independent adjudication officer to determine whether it is reasonable to expect the jobseeker to comply with the terms and conditions, and if he does comply, whether he will satisfy the availability and actively seeking work conditions.

  The proposed agreement will be referred for adjudication as quickly as possible. If no decision has been made within two weeks, the jobseeker will be able to apply for hardship payments. Certain groups of jobseekers will be able to claim from the date of their claim.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has produced a third response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the service provided by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Page
  I have today placed in the Library of the House the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's third response to the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which was published in May 1992.

  I am pleased that the UKAEA has now implemented almost all of the MMC's 58 recommendations and that excellent progress is being made with the remainder.

  Information Super-highways
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the conclusions arising from the G7 conference on information super-highways.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I represented the Government at the G7 conference on the information society in Brussels from 24 to 26 February. Ministers discussed three broad topics—regulatory issues, infrastructure issues and the social and cultural impact of the information society—on the basis of a theme paper prepared by the European Commission.

  The conference adopted a series of positive conclusion reflecting a variety of United Kingdom priorities.

  These emphasise the importance of:

  promoting dynamic competition,

  encouraging private investment,

  defining an adaptable regulatory framework,

  providing open access to networks,

  while ensuring universal provision of and access to services,

  promoting equality of opportunity to the citizen,

  promoting diversity of content, including cultural and linguistic diversity,

  713

  recognising the necessity of worldwide cooperation with particular attention to less-developed countries.

  The G7 undertook to:

  promote interconnectivity and interoperability,

  develop global markets for networks, services and applications,

  ensure privacy and data security,

  protect intellectual property rights,

  co-operate in research and development and in the development of new applications,

  monitor the social and societal implications of the information society.

  I am placing copies of the theme paper, the conclusions and my main intervention in the Library of the House.

  The conference made a welcome commitment to the importance of reaching a successful conclusion to the World Trade Organisation negotiations on basic telecommunications by April 1996. I was also glad that United States Vice-President Gore announced to the conference the United States' intention to reform its legislation which currently restricts foreign investment in certain United States telecommunications services, which the Government have been pressing the United States to change for some time. I noted that the United States Government have indicated that they would expect reciprocity, but this is not likely to be a problem for United Kingdom industry.

  The conference also agreed to launch 11 collaborative pilot projects to demonstrate the potential of the information society. The Government will be taking an active role in the implementation of these projects, as part of a process of demonstrating how the new technologies can benefit society as a whole.

  The conference was preceded by a round table discussion by business leaders from the G7 countries, who strongly advocated one of the central themes of my speech to the conference—the importance of light and flexible regulation and liberalisation of telecommunications infrastructure as spurs to enable private sector investment to realise the benefits of the information society.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about exports of armoured vehicles to Indonesia.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have today authorised the issue of a licence to Alvis to export armoured vehicles to Indonesia. In reaching this decision, I have taken advice from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Secretary of State for Defence. The decision has been made in the light of the established and internationally agreed criteria for military exports. It has included a thorough assessment of the likelihood of these vehicles being used for internal repression in Indonesia or East Timor. This assessment has concluded that it is not likely that these vehicles would be so used. The Indonesian Government have given assurances that the vehicles will not be deployed in East Timor or used in any form of repression of civilians anywhere in Indonesia.

  Premium Trust Deeds
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the request from Lloyd's of London for his approval for variations and amendments to the premium trust deeds.
  714
  Mr. Heseltine
  On 8 February the council of Lloyd's sought my approval for certain variations and amendments to the premiums trust deeds, as announced to members of Lloyd's in the chairman's letter of 3 February. It first notified me of the draft proposals last October, and the proposals were subsequently refined.

  I have considered this request carefully in accordance with my responsibilities for policyholder protection under the Insurance Companies Act 1982, and in particular section 83(2).

  I have concluded that the variations and amendments proposed, and thus the deeds in their amended form, maintain and enhance the protection offered to policyholders. They therefore continue to meet the requirements for my approval under section 83(2), and thus for the continued exemption of members of Lloyd's from regulation under part II of the Act.

  The council of Lloyd's has consulted the members of Lloyd's about the proposals, and considered the results of that consultation prior to seeking approval, as announced in the chairman's letter of 3 February.

  I am aware that arguments have been raised as to whether clause 22 of the premiums trust deeds empowers the council of Lloyd's to make the proposed variations and amendments. It is not part of my function to adjudicate between the council and members of Lloyd's on that issue, which is governed by private law. In that connection, I note the provision in the proposals put to me to test the validity of the proposed variations and amendments in the courts, and to hold any moneys affected in a suitably secure form to ensure that affected members of Lloyd's will not have their rights prejudiced, pending the outcome of the proceedings. Were the court to find any or all of the variations and amendments invalid, my approval extends to the remainder of them, or the premiums trust deeds in their current form, as appropriate.

  I have also considered whether any arguments based on EC law, of the kind raised in the Clementson case, could be directed at these amendments. My legal advice is that the EC arguments raised in that case are unlikely to succeed. Nevertheless, I have received an undertaking from Lloyd's which will have the effect that, pending a determination of those arguments by the courts, recoveries which are attracted by the amendments will not be called into the central fund without my consent.

  On this basis, I have therefore notified the council of Lloyd's of my approval of the variations and amendments proposed.

  Cable Franchises
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy towards the Office of Telecommunications being required to obtain figures for houses cabled by old franchises in the same way as is the practice of the Independent Television Commission for new franchises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Oftel is responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the build obligations contained in the Telecommunications Act 1984 licences for those cable franchises awarded under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. The ITC has enforcement responsibility for the build timetables of local delivery franchises awarded under the Broadcasting Act 1990.

  Conditional Access
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards conditional access at European level.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government aim to secure early agreement at European level to the necessary technical standards for the development and introduction of digital television. A common position on a directive on standards for the transmission of television signals, reached at the November Telecommunications Council, includes provisions for digital conditional access systems for pay television services, and is now being considered by the European Parliament.

  The Government are also following industry discussions on commercial arrangements to underpin the introduction of digital television, including digital conditional access systems. In 1994, discussions in the European digital video broadcasting group led to limited agreement on a voluntary code of conduct to govern access to conditional access systems by broadcasters. Not all broadcasters support the code. Further discussions are taking place. The Government consider that the principal means of regulation for the emerging digital conditional access television market lies in the proper application of the relevant competition law rules at both European and National level.

  Lobby Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of(a) Messrs C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd.,(b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G.J.W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access Group, (i) Politics International (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowland Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) People Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd. and discussed issues relating to the clients of these companies.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science today.

  United Nations Special Commission
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what inquiries have been made at Davy Morris Cranes or Amersham International arising out of information from the United Nations special commission; and what was the result.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The names of many companies have been brought to notice by UNSCOM, many of which were engaged in legitimate trade with Iraq before the imposition of UN sanctions. All cases have been thoroughly investigated. It is, however, the policy of this and previous Administrations not to comment on individual cases unless public interest outweighs the need for confidentiality.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many investigations of wrongdoing have been carried out by the UN special investigators commission; and what subsequent action has been taken arising out of 716
  the provision of technology to Iraq discovered by UNSCOM.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The UN special commission and the International Atomic Energy Authority were tasked by the Security Council in 1991 to destroy, remove or render harmless all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, and all ballistic missiles with a range of more than 150 km. Over 110 missions have been carried out in Iraq covering hundreds of sites, at some of which British-made equipment has been found. But it is not our practice to comment in detail on information given to us by UNSCOM and the IAEA on companies which have traded with Iraq; particularly since many of them would have done so quite legitimately before the introduction of sanctions. Any evidence of wrongdoing will be investigated and, if substantiated, will be a matter for the courts.

  Business Links
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance his Department or its agencies has given to the Business Link Wirral since its inception.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Department has offered £932,500 to the Chester, Ellesmere Port and Wirral training and enterprise council to assist Business Link Wirral, Chester and Ellesmere Port over their first three years. In addition, the Department is also providing funding totalling £604,250 to the TEC for a number of business support services delivered through the business links. No separate offers of assistance have been made to Business Link Wirral alone.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is planning towards the further development of a single European market.

  Mr. Needham
  I am continuing to take every opportunity to ensure even and effective enforcement of the single market. This includes the work of the single market compliance unit in my Department, which defends the interests of British business where single market rules are believed to have been broken, as well as support for European Community efforts to step up contacts between enforcement officials and to promote mutual recognition of national arrangements. I am pressing for further progress towards securing a full single market in telecommunications and energy.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for the 1996 intergovernmental conference for the further development of a single European market.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government will continue to take every opportunity to ensure even and effective enforcement of the single market.

  ROM Data
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what inquiries his Department undertook into the background of the directors of ROM Data computer firm in Cornwall before making it a grant.

  Mr. Page
  A range of inquiries were undertaken by the Department and others into the background of ROM Data, including checks on the directors of the company through the Companies House and insolvency service databases.
  717
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends to take against the directors of ROM Data computer firm in Cornwall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Page
  We are currently awaiting the liquidators' report and are keeping under review the action which may be appropriate.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he list will list all subventions from the nuclear levy towards the capital cost of Sizewell B nuclear power station.

  Mr. Page
  Nuclear Electric's income from the fossil fuel levy is not hypothecated to any particular activities.

  Coal Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Coal Authority's budget for dealing with pollution from mine workings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Page
  The Coal Authority's financial provision for 1994–95 takes full account of current work to prevent or control water pollution from mine workings, including the cost of pumping operation transferred from British Coal. The provision for 1995–96 is under discussion.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce legislation to provide for the environmental clean up of commonly owned land and water resources following an accident at a nuclear power plant involving radioactivity contamination.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no such plans. The introduction of further legislation to provide for environmental clean-up in the unlikely event of an accident at a nuclear power plant is unnecessary.

  European Works Councils
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of Board of Trade if he will list the United Kingdom-based companies whose size and operations in Europe will render them liable to set up European works councils when the European works council directive comes into force.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no information other than published research, for example, by the university of Warwick, about which United Kingdom-based companies have employees above the threshold levels in the states to which the European works councils directive applies.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Child Welfare: UN Report
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they have made to the United Nations report criticising government policy with regard to the rights and welfare of children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, there is no obligation under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child for the United Kingdom Government to respond to the observations of the United Nations committee, and we have no plans to do so.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, it is a most disturbing one. The report of the United Nations children's committee, in an examination of 35 other countries as well as ours, drew attention both to the good things the Government have done—in respect, for example, of adoption policy—and also to things which disturbed it, in particular secure provision for children and some aspects of the treatment of immigrant and ethnic minority children. Will the Minister reconsider what she has told the House? It is a matter which I should have thought the two Houses of Parliament and non-governmental organisations had every right to discuss in the interests of the children of this country.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are waiting to see the record of the sessions of the committee. Although part of the record is available, it is not yet forthcoming in its entirety. When we have seen the whole record, we shall consider whether to place a copy in the Library.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the purpose of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and of the committee set up under it, is to improve the conditions and prospects of children throughout the world? Does the Minister further agree that it is the intention of the committee to engage in constructive dialogue, not negative criticism, and that some of the newspaper reports about the committee's activities in relation to this country appear to be somewhat unbalanced? Therefore, will the Minister please reconsider the matter?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is for that very reason that we wish to await the full record before we decide what to do with the results. We believe that the committee was not totally fair in the way it conducted its review. In fact, members of the committee did not
1578
visit this country prior to producing the report. They took evidence from the Government on a Tuesday and a Wednesday morning and published their report on the Friday, having spent the Wednesday afternoon listening to further evidence from another country. We think that it would be fair if we published all the proceedings and not just the report from the committee.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I have one particular question for my noble friend the Minister. Will she satisfy herself that it is in order, and within the obligations that we have voluntarily undertaken internationally, for girls aged 12 to 14 to be held in secure custody in the same institutions as boys of the same age? I understand that that is the position in our proposed secure training centres.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not aware of the relevant facts. However, I shall certainly look into the matter and refer back to my noble friend.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although certain of the criticisms may be out of place, some are of fundamental importance? I have in mind the allegation of breaches of the spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; the reference to the number of children in poverty; and the reference to the age of criminality. When the time comes to respond to the report, will the Minister confirm that it will be accorded the gravity that a reply to the UN's report deserves?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the issues the committee was examining included the plight of street children, child victims of drug-related terrorism, child labour in mines, social cleansing campaigns, and arbitrary arrest. Our children in this country have a better start to life than they have ever had. We have almost eradicated childhood diseases. Moreover, there are fewer children in care and of those who are, more are cared for within a family—either adopted or fostered. We have the Children Act which safeguards the rights of children while parents now have more choice over their children's education and are involved in schools. I believe that our children have never had it so good. They are taller, they are fitter, and they are better educated. I really think that the committee should have taken those factors into account.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, despite the criticisms made of the United Nations report, issues have nonetheless been raised concerning the proposed secure training units. Will Her Majesty's Government reconsider the creation of such units in favour of community alternatives, some of which have proven to be effective?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the issue has been widely debated in both Houses of Parliament. We have come to our conclusions. It is a last resort for those children. Within the training centres, the children will receive advice and help with discipline, education, health and hygiene—all those aspects of life which are

1579
usually instilled by parents when bringing up their children but which such children have lost out on. It is right that they should receive the help we can give them.
Noble Lords: Front Bench!
Lord Rea: My Lords, the report of the United Nations committee on the rights of the child, in response to the Government's report on the children's convention, is critical of the Government, but it also offers some constructive suggestions covering a very wide area—from the reduction of child poverty, as discussed in yesterday's debate, to the reform of the child judicial system, not simply restricted to secure centres. Can we expect an equally constructive response from the Government to this authoritative document? I agree that we have to await the full report. Can we expect the Government to respond to it constructively? Is the noble Baroness aware that the report suggests that its contents be brought before Parliament and that the suggestions for action be followed by the Government?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no obligation to do so. It is interesting to see the number of nations who send people to this country to consider the welfare we provide for our children, the protection we give them, and the care we give them. They beat a path to our door to see how the Children Act operates. We are the world leaders in the field.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that even those of us who share my noble friend's anxiety about secure training orders regard the provisions of the Children Act 1989 as an impeccable credential of the status the Government give to children in society, endorsed now by the Children (Scotland) Bill? Does she agree that we can hold our heads up high in the international community?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I share his views.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, if the Government's case is so strong, why does the noble Baroness feel that the report cannot be put before Parliament and the non-governmental organisations, as it suggests in its final paragraph?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have explained that there are two sides to this debate. We want to put both sides. When we have had the results of the interviews that took place, where the Government gave evidence, we shall be prepared to reconsider our view.

War Widows' Pensions
3.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as part of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, they will arrange for a substantial increase in war widows' pensions.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government have always recognised the special sacrifice made by war widows. The majority of World War II war widows now receive a totally tax-free pension of almost £140 per week, which is more than two-and-a-half times a national insurance widow's pension. Bearing this and the other unique concessions which are available to war widows in mind, we do not consider that a substantial increase in war widows' pensions can be justified.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I accept what my noble friend has said as to the steps that successive Ministers have taken to improve the war pension, but, if we are to have a sincere commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, surely there are few better ways of doing this than by adding something to the income of those who made the greatest sacrifice of all—the loss of a husband in defence of his country.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not in any way dissent from my noble friend's sentiments, but we did not need to wait until this 50th anniversary before doing something very special, which is what we did in 1990 when we increased war widows' pensions by £40 a week, which is equivalent to 53 per cent. That was a far better signal of our appreciation than would be given by doing something in this special year.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while I appreciate the Minister's interest and his endeavours to help the Royal British Legion—we are grateful for that—does he not agree that on occasions there are special cases and special circumstances which require special examination? If such instances should arise, would the Minister at least be prepared to examine them?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's kind remarks as regards the various meetings I had with the Royal British Legion. Of course one has to look not just at war widows' pensions but at the whole field of war pensioners, including those men who have been left severely disabled. We should not lose sight of them. Of course we look for ways of improving the situation both for war widows and war pensioners. As I have already explained to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, we took a special step in 1990.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, is the Minister really saying that in this year of all years there is no positive gesture the Government can make to improve the lot of war widows, many of whom, because of the anomalous way that pensions are paid in practice, are suffering great deprivation in the evening of their life? Does he not agree that money being spent, however wisely and sensibly, on commemoration and celebration in May and in August will be that much less acceptable to the veterans if they think that the widows of those who made all this possible are still suffering great hardship?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble and gallant Lord makes about this special year and about the celebrations and remembrances we shall have of events 50 years ago.

1581
However, I return to my point that five years ago we appreciated the need of pre-1973 war widows and took the step then of increasing their pension of £74.45 by an additional £40 a week. That was a significant step. I believe that it is more important to look at what we do, not when we do it.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, can my noble friend not show a little compassion? While we understand that it may not be possible to increase the pension received during the course of the year, could the day of celebration be marked by giving a lump sum to war widows? I do not mean the equivalent of the £10 Christmas bonus given to ordinary pensioners, but something substantial like £500.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said earlier in answer to a previous question, there are more people involved than war widows. There are war pensioners and people such as the limbless who are looked after by BLESMA and the like. We should not lose sight of them. We have to try to make sure that whatever we do in this field is fair to all the people to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we welcomed the increase in 1990 and we recall the terrific campaign throughout the country that led up to that increase on behalf of war widows? He mentioned other means that might be adopted in this respect. On this 50th anniversary will he look at the possibility of index linking the pensions of thousands of ex-servicemen who are still receiving a pittance of a pension instead of the index-linked pension to which they are entitled?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure to what the noble Lord refers. War widows' pensions and other pensions paid to war pensioners are already index linked with prices in exactly the same way as many other benefits.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, does not the Minister think that for war widows who remarry it would be sensible to guarantee the automatic restoration of the DSS war widows pension on second bereavement, thereby encouraging war widows to remarry and thus saving the DSS large sums of money?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, saving the DSS large sums of money appeals to me greatly. However, spending more money does not seem to be the way to save money. I suspect that the noble Lord's proposal, which he also put forward in the debate that we had on this subject, would increase our expenditure in this regard. I explained to him on that occasion why the war widows' pension is applied as it is. If widows remarry they obviously cease to be widows, and one assumes that their second husbands have made some provision for their retirement and any second widowhood.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it was not only servicemen who were killed by enemy action but many others, including merchant seamen, lifeboatmen, people working in the ARP (who
1582
suffered greatly in the Battle of Britain) and firemen? Does he agree that if there is to be recognition, it would be difficult to draw the line?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point. There is special provision for some of the categories mentioned, but there are many others who suffered in the war in various ways who do not come into any of the special categories. That does not take away in any way from the special regard in which we hold war widows and which is clear in the very much larger widows' pension we give to war widows than to any other widows.

M.25: Junctions 12 and 15
3.23 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to proceed with their plans for link roads between junctions 12 and 15 of the M.25; and, if so, what are their plans for a public inquiry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, draft orders for the further improvement of the M.25 between junctions 12 and 15 were published in April 1994. An announcement on the date of the public inquiry will be made in due course.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, oh dear! I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Is he aware, as obviously he must be, that these proposals have been around now for three years and a succession of Ministers have stood at that Dispatch Box telling us that they were on the point of fixing a date for an inquiry, but nothing has happened? Do the Government appreciate that although, as I understand it, houses on the direct line of the route have been acquired by the department and compensation paid, the Government have managed to impose a prolonged planning blight on the whole of the immediately surrounding neighbourhood? Would it not be a much better idea to abandon this very expensive project, given all the complications, noise, pollution (which should appeal particularly to the Minister) and environmental damage that would result and the likelihood that the proposal would not solve the problem anyway?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I recognise the anxiety arising from the long period that the process has taken. That is why we seek to make an announcement as soon as possible.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the delay in making the announcement may be ascribed to some other reasons? For example, does the delay reflect the cost of the proposal and its low net present value, as demonstrated by some of the work done by Surrey County Council which was delivered to the Department of Transport and which has stimulated the department to do some similar modelling of its own? Does the delay reflect the fact that the recent SACTRA report indicates that the

1583
proposals are misguided in purpose and inadequate as to the processes that are undertaken, in particular the process of the environmental assessment? Or are the Government impressed by the high level of political opposition to the proposals? Or is the delay due to all three of those reasons?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the draft orders were laid last April. There has been some delay. There has been considerable public response. We have received about 12,000 objections since that time. Last July the then Minister for Roads announced that he wished to give more time to those who sought to make an objection to the proposal. That time has been given and we seek to make an announcement as soon as possible.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, are we not back on the old treadmill? The M.25 was going to solve all the problems in that area. It was an extremely expensive road. Now we find that it is being extended and an extra lane built. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, suggested that another way should be considered in view of the discomfort and economic disadvantage caused to local people whose houses have been blighted. Has consideration been given, for instance, to the extension of the Piccadilly Line, which would not be very far and which would be a great deal cheaper and take a large number of commuters off that road.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the M.25 is an extremely important part of our trunk road network. We have a severe problem now. It is envisaged that that problem will become significantly worse with the increase in traffic rates. The simple fact is that we need extra capacity. More investment in public transport will have an effect on that problem but it will not significantly reduce the demand for extra capacity on that piece of road.

European Union: Acquired Rights Directive
3.28 pm.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations they are having with other European Union governments with a view to lessening the legal safeguards for employees covered by the EU acquired rights directive.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, Ministers and government officials have had a number of constructive discussions with representatives of other member states, both before and after the publication by the European Commission in September last year of its proposal to repeal the 1977 acquired rights directive and to replace it by a new one. Those discussions have been aimed at securing agreement on the scope of the directive, not on reducing the rights provided where it applies.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he not agree that it is
1584
more than mildly ironic that at a time when there is such substantial public concern about the pay settlements for directors of public utilities, a concern which has also been expressed by the Prime Minister, the Government are applying their minds to trying to reduce the employment prospects, wages and working conditions of people who are involved in market testing? Does that not seem wholly unacceptable?
Secondly, would the Minister like to comment on the letter which was published in the Financial Times on Tuesday of this week from Mr. Portillo, the Secretary of State, who said that the Government must avoid any public statements on this issue which would be reported to the Commission and others? Can the noble Lord explain why there is such a desire for secrecy by Ministers on this particular question? I am sure that the House will be extremely interested in his reply.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to have overlooked the fact that the purpose behind the move to contract out was to improve services and to reduce expenditure. That does not necessarily mean that overall jobs will be lost. On the contrary, jobs will be gained. In the past 12 months we have seen unemployment drop by something like 400,000.
The noble Lord referred to a piece in the Financial Times published earlier this week which makes certain suggestions about the manner in which the Government are conducting negotiations at European level. Needless to say we do not divulge the tactics which we employ in those negotiations. To do so would reduce the efficacy of our activities and as a result we might achieve a less good deal for the British people than we would otherwise manage to do.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, one can hardly open a newspaper without reading about yet another takeover in prospect—Dillons, not to mention Barings. Is it not deplorable that at a time of enormous insecurity in the labour market, the impression should be given that the Government seek to water down what already exists in the acquired rights directive? Should we not seek to strengthen those guarantees to workers in such situations? It is hardly surprising—is it not?—that in present circumstances there is no feelgood factor, because people are far too insecure.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is important to bear in mind that the proposals to change the acquired rights directive emanate from the European Commission. The European Commission believes that the present legislation is inappropriate, not merely because it is badly drafted—I am sure that the House will agree on that—but also because the way in which it is interpreted by the European Court of Justice goes far beyond the intention at the time that it came into effect in 1977. Experts have been called in by the Commission. The balance of opinion is that it is appropriate to reduce its scope. We on these Benches also share that view. That is why we support the European Commission in its endeavours.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord has been very helpful on this Question this afternoon. I ask him to recall another phrase from the letter of Mr. Portillo, which states,
"There is undoubtedly some suspicion of the UK's motives".
He indicates that there would be real danger if it were thought that the United Kingdom was the leading member state which wanted revision of the acquired rights directive. Is that not an extraordinarily interesting indication of the Government's position on general European issues?
Quite apart from that, does the noble Lord also agree that the reduction of unemployment to which he referred has absolutely nothing to do with the acquired rights directive, which is still in existence? There could not have been the remotest relationship between the acquired rights directive and the reduction of unemployment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I explained in an earlier answer, it is not the Government's policy to elaborate on the tactics that they are adopting in European negotiations. The noble Lord refers to the article in the Financial Times. I do not propose to comment further on it.
On the specific points he makes about the acquired rights directive, the important point is this. We believe that the policy contained in the directive is not in the best interests of this country. That is why we wish to see the scope of the legislation reduced. We take the view that the directive is not appropriate because we believe that the approach to labour market flexibility which we have adopted in this country—it is to some extent at variance with the approach shared elsewhere in the European Union—is in our people's interest and has led to the decrease in unemployment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind me as to whether a change in the directive will be achieved by a qualified majority vote or does the change require unanimity? If the former, will he state what other countries support the British Government's position?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the proposal is brought forward under Article 100 of the treaty, which requires unanimity. We believe that there is a very good chance of this proposal proceeding.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does not the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, nicely illustrate the reason why the feelgood factor is elusive? The reason is that politicians so often refer to closures and danger, and never to such factors as the greatest reduction in unemployment for many decades and the fact that employment in manufacturing is going up for the first time since the last war.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend makes a pertinent comment. The feelgood factor depends upon a successful economy; and our economy is becoming more successful every day.

Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Special Public Bill Committee on the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill [H.L.]:

L. Archer of Sandwell,

L. Brightman (Chairman),

L. Butterworth,

L. Clark of Kempston,

V. Colville of Culross,

B. Darcy (de Knayth),

B. David,

L. Kingsland,

L. Mackay of Clashfern (L. Chancellor),

L. Meston;

and that the Committee do meet this day at five o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Relevant authorities to define requirements of environmental protection
.—(1) It shall be the duty of each relevant authority to integrate requirements for environmental protection into the definition of its policies and plans and into the performance of its functions under any enactment.
(2) For the purpose of this section "relevant authority" means—

(a) any Minister of the Crown,

(b) any public body,

(c) any statutory undertaker, or

(d) any person holding public office.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment introduces a key issue which is currently missing from this otherwise welcome Bill: a commitment to advance the cause of the environment across the activities of Government as a whole. It does so by requiring Ministers and government departments, public bodies, office holders and statutory undertakers to integrate the environment into their decision making.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening at this stage. Many Members of this House were walking between the noble Lord who spoke and the Woolsack. That is not the convention of this House. I was therefore unable to hear the noble Lord's original introduction. I should be most grateful if he could start again.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention for which I am grateful. I shall start again.
The amendment introduces a key issue which is currently missing from this otherwise welcome Bill: a commitment to advance the cause of the environment across the activities of government as a whole. It does so by requiring Ministers, government departments, public bodies, office holders and statutory undertakers to integrate the environment into their decision making.
The amendment stems from an earlier amendment which I introduced at Committee stage. It triggered a useful debate. I readily concede that my earlier amendment as drafted did not command universal support although its objective was widely welcomed. It was felt—I believe that I read the mood of the House correctly—to be too ambitious. Perhaps I was too optimistic in requiring Ministers and others to further the protection of the environment wherever possible while they carry out their statutory purposes.
I have therefore brought back for consideration by the House a more modest and realistic amendment based on the well established and accepted principle of environmental integration. In layman's language, it simply means making sure that the environment is properly dealt with in all decisions.
The effect of my amendment would be to raise the profile of the environment across Whitehall, local authorities and public bodies, and to ensure that it was taken fully into account in all decisions and implementations. It would not result in the environment overriding all other factors. Rather it would ensure that the environmental implications of decisions were assessed, considered and taken into account before a decision was made. There can be little disagreement with this. I believe that it is a good thing and one which should not be unduly controversial since the Government have already said that they would do precisely that in their 1990 White Paper on the environment and again in the 1994 national sustainability strategy.
Integration is a rather ugly buzz word which is fashionable at the moment. I make no apologies for using it because the Government themselves are keen on the concept. It is even included in the Treaty on European Union in wording which my amendment reflects. The amendment would have widespread and obvious application where there are environmental conflicts or difficult issues to be addressed; for example, in the fields of transport, energy or agriculture. It would also be useful in policy areas where the environmental impacts are not immediate or obvious but are still important; for example, the environmental impacts of changes in health or education service provision. Effective environmental integration reduces conflict and can save time and money; it is worth doing.
Responding to my earlier amendment, the Minister said that,
"one of the central themes of the Government's approach to sustainable development is that it can be achieved only through the involvement of all parts of government".—[Official Report, 17/1/95; col. 542.]
1588
Moreover, he did not rule out the possibility of a positive response if I were able to come up with an amendment which more accurately reflected the Government's existing policy commitments in the field. It is with the hope of such a positive reaction in mind that I beg to move my amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, ever since Rio and their signature to the treaty the Government have been pursuing a policy of trying to integrate sustainable development and protection of the environment across the board. Your Lordships' Committee on Sustainable Development heard last week from the Secretary of State for the Environment very heartening evidence of the progress of the work of green Ministers, of reports and of developments right across departments of state.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will carry on and reinforce the message of what the Government are doing. I am sure that they will feel they can accept it. We on these Benches support the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I hope very much that the Government will feel that the amendment is not controversial. It is the Government's stated aim which has now been translated into parliamentary language, as I understand it, by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. The amendment is in keeping with the Rio Declaration; it simply states the view which the noble Viscount set out and I, for my party, set out on Second Reading a long timeago, before Christmas. It is that we must make the environment central to all government policy-making.
Later in the Bill we shall see how the proposal can be translated into terms applying to the private sector, but the amendment deals with the public sector. We believe that it is for the public sector to set a proper example to the private sector. We therefore have great pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
Lord Moran: My Lords, at Second Reading I argued that the environment agency should perhaps be given clearer duties to improve environmental protection. The amendment goes some way to achieving that. Consequently, I hope that it can be accepted. I support it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have two reasons for being broadly sympathetic towards the amendment. The first is that, like other noble Lords, I am a keen conservationist. The second reason is that I am one of those who believes that guidance should be given in Acts of Parliament stating as a matter of broad principle the purpose of the Act and the objectives it should attain. That is another way of expressing the purpose.
However, it would be wrong to assume that the new clause aims at something which is neglected by other clauses of the Bill. It overlaps to a considerable extent Clauses 4 to 10 and Clause 12. Those clauses are, however, limited to the functions of the agency and the effect of the work which the agency does in relation to specific named matters. The provisions do not express, as the new clause would, a broad environmental purpose.

1589
I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Ullswater says. I shall not commit myself to voting one way or another, or to abstaining. I believe that such a broad statement of purpose can be valuable and I hope that it will receive a sympathetic reception from the Government.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am reluctant to join the debate; I shall do so briefly. If we were in Committee I should be happier because I ask for clarification and I doubt whether I shall receive it. While I appreciate the merits of what my noble friend proposes and understand what he intends, I am not sure that the process of integrating a requirement into a function can be analysed in legal terms. I do not know what it would mean in law. Therefore, I hope that if my noble friend were tempted to accept the amendment, he would be careful to tell noble Lords what it would mean because I suspect that it is flawed.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment for almost the reason my noble friend Lord Elton has just given. As I read the amendment, it puts into the Bill what is already in the Long Title. I draw your Lordships' attention to the part of the title which states,
"to make further provision for … the conservation or enhancement of the environment".
As I see it, that is what the amendment is intended to ensure. It is to enable this excellent Bill to take a major step forward and to bring the environmental dimension into a whole range of government decisions.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Norrie said, we discussed a similar amendment in Committee. He has come back with a slightly different approach. I appreciate that he has tried to meet some of the objections I put forward to his original amendment, but I still do not believe that his proposal would work.
The Government appreciate that environmental protection should not be a concern or a responsibility only of environment and territorial Ministers. One of the central themes of our approach to sustainable development and the arrangements we have made to implement our policies and take forward our strategy is that it involves everybody—all parts of government, all sections of society. I am more than happy to agree that environmental considerations should generally be taken into account by Ministers, other public office-holders, public bodies and statutory undertakers in the course of their normal work. But my noble friend's amendment seeks to place a duty on those people and organisations to integrate requirements for environmental protection into definition of their policies and plans and into the performance of their functions. I do not believe that that is either appropriate or workable.
Good government and good policy-making and implementation in the public sector generally require the balancing of needs for many different desirable policy objectives and finding ways of delivering those which provide the optimum advantage. To single out one
1590
particular policy objective and place the entire public sector under a statutory requirement to integrate this into the definition of all its policies, plans and functions risks upsetting that balance. It is difficult to see how a statutory requirement such as is proposed here cannot have a knock-on effect on the need for bodies also to integrate the requirements of equally important policy objectives such as those relating to health and safety, economic and social well-being, national security and so on. It would also seem to take away some of the necessary discretion which bodies must be able to exercise in the way they make and carry out their decisions. It is surely for them to decide which policy objectives need to be taken into account and with what weight in any particular case.
Moreover, the proposal is too wide and, in its attempt to cover everything, draws into the net many decisions where integration of environmental protection would be simply irrelevant. To take a simple example, which I believe would explain the concern of my noble friend Lord Elton, a local authority, in drawing up the staffing structure for its education department, would seem to be put under a duty to integrate requirements for environmental protection into the definition of that staffing policy. That would not seem to make much sense.
I believe that my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and I are not in disagreement about the basic principle of the benefits of ensuring that environmental considerations are properly taken into account throughout government and the public sector more widely where appropriate. But I cannot agree that anything practical will be achieved by imposing an overall duty to integrate requirements for environmental protection into the policy and performance of every aspect of government.
I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, can he confirm for his noble friend Lord Elton that the wording of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nome, is in fact the wording of Article 130r of the revised Treaty of Rome?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I would not doubt the words of the noble Lord.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I have to remain disappointed. I hope that he will take into account also what my noble friend Lord Marlesford said—basically, that the Bill does not yet live up to its Long Title.
This is clearly not the time to press the case. I believe that constructive dialogue on this issue is the best way forward. Therefore, if I may, I shall seek to discuss the purpose behind my amendment again with the Minister and explore further exactly what difficulties he sees and whether we can find a way round them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Noble lords: No!
3.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 143.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Judd, L.

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lockwood, B.

Avebury, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L [Teller.]

Mar and Kellie, E

Blackstone, B.

Mayhew, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Bridges, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Methuen, L

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monkswell, L

Cranbrook, E.

Moran, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mulley, L.

Denham, L.

Nelson, E.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Norrie, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dubs, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rea, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ennals, L.

Richard, L

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkender, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkland, V.

Roskill L.

Foot, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Shepherd, L

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Strafford, E

Gregson, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hamwee, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tope, L.

Haskel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hayter, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Walpole, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Borth wick, L.

Addison, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ailsa, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L

Alexander of Tunis, E

Burnham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Butterworth, L.

Annaly.L

Caithness, E

Astor of Hever, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Blaker, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Blatch, B.

Chesham, L.

Blyth, L.

Clanwilliam, E

Boardman, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

1592

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Courtown, E.

McConnell, L.

Cox, B.

Merrivale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mersey, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Crawshaw, L.

Mills, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Milverton, L.

Cross, V.

Monk Bretton, L

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monson, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Davidson, V.

Morris, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mountevans, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Effingham, E

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Moyne, L.

Elles, B.

Munster, E

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Faithfull. B.

Northbourne, L.

Flather, B.

Northesk, E

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orkney, E

Fraser of Kilmorack, L

Oxfuird, V.

Gainford, L.

Palmer, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gisborough, L

Pender, L

Greenway, L

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Quinton, L.

Halsbury, E

Rawlings, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Rees, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Renwick, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hood, V.

Rodney, L

Hooper, B.

Romney, E

Howe, E.

Saint Albans, D.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Salisbury, M.

Ilchester, E

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sandys, L.

Killearn, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kintore, E.

Shannon, E

Kitchener, E

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Knollys, V.

St Davids, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L

Lauderdale, E

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Stockton, E

Lindsay, E

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Sudeley, L

Lucas, L.

Swansea, L.

Lyell, L.

Terrington, L.

Lytton, E

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Ullswater, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Marsh, L.

Weatherill, L.

May, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 1 [The Environment Agency]:
4.2 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 2, I should say that it should read:
"Page 1, line 12, after ("first Agency") insert"—
and the words which follow.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, after ("first Agency") insert ("or, in Welsh, Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whom I know to be an excellent Gaelic speaker, for his correction of the amendment.
The intention of the amendment is very simple. It is to provide for the England and Wales agency as a public body a name which has a Welsh language version. That is in accordance with the Welsh Language Act passed by this House. I state my interest as chairman of the statutory board charged with implementing that piece of legislation.
The issue was raised earlier at Committee stage (Official Report, 31/1/95; cols. 1418–20), when the noble Viscount responded. He indicated that full consideration will be given to the position of the agency under Section 6 of the Welsh Language Act and its designation as a public body.
However, I move this amendment to raise the specific question, and indeed the general principle, of how the Government intend to treat public bodies which are now being created following the establishment of the new principle of treating Welsh and English on the basis of equality, as set out in the Welsh Language Act; to deal with the subsequent requirement for all public bodies in Wales to implement that principle where reasonable and practicable in the circumstances, taking into account the guidance and advice given by the board in its recent draft guidelines—which it is to be hoped will come before this House later this year—that public bodies should have a distinctive corporate image in Wales where they provide a service which is bilingual for the people in Wales. That is particularly important in the case of this agency. Having turned down one of the original possibilities of establishing an environment agency for Wales on the basis of SEPA in Scotland, there is a danger that this agency may not be seen to be fulfilling its obligation to the public in Wales if from the start it does not adopt policies in tune with both the culture and the environment of the Principality.
The further principle applies to all public bodies which will come into existence from now on to serve the people of Wales. There are a number of ways in which the Government can bring about conformity with the Welsh Language Act. One way is to use Section 25 of the Welsh Language Act 1993. However, it seems to me that, rather than having to make orders to include public bodies under the terms of that Act, a much simpler exercise would be to ensure that every new body created that could come under the terms of that Act is so designated from the start as a bilingual organisation in terms of name. That could be done through miscellaneous provisions in the legislation, or alternatively in the way that I suggest in this amendment; namely, that the name of the body corporate is included in the legislation.
There is a precedent for that in the Welsh Language Act itself which established both the English language name and the Welsh language name in legislation; and
1594
also precedent in the Local Government (Wales) Act, which established names in Welsh and English for the new unitary authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with what has been said. I shall be interested to hear the Government's guidance on the matter. I had not given much thought to the point, but I had assumed that the whole arrangement was satisfactorily covered by the Welsh Language Act and there would be a set of arrangements in place. But the noble Lord reminded the House that the Welsh name has been included in previous legislation and therefore I can see no grounds in principle for it not to be done on this occasion.
I rise at this moment partly to say that I hope that we shall not become too fixed on this particular name. I could have tabled an amendment in this House but I hope that in another place someone will put down an amendment to change the name to "Authority". I know that that is wished and desired by my noble friend Lord De Ramsey who has discussed the matter with me and shares my view that that would be a much more effective name for this organisation. I am simply taking this opportunity to signal that, in my view, the Authority would be a better name. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will tell us in due course what the appropriate Welsh version of that would be.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am a little puzzled by the amendment. I sympathise enormously with the noble Lord. Welsh is a very beautiful language which should be extensively supported. However, I feel that the amendment goes a little too far in asking that certain sections of Bills should also be printed in the Welsh language. We could have every Bill with a Welsh alternative.
It may well be that when the Bill becomes an Act it might be printed in the Welsh language. But why stop at the Welsh language? Why not in the Gaelic language and so on? An all-embracing Bill should be in the "British" tongue. I should not like to set a precedent but perhaps in a Bill specially relevant to Wales it would carry a more valid point.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, is to confer a Welsh name on the England and Wales agency which the agency could use as appropriate to its Welsh region. I agree fully that the agency should be given a Welsh name. However, as the noble Lord himself admitted, powers exist under Section 25 of the Welsh Language Act 1993 to confer Welsh names on public bodies by order. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will confer a Welsh name on the agency in that way. There is no need for that to be done through primary legislation and I ask the noble Lord, therefore, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, before I accede to that request I should like to respond briefly and to put on record the point of principle that in my view it is acceptable in this House that we produce legislation in English as the working language. However, there should be no objection to the inclusion of proper names for

1595
bodies or organisations on the face of Bills, as we have done in other cases, particularly in relation to the Local Government (Wales) Act.
It is not the intention of this amendment or any other to change the language of this House or of Parliament and certainly not the intention to effect any specific change on the face of legislation. The amendment seeks to conform with what will be the legal case once the order is made by the Secretary of State in terms of the Welsh Language Act. I do not see why that cannot be done as a proper name for a public body on the face of primary legislation. The amendment relates to that point of principle.
It seems to me that it is much simpler, either at this stage of the Bill or later under miscellaneous provisions when reference is made to all other kinds of legislation, that reference should be made in primary legislation to the Welsh language title. That is particularly appropriate for a public body which functions for England and Wales as a unit and which has a Welsh advisory committee. Therefore at a later stage, when we discuss miscellaneous provisions at the end of the Bill, at Report stage, at Third Reading, or in another place, perhaps the Government will consider whether it is appropriate, as a matter of principle where an agency is an England and Wales agency, to provide a bilingual name from the start rather than to follow this process whereby the Secretary of State will be continually making orders in reference to public bodies.
I also have much sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, regarding the names "Awdurdod yr Amgylchedd" or "yr Awdurdod Amgylchedd". Both sound fine to me. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("for the purpose of carrying") and insert ("whose objective shall be to conserve and regenerate the environment, and which shall carry").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I regret that I can only move this amendment in English. Amendment No. 3 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 4, 20 and, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley, Amendment No. 22. At this point I shall deal only with Amendment No. 3. The purpose of Amendment No. 22 can best be dealt with when we debate the proposed new Clause 4.
I hesitated over the word "purpose" because I felt it was necessary to come to today's debate armed with definitions of the terms "objective", "aim", "purpose" and "functions". We had some difficulty in distinguishing between them at the last stage of the Bill. However, there was a large degree of consensus that, whether one described it as an "objective", an "aim" or a "purpose", certainly the underlying thrust, the fundamental objective of the agency should be spelt out early on in the Bill. It is for that reason that I tabled Amendment No. 3.
I hope that your Lordships will understand that it is not as ambitious a proposal as may appear at first sight. The objective is to,
1596
"conserve and regenerate the environment".
I am not seeking to impose additional responsibilities or additional functions on the agency over and above those provided by the Bill, but merely to set the proper context for the work that the agency is to do; in other words, to spell out the purpose underlying its functions.
I am not wedded to the term "conserve and regenerate"; equally it could be "protect and enhance". I chose a term which suggests more than simply accepting the status quo in order to reflect anxieties expressed by many noble Lords at the Committee stage that the agency should set its sights higher than merely trying to ensure that matters do not get worse environmentally speaking and, if necessary, slowly, but I hope surely, to achieve improvement.
At the Committee stage, in responding to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, which had a similar purpose, the Minister said that he was concerned about,
"the risk of attempting to encompass within a few select words the full range of functions of the environment agency".
I have not sought to do that; I have not attempted to describe the range of functions. I am seeking to spell out the purpose underlying those functions. The Minister also said that,
"Any attempt to write overriding statutory functions and purposes on top of those existing provision:: risks creating duplication or conflict".—[Official Report, 17/1/95; col. 548.]
Again, I assure your Lordships that that is not the thrust of Amendment No. 3. The Minister may say that the provisions of the proposed new Clause 4 effectively deal with the point. I believe that they do not. That is the reason I have not spoken to Amendment No. 22. The new clause, to which we shall come in due course, makes the aim of the agency subordinate to its functions. I believe that that is the wrong way round. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, bearing in mind the way in which the amendments are grouped, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 20 and 24, which I regard as being largely subsumed by Amendment No. 28 which has been tabled by the Government and relates to the new Clause 4. My primary objective was to ensure that the agency had an overall duty to exercise its powers to protect and enhance the environment. However, the Government have gone a good deal of the way—in fact nearly all the way—that I sought to go with my amendment, which I tabled before my noble friend tabled his. I had hoped that they would be grouped together but unfortunately they were not.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, while accepting that the government amendments relating to Clause 4—which arrived rather late—cover many of the points that we wished to be covered under Clause 1, my reason for supporting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the other amendments in the group, is that without a clear purpose for the agency in Clause 1, there is a certain hollowness about it; that

1597
is, we appear to be setting up an agency to do a collection of functions, but we are not giving the agency a clear purpose.
Although the government amendments to Clause 4, under the guidance provisions, may cover the functions that we wish to see the agency carrying out, there is something lacking in Clause 4. There is a certain lack of definition regarding the purpose of the agency. It would provide a bold introduction to the Bill if the agency's purpose was clearly laid out in Clause 1. Therefore on balance I continue to prefer that the purpose of the agency should be contained in Clause 1 rather than in Clause 4, to which we will revert at a later stage when we discuss Amendment No. 28.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, this issue turns on words. There are several critical words to be considered. First, there is the difference between the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and that of my noble friend Lord Marlesford as tabled, which he may or may not move in due course. Of the two I prefer the term, "protect and enhance". They are familiar words in the environmental world and we understand their meaning. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, introduced unnecessary complications in using terms that are not familiar to us and to legislation in general.
The Long Title of the Bill and the draft management statement clearly indicate that the agency will be set up to provide high quality environmental protection. I believe that the wording that is to be introduced by my noble friend on the Front Bench that,
"It shall be the principal aim of the Agency … to protect or enhance the environment, taken as a whole, as to make the contribution towards",
may offer some hostages to fortune and complicate the system. I put it to my noble friend that it is and would be very much simpler to have a straightforward, precise and concise statement of duty in the fewest possible words right at the beginning of the Bill. I should very much like to see my noble friend the Minister consider the approach of my noble friend Lord Marlesford and thereby somewhat reduce the hazards and complications of the wording that he is about to propose in Amendment No. 28.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, my position is very close to that of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. We shall run into some difficulties when we get to the Government's amendment and I sympathise with the idea that we should have a simple statement at the start of the Bill. The difficulty here is that we have two amendments which are flawed. My noble friend has spelt out—and I need not repeat what he said—the flaw in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is much more satisfactory to stick to the wording we have in the memorandum and in the Long Title. The trouble with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Marlesford is that he drops the words "whose objective shall be" and tells us that the agency,
"shall, in exercising any of its powers under any enactment, protect and enhance the environment".
1598
That may be impossible. When we are dealing with flood defences I can envisage circumstances where it might be absolutely essential to take some measure for the protection of life and property that does not actually enhance the environment. It is the kind of dilemma with which the NRA has had to deal over the years. What one needs is duties that are reconcilable. What needs to be done is to take the idea away and come back, as would be perfectly possible, with an amendment which combines the virtues of the more gentle introduction of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with my noble friend's objectives. Then we would be getting very close to what we want.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. Until Clause 4 and the Government's amendment are sorted out, Amendment No. 3 is extremely confusing. It uses the word "objective". I am not quite sure how that would relate to what is meant by "aim" in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause or "objectives" in subsection (2). I do not know which is subordinate to the other and so I end up being thoroughly confused. It would be better to get Clause 4 out of the way and come back to the point at a later stage, if necessary.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I am confused by the use of the word "enhance". To me, "enhance" means to enhance a quality. Why "enhance" seems to be used in this Bill to mean what I would call "improve" I do not quite see.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, put his finger on the problem. Trying to introduce an amendment such as this into Clause 1 of the Bill suffers from the difficulties to which he referred. I understand quite sincerely the desire of noble Lords to put up front what at Committee stage we called the strategic purpose. The attempt to put it in Clause 1 is quite legitimate. However, we have considered this carefully and I have brought forward the government amendment to Clause 4. I apologise to the House that it was at a rather later date than I would have wanted.
The amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Marlesford would place the agency under a duty, in exercising any power, to protect and enhance the environment and would empower Ministers to give guidance with respect to its new duties. The first of the amendments is in many respects similar to that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in Committee, but with the purpose extended from that of protecting the environment to protecting and enhancing the environment and limited to governing the exercise by the agency of its powers rather than its powers and duties.
When we debated that earlier amendment a number of noble Lords from all sides of the Chamber emphasised the need for some statement of the purposes of the agency on the face of the Bill, rather than leaving this solely as a matter for guidance. I listened carefully to those arguments and noted the broad acceptance of the idea even among those whose views differed as to what those purposes should be. That is why I have brought forward an amendment to include within the Bill a statement of the principal aims of the agency.

1599
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, I drew attention to the dangers of attempting to encapsulate within a few words a complete statement of the purposes of the agency and the need to avoid possible inconsistencies between any such description in this Bill and the provisions of the existing legislation on which the agency will need to rely. I believe that the amendments which we are now considering illustrate those risks particularly well. Their effect would be to place the agency under a duty in every case to exercise its powers so as to protect and enhance the environment irrespective of the purposes for which the powers were originally enacted, the costs to itself and others that might result and the practicability of so doing.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell gave us an example of the difficulties. I shall give another example. The agency has powers in relation to navigation. In exercising those powers it is undoubtedly right that it should seek to avoid doing so in ways which are environmentally damaging. But that is very different from saying that powers which were there to promote the interests of navigation should be capable of being exercised only where they protect and enhance the environment, which would be highly restrictive. Similarly, the agency will have numerous powers designed to ensure that it can function effectively as a body but which are not directly concerned with protecting and enhancing the environment; for example, powers to levy charges. To limit the use of such powers to cases where they protected and enhanced the environment would in practice be highly damaging to the effective operation of the agency.
More generally, all the amendments suffer from seeking to require the agency to pursue environmental purposes divorced from consideration of the wider needs of society and the need to ensure that environmental protection is not pursued where the benefits would not justify the costs. I know that there is a siren argument which says that the agency should be given a purely environmental role, and the need for difficult decisions about how that might need to be constrained where action would be disproportionate or incompatible with the pursuit of sustainable development should be left as a matter for Ministers. But in practice an agency with such a remit would be largely incapable of independent and effective operation since under such an arrangement Ministers would necessarily become involved in the agency's day-to-day operations. The need to pursue environmental protection in the context of sustainable development, taking proper account of costs and benefits, is central to the Government's approach to ensuring responsible and effective environmental protection in which all parts of society can become involved.
I hope I have made plain that these amendments would in practice restrict the agency in unreasonable ways. I trust therefore that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for
1600
adding their analysis of what is not an easy matter. I continue to distinguish my proposal from what is contained in new Clause 4, under which the agency is to aim,
"in discharging its functions … to protect or enhance the environment".
I do not fully go along with the Minister in the example which he gave. I believe that my argument can be applied to examples which the noble Viscount may not have given. He said that the objective should not be part of the exercise of every power, if I understand him correctly. The noble Viscount used the example of charging. I believe that, taken together, the powers must work towards the thrust and the objective of the agency. For instance, as regards charging there would be enormous disappointment if all the agency did was to levy fees. The point of its charging is to enable it to implement the reason that it is being set up. In other words, the powers are separate but minor. They cannot be read as headline objectives of themselves: they are powers and not objectives and they facilitate.
As I said, I found the analysis extremely helpful. I accept that the amendment can stand improvement or even enhancement, if I may dare say that. It is still important and a pity that we have to address this matter before we get to the new Clause 4. We have to establish whether the objective which many noble Lords wish to see is spelt out at the head of the Bill. I propose to seek the opinion of the House. In doing so, I assure your Lordships that should this amendment be successful, I shall seek to improve it in conjunction with other noble Lords who have spoken and bring back another amendment at Third Reading. I hope that the new amendment will reflect the points which have been made. Nevertheless, I wish to see at this point whether we can achieve the inclusion of the objective in the very first clause of the Bill.
4.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Airedale, L.

Dubs, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Avebury, L.

Ennals, L

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ezra, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falkender, B.

Bottomley, L.

Falkland, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Foot, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carter, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Dahrendorf, L.

David, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Gregson, L.

Desai, L.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Haskel, L.

Donoughue, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

1601

Howie of Troon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hughes, L.

Peston, L.

Jeger, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L

Rea, L.

Judd, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kennet, L.

Richard, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rochester, L.

Kirkhill L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L

Sainsbury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Longford, E

Shepherd, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Simon, V.

Mallallieu, B.

Stallard, L.

Mar and Kellie, E

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Strafford, E

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

McNair, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tope, L.

Milner of Leeds, L

Tordoff, L.

Molloy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Monkswell, L.

Walpole, L.

Moran, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mulley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nathan, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Nicol, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Addison, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Ailsa, M.

Elton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E

Faithfull, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Flather, B.

Ampthill, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Annaly, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gainsborough, E

Astor, V.

Gisborough, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Goschen, V.

Bethell, L.

Greenway, L.

Blaker, L.

Hambro, L.

Blatch, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L

Blyth, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harrowby, E

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henley, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Hogg, B.

Brentford, V.

HolmPatrick, L

Brigstocke, B.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hothfield, L.

Burnham, L.

Howe, E

Butterworth, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Cadman, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Caithness, E

Killearn, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kinnoull, E

Campbell of Croy, L

Kintore, E

Carnock, L.

Kitchener, E

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Knollys, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Lauderdale, E

Chesham, L.

Lindsay, E

Charley, L.

Long, V.

Clanwilliam, E

Lucas, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lyell, L

Coleridge, L.

Lytton, E

Courtown, E

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Cranbrook, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cross, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cumberlege, B.

May, L.

Davidson, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L.

Mersey, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Derwent, L.

Mills, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Milverton, L.

Effingham, E

Monk Bretton, L.

1602

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Renwick, L.

Mottistone, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Mountevans, L.

Rodney, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Romney, E

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Moyne, L.

Salisbury, M.

Munster, E

Seccombe, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Newall, L.

St Davids, V.

Norrie, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Northbrook, L.

Stockton, E.

Northesk, E

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Orfuird, V.

Sudeley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swansea, L.

Pender, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thurlow, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Ullswater, V.

Quinton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Wise, L.

Renton, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert:
("(1A) The Agency shall, in exercising any of its powers under any enactment, protect and enhance the environment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am still persuaded, particularly by what my noble friend Lord Cranbrook said, that it would be nice to have something at the beginning of the Bill on this point but, as I said earlier, in view of the considerable changes that are to be made to Clause 4 under Amendment No. 28, I am happy not to move this or my later amendment.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [The Environment Agency]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 115, line 2, leave out from ("may") to ("appoint") in line 3.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 62. The amendments would remove the requirement for the relevant Secretary of State to approve the terms and conditions of service of staff appointed by the agency or by SEPA.
We have been reviewing the need for this control. It will be important for the Government to exercise a strategic control over pay, terms and conditions in view of the substantial funding the agencies will receive from chargepayers and the public purse. But the Bill as it stands would require approval of every detail, which would not be a worthwhile use of resources. The strategic controls required can be exercised under the general power to impose conditions on award of grant to the agencies and would be implemented through their management statements and financial memoranda. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving this amendment, which is a real step forward in removing unnecessary bureaucracy. Among the problems which have tended to handicap the

1603
efficient running of the NRA and similar organisations are interference and the second-guessing of points of detail. My noble friend is absolutely right that there are adequate broad powers for the Government to lay down the general rules, but it must be right that the agency should be able to settle such details without continually having to seek approval. This is a welcome step.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. From the breadth of his experience, he has put his finger very much on the point with which we have tried to deal in the amendment. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, before the Minister moves the amendment, will he please clarify that the amendment as drafted is correct? Should it not be—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I believe that on Report the procedure is that once the Minister has spoken, only the noble Lord moving the amendment can speak thereafter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 115, line 7, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I should like to speak initially also to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9. They seek to transfer the pension rights of those members of the NRA and other organisations which will become part of the new environment agency. The amendments seek to place a statutory duty on the agency to adopt the local government superannuation schemes for both the existing employees of the NRA and other future employees of the agency. They also seek to make arrangements for the separation of the funds of the National Rivers Authority staff and the remnant water authorities' superannuation fund so that the Secretary of State has power to place the administration of the remnant water authorities' superannuation fund with an appropriate body. That will prevent the raiding of one pension fund by another and will ensure the continuance of pensions paid to pensioners and their widows under the water authorities' superannuation fund.
The amendments also place an obligation on the agency to establish a joint pensions advisory committee by agreement with the recognised trade unions. There are analogies with other existing transfers of pensions—for example, the existing London Pensions Fund Authority which looks after former GLC employees. In relation to the advisory committee, I understand that the National Rivers Authority currently has such an advisory committee. The amendments will therefore place the new staff of the agency on all fours with staff of other such agencies in the past.
Amendment No. 10 is rather different although it is grouped with Amendment No. 6. It seeks to ensure that health and safety provisions are promoted within the
1604
agency. Despite repeated requests from the recognised trade unions and the intervention of the Health and Safety Commission, the National Rivers Authority has refused to establish a national joint health and safety committee. It is hoped that the new environment agency will set up such a national committee to ensure that the same standards are applied in its workplaces throughout the country. The present situation with the NRA has brought to light weaknesses in the current health and safety legislation which, although it makes provision for committees to be established at individual workplaces, does not make a similar provision at a national or corporate level. Therefore, it is intended under Amendment No. 10 that there should be a possibility of setting up such a national umbrella committee to ensure similar standards throughout the country. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I suppose that I should declare an interest in that I am currently the chairman of the NRA's pensions committee and therefore have responsibility for the management of some of the funds referred to in the amendment. I could not support the amendment as it stands because I do not agree with certain aspects of it. However, it raises some important points which I do support.
In my view, it is right in principle that all the employees of the agency should be members of one scheme. It is correct to say that at the moment the NRA's scheme comes under the local government superannuation arrangements. I think that it would be a mistake to commit the Government for ever to including the agencies' pensions under the local government superannuation scheme. I believe that that is appropriate at present, but I do not see why it should necessarily apply for all time.
However, I do not know the Government's view about HMIP employees who are in a different pension scheme. I do not know what the Government intend to do about those employees when they join the new agency. I can well understand that those employees might wish to hang on to their existing pension arrangements. On the other hand, from the point of view of managing an agency, it would be unsatisfactory to have two totally separate sets of pension arrangements. It would be useful to have the Government's intentions on that matter set out—if not today, then before the Bill leaves Parliament.
If other employees are to join the existing scheme, it is important to ensure that adequate provision is made for transfers into the fund—in other words, that the surplus on the NRA's active fund does not end up subsidising transferees into that fund.
The issue identified in Amendment No. 9 relating to the maintenance of separate funds is extremely important. Suggestions have been made that they may be merged. In my view, that would be a wholly unsatisfactory situation. The closed fund has placed on the NRA the responsibility in very difficult circumstances of looking after the pensions of people who have never been its employees. They have been employees of the water industry prior to the setting up of the agency. It is most unfortunate that the time and resources of the NRA and potentially in the future of

1605
the new agency should be diverted to looking after those for whom it should have no responsibility. It would be much better if those responsibilities were transferred to some other appropriate administering authority. I suspect that the situation arises elsewhere as a result of privatisation. There is much to be said for bringing together remnant funds under a single management where specialists can look after them.
The closed fund was transferred at a particularly awkward moment and in particularly awkward circumstances. It was transferred just before the market reached an all-time high. As a consequence of what happened then, it has a deficit. There are problems in running a closed fund. As one reaches expiry one has to continue to fund pensions with no income coming in. The investments have to be sold in more and more difficult circumstances. A moment will come when the Government and the Treasury have to decide what to do about picking up this responsibility. It would be intolerable—here I warmly support the amendment—if an attempt were made to solve the problem by merging the funds so that any surplus properly created on the active fund was used to subsidise, or part-subsidise, the deficit on the closed fund.
I cannot pretend that I am happy about the need to establish what is called a joint advisory committee. It seems to me to be an attempt to impose an unnecessary strict set of rules. There is a pensions committee in the NRA which includes employee representatives. It has worked well and enjoys the support of the trade unions. I would have thought that something similar would be wholly appropriate for the new agency.
The move to a national committee to deal with health, safety and welfare is, I believe, an unnecessary imposition of rules and bureaucracy. There is much to be said for pushing such responsibilities down to regional and local committees which can deal with the situation on the ground. That is not to say that the agency itself will not have a responsibility to maintain the highest standards of health and safety. In that respect I believe that the NRA's record has been rather good. It is a proper management responsibility. Probably the best place to negotiate these matters in a way that deals with the problems is at local level rather than by imposing by statute the requirement for a second tier on top.
Some important points are raised by the amendments. This is a good opportunity for the Government to clarify their intentions. I hope, however, that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment; I believe it to be seriously flawed in some of its details.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I well understand concerns about pensions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, tabled very similar amendments in Committee. I wish to confirm the points I made at that time. First, I confirm that the agency will, through secondary legislation, be designated as an administering authority for the local government superannuation scheme. We do not need primary legislation for that purpose. Moreover, Amendment No. 8 appears to require the agency to offer pensions only under the LGSS. That would be an unnecessary restriction on the agency's ability to develop appropriate alternative arrangements
1606
for its staff. Nor can I accept the provisions of Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 which would require the agency to offer all staff the right to a pension under the LGSS. The agency must have freedom in appropriate cases to offer non-pensionable jobs. I reiterate, however, that existing staff who transfer to the agency and whose employment is pensionable must be offered comparable pensions. Staff who are members of LGSS will be offered continued membership of that scheme.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell asked about those from HMIP and their schemes. We are still considering the future pension arrangements for HMIP staff who will transfer and who are presently on the principal Civil Service pension scheme. Those are ongoing considerations.
As I explained in Committee, there is no need for the Bill to provide for the pension funds of the NRA to vest in the agency as they will automatically transfer. Nor do we think it appropriate to require the agency to establish a joint advisory committee to oversee the management of the scheme. I am supported in that view by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. LGSS regulations already require administering authorities to act prudently in the management of their funds, and the statutory limits which apply to LGSS administering authorities ensure this requirement.
Amendment No. 9 refers to the closed fund for ex-water authority pensioners for which the NRA is currently responsible. In Committee I said that we were considering the future of that fund. I regret that so far I am unable to report an outcome to those deliberations. We intend to report before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament. For now, I can assure your Lordships that the pension entitlements under the LGSS, which staff in both the closed and active funds currently enjoy, will continue to be honoured. I believe that my noble friend has indicated some of the problems still to be resolved.
Amendment No. 10 deals with health and safety. The amendment is unnecessary. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and regulations made thereunder already provide for the appointment by recognised trade unions of safety representatives and for an employer to establish a safety committee if requested to do so by two or more safety representatives. With those words, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am by no means an expert on pensions. Clearly, some of the detail of the amendments is not mine. The anxieties are not mine but of the staff who are being transferred to the new agency. They are concerned that their conditions and pension contributions should not be lost as a result of the amalgamation of funds. I shall take back what the Minister said about the amendments and consider whether there is need to pursue the matter at Third Reading.

1607
In relation to health and safety committees, do I understand the Minister to say that if the trade union representatives request it there can be a national committee? Or is he merely saying that such a committee can be set up at individual work places?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I understand it, safety committees will be set up at individual places of work.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I understand that there is no provision in current legislation for the setting up of an overriding committee to establish national standards. In that case, the matter will have to be looked at again and considered before Third Reading. In the circumstances, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 115, line 23, after ("this") insert ("paragraph and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to address the issues relating to public access to information arising from the transfer to the new agency of the functions of the waste regulation authorities. As the House will be aware, Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 established waste regulation authorities, recasting the institutional local framework for waste regulation disposal which had been operating under the 1974 control of pollution legislation. Those waste regulation authorities and waste disposal authorities are generally local authorities. The 1990 Act placed obligations on waste disposal and waste regulation authorities.
My concern is that the transfer of the function to an agency (a non-governmental public body—a quango) from local authorities will result in a restriction on the access to information and the rights of the public to follow the activities of that function. When that function was part of local government, subject to the activities, as controlled by the Local Government Act 1972, the local authorities (district councils in the case of Wales) themselves operated openly. Members of the public were able to attend meetings where waste regulation was discussed. They were able to see the background papers, the agendas and the reports at least three days in advance as set out in that local government legislation. They could also see the minutes.
The concern referred to in the two amendments, is that the transfer of the function of waste regulation from waste regulation authorities to the Environment Agency will, in effect, abolish those environmental rights, since the Local Government Act does not apply to quangos. The purpose of my amendments is to make provision so that the agency will operate in a way similar to the present waste regulation authorities which are local authorities.
That argument must be placed in the context of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992. I suspect that the Minister will tell the House that there are certain
1608
rights in those regulations and in the European Community directive to access of information on the environment. But these are different rights from the rights that are being abolished by the transfer of functions in Schedule 1.
The EU legislation and the accompanying regulations do not provide rights to attend meetings, and it is not always clear whether relevant documents dealing with waste regulation would be regarded as information relating to the environment. For all those reasons, and because the European Commission has taken enforcement procedures against the UK Government for failing to implement that EC directive, I am worried that the waste regulation function information may not be available.
As drafted, my amendments would extend the rights held in respect of waste regulation by waste regulation authorities as local authorities to the agency's other functions—functions currently held by the NRA and the HMIP—which means that there would be an extension of environmental information rights rather than a restriction of those rights.
This is a serious issue in that it moves away from a more open kind of government in relation to the environment, and that is something which should concern not just the environmental movement and Earth Rights, the environmental advice centre that has drawn the issue to my attention, but the Government themselves. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: Mr Lords, the amendment goes far further than dealing merely with information. The noble Lord acknowledged only at the end of his speech that it would apply not just to waste but to all the other functions of the agency. It is an amendment which would alter totally the organisational structure and mode of operation of the component parts of the agency from what is envisaged in the Bill. It is a major structural change to the Bill. It is not just a question of information, it is asking that the committee should have the job of accepting responsibility and effectively managing the operation. It is a profound and extensive change, and it should be considered extremely carefully.
The NRA has operated with advisory committees which receive an immense amount of information, and play a central role in the agency's operation. I hope that the new environment agency will behave in the same way. I hope that the advisory committees will be involved fully and will be provided with virtually all the information relating to the carrying on of the function, and that they are consulted fully.
To move in the way suggested would make it almost impossible for the board to accept responsibility, and for the management of the agency effectively to carry out the operation in an organisation such as it has been envisaged and is being set up in the Bill. We should be careful therefore before we accept such an amendment. I should need a great deal of convincing that this was a sensible way in which to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I warmly support the amendments. I well understand the concerns of those who have been used to operating in a regime which is not so immediately in the public eye as are local

1609
authorities. I suspect that it is a concern felt more by officials than by those who take decisions; in other words, comparing the board with, say, local authority members. But there is not so much to be frightened of in the proposal. Local authorities, which are complex organisations, have succeeded in working under those provisions, as is self-evident, for 20 years, and it is not a bad discipline. Apart from that, and most fundamentally, public bodies should be prepared to have what they do available for inspection and scrutiny so that they can answer directly to members of the public.
Were quangos more easily open to scrutiny, there might not be such public concern about what goes on, as is popularly said, in smoke-filled rooms behind closed doors. In saying that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will not think that I am suggesting that that is how the NRA has been operating.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the amendments are concerned with the procedures under which the agency arranges for the exercise of its functions. We should consider carefully the amendment, because, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, it seeks to require the agency to exercise all its functions through committees and sub-committees. I have to tell your Lordships that I cannot support such a requirement. I understand the genesis of the requirement, because the waste regulation authorities are part of local authorities and, therefore, subject to those regulations.
However, as it stands, the Bill gives the agency freedom, reflecting that for the NRA, to regulate its procedures largely as it sees fit. It already has power to establish committees or sub-committees, but I do not consider it appropriate to fetter the agency by requiring that it should exercise its functions through such committees. Of course, the exception to that may be the flood defence committees; but, with that exception, it regulates its own procedures.
The noble Lord's amendment goes further. It seeks to impose a number of provisions relating to rights of access to meetings and to information. As I said in Committee, the agency will in any case be subject to a duty under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 to make available environmental information to every person who requests it, subject to exemptions in those regulations. In general, the agency will be expected to conduct its affairs fully in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and the Code of Best Practice for Board Members of Public Bodies. Within those constraints, it will be up to the agency to consider how to put into practice principles of openness and transparency. Therefore, I have to tell the noble Lord that I cannot accept his amendments. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I welcome the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the proposals on open government. It is also appropriate, I believe, that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I should disagree on occasion. It means that, when we agree, it is even more powerful, as indeed it was in the case of the earlier amendment which I withdrew and to which I shall return.
1610
There is a very important issue involved; namely, the transfer of functions to a central agency and its effect in relation to the public, especially regarding information. I shall look again at the what the noble Viscount has said, along with what was said on the issue in Committee regarding the relevance of the environmental information regulations, the EC directive on access to information and the code of practice that was mentioned.
However, I suspect that what we are seeing here is a step backwards, at least in one area, from more open government to more closed government. That highlights the whole issue to which the noble Baroness referred, of the transfer of functions to non-departmental public bodies, non-elected bodies, and away from a forum of accountable debate.
Clearly, those of us who are charged with the responsibility for public bodies, including the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and myself in different ways, always try to ensure that we operate in an open way. However, that is not the same as ensuring access by members of the public directly whenever they need it to the information that they require in a general way. This is happening at a time when there is greater interest in environmental law and its implications and greater activity on the part of citizens in the whole area.
I turn now to the advisory committee structure of the NRA. Although I am well aware of the value of flood defence committees and so on—indeed, I have seen them operating very effectively in my parliamentary constituency when I was in another place, when we had various crises with flooding over the years—that structure does not seem to be necessarily the appropriate model for the operation of the new agency. It worries me that we are setting up what will be seen as a strong lead agency in the area of the environment in Europe because the functions brought together within it seem, at the same time, to be undermining the rights of citizens to have access to information. Therefore, while I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I give notice that the issue of information relating to the activity of the agency will either be returned to at Third Reading in this Chamber or dealt with in another place if the Bill progresses.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Transfer of functions to the Agency]:
Lord McNair Lord McNair: moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 3 on page 3.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 86, which is grouped with Amendment No. 13. In Committee, I looked forward welcomingly to the appearance of the consultation document on the future of our inland waterways. Therefore, it is logical that, now it has appeared, I should welcome it; indeed, I do so.
However, before I come to that, the effect of Amendment No. 13 would be to leave the navigation responsibilities of the NRA with the NRA and the effect

1611
of Amendment No. 86 would be to create a new body which I have called "the National Waterways Conservancy". The name does not matter, but what is important is that the recreational and navigational functions of both the NRA and at least the present British Waterways should be brought together into a single body that would regulate and promote the use of our inland waterways, which are now separately controlled.
It is a sad fact that boat traffic on the Thames has decreased steadily since the early 1980s. There is much that could be done to promote nationally and internationally the recreational use of our inland waterways. Holidays taken at home save the country foreign currency and holidays taken by visitors to the country obviously earn foreign currency. That is something that we should seek to exploit.
In addition, the increasing revenue would or should mean that more would be spent on the upkeep of our waterways. That can only be to the good. I feel that a separate body charged with that responsibility would do the job better and would in fact offer savings compared with the existing hotchpotch of authorities.
Perhaps I may dwell a little on the consultation document, which contains six options for future management of the waterways. I must say that I am delighted to see that the options include Option F, which establishes a statutory navigation body as suggested by Amendment No. 86. As your Lordships may imagine, it is Option F which has the most attraction for me and it is the one to which my amendments are designed to draw attention. It is stated government policy to increase private and voluntary sector involvement. The Government are also concerned to rationalise outdated regulations. Recreational interests have expressed the fear that the department intends that users should have to pay a higher proportion of costs.
The criteria adopted by the Government for consideration of the six options are: management and operational efficiency; cost; potential for local and national promotion; development of economic and environmental benefits; more effective customer representation; and improvement of co-operation and collaboration between different waterway authorities.
In my view, the key challenges are fragmented management, the standards used for charging, attitudes to users on the part of the managing authority and its approach to its navigational responsibilities. I also feel that it is most important that there should be a single centre of excellence with regard to maintenance of the physical structure and integrity and to the commercial evolution of the waterway environment. Navigation has a very low profile in the NRA, in the environment agency and nationally. That is an issue which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, will address when moving his amendments. Of course, I wholeheartedly support him.
It appears that the government grant for essential work will continue but that they are committed to reducing it. The defence of the budget for all of the waterways is of prime importance to all concerned, as are increasing resources and broadening the base on
1612
which charges can be levied. New sources of funding are needed, and I am sure that they would be more easily obtained by a single navigation authority.
There is great potential for building upon the existing vigorous restoration movement, but, to develop, we need a wider public understanding of the value of waterways and their benefits which should in turn attract local authority funding. That is also more likely if waterways are represented by a single voice.
A single national navigation authority would also provide the forum for debates and discussions at national level with government bodies to promote a better future for waterways and to deal with directives emanating from Brussels. It would also be easier to create a national consumer body for waterways users.
A single national waterways authority would set out the overall framework within which all other navigation bodies could function independently but with greater co-ordination and collaboration. It would be centrally funded, locally managed but answerable to national government. It would aim to involve and encourage local authority support on behalf of the local community, and it would promote and defend navigation interests.
The Government have conceded that change is in the air but have not moved as far as I am suggesting they should. They were able to claim with some justification that there was no consensus among waterways interests at the time of the 1991–92 review, but I do feel that there is increasing convergence of Views and I feel sure this will be demonstrated as the consultation process continues.
I do not wish to push too far ahead of the present majority view, and so I am simply raising this so that we can see what the Government's present thinking on the matter is. But it is something which will need to be looked at as the review process proceeds. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I was relieved to hear the noble Lord's concluding words, as I think they will enable me to shorten my remarks. It seemed to me that he was welcoming the publication of the consultation document and then urging that we should jump ahead of the consultation and take some action which might be detrimental and damaging. I would have had to argue against that. I am all for co-ordination. We in the NRA will be holding a meeting with a number of the interested parties on 10th March because we think that co-operation and co-ordination are of great importance. But the fact is that there are some important issues here.
The navigations have all been established under different statutes over long periods of time. There are some good reasons for transferring navigations to the environment agency where they are held by the NRA. The Thames is one of the most closely managed river systems in the world and the navigations are part of an integrated approach to that management. I am sure that when my noble friend the Minister replies he will say that the proper way to deal with this is to complete the consultation, and that the matter would require separate legislation rather than to proceed by way of an amendment at this stage. In that confident expectation I shall not pursue the matter further.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, both noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned the navigation review. In my speech on Second Reading I said I looked forward to the Department of the Environment's review on navigation and hoped it would get under way without delay. I also mentioned the need to address the possibility of day-to-day management of navigation resting in the hands of an agency other than the NRA or the environment agency. I join with the noble Lord, Lord McNair, in welcoming the prompt issue of the consultation paper some two weeks ago because it provides a significant opportunity to clarify the concerns of all waterway interests and fully explore other options, including the issues which I have been raising and will be raising again later this afternoon concerning representation and the balance to be accorded to the needs of navigation. Having said that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that before embarking on a fairly major change such as the one proposed in Amendment No. 86, we should wait until the Government have had time to gather and properly assess the responses of the various boating and waterway interests to the consultation document.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, perhaps I should mention within the hotchpotch of authorities referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, my experience as a member of the Broads Authority, which is a navigation authority as well as one with environmental concerns, and my experience, through English Nature, of the Basingstoke Canal, which again has an independent authority. I emphasise that next to the control of damaging discharges, navigation is probably the one area which presents perhaps the greatest potential for conflict with environmental concerns, and is an area where compatibility between environmental concerns and the proper desire to fulfil the navigation function needs to be considered most carefully.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has again drawn the attention of the House to his proposals for the establishment of a new national waterways conservancy. His Amendments Nos. 13 and 86 envisage the conservancy assuming all the responsibilities for the management of navigations currently operated by the National Rivers Authority and the British Waterways Board. A body of this kind is, as he has mentioned, one of the options described in the Government's recent consultation paper seeking views on the future management of navigations by these two public bodies. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord McNair, for their congratulations on promoting the review.
As my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has indicated, our waterways must serve many different interests. Therefore the Government consider it is only right that, before any decisions are taken, those concerned should be given an adequate opportunity to make their views known on what they see as the best way of securing the future of our waterways. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for indicating how that is being taken forward. I can assure the noble Lord that we will be looking seriously at the responses, but to amend this Bill as the noble Lord suggests would pre-judge the
1614
proper consideration of the responses to the consultation exercise. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said. I am glad of another opportunity to have been able to air this possibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, leave out lines 7 to 15 and insert:
("( ) the functions of the Secretary of State under section 68 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;
( ) the powers of the Secretary of State under section 72 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;
( ) the functions of disposal authorities under section 1 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we turn to the subject of waste regulation. The amendment is grouped with a number of others in my name, but on reflection (I apologise to the House for this) I think it might be preferable to concentrate on Amendment No. 14, listen to what the Minister has to say in response to that proposed way of dealing with the matter, and then perhaps I may return to the more fundamental proposals at Third Reading—which seek to remove the references to the transfer of waste regulation—when I have had an opportunity to consider what the Minister has to say. I tabled the other amendments because this is a matter which we dealt with late at night and I, for one, did not feel that we had given it the airing I should have liked.
Amendment No. 14 seeks to remove Clause 2(1) (b) which concerns the transfer of the functions of waste regulation authorities—as spelt out in Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and in the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989—and in their place to insert certain other restricted duties. Waste regulation responds to a localised form of pollution. In many ways it is quite different from the other forms of pollution which will be the subject of the agency's work. I fear that, as drafted, the wholesale transfer of the functions of the current authorities may have a number of unhappy consequences, in particular the loss of local political accountability. The question of accountability and local representation is one to which we shall return later, in particular in the context of an amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. But waste regulation is currently undertaken by local authorities or, in the case of London, by councillors indirectly elected to the London Waste Regulation Authority.
A further consequence of the transfer of the functions would be the difficulty of establishing external liaison, particularly if the boundaries are those of river catchment areas, or any other boundary that is not a political boundary. Those who deal with a number of areas of public life suffer from the lack of coterminosity of so many of our public sector functions. I should be sorry to see a further problem of this sort arising. Waste regulation has to relate to planning, to environmental health and to emergency planning. No doubt there are other functions which I have not listed. My amendment would make matters far more convenient and would

1615
result in a more productive use of the time of the professionals involved, as well as a better liaison at a political level, and therefore, if you like, a strategic level.
In addition, it is unlikely that the committees established under the Bill will be sufficiently local to replace in the public mind the local accountability of the current regime. It has been suggested to me that on losing this area of work local authorities may tend to address waste licensing issues in particular through conditions attached to planning consents. That would be less appropriate than dealing with the matter through waste regulation.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there is the possible return to what has been described as the poacher and gamekeeper approach, combining regulation and the work of waste management. The concerns of practitioners in that regard should not be dismissed lightly. The Waste Management Forum has written to the Minister. I am aware of his reply but I believe that the matter is sufficiently important to raise it in your Lordships' House. The Waste Management Forum commented on the separation of the operational and regulatory functions and the potential conflicts of interest which it believes will occur if the agency provides a service as well as enforcing the standards to which that service is delivered.
The Waste Management Forum has also commented on a matter which I find interesting. It is one which may well be difficult to tackle and does not lend itself to inclusion in legislation. That issue is the differences in organisational cultures in the potential parts of the agency. One cannot legislate to introduce a change of culture overnight.
The Waste Management Forum points out that the waste regulatory authorities are constituted on a local community basis, with strong community representation and the involvement of waste producers and carriers. The NRA, on the other hand, is constituted on a regional basis, with monitoring of end-of-pipe processes, and the HMIP places emphasis on adopting a holistic approach and encouraging processes which minimise environmental impact.
The Minister may argue that marrying those approaches would be a good thing. I would not necessarily disagree with him if he were to say that, but one should not minimise the difficulties that may be encountered in doing so. Therefore, one should be careful before imposing on authorities such a change and a need to address the way in which they go about their work.
This is not merely a question of the fears of local authorities about losing yet more functions. I have spoken to London First, which as your Lordships may know is an organisation which involves representatives of the business community in London. I should declare an interest as a member of its board. It also involves representatives from various parts of the public sector.
It is the view of London First that if the current arrangement is not broken don't fix it. London First considers that the London Waste Regulation Authority is competent and is not likely to be improved by being
1616
taken over by the environment agency. The organisation is also concerned about accountability and considers that there should be a regional arm of the agency accountable to Londoners. I have been asked to make that point.
Lastly, I am concerned as to how one should split the work of dealing with the waste stream and at which point in the process it should be split from local operation to a national agency. Your Lordships are largely agreed that it is increasingly important to minimise waste at source. I fear that this measure will make it more difficult for the waste disposal authorities which deal with the collection of waste to continue the work that many are doing in, for instance, the separation of items in household waste and separate collection, in particular for recycling, and dealing with that waste in the best way. If the process is not a seamless one from the householder right through the disposal operation, and if part of the operation is separated from the local process, it may not continue to develop as many of your Lordships would wish.
I should like briefly to explain the implications of the amendments, which are a little opaque in referring only to sections in other legislation. In the amendment I propose that, in place of the wholesale transfer of functions, the functions which are referred to in Amendment No. 14 should be inserted. The function covered by Section 68 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is the supervision of the performance of the duties of waste regulation authorities and the appointment of inspectors. to ensure that performance. The functions covered by Section 72 of the same Act are the default powers of the Secretary of State, who can make an order requiring a defaulting authority to comply and, if necessary, take over the relevant functions. Section 1 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 relates to ensuring adequate arrangements for the control of waste. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in her Amendment No. 14. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also, as she did, to Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 65 and 66.
We have had a number of discussions about the relationship between local authorities and the new agency in England and Wales. Those discussions have either taken place late at night and have therefore been somewhat unsatisfactory or have not gone into the matter in sufficient detail. The noble Baroness has done the House a favour by moving the amendment and speaking to the others, and explaining with great clarity what seems to us to be a more sensible and reasonable division of responsibilities between local authorities and the agency.
There can be no doubt that local authorities will continue to be involved with waste in some way or another. Their environmental health duties, for example, ensure that they cannot avoid having a role. They also have a role in clearing dangerous substances. There are various provisions which will ensure that local authorities will still be in the business of waste. The

1617
problem is at what point the activity of a local authority stops and the authority of the agency begins. My own view is that that should be as set out in the local authority associations' document Protecting the Future, which I have no doubt the noble Viscount has read. The document sets out a model whereby the agency, quite rightly, undertakes strategic functions, sets standards, enforces standards and has default powers, but the regulatory functions at local level are undertaken at local level and the operations are undertaken at local level.
Perhaps I may illustrate the way in which that works. If any resident of any local authority finds some violation of waste regulation—perhaps some waste at the back of the garden, or whatever it might be, which is not properly there—whatever the process of education may be, there is no doubt that the first authority to which he or she will go is the local authority. However many placards or television advertisements one puts out about the duties of the agency, that cannot be avoided: someone will ring up the local councillor. In a sense that is what local councillors are for; that is what they are accountable for.
In that case, what does the local councillor do? Does he say, "It's not my job. It's now the job of an agency to look after it"? Alternatively, does he say, "In one way or another, I'll look after it"? The answer is that he says, "In one way or another, I'll look after it". That is the natural, human reaction. He may say, "It's unsafe material and therefore the local authority has a duty to remove it". He may seek to take action against those who left the stuff lying around. However, that is waste regulation by default because the local authority has a duty in a different direction from waste regulation.
Therefore, I argue that in her amendment the noble Baroness has the matter more or less right: the agency should have the power to enforce standards, but local authorities should have the power of local regulation. I believe that that is the right way round. I hope that the noble Viscount recognises that the relationship between the local authority and the agency is an extremely serious problem. I believe that the amendment is the right way to tackle the issue. I very much hope that the noble Viscount agrees.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, similar amendments were tabled at Committee stage, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. I am glad of the opportunity to debate them now because the amendments raise important issues which are fundamental to the Bill. I therefore welcome the chance to explain to the House why we are giving the agency responsibility for waste regulation.
Amendment No. 14 is the principal amendment in this group and would remove waste regulation from the list of functions to be transferred to the agency under Clause 2. I shall address Amendment No. 14, as I believe the noble Baroness intended that I should.
Waste regulation is an integral part of the concept behind the environment agency and we cannot agree to its omission. We believe that it would be impossible to move to a more coherent and integrated approach to environmental protection—a multi-media agency—if waste regulation remains with local government.
1618
The Government are not alone in believing that the transfer of waste regulation to the agency is necessary. The waste regulation profession in general, as well as the waste industry, and industry at large, see merit in the principle of an integrated approach to environmental protection. The Select Committee on the Environment in another place has recommended that waste regulation should become the responsibility of a single national body. Environmental regulation is an increasingly complex field and the continued delivery of waste regulation by local authorities would limit the use and development of vital expertise.
I appreciate that the concerns expressed about the proposed transfer of waste regulation to the agency spring from fears that the agency will be insufficiently accountable at a local level. As I have said before, the Government intend that it should be responsible and responsive to individuals' concerns; we do not accept that accountability can be achieved only through control by local authorities.
We have made clear through the objectives set out in the agency's draft management statement, and through the provision in this Bill for the setting up of regional environment protection advisory committees, that we attach great importance to the agency building effective and responsive relationships with local communities and local authorities. The regional committees will represent those with a significant interest in the way the environment agency carries out its functions. They will have an important role in ensuring that a wide range of local opinion feeds into the agency and its operations on the ground.
It has been suggested that under the agency there would be no scope for consideration of the concerns of local people regarding the potential impact on local amenity and possible pollution from a proposed waste management facility. This conviction is puzzling. The local planning authorities will continue to determine whether and where waste facilities are sited. They will be able to include appropriate conditions relating to local amenity in any relevant planning permission. The agency's consideration of any waste management licence application, and decisions on appropriate conditions to be set in such a licence, must comply with the same waste management licensing regulations and statutory guidance as the decisions of local waste regulation authorities at present. Existing waste regulation staff who transfer to the agency will bring with them their local knowledge and will be able to apply this to the consideration of licence applications, and to their proper and effective regulation.
I hope that I have been able to convince the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and your Lordships, of the merits and desirability of giving responsibility for waste regulation to the new agencies, and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, one reaction must be that it would not be necessary to set up the liaison

1619
arrangements which the Minister advocates if the steps of separation and removal did not take effect in the first place.
I am not surprised at the Minister's response. However, his comments about the widespread support for the proposals from the industry surprise me. I quoted from the Waste Management Forum. I do not suggest that every last word stated by an umbrella body is analysed to every dot and comma by its members. However, perhaps I may put on record the membership of that forum according to its letterhead: the Confederation of British Industry; the Department of the Environment (I do not suggest that in this instance it will agree with this point); the Environmental Council; the Health and Safety Executive; HMIP; the Institute of Waste Management; the Institution of Civil Engineers; the Institution of Environmental Health Officers; the Institution of Water and Environmental Management; the Institution of Mechanical Engineers; the Road Haulage Association; the Royal Town Planning Institute; the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; and the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association. The Institute of Waste Management has specifically written to me and, I believe, to other noble Lords urging that the regulatory function remains separate from any operational role. It states that experience of separating the regulation and disposal functions within the waste management industry has had a positive effect in raising standards. It is that philosophy which it applies in commenting on the provisions of the Bill.
Again I shall consider what the Minister said. However, in seeking leave to withdraw the amendment, I express a fairly considerable degree of disappointment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Transfer of property, rights and liabilities to the Agency]:
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert ("but only after consultation with the Agency and, in the case of a scheme which was approved by him (with or without modifications), after consultation with the body which submitted the scheme to him for approval.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 64. Amendments Nos. 19 and 64 correct an anomaly in the Bill to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, drew the Committee's attention. They provide for consultation by the relevant Secretary of State before exercising his power to modify a transfer scheme which he has previously made or approved. This reflects provisions already in the Bill covering other circumstances where a scheme may be modified. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the matter to our attention. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I wish to express my appreciation to the Minister for moving the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Guidance on sustainable development and other aims and objectives]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 33, leave out ("give") and insert ("lay before Parliament an order containing").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think it may be more convenient if we were to save discussion on the amendment until we have heard about the Government's new clause in detail. I shall therefore not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 40, at end insert (", and must include guidance on energy conservation and on systems for producing energy which contribute to the objective of sustainable development").
The noble Lord said: Again, my Lords, I prefer that we should debate the matter after new Clause 4 has been considered. I shall therefore not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 28:
Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new clause:
General aims and objectives of the Agency
(" .—(1) It shall be the principal aim of the Agency (subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act or any other enactment and taking into account any likely costs) in discharging its functions so to protect or enhance the environment, taken as a whole, as to make the contribution towards attaining the objective of achieving sustainable development mentioned in subsection (3) below.
(2) The Ministers shall from time to time give guidance to the Agency with respect to objectives which they consider it appropriate for the Agency to pursue in the discharge of its functions.
(3) The guidance given under subsection (2) above must include guidance with respect to the contribution which, having regard to the Agency's responsibilities and resources, the Ministers consider it appropriate for the Agency to make, by the discharge of its functions, towards attaining the objective of achieving sustainable development.
(4) In discharging its functions, the Agency shall have regard to guidance given under this section.
(5) The power to give guidance to the Agency under this section shall only be exercisable after consultation with the Agency and such other bodies or persons as the Ministers consider it appropriate to consult in relation to the guidance in question.
(6) The Ministers shall arrange for any guidance given under this section to be published in such manner as they consider appropriate.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, with this amendment I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 96, 100 and 124. I am grateful to noble Lords for not moving their amendments to Clause 4 so that we may have a proper debate and for giving me the opportunity to open for the Government.
Amendment No. 28 seeks to meet the desire expressed by a number of noble Lords in Committee for a strategic purpose for the agency to be included on the face of the Bill. It incorporates within Clause 4 a new

1621
principal aim designed to make clear that the agency is to discharge its functions so to protect or enhance the environment, taken as a whole, as to make its contribution towards achieving sustainable development. In so doing it is to take account of likely costs, both financial and to the environment. The principal aim is not to overrule the specific purpose of the various enactments under which the agency operates.
During the debate in Committee a number of noble Lords also stressed the need for consultation prior to the issuing of guidance under this clause and for publication of such guidance, not merely at the outset but for any subsequent guidance. Amendment No. 28 incorporates provisions to require such consultation and publication.
Amendment No. 100 is consequential to the revised clause. Clause 37 as originally drafted excluded consideration of costs and benefits in relation to an aim since the aims were to arise through statutory guidance, in the drawing up of which Ministers would themselves have taken account of costs and benefits. Now that the principal aim is to be on the face of the Bill and is to be subject to the requirements of any enactment, that exclusion is no longer appropriate.
Amendment No. 124 seeks to ensure that the reference to costs in the new Clause 4 and elsewhere in Part I includes costs to any person and to the environment. Taken together with Amendment No. 96, it also makes clear that, as I stressed in Committee, references to both costs and benefits in Clause 37 are to be interpreted broadly to include environmental costs. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, Amendment No. 29:
Line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("(1) It shall be the principal aim of the Agency in discharging its functions (subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act or any other enactment) to protect or enhance the environment, taken as a whole, in such manner as to make the contribution towards achieving sustainable development mentioned in subsection (3) below.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 29 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 30. Both amendments are in the names of my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley and myself.
I am happy to be the first to welcome the new clause that the Government have proposed. It makes for a more rewarding process than some of us feared. At Committee stage when the Minister, understandably, said that he had noted what was suggested, he really had noted it. That is not always the case. Having welcomed that movement, I hope it is not churlish to suggest that perhaps there may be a little more movement.
I shall explain the two amendments. In Amendment No. 29 I propose that the words in parenthesis,
"subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act or any other enactment",
should govern the functions of the agency and not its aim. That is probably self-evident, and to some extent we have already debated it this afternoon. However, it is important that the aims and functions should be in the right order.
I have omitted the reference to "likely costs" because I am not persuaded that the aim of the agency should be governed by the consideration of costs. In the real world, of course, costs must be taken into account and I shall welcome a further amendment later in the context of Clause 37. However, costs should not be elevated to quite the status they are given in the new clause. I wonder how the provision would be interpreted if the agency is to take into account "any likely costs". Costs to whom? That is a genuine question, not a posturing point. I read the provision as meaning costs to the agency. Perhaps in responding the Minister can say whose costs are meant by "any likely costs".
Amendment No. 30 proposes that:
"The Ministers shall from time to time give to the agency such guidance as they consider appropriate with respect to how to achieve its aim".
That follows the debate at Committee stage, and the words are repeated in Amendment No. 28 that,
"The Ministers shall … give guidance to the Agency with respect to objectives".
I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to take the objectives out of the remit of their own guidance. I believe that as the agency is to be set up, it is appropriate that guidance shall be given as to how the agency achieves its objectives but not what they should be. In other words, it is fair for the Government to say: "This is how you should set about it", but they do not give the overall objectives. Many of us feared at Committee stage that the work of the agency would be skewed by the Government's "interference", if I may use the word, in its objectives. We thought it would be better to separate the objectives and the functions in the guidance. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I echo the welcome given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to the Government's amendment. It goes a long way towards meeting many of the observations we made at earlier stages of the discussion on the Bill. I also warmly welcome Amendment No. 124 in the group which includes environmental as well as financial costs.
However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am still concerned that costs have been written into what is in some ways a purpose for the agency. It lays emphasis on costs rather than an enthusiastic and positive function and purpose for the agency. I should be grateful to the Minister if he could explain what the expression "taken as a whole" means. It seems to be a piece of parliamentary draftsmanship which has no clear meaning in ordinary English, although it is echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in her amendment. I would be grateful for an explanation.
As we received the Government's amendment rather late, at this stage I should say that we shall bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to subsection (6) which will suggest that any guidance given under the clause shall be laid before Parliament, as well as being published in such other manner as Ministers consider appropriate. That will be a further amendment to the clause which we shall bring before the House in due course. But overall it represents a very welcome advance by the Government in their position, and we

1623
are grateful, although it does not go as far as writing a purpose into Clause 1, about which I am sure we shall continue to argue.
6 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I also echo the warm welcome for the Government's response to this series of amendments. It means that we are moving gradually towards the objectives of proper environmental costing; that is, real costs in both economic terms (financial terms) and environmental resource terms. That moves us a long way towards the other objective of "sustainable development", which some Members of this House believe does not exist. It is clear to me from these amendments that the Government believe that it exists more and more.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I welcome the Government's amendment. But it still does not address the definition of "sustainable development". It is certainly not addressed in this Bill; and so far as I know, there is no definition elsewhere. I suspect that this phrase arose out of the Helsinki Conference, which was mainly concerned with the use of resources in under-developed countries, and therefore with the way in which they would be brought into use as development took place.
Does the phrase really cover what we are trying to talk about in our own industrialised, and already resource-extravagant economy? Would it not be better—as I suggested in Amendment No. 24, which I did not move—to use the phrase "sustainable use"; or "sustainable use of resources"; or possibly, "sustainable use and development"?—although I suggest that "use" probably includes development. I urge the Government to consider either using a phrase that would be much more easily understood by people—that is to say, "sustainable use"—or else to define "sustainable development".
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, following immediately on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, we have a difficulty in relation to the phrase "sustainable development". As I believe I pointed out at an earlier stage, the phrase attempts to embrace a balance between environmental protection and development, and in a sense economic development. In a sense therefore there is a conflict. In a curious way it is therefore rather odd that we should attempt to make an environment agency responsible for judgments about economic development. Hence the difficulty.
As I understand it, we have here an attempt to put the aim into statutory form, and then provide an interpretation by way of ministerial guidance. We shall therefore get a form of statutory ministerial guidance, and everything will crucially depend upon the guidance. It is for that reason that I very much welcome my noble friend's undertaking—or commitment as it is now—in this clause both to consult the agency and to publish that guidance. There is another amendment which seeks to make sure that that guidance is published in good time.
1624
I am grateful to my noble friend for meeting my request at an earlier stage and making it possible for me not to move my Amendment No. 27, which takes up this point about publishing the guidance and consulting the agency.
I think that we have here a laudable attempt by the Government to meet the demands of this House, and in a sense the concerns expressed in this House about our legislating about a phrase that has not been properly defined and which probably cannot be properly defined. Therefore there is no alternative but to rely on interpretation. And it must be for the Government to give an interpretation—that seems to me to be an appropriate role for government—on which the agency will act. It cannot be for an agency to make judgments about what is the appropriate economic role. Therefore we are still in the position of having to wait for the Government's publication of that guidance before we really know where we are. But at least we are now having it presented in a reasonably sensible way, and for that I am grateful.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I agreed with my noble friend the Minister not to move Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 in order to save the complications that would arise given that the Government have re-written Clause 4. Anyway, there is no need to move Amendment No. 27 as the Government's Amendment No. 28 now provides Ministers with a statutory obligation, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has already said, both to consult the agency and to. publish the guidance. I very much welcome that.
However, I should still like to refer to the point raised in what was my Amendment No. 26; namely, the need to provide preliminary guidance on sustainable development by 12 months after the Act comes into force. I stress the word "preliminary", because I fully accept that guidance may need to be revised and indeed added to.
The guidance on sustainable development will be central to the manner in which the new agency carries out all its functions. I was heartened in Committee when my noble friend the Minister said that it is indeed the Government's intention to publish guidance within a 12-month period. But I was slightly less heartened when he stated that he saw no need to state that on the face of the Bill. I can only ask the Minister perhaps to reconsider, and suggest that it would be helpful to set an appropriate time limit for delivery of the preliminary guidance.
It must surely be the Government's intention to provide such guidance at the earliest suitable opportunity. I ask simply: why cannot the Government commit themselves to a deadline on the face of the Bill? If they cannot, will my noble friend the Minister at least consider a timetable for the production of this guidance, albeit that it does not occur on the face of the Bill?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is, for once, completely in error when he says that there is no a definition of "sustainable development". There is a definition of the phrase which is widely understood both nationally and internationally; namely, the Brundtland definition. I

1625
paraphrase it slightly, and no doubt the Minister will correct me when he answers this point; it is: to meet the needs of the present without prejudicing the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Or it could be expressed in the words of the Secretary of State for the Environment when he addressed the Select Committee of this House on sustainable development. (I am sure that this House must be understood to have known what it was doing when it set up such a Committee). In giving evidence, he said that he preferred to call it, "Don't cheat the children". That may be a slight over-simplification, but "sustainable development" is well understood both nationally and internationally, and I am sure that it should be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the question of the meaning of "sustainable development". Obviously, in the context of this Bill it must mean "environmentally sustainable". If development is to take place and there is an argument about whether or not it should take place, then surely those who have to decide the matter will consider whether it is environmentally sustainable. If it is not environmentally sustainable, then it should not take place. With that in mind, I would have thought that any further definition would be impossible.
The word "sustainable" and the combination with "environmentally" must vary with the circumstances of every case. What might be environmentally sustainable in, for example, the Thames estuary, might well be considered not to be environmentally sustainable, let us say, at the mouth of one of the Highland rivers.
Having said that, one of the great virtues of the Government's new clause is that it implements—as one of my noble friends earlier said that it should—the phrase in the Long Title of the Bill,
"the conservation or enhancement of the environment".
It does just that. This is what was suggested when we discussed the first amendment today. This new clause should go a long way towards meeting the requirements of my noble friend Lord Nome and others who wanted a further definition at the beginning of the Bill attached to Clause 1.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and supported by the Labour Front Bench, have the virtue of simple drafting and greater brevity than the wording in the new clause. But to my mind the points about them are so rarefied and so fine as to be not worth making. I should not be inclined to persuade my noble friend Lord Ullswater to accept either Amendment No. 29 or Amendment No. 30; but I would say to him that he would not be doing much harm if he were to do so.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am very glad that the Minister has brought forward this new clause. I warmly welcome it, and particularly the reference to protecting and enhancing the environment, which is of central importance, the reference to consultation, which was a point argued by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and myself during the Committee stage, and to having on the face of the Bill a commitment to publication of the guidance. All those points are very important.
1626
The only point of importance that is missing is the one that I argued for strongly at Committee stage; namely, to have some parliamentary scrutiny of the guidance. That was proposed in Amendments Nos. 21 and 23 put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which I certainly supported. It is a significant omission from the new clause.
With regard to the "sustainable development" mentioned in the first subsection of the new clause, I support the case put forward by my noble friend Lord Northbourne. A few days ago I wrote to the Minister about various matters in the Bill and suggested to him that it might be preferable to have a phrase such as "environmental sustainability" instead of "sustainable development". In that letter I said that:
"I think that fashionable buzz words, meaning nothing to most people and interpreted quite differently by developers and environmentalists, should not be accorded prominence, or indeed used at all, in an Act of Parliament … I do not think that the word `development' should have any place in the duties of an environmental agency".
I still adhere to that view.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I might be able to help by bringing this debate into the realm of practicality. I agree that my noble friend the Minister has taken an extremely constructive step in bringing forward this clause. We discussed it briefly earlier this afternoon when my noble friend Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 4 and we tried to assess the extent to which the two amendments overlapped in their intentions. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, interpretation is the key issue. My test would be: does this amendment contain within it the strengths of the general conservation duty that is held at present by the NRA?
With the permission of my noble friend the Minister, I have circulated to as many noble Lords as appear interested in this topic and to relevant non-governmental organisations correspondence between us on the issues that concern English Nature. As a consequence, I can be brief. As I made clear, English Nature recently carried out a review of SSSI lakes. There are some 37 such lakes which are currently subject to eutrophication, as are some 13 river SSSIs, where for nature conservation reasons there is particular concern over elevated phosphate levels. Those are all on the lists that have been made public today. I can assure your Lordships that English Nature and the NRA have been engaged in active discussion on them.
On the lists that have been circulated there are 18 SSSIs where the NRA's existing conservation duty has already been important, in the eyes of English Nature, in protecting those sites. As I said, they are included in the briefing. But I shall mention in particular the River Nar, where the phosphate consent was set to ensure that the character of a chalk stream and trout fishery was maintained, and Rosstherne Mere, where the NRA undertook remedial works to tackle the marked enrichment of the lake, which was suffering from algal blooms.

1627
I appreciate the difficulties of my noble friend in answering questions relating to particular instances; but the key question at which I shall wish to look very carefully in respect of these amendments is whether action of this nature would be covered by this new clause. Would the concerns that I have aired be within the embrace of the term "environment … as a whole", as appears in this amendment? Will the duty of sustainable development give the protection required to those very sensitive and delicate aquatic SSSIs, about which we must be concerned?
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, in welcoming and supporting new Clause 4 I should like to make reference to an amendment which I withdrew and which was intended to be in the original Clause 4. It was designed to draw the attention of my noble friend to the fact that it is the Government's committed view that in order to achieve sustainable development—I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that that should be as defined by the Minister in the guidance—there is a necessity to be aware of the cost and use of energy and have an awareness of how important it is to have energy systems which are efficient and use the best technology to achieve those objectives. I therefore put down an amendment, which I later withdrew but to which I may perhaps refer. It inserted the words:
"and must include guidance on energy conservation and on systems for producing energy which contribute to the objective of sustainable development".
I hope that my noble friend will give us some assurance, in referring to subsection (4) of the new clause, that in the guidance there will be some reference to the fact that it would be the intention of the agency to support the development of new technology in the use of energy and to encourage any developments in that direction.
I should say that I have an interest to declare in that I am president of the Combined Heat and Power Association which represents one of the leading areas within that development. We hope to see the Government, through the agency, give a little more support to that very important new technology.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I should like to offer my thanks to the Minister for the new clause. It seems to me that almost every point made at Committee stage has been quite cleverly taken up in the new clause. However, I suspect that we have a problem with "sustainable development". It is a problem raised by many noble Lords on all sides of the House.
Some years ago I read a book on environmental economics. In an appendix it listed at least 50 definitions; and it is still going strong, as it were. On the whole, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, the Government seem to be rather attached—as most people are—to the Brundtland definition. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, gave rather a good summary of it. In fact, it is a rather difficult definition to use in the shape of legislation because it ends up, in my phrase (which is not quite the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont) with the words, "without compromising the needs of future generations".
1628
How on earth do we, in all our wisdom, know what the needs of future generations will be? It is all right as a nice term of art in a book or something like that; but when it comes to legislation we have to be rather more careful. Maybe the answer lies along the lines of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we mean "environmentally sustainable". I suspect that we need to think about that; I am not too sure. Maybe it lies within the guidance, which can obviously expand on concepts. Even then, if the Government are attached to Mrs. Brundtland's definition, they have to foresee what our children are going to need. With the greatest respect to the Government, they may find it difficult.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to this new clause. Practically every noble Lord who spoke welcomed it.
In establishing the agency the Government have repeatedly emphasised that its creation is intended both to improve protection of the environment and to help regulated organisations through the adoption of more integrated approaches considering impacts on the environment as a whole, through a reduction in the number of different regulators and through improved consistency of regulation. It has an important role in taking forward the Government's policy on sustainable development. The proposed principal aim builds on the proposal in the previously published draft outline guidance and seeks to encapsulate this in a way which reflects the broad range of the agency's functions and minimises the difficulties to which I referred in Committee over incompatibilities with other enactments and in defining sustainable development.
In Amendment No. 29 the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to remove the reference to taking into account any likely costs. The noble Baroness pointed out that the principal aim previously published by the Government in the document on scope guidance under Clause 4 contained no such reference. The reason for the addition arises from the giving of statutory status to the aim. Sustainable development involves reconciling the needs of the environment with the needs of economic development. As such it necessarily involves consideration of costs as well as of the needs of the environment in terms of protection or enhancement. But the concept is not one on which the courts in England and Wales have previously needed to take a view; and, for reasons which we discussed in Committee, it is undesirable to seek to define it in this Bill. The inclusion of the reference to costs is therefore intended to ensure that the principal aim includes explicit recognition of both sides of the equation to reduce the risk of challenge in the courts from anyone who might seek to argue that sustainable development is to be interpreted exclusively in environmental terms.
In Amendment No. 30 the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to replace the duty on Ministers to give guidance to the agency with respect to objectives by one in which they must give guidance on how the agency is to achieve its aim. Clause 4(3) makes clear that the guidance given under subsection (2) must include guidance with respect to the contribution which the Ministers consider it appropriate for the agency to make towards achieving sustainable development. The

1629
guidance must therefore indeed include guidance on the aim. But Ministers will also need to go beyond that and give guidance to the agency on specific objectives. That is to say, the guidance should not be limited to how the aim is to be pursued, which is of course through the exercise of the agency's functions, but should also cover specific objectives within that aim.
In his Amendment No. 24 the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is proposing to replace the universally recognised phrase "sustainable development" by the unfamiliar term "sustainable use of resources". As the Prime Minister acknowledged in his foreword to the sustainable development strategy we published in January 1994, and as a number of noble Lords stated during Committee stage of this Bill, the phrase "sustainable development" is indeed difficult to define. But that does not mean that the international community and UK practitioners do not understand what issues are involved and recognise the areas where action needs to be taken.
Our 250-page strategy document set out the principles of sustainable development, reviewed the state of the UK environment and identified key trends and pressure points and the key sectors of the economy where new policy developments were needed and where market opportunities and growth points existed. It concluded with a discussion of what action could be taken to help achieve sustainable development.
Changing the term "sustainable development" would not help determine what needs to be done. Rather it would serve to confuse. Nationally and internationally we are moving nearer to a consensus on the action we need to take to preserve our fragile planet. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, when he suggested that one route—I am not sure that it was his preferred route—would be to put it into the guidance which we shall be issuing under Clause 4, which will help to progress that consensus yet further. I believe that changing the terminology now will not aid that process.
My noble friend Lord Wade, in speaking to Amendment No. 25, raised issues which are of key importance to sustainable development. The Government attach great importance to the efficient use of energy. It saves money which could be used to develop businesses, improve homes and living standards and boost the economy. It helps to protect the environment by reducing the threat of climate change. It helps us to carry forward our sustainable development policy, changing people's culture by promoting realistic ways of achieving development at lower cost to the environment.
But I cannot agree that energy conservation is of such overriding importance to sustainable development that advice on it must be included in all the guidance Ministers will wish to give to the agency on its objectives. Yet that would be the effect of my noble friend's amendment. When we need to give guidance on energy conservation, systems for producing energy and indeed energy efficiency generally, the Bill gives us the power to do so and requires the agency to take account of it. I agree that it will be necessary from time to time to consider what advice to give the agency on these matters; but not all the time.
1630
My noble friends Lord Mills and Lord Crickhowell spoke to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27. They indicated that the amendments were tabled before they were able to see the amendment to Clause 4 that I tabled on Tuesday. I am delighted that I have been able, in that government amendment, to respond to the main points in Amendment No. 27 made by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell during the Committee stage debate on this clause. I promised to look again at the proposal to make clear on the face of the Bill that the agency would be consulted on the guidance and that the guidance would be published; I am pleased that we have been able to achieve that in the government amendment. Indeed, our amendment goes further in requiring wide consultation, not just with the agency but with other appropriate bodies or persons. Our amendment does not mirror completely the amendments tabled by my noble friends; but I do not consider that the Bill needs, for example, to require a notice about availability of the guidance to be placed in the London Gazette or to specify that, as well as being published, copies of the guidance should be made available to the public. I hope however that your Lordships' House will agree that we have met the main intention behind the amendment.
I consider Amendment No. 26 to be unnecessary. I have already made available at Committee stage copies of our draft of the outline guidance to be issued under Clause 4. It declares our intention to make a draft of the full text available in time for consideration of the Bill in another place. In producing a final text, we shall wish to take full account of comments made on the draft in that place and from those others with an interest in the contribution the environment agency is to make towards achieving sustainable development. There can be no doubting our determination to make progress on the production of the guidance and therefore no need to seek to require the Government to issue the first set of guidance within 12 months of the coming into force of the Act. I ask my noble friend therefore to consider carefully what I have said and not to push me further on the matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, in giving a warm welcome to the depositing of the new clause, also gave notice that at a further stage of the Bill she will be tabling an amendment to bring the guidance under approval by Parliament. Amendments Nos. 21 and 23 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would make it subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I take note of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, has said. I shall consider very carefully whether that is the route that the Government should be taking. I certainly take note that we shall be faced with that at Third Reading.
The noble Baroness asked me what "taken as a whole" means. I hope that my answer is not too Delphic. We mean by that an integrated analysis of all the environmental media of air, land and water and that judgments should be taken in the round and be based on overall factors and should not be preoccupied by the minutiae of the detail. I am not sure that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook will be entirely happy with that

1631
explanation. I think it would be better to separate the overall aim of the agency in Clause 4 and to leave Clause 7 as it seeks to achieve the conservation duties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about costs. Amendment No. 124 inserts a definition into Clause 53 of costs as costs to any person and costs to the environment. That is probably the right way to leave it.
During the debate in Committee a number of noble Lords made clear their concerns over the extent to which Clause 4 as originally drafted could give Ministers the ability fundamentally to change the aims and objectives of the agency after the Bill had been enacted and thereby in effect change its central purpose. There was broad pressure for a strategic purpose to be included on the face of the Bill. In moving his Amendment No. 147, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that he was content with the principal aim of the agency which the Government had proposed, but believed that it was essential that it was incorporated in some way within the Bill. The government amendments are designed to respond to the noble Lord's concerns. With the explanation I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment and that the House will feel able to support the Government's new clause and amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he be so good as to comment on the suggestion which I made and which two other noble Lords, as I understood it, supported that whatever else "sustainable" means it must in the context of this Bill include environmentally sustainable.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I was trying to point out that the concept of sustainable development should be left to the guidance produced by Ministers which will be subject to review. I do not believe it would be right for me to indicate what I believe sustainable development to be. Especially after Pepper v. Hart, it would be better left to the guidance which will be issued by Ministers.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it would be inappropriate for me to seek to sum up all the points that have been made and there is much that will bear consideration when we come to read the report of this debate. I am not sure whether the Minister's proposal for sustainable development to be dealt with by guidance tempts noble Lords towards the amendments about parliamentary scrutiny which I put down but did not move or whether, having highlighted this issue, when we come to it at Third Reading they will feel that they cannot face debating sustainable development in that context. However, it is clearly a matter to which we shall return.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for complimenting me on my drafting. It was intended to be more than just mere form. He described it as rarefied. Perhaps I may say to him that it was because of his careful analysis at the previous stage that I pursued the
1632
matter, having been given the confidence to do so. I thank the Minister for taking so many points on board. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 29, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 28 agreed to.
Clause 6 [General provisions with respect to water]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 6, line 45, at end insert ("by day and by night").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, introduced an amendment about light pollution which relates to the destruction of the beauty of the landscape at dusk and at night by powerful artificial lighting. This issue has been taken up by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, of which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is the distinguished president. It is an important issue. To date it has tended to be the case that planning authorities and others have not regarded pollution of the night landscape as an important issue.
In Committee there was considerable support for the idea behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I am therefore pressing it again in a different form. The amendments offer a route by which we can make it absolutely clear that this is an important issue and that the agency should be concerned about it.
Lord Moran: My Lords, in Committee I strongly supported the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and spoke at length about it. I shall not repeat now what I said then. I should like very much to support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Northbourne. It is extremely important. We are considering conservation. Any night when one drives through the countryside and sees the orange glow of sodium light in every village in every part of the country one sees the appalling effect of this environmental degradation. Something needs to be done about it. It is quite right that the environment agency should concern itself with these matters. I support the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am looking very closely at the wording of paragraph (a) of Clause 6(1) as it stands which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, wishes to amend and amplify.
One must bear in mind that as the clause stands at the moment the words "natural beauty and amenity" are followed by the words "of inland and coastal waters". That would seem to cover the word "water" in the noble Lord's amendment. The words "land associated with such waters" would seem to cover "landscape". The noble Lord has in his favour the fact that the Bill says nothing about the sky, but his amendment does.
I agree that the beauty of the landscape can vary very much by day and by night and in different atmospheric conditions. The amendment makes that clear. I sometimes believe that it is a little dangerous to impose words of limitation. These words do that in that they seek to define the expression "natural beauty". From the

1633
drafting point of view it is not an altogether easy matter, but I believe that what the noble Lord has proposed about the beauty of the sky should not be overlooked.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to the fact that I believe I made a mistake in not saying that I was also speaking to the three other amendments which stand in my name on this subject. I apologise for that.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I strongly support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Notwithstanding the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton, I believe that the noble Lord's amendments are a much neater way of putting forward the need to control pollution by excessive light than my amendment at Committee stage. Noble Lords may remember that my amendment referred merely to light pollution which was not wholly understood.
The key is that what we are talking about now is something relatively new. Just as 20 years ago relatively few of us spoke about the environment as such—or certainly not in the way we do now. Today relatively few people have taken on board the very undesirable effect which excessive light can have on the night sky and on the beauty of the countryside. It is for that reason that, as we have this excellent and important Bill in front of us, this seems the moment that this new, and what I believe will become an increasingly important dimension, should be included for the first time in statute. I am not saying that the noble Lord necessarily has the wording precisely right. But I hope that my noble friend will respond positively to it. Perhaps he will come back either before Third Reading or in the other place with some means of introducing what I am quite certain is going to be a significant factor in the coming years and decades.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I was the person who misunderstood the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, at the previous stage of the Bill. As I now understand the amendments, I am an enthusiastic supporter of them in their current form.
Lord Elton: My Lords, whether my noble friend accepts this amendment or not, I hope that he will take the opportunity to look at the growing problem of light pollution. There are steadily growing ribbons of horrible phosphorescent, orange light along our motorways. It was first at the junctions and now it is spreading out. I realise that there are safety factors involved, but there must be better ways of lighting our major roads than suddenly making them offensive not just for the one or two miles by daylight but for 15 or 20 miles if they are in a valley below downland and so forth. I hope that my noble friend will do that.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we on these Benches certainly support the tone of these amendments and hope that the Minister will find some way of meeting the point involved.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I risk being a spoilsport. Amendments Nos. 31, 39, 41 and 44 in the
1634
name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, seek to ensure that the agency's conservation and recreation duties under Clauses 6 and 7 are to apply both to day and to night. I think I understand the concerns prompting these amendments, reiterated by many noble Lords, but I am not convinced that they are necessary. Amendment No. 31 in particular is extremely wide and would have among its effects a duty on the agency to promote the amenity by night of coastal and inland waters and associated land.
The agency's duty under Clause 6(1) (a), and the agency's and Ministers' duties under Clause 7(1) (a), (b) and (c) (ii) are not time limited: in other words, they do not cease to have these duties in the hours of darkness. This is not spelt out on the face of the Bill simply because it does not need to be. However, I suspect that the noble Lord's concern is perhaps a little more specific.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke in the discussion at Committee stage on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Marlesford on what has been described as light pollution and his concern to maintain the rural countryside by night as well as by day. Should the noble Lord's intention be to bring increased controls to bear in respect of light pollution, I can assure him that the Government have for some time been aware of the potential problems which can be caused by the inappropriate design and use of some lighting schemes.
We believe that the most appropriate way to tackle these problems is by education and guidance: for example, DoE Circular 5/94, Planning Out Crime, sets out the planning aspects of security lighting.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that at night, with low light levels, the driver's visibility is reduced, resulting in a disproportionately high number of accidents when compared to daytime accident numbers. Road lighting is provided to improve visibility and therefore to reduce the number of night-time accidents. Research indicates an effective reduction in the number of accidents of up to 30 per cent. with the provision of road lighting. These are important statistics. We should regard those factors as being on one side of the balance when we are concerned about the environmental side of light pollution.
The Department of Transport's booklet, Road Lighting and the Environment, published in 1993, shows how well-designed street lighting can achieve its main objective of road safety with minimum environmental impact. I can assure noble Lords that we shall look for appropriate opportunities to press home the importance of the sensitive location and use of lighting and will continue to keep under review whether other measures might usefully be taken to minimise its excessive use.
I would reiterate, however, that the agency's duties already apply so as to have effect both by night and during the day, and that these amendments would not add anything to the Bill which is not already implicit in it. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Moran: My Lords, will the Minister consider asking the Department of Transport, when it rightly considers aspects of road safety and reducing the

1635
number of road accidents—which I am sure we all support—to use white lighting rather than yellow, sodium lighting?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall certainly bring the noble Lord's words to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I have read the research to which the noble Viscount refers. The figure of 30 per cent. savings in accidents has some justification. However, what is not at all well researched is the possibility of alternative solutions such as putting barriers down the centre of roads so that drivers are not subjected to the glare of oncoming lights. There has been only one rather inadequate piece of research on that.
However, leaving that aside, I am most grateful to the Minister for the assurances which he has given that the agency will be responsible for the beauty of the landscape, for water and, I hope, the sky, by day and by night. This is an important commitment by the Government for which I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 3, after ("recreational") insert ("and navigational").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Second Reading, I voiced the concern of those who used the navigations and the waterways that their interests might well be squeezed between the larger, and admittedly more important, building blocks that will go towards making up the new agency. To try to diminish that, I have endeavoured to raise the profile of navigation in a number of amendments, including one in Committee which would have provided a duty to maintain, improve and develop the navigations on a similar basis to fisheries. The Minister did not think fit to accept that amendment, and I am mindful of his advice that the basic intention of the Bill is to transfer the existing NRA powers and duties to the new agency. I should like to make it quite clear that I do not wish to increase any financial commitment for the new agency or for users.
With that in mind, I am proposing a new amendment which would specifically define navigational interests as well as recreation in order to highlight the promotion of navigation as a recreation. I recognise that my drafting is open to question and that the amendment may well go rather further than I am intending, but I am open to considering any form of wording at a later stage which might achieve the required objective.
I have previously paid tribute to the National Rivers Authority, and I should like now to compliment the regional managers who are involved with navigation on the way in which they have tackled their responsibilities. I also welcome the identification of an NRA board member to have specific responsibility for navigation, and the national meeting of user groups which I believe is due to take place next week.
I suggest that the promotion of navigation would be in line with those initiatives and would not place an undue financial commitment on the new agency. As it would
1636
be the agency's management that decides priorities, it would not seek to give navigation a priority over other activities, including fishing. I feel that the recent moves by NBA's head office, to which I have just referred, indicate an increased awareness of the importance of navigation and I believe that the new promotional duty would build upon that awareness. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I very much support the amendment. It is important that navigation on inland waterways should receive its proper due. From all that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said about the NRA, it is obviously working in the right direction. However, it seems to me that so many other activities are encompassed within the clause that it is only reasonable that navigation, which is increasingly important to our inland waterways, should receive its mention in the statute. Therefore, even if my noble friend the Minister wants to alter the wording of the amendment, I hope that he will accept the principle of it.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I very much support the amendment. In terms of the number of people who are involved as suppliers and customers, and in terms of the geographical area of our inland waterways, it seems unfortunate that the legislation seems to leave the waterways as the Cinderella of the family of responsibilities. If the Government cannot accept the wording of this amendment, I very much hope that they will suggest something similar.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I too support the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in his amendment. The emphasis of the Bill is placed so heavily on recreation that "navigation" in this sense probably has a more professional air than is intended in the context of "recreation".
As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as governor of the Isle of Wight is only too well aware, in many coastal areas there is permanently a very difficult and edgy confrontation between professional and amateur users of the waters. That relationship is working extremely well in the Solent with a good deal of common sense being used on both sides. Perhaps it is a little less successful in terms of fishing and the recreational users of the waters.
If the environment is to be protected properly, the different interests of those two groups—the professional users, who may be said to use it for navigation; and the recreational users, who may not mind so much where they go provided that they go somewhere—must both be recognised and should be included in the Bill.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I should like to ask the Minister a question which perhaps goes a little further. If we do not include in the Bill some words such as those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, are we not in danger of leaving those who wish to promote navigation completely at a disadvantage as against the environmentalists who wish to stop it? Surely that is not what we are trying to achieve.

1637
I have a further point. In the case of canals, it is frequently the users for navigational purposes who ensure that the canals are kept navigable by keeping down weeds and other forms of pollution.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I have no quarrel at all with the amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Greenway in an extremely moderate and persuasive manner. It is important that the new agency should balance carefully the conflicting interests in some areas between navigation and fisheries, and navigation and conservation. The NRA has been doing that. We should at all times be careful not to push that balance in one direction or another. The NRA has been excellent in that regard. It has been both conscientious and careful. I am sure that the environment agency will be equally careful.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and other noble Lords in asking the House to consider amending Clause 6 to draw attention to the agency's duty to promote our inland and coastal waters for navigation for recreational purposes, although, I am advised that technically, as worded, the amendment would apply to navigation for all purposes. That presents a problem when we are talking about coastal waters.
I have to say that I see no reason to expect that the agency would not promote water recreation any less efficiently than the National Rivers Authority. Clearly, leisure boating is a recreational use of water and the duty to promote such uses where desirable is already included in Clause 6(1) (c), and is a duty which we expect the agency to take seriously. I believe that the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, are already being taken care of by that duty.
As I have said, although we have considered the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, carefully, the word "navigational" presents difficulties. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is right. We need to have a balance between the desires of the various sides who use our waterways.
More widely, noble Lords will be aware that the Government have recently published a consultation paper, as I have mentioned, seeking views on the future arrangements for the management of the navigations which are currently operated by British Waterways and the NRA. We are looking to the responses to that consultation to advise us on what changes, if any, should be made in respect of those navigations. Prior to that, we are not looking to make any changes to present responsibilities.
Having said that, although I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House who have supported me in the amendment. I must advise my noble friend Lord Moran that it has never been the aim of the boating interests to try to achieve more than what the fishing interests have already. My noble friend mentioned a balance. That is what we are anxious to achieve. It is to
1638
that end that I have been endeavouring to raise the profile of navigation—not perhaps to the level that fisheries already enjoy, but to somewhat nearer that.
I am slightly disappointed by what the Minister has said. I take his point about the consultation document, but my concern is how long it will take to get the replies and for the Government to assess them and decide which way they will go. In the meantime, we may well have the new agency. I am concerned about bridging the gap before we can move forward perhaps to an ultimate solution as a result of the review document. I should like to consider what all noble Lords have said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again no earlier than a quarter to eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Bill
7.1 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I should first like to congratulate my honourable friend the Member for Macclesfield, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, on having taken up this Bill and got it through the House of Commons in very quick time and brought it before your Lordships' House. I am honoured to have been asked by the British Olympic Association and my honourable friend to pilot this Bill through the House. I admit that my honourable friend and I do not agree on every item of policy; but on this matter we are as one.
The Bill simply seeks to protect the Olympic symbol, the Olympic motto and the Olympic words from unauthorised commercial exploitation. Clause 1(1) creates a new statutory right called the Olympics association right. The Bill will enable the Secretary of State to grant the British Olympic Association an exclusive licence to exploit the Olympics association right commercially, thus giving statutory force to the common law rights of the British Olympic Association. The BOA, as the national olympic committee, is responsible for all aspects of the British team at the Olympic Games, such as organising transport and providing the necessary kit and back-up support. This is an increasingly expensive exercise. However, the BOA's role is now much wider than this, since it also provides extensive services to potential British competitors of all Olympic sports over the whole four-year period between games. (I remind your Lordships that the next games will be held in Atlanta in the United States next year). These are all aimed at ensuring that the team is as well prepared as possible for international competition.

1639
The standards of such competition increase all the time, and this puts added pressure on the need for resources. The services that the BOA provides are acknowledged by the governing bodies to be vital for our top competitors. The BOA receives no government funds. All the money that it is able to raise is spent on supporting the team and providing services to British sport. It is a self-help, stand alone organisation whose ability to provide and maintain existing levels of service to competitors depends largely on its capability to raise sponsorship.
If we are to maintain and improve British international performances through expenditure of the commercial income available through Olympic sponsorship, statutory protection from unauthorised commercial exploitation is vital. Such protection will give sponsors the comfort of knowing that they have a legally protected right and make control of any unauthorised use easier. It is an unfortunate fact that such unauthorised use has become increasingly prevalent, reflecting the perceived value of a commercial association with the Olympic movement. This poses a serious threat to the BOA's fund-raising ability and to the flow of necessary funds for British sport. An example of such unauthorised use is where a company, in competition with a BOA sponsor, seeks to promote sales of its products or services using either the Olympic symbol or words without authority. This has a number of effects: it damages the effectiveness of the BOA sponsor's official promotion; it exposes the BOA to possible legal action by that sponsor; the BOA incurs the cost of taking action against the unauthorised user; it damages the ability of the BOA to attract new sponsors; and devalues the rights which the BOA can offer to future sponsors. A number of examples of that have occurred over the years.
The Bill contains a number of savings which provide that certain uses of the Olympic symbols and words are not infringements of the Olympics association right. The intention is to allow existing legitimate and honest uses to continue; in other words, those uses which do not exploit an association with the Olympic movement or mislead the public into thinking that the user is authorised to use the symbol or words. These savings are not intended to give unscrupulous companies or traders a way to avoid infringing the Olympics association right while benefiting from a dishonest or unauthorised association. The United Kingdom is one of the very few countries that does not already give statutory protection to the Olympic symbols. Since the BOA is also one of the few national Olympic committees not to receive any government funds, potential British competitors currently operate at a significant disadvantage compared with competitors from other countries with whom they have to compete.
The Bill has no negative revenue implications for the Treasury and is neither complicated nor controversial. It has cross-party support, as evidenced by the sponsors in the other place, who include: the honourable Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, Mr. Tom Pendry, the Official Opposition spokesman on sport; the right honourable Member for Manchester Gorton, Mr. Gerald Kaufman,
1640
chairman of the Select Committee on National Heritage; and the honourable Member for Fife North-East, Mr. Menzies Campbell, for the Liberal Democrats, who himself is a former distinguished Olympic athlete. I shall not go through the rest of the sponsors in the other place, who are many, because I do not wish to disappoint any of them. I just mention those three to give an indication of the cross-party support for this Bill.
I am glad to say that the Bill also has the support of the Department of National Heritage and the unanimous support of the sporting community. The Bill will improve the BOA's ability to support and improve our potential Olympic competitors and ensure that the money raised from Olympic sponsorship is spent in the way that it should be; namely, on sport and present and future British competitors. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should like to apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Donoughue. He simply asks me to say on his behalf that the Bill has his warmest support and he wishes it well.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this is one of those happy occasions when the entire House can unite behind something. A Bill of this nature is probably long overdue. I believe that the only thing to be said which perhaps strikes a sour note here is that this Bill should have been on the statute book at the time of the last Olympics, or perhaps the Olympics before that. Having said that, at least it has arrived for the next games. As a result, something as important as the Olympic Games, as a symbol of unity and sporting excellence, should receive any financial reward to be gained from its unique symbols.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Brabazon on presenting this Bill to your Lordships. Like him, I agree that it is an important Bill. Of course, it will delight both sides that it entails no expense at all.
I believe it is worth telling the House the significance of this Bill to all athletes. Children are great spenders when it comes to shoes, tracksuits, ties or any form of equipment. They love to have the latest sophisticated signs. They love to tell you that they represent Arsenal, Chelsea or (in my case) Bristol Rovers. But the five circles are more important than any individual team. Children look upon them as the absolute peak of achievement. While no one has been breaking the law, in the past people have taken advantage of the symbol and brought out their own tracksuits, T-shirts and shoes. They have called them Olympic shoes, Olympic tracksuits or Olympiad, which is one of the many words that your Lordships see in the Bill.
The money that goes on those (shall we call them rogue products?) is a large sum. The BOA is merely asking—it is doing no more—as I understand it that it alone has the privilege of using those five circles. The

1641
Government, represented by my noble friend the Minister, should be leaping up and down with delight, because that man sitting smiling away on the Front Bench has never given us a penny. He has come here this evening, which is very kind of him. He will no doubt be late for dinner as a result. But he has never given the BOA one cent. What is more, we have brought in the Bill to ensure that he never will give us one cent—not a penny. Our purpose is to ensure that every penny gained by the Olympic symbol in any form will go to those athletes who require help.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying not a penny less, not a penny more?
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I try to avoid advertising, but I am grateful to the noble Lord.
I hope that noble Lords will realise that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that from whatever is produced with this symbol on it, every penny gained will go to the BOA. As my noble friend said, that money will ensure that our athletes have as good a chance as the Americans or the Russians; that that money is spent on them and does not get into commercial hands. That is what the Bill is about.
It may interest noble Lords to know the figures. The BOA has worked out that it received only one-third of the revenue it could have received if the Bill had been enacted previously. The Bill is important to everyone.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon mentioned Mr. Tom Pendry. It is nice that the Bill is an all-party measure. I do not believe we shall find anyone who does not want it to shoot through the House. But I took the opportunity to speak to the Opposition spokesman in the Corridor. I asked him, "Is there anything in the Bill that worries you? Do you want anything discussed or changed?". "No", he said, "Get it through". So we know exactly where the Opposition stand on the Bill.
My noble friend was rather casual about one or two of the sponsors, not least Mr. Menzies Campbell who represents the Liberal Democrats. I feel it my duty, and nothing less, to remind my noble friend that Mr. Menzies Campbell was captain of the Great Britain athletics team when I had the privilege of running in it. I still call him sir. He also has instructed me to come here today to ensure that the Bill goes through. I wish to ensure that not one of your Lordships will present any opposition.
I come finally to the Bill's sponsor in the other place. I refer to Mr. Nicholas Winterton. I should like to place on record, with my noble friend the Minister present, how nice it is at last to find something upon which he and I can agree. There is not just all-party agreement on the Bill: we have all-rebels-of-every-form agreement. I can see nothing for my noble friend the Minister to do except to say, "We will get it through as fast as possible". In return, we will say to my noble friend, "We shall not be requiring any money". I thank noble Lords.
7.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor):
1642
My Lords, I am delighted to speak tonight in support of this Bill which has been so effectively introduced by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara.
As my noble friend made clear, the Bill has the support of the Department of National Heritage. The Government first made a commitment to legislation to protect the rights to commercial exploitation of the Olympic symbols, motto and associated words—"Olympic", "Olympian" and "Olympiad"—as part of their support for the bid made by Manchester to host the Year 2000 Olympic Games.
That was a short-term reason for our support. Despite Manchester's sad failure, which we all regret, a longer term reason for pursuing the legislation remains, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. That is that British Olympic sport will stand to gain significantly from a measure which will improve the ability of the British Olympic Association to support Olympic competitors and ensure that money raised from Olympic sponsorship is available to be invested in sport and on the support and preparation of British Olympic competitors.
We may wish to put forward a further Olympic bid for the future. The Sports Council is working with representatives of the BOA, local authority associations and other interested parties to develop a strategy to encourage more major sporting events to this country and to ensure that our major cities are well placed to host them. In that regard, the advent of the National Lottery offers the scope for providing a sporting infrastructure of world-class quality. The legislation is a necessary prerequisite of any successful Olympic bid for the future.
Leaving aside a home-grown games, we need to ensure that our athletes are as well prepared as possible for the forthcoming Olympics in 1996 in Atlanta and in the year 2000 in Sydney. As I have said, the extra funding derived from the marketing rights to the Olympic symbols and the associated words in this country which the Bill would bring would enable the BOA, which depends entirely on the private sector for funding, as my noble friend Lord Archer explained so well, to develop further sporting excellence in Britain and help ensure the continuing success of our participants in the games.
I am aware that concerns were expressed in another place about the effect which the Bill may have on the ability of small businesses to continue to trade under names which contain the protected Olympic words. The Bill already provides some important safeguards. Business uses of the symbol, motto and protected Olympic words which are already in existence when the Bill comes into force as an Act would be fully protected. That is made clear in Clause 4(9), and Clause 49(10) puts beyond doubt the use of the protected words as part of an existing company or business name.
However, concerns have been expressed about the position of small businesses which may be created after the Act comes into force, particularly if the use of the associated words could be said to imply an association with the Olympic Games or with Olympic qualities such as speed or excellence. Possible examples could be companies which might choose to register themselves as, for example, Olympic Bus, Cars and Electronics.

1643
Without knowing more about the circumstances of such companies, I imagine that the association created by that use could well be with qualities of speed, power and efficiency associated with the Olympic Games and there could therefore be an infringement under the Act.
My right honourable friend in another place agreed to consider those concerns and we intend to bring forward an amendment to the Bill which would enable the Secretary of State, by order, to provide that a specified category of uses of the protected words should not constitute an infringement of the rights in the Bill.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for intervening. I shall be interested to read the amendment when it comes before the House. Will he be kind enough to confirm that there will be no conditions under which the five circles can be used by anyone other than the BOA?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. We do not yet have an amendment. We are looking at the concerns that were raised in another place. I shall take his point on board.
We want to ensure that a small company which is unaware of the Act, as many small businesses may be, and trades, for example, as Olympic Flowers, or some such name, which is obviously not something which will compete with the laudable intentions of raising money for Olympic athletes and protecting Olympic symbols, would not necessarily be caught. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is looking very closely at the possibility of bringing forward an amendment.
Perhaps I may explain that such a power might allow the Secretary of State to permit uses for the purpose of a certain class of businesses such as small restaurants, or for specified trade uses for the purposes of an undertaking; for example, use in a campaign against an Olympic Games or drug taking in an Olympic sport. I am confident that such an arrangement would go very far in ensuring the further protection of small businesses and other reasonable uses of the Olympic words which I am sure we all wish to secure.
We are also concerned to ensure that the Bill goes as far as possible to protect the rights which we propose should be vested in the British Olympic Association. That is why we are considering a second amendment to Clause 4(1) (b) of the Bill to ensure that any use of a literary or artistic work in relation to other goods and services—for example, the production of T-shirts which, as my noble friend said, is a most important market, or tracksuits—infringes the Olympic Association right. It is already the intention on the face of the Bill that the Olympic Association right is infringed if such works are reproduced for the purpose of advertising or promoting goods or services. By extension, it is surely the intention of Parliament that the promotion of goods and services includes any sale by reference to the Olympic symbol, motto or protected words. In the interests of maximum exploitation of the commercial rights for the BOA, we are concerned to put that beyond doubt and are, therefore, considering the scope for such an amendment. The BOA supports the thrust of that amendment.
1644
The Government are fully behind the Bill. Our concern in considering amendments is to be sure that interests which need to be protected are protected and that the British Olympic Association is given the maximum benefit from the legislation, which ultimately must mean the maximum benefit for British sport. I am very glad to welcome the Bill this evening.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Addington, for their support. I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare who made a striking speech on the matter. However, I should add that there was no need for him to dress up for the occasion. Nevertheless, the fact that my noble friend chose to do so shows the importance of the Bill.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend; but it is important that noble Lords should realise that it is not the "night job" that I am going on to. In fact, I shall be addressing the Vauxhall Conservative Association which only needs a swing of 38 per cent. to remove the Labour majority. That is what I shall be doing this evening.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. However, it is still nice for the passage of the Bill that my noble friend is so dressed. He described the situation extremely well. I should also pay tribute to him for all the campaigning that he has done in the past to get the Bill to its present stage.
I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his remarks about the Bill. Obviously, I am slightly disappointed that there will have to be some amendments made to it. I can understand the reasons for them. However, my understanding, so far as concerns small companies, is that if, for example, you are a small company and you call yourself, "Olympic Pizzas", or something like that, that would be fine: but if you call yourself, "Olympic Pizzas, as used by British Olympic Athletes" you would be caught. I believe that that is quite right and proper.
I ask my noble friend for one assurance. The fact that amendments are to be made to the Bill means that we will have a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading in this House and then the legislation will have to go back to the other place. I only ask my noble friend to give us an assurance that the Government will find time for consideration of the Bill in another place so that it will get on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until fifteen minutes before eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.24 until 7.45 p.m.]

Environment Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 6.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 7, line 16, leave out ("the obligation to develop water resources") and insert ("any obligation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return with this amendment, and two other amendments standing in my name, to the important subject of water and the conservation of water. Amendment No. 33 would widen the reference in line 16 on page 7 of the Bill from,
"the obligation to develop water resources"?
to, "any obligation". Amendments Nos. 278 and 279 to Schedule 18 would place on Ofwat and on the water undertakers respectively a duty to conserve and promote the "efficient use of water". This matter was of course raised in Committee. I have corresponded with my noble friend the Minister and he wrote me an encouraging and acceptable reply as regards the Government's intention to do something in the nature of giving a remit to Ofwat and to the water providers on this important matter of water conservation. In his letter to me my noble friend made a reference, interestingly, to reservoirs. He stated he was not quite sure whether or not I was in favour of reservoirs. I think that reservoirs in this connection are absolutely crucial to what we are trying to include in this Bill. I believe they help us to understand better our earlier discussion on sustainable development. There can be no better example of sustainable development than the need to conserve water.
One can either save water from other uses, or ensure that the water which is taken does not deplete the environment through, for example, being taken out of aquifers with the disastrous effects that that has. Reservoirs are a prime example of sustainable development in that water which would otherwise go into the sea is taken from the reservoirs and used where it is needed rather than taking water from aquifers. I am very much in favour of using water from full reservoirs and of using water which would otherwise go into the sea. Of course the location of the reservoirs is another matter. That is an example of sustainable development; it is also an example of the crucial need to conserve what will become an increasingly scarce resource in this country; namely, water. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some inkling of what he may propose, either at Third Reading, or perhaps in another place, to put into the Bill to meet the anxieties that some noble Lords—I believe on both sides of the House—have on this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, proposes, and his general theme. My only doubt is the doubt that I expressed at Committee stage when this matter was discussed; namely, whether laying a duty on Ofwat to promote the efficient use of water would open the way for Ofwat to insist on metering. That is the problem that
1646
we ran up against in Committee. As the noble Viscount knows, we are totally opposed to giving Ofwat a power to impose on water undertakers a duty to meter.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 33 moved by my noble friend Lord Marlesford would widen the proviso which states that the duties of the agency under Clause 6(2) shall not affect the obligation of water undertakers to develop water resources to meet their water supply obligation under Section 37 of the Water Industry Act 1991 so that the proviso would cover all their obligations flowing from that section.
This is primarily a question of drafting. I share the aim of the noble Lord that the agency's duties should not displace those of the water undertakers. We believe that the present drafting of Clause 6(2), which follows that of the existing provisions, achieves that aim. We therefore see no reason for change. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw that amendment.
Amendment No. 278 proposed by my noble friend amends Section 3 of the Water Industry Act and would place a duty on the Secretary of State, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Director-General of Water Services and every water undertaker, to comply with a requirement to further the conservation of water resources and promote water efficiency when considering proposals that relate to a water undertaker's functions.
Amendment No. 279 improves on my noble friend's earlier attempt during the Committee stage of this Bill. However, the amendment tabled here is still deficient in that the substitution proposed for Section 37(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991 will remove the duty water undertakers have under Section 37(1) (a) to make arrangements for the provision of water supplies to premises in their area and make supplies available to persons who demand them, and under Section 37(1) (b) remove their duty to maintain, improve and extend the water mains and other pipes in their area. I do not think any of us would wish to contemplate such a relaxation in the duties of water undertakers.
I remind noble Lords of the earlier debates on 19th January and 14th February. I said then that we were sympathetic to the important issue of water conservation and the proposal for water undertakers to be given a duty to promote the efficient use of water. I gave a commitment to consider, during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, whether it should be amended to introduce provisions about water conservation. That action is in hand, as I indicated on the previous occasion.
I understand the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, indicated on that occasion and repeated tonight. We are considering whether any extension is required to the duties and powers of water companies and the Director-General of Water Services to promote the economic and efficient use of water among consumers. We are wholly in favour of those objectives. If necessary, we shall bring forward appropriate amendments in another place.

1647
Although I sympathise with some of the aims of the amendments, I believe many of them to be deficient and unnecessary. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, all that I can say is that we shall look forward with interest to what the Government bring forward in respect of what I regard as a very important subject and objective. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Addison Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 7, line 18, at end insert:
("( ) In exercising its powers under subsection (2) above the Agency shall at all times endeavour to protect and safeguard the interests of any owners of land insofar as these may be adversely affected by its actions.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at Committee stage I spoke to two amendments designed to help safeguard the interests of landowners who suffer subsidence and other damage to their land and businesses through the activities of major water abstractions. Some noble Lords may subsequently have seen the issue well reported and discussed in an edition of "Country File" on BBCI last Sunday 26th February.
I return to the issue now because I believe that the Minister may be able to give a more encouraging reply than he was able to give in Committee. Subsequent to that debate I wrote to the Minister giving fuller details of cases in which damage has occurred consequent on water abstraction. I also outlined some of the legal advice which has been received on those cases. I offered several possible solutions to those difficulties, or options meriting further study in striving to find an acceptable way forward. The current law is quite unsatisfactory on these matters.
I hope that the Minister, if he is not able to offer immediate solutions, will at least be able to undertake to examine the issue thoroughly with a view to proposing suitable amendments to the Bill in another place.
At Committee stage I moved an identical amendment to Amendment No. 280, which would remove what I see as an unfair and discriminatory provision within the Water Resources Act 1991. I refer to the power conferred upon the NRA by Section 57 of that Act to curtail direct water abstraction for spray irrigation. By exercising that power the NRA can drastically affect farm businesses, particularly those producing high-value horticultural crops to exacting standards. In contrast, other commercial users of water such as car washes are protected from such drastic measures. Their use of water, which may be equally critical for the environment in times of drought, can only be curtailed through the imposition of a drought order. There is no question of an overnight cut-off for them.
I was grateful for the support which several noble Lords gave to my amendment at Committee stage. However, I was disappointed with the response of my noble friend the Minister. Effectively, all he was able to offer was the statement that the Section 57 provisions are only one among several other provisions to manage drought conditions, and the fact that they exist does not
1648
necessarily mean that they should be used first. I hope that having reflected on the debate at Committee stage the Minister may be able to be a little more helpful in replying to the following points.
First, will he confirm that the decision to exercise the powers granted by Section 57 of the 1991 Act will be subject to the requirements under Clause 37 of this Bill to take account of costs and benefits? One group of irrigators who suffered a total ban in East Anglia halfway through the growing season in the recent drought estimated losses at £10 million. The ban meant that they could not finish their crops to the standard required and they had to suffer reduced prices, if they were able to salvage a marketable crop at all. In addition they also had the tag of unreliable supplier attached to their businesses and, as all suppliers know, supermarket buyers cannot and do not deal with unreliable suppliers.
Secondly, in these days when the NRA at any one time has an immense amount of information available to it on the water resources situation, there should be some possibility of advance planning of irrigation needs and consultation with licence holders over the possibility of bans being introduced. The NRA in East Anglia learnt some valuable lessons from its early experience of the recent drought. It subsequently ensured that forecasts were made for irrigators at the beginning of each irrigation season of the likely water resources situation. It backed this up with an early-warning system to allow for advance planning if the water resources situation began to look more difficult. That helped farmers to plan their use of spray irrigation, and that in turn may have helped to avoid the need for subsequent all-out bans with their disastrous consequences for farming businesses and the economy of the rural areas affected.
That experience should be translated into a national planning and early-warning system in which both the agency and irrigators can work together to ensure the most effective management of water resources to satisfy all needs in times of water shortage.
Thirdly, and finally, I should like to suggest that the Minister should include consideration of all these matters in the review which I understand is currently being undertaken of the scope of drought orders and the procedures relating to them. Moreover, it would be helpful if he could undertake to consult bodies representing irrigators to discuss these matters, and how best the current unsatisfactory situation may be improved.
The current provisions are discriminatory. We need to show the horticulture industry that the problem is recognised and that the Government are committed to redressing the balance to ensure greater fairness for water users all round. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I listened with a good deal of sympathy to what my noble friend said. I do not have too much difficulty with the general objective of his first amendment. I have difficulty with the wording. A clause which requires one to endeavour,
"to protect and safeguard the interests of any owners of land",

1649
raises the difficult question as to the extent to which one has to protect and safeguard those interests. A clause might refer to the agency having "proper regard to", or some such phrase. However, I have anxieties about the wording on the Marshalled List. It would make it very easy for landowners in a variety of situations to challenge the actions of the agency.
However, I wish to speak principally on the other amendment, relating to spray irrigation. One cannot help but have a good deal of sympathy with the problems faced in drought years. My noble friend referred to the efforts of the NRA to give advance warning, to consult, and to introduce arrangements which minimised those difficulties. At the same time, we learnt a lesson during those drought years. It was often precisely in those parts of the country where spray irrigation was carried out on an extensive scale that we saw some of the gravest threats to the environment. Noble Lords made representations to me in this House about the condition of wetlands and other vulnerable areas threatened by drought. There is a conflict of interest here. On the one hand one needs to protect the environment and, on the other, to protect the interests of farmers and landowners.
My noble friend suggested that there was a discriminatory system in operation. I am not sure that that is right. A clear distinction needs to be drawn regarding water abstracted from rivers and from under the ground, stored by water companies. Water companies make huge investments in their supply systems in order to achieve a reliable supply during dry periods. During such dry periods most of the water for their customers comes from storage in the systems rather than from the natural water environment. Therefore the supply of water by the water companies for such purposes as car washing does not have a direct and immediate impact on the water environment during drought periods.
Of course there is a price to be paid for that reliability. Those who obtain their water supplies from the water companies pay a great deal more than do those who are obtaining water directly from the water environment for spray irrigation. The impact of spray irrigation upon river flows in dry periods can be very considerable and arises very quickly. It can cause dramatic reductions in river flows. However, even if the agency obtained emergency drought permit powers, the time taken to obtain those powers is likely to be too long to enable the agency satisfactorily to protect the environment.
Many licences are already in existence where, in practice, the sources are over licensed, and therefore there is an even greater need to be able to vary the abstractions in order to prevent environmental damage. Most of those licences have been issued in the knowledge that their use can be restricted in drought conditions. They would not have been issued in the present form if that were not so. Therefore, without such powers, the amendment poses a serious threat to the environment.
For many years the Government and other organisations have been urging on those who are dependent on spray irrigation the construction of storage arrangements so that they can draw their water in winter, when there is usually plenty, for use during drought
1650
periods. My noble friend referred to losses of some £10 million occurring in an area during a specific period. That suggests to me that the turnover of those businesses must have been very considerable indeed. It seems to me that any industrial company manufacturing goods with that kind of turnover and profit or potential loss would invest a good deal in the necessary equipment to deal with that potential hazard. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that businesses which operate on that scale, supplying to the markets at the level of quality now demanded, must be expected to provide at least a significant part of their spray irrigation from winter drawn supplies which have been stored to meet the possibility of drought in summer.
I believe that before we move away from the present arrangements we need to be careful that we do not create a situation which would soon lead to strong complaints from many people—I suspect that they would include some noble Lords who have taken part in the debate—that an essential protection of the environment had been removed.
At some stage we may need to consider again the exact arrangements under which the licences have been issued. However, if we allowed the amendment to be carried, we should face a serious threat to the environment in times of drought.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to the amendment, as I did at Committee stage. There is a great deal of good sense in what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said. However, he misses the point, which is that agriculture is treated as a poor relation in this respect relative to other industries. Other industries are not subject to having their water supplies suddenly cut off in this way. When. I used to be a producer of vegetables, it was a continual source of extreme annoyance to see the chemical factory down the road. We knew that it was drawing a million gallons a day; there was no attempt to stop that. I would wish to see some regulation which removed that manifest unfairness.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 34, moved by my noble friend Lord Addison, would require the agency in fulfilling their water resource duties to protect and safeguard the interests of landowners in so far as they may be affected by new abstractions.
As I said during Committee when my noble friend first raised the question, the duties under Clause 6(2) effectively carry on the work of managing water resources in England and Wales introduced by the Water Resources Act 1963. The subsection provides the general back-up to the more specific functions dealt with elsewhere in the legislation.
Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this question again at this stage of the Bill. It is a complex issue and, after further analysis, I have concluded that there is a case for a more detailed examination of these questions. Because of their complexity and the wide range of interests that would need to be consulted, I do not think that it would be practicable to develop any solutions during the course of this Bill. I am, however, prepared to undertake to publish a consultation paper on this subject, which

1651
would enable a proper consideration of this whole question to take place and, I hope, an agreed solution to be developed. On that basis, perhaps my noble friend will not seek to press Amendment No. 34.
Amendment No. 280, which again was moved by my noble friend, would, by repealing Section 57 of the Water Resources Act 1991, curtail the existing powers of the NRA to manage the effects of spray irrigation during drought conditions. Those powers form part of the armoury available to manage water resources during droughts, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. The armoury includes hosepipe bans, changes in abstraction licences and the rules on compensation water. Because the powers on restricting spray irrigation are vested in the NRA, it does not mean that they are the first weapon to be used. I am also advised that they would be subject to Clause 37.
As I said about the proposals of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for drought permits, we favour the environment agency having a wider range of weapons in its control so that it can have a wider discretion in developing the appropriate response to any drought. We intend that amendments to that effect should be made to the Bill. I hope that, with those explanations, my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which he has tackled and will continue to pursue my first amendment on extraction and the problems that exist. I believe that the helpful response to my amendments goes some way towards alleviating the fears of irrigators, in that a review will reduce the likelihood of irrigators justifiably becoming irritators! I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 32, at end insert:
("(b) it shall be the duty of the Agency to—

(i) provide and operate in the area of each regional and local Flood Defence Committee flood warning systems;

(ii) provide, install and maintain in such areas any necessary equipment required for the purpose of such systems;

(c) it shall be the duty of the Agency to issue a flood warning to all such persons and organisations specified in paragraph (d) below in a timely manner in the event that the systems established under paragraph (b) (i) above indicate that there is a threat from flooding to life, persons and property in any such area;
(d) the persons and organisations to whom a warning is to be issued in accordance with paragraph (c) above are emergency services, local authorities, statutory undertakers, local media and such other persons or organisations as may be from time to time so specified by the Minister by Order; and
(e) the power to make an order under paragraph (d) above shall be exercisable by the Minister by Statutory Instrument.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 35 seeks to establish a statutory duty to issue a flood alert or warn the public of impending flooding. At present there is no statutory duty on any organisation either to issue a flood alert or to warn the public. The
1652
NRA has existing powers—not duties—under Section 32 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 which it interprets as providing limited flood monitoring systems and the warning of police. Having myself had experience as chief superintendent of various riparian divisions in London, I am well aware that one sometimes receives rather belated flood warnings. The public in Chiswick, Battersea and other places where I have served believe that it is the fault of the police when cars are flooded or basements filled with water. The police service would be grateful if a statutory duty were imposed on some other organisation to initiate the flood warning in the first place.
Police forces can keep tables of tides and so on, but they cannot be aware of flood waters coming down vast rivers like the Thames from a long way up the Thames Valley. Those often lead to surges in water when the flood conflicts with a rising tide. So it is essential that those organisations which understand what is happening in terms of river flows should have monitoring systems a long way up the river. Then they can give sufficient warning to alert members of the public to remove their cars, put up flood boards or in some cases carry out more elaborate work to protect their lives and property. It is essential that there should be a statutory obligation on some organisation. In this case we suggest that it should be the environment agency which must provide flood warnings in time for appropriate action to be taken.
Therefore, I press the Minister to say what the Government's plans are in relation to providing flood alerts and warning the public of impending flooding. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I lived for the first 20 years of my life on Chiswick Mall, which is flooded in part at virtually every very high tide. I lived in a house to which it was impossible to gain access when the tide was high, thus, I fully understand the desirability of having flood warnings.
However, giving flood warnings is in some ways an unscientific and unreliable business. Within the past two or three weeks, we have had a surge on the Severn whose extent was not forecast even one or two hours before it occurred. The wind changed direction and the level rose about a metre above what had been reasonably forecast even an hour and a half earlier.
There is a problem in dealing with the matter. One must be cautious, therefore, about creating a duty which might impose obligations which cannot be fulfilled. Of course, it is desirable that the environment agency should play a major role in providing flood warnings, though the agency itself depends on other agencies to obtain the information on the weather, tide and so on.
A working group involving the NRA, MAFF and representatives from the Home Office, the police and local authorities, has been reviewing for some time the issue of flood warning systems. One of the problems that we face in the future is that there is a growing reluctance among chief constables and police authorities to carry out the duty of knocking on people's doors.

1653
That poses a problem because there is no way in which the agency will be adequately equipped with people who can do that. I note that the amendment does not require the environment agency to go down the road of individual warnings. It suggests that the warnings should be provided by the agency to local authorities and other bodies defined by the regulation.
A problem exists, because there is no doubt that, with all the financial difficulties that confront them, local authorities and police forces are reluctant to carry out the duties. The problem is not only to provide accurate warnings but also to have satisfactory arrangements which can be carried out through a number of organisations. The NRA has always accepted that it has a major role in operating flood warning systems. At present it passes the information and warnings to the police, who then alert local inhabitants, local authorities, the emergency services and so on. The NRA also issues media bulletins on flood events. Two pilot schemes are being run at present to examine the feasibility of the agency having a properly defined lead role.
The amendment raises a perfectly proper issue but I suspect that it imposes too rigid and confining a duty on the new agency. I hope that the Government will consider some form of requirement that is at least flexible enough to respond to the realities of the real world, in which we must face uncertainties. Otherwise there is a danger that the agency would incur legal obligations which could be costly and lead to court action.
There are other difficult issues to be resolved. For example, if the agency is to have an arrangement for doing as suggested, where will the money and resources come from? Would they be raised by precepts from the flood defence committees on local authorities? I do not know the answer to that, but the mere fact that one is bound to ask it suggests that complex issues need to be addressed. It is right for them to be considered by the Government, but I do not believe that they can be covered by passing such an amendment on this occasion.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, that was an interesting intervention but it had two difficulties. First, it seemed to confuse a warning with a prophecy. In his first remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that a warning might be given and then the wind might change and the warning would not be necessary. However, a warning is not a prophecy. A warning says: "Get ready; be prepared". There is no point in the noble Lord shaking his head. A warning means: "Be prepared for an eventuality which may or may not occur." If it occurs, you are in terrible difficulty, and if it does not occur you are in a situation of some modest happiness—
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I wish it was quite as simple as that. The difficulty is that if you are—
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this is Report stage, and therefore I believe that the intervention is out of order.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am not sure about that. I am quite happy for the noble Lord to intervene. Is it out of order? I am terribly sorry that I cannot deal with the noble Lord's point.
1654
There seemed to me to be a weakness in the noble Lord's comments, in his suggestion that the constabularies and others were reluctant to carry out the duties. I did not care for that very much. The amendment put down by my noble friend on the Front Bench contains a good deal of sense. If the sense required to be beefed-up a bit by funds and so on for the authorities, that would not be such a bad thing. I support the amendment quite strongly.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this amendment to Clause 6 introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, would make it obligatory for the agency to operate flood warning systems throughout England and Wales and issue warnings to bodies named in the amendment or in an order made by the Minister.
It is obviously vital that clear and effective flood warning arrangements exist to protect the public. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell indicated, quite rightly, that the Government have established a working group. I do not believe that I need say any more about that. He also indicated that new arrangements are being trialed in the Isle of Wight and in Lincolnshire this year. Once the results are to hand, the working group is expected to put forward recommendations as to how the present arrangements could be improved.
The powers under the present legislation are flexible and can be used in ways that suit local circumstances and fit in with the contingency plans worked out with the local authorities, the police, the port authorities and others. We consider that the amendment proposed is premature in the light of the trials that are currently taking place and, moreover, too prescriptive in attempting to set details by order which may best be determined at local level. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, my understanding is that the working party does not have its final meeting until 5th April and therefore, presumably, its report and recommendations will be too late, even if it did recommend that someone had a statutory duty. I hope that the Minister will ask his staff to look at this matter again between now and Third Reading and consider whether some modified form of this amendment might be appropriate.
I was not of course suggesting that the environment agency should knock on doors or use loudhailers; that would remain a responsibility of police. I simply felt it would be useful if there were a statutory obligation on the agency to issue warnings in the first place. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [General environmental and recreational duties]:
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 8, line 18, leave out ("other than its pollution control functions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 48. All three amendments raise the issue of the agency's environmental duties.
It is self-evident that a new body set up to protect and enhance the environment should have the strongest possible duties to enable it to perform this role. We discussed the effect of Clause 7 in Committee, and I listened closely to what my noble friend the Minister had to say in response. I welcome the fact that the Bill will extend new environmental duties to integrated pollution control and waste functions. This is an important step forward. However, I still do not understand the justification for removing the duty to further conservation in relation to pollution control functions which are so important to the NRA.
There is a widespread view outside this House that the agency's duty to further environmental protection should apply to all of its functions, including pollution control functions. There will be real concern if this Bill is not amended to achieve this.
As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell so eloquently explained to the House on a number of occasions, this duty has been a vitally important bolster for the NRA in tackling water pollution issues across the country. The Broads authority is one of many organisations which are concerned by this clause. It has expressed particular concern about the effect of the clause on the efforts of the NRA to remove phosphates at sewage treatment works. That is vital to its conservation strategy for improving these important wetlands.
The key question that I asked the House to consider is whether it is content to see the duties which currently apply to the NRA being weakened. My noble friend the Minister assured the House in Committee that the Government do not seek to weaken the agency's commitment to conservation. But I have heard nothing which reassures me that that will not be the effect of Clause 7. We have certainly not heard any explanation which could justify the loss of such an important duty. I hope that my noble friend can provide a positive response to these widely held concerns, or suggest another way through this difficulty. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, although I can see that there is a tension between pollution control, discharge consents, and so on, and the other obligations on the agency. I speak particularly to Amendment No. 37, which offers in a sense a fallback compromise position. If the Minister feels that the other amendments go beyond the current duties of the NRA, then this amendment would include merely the current NRA duties but would exclude the current duties of Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution. Thus it would effectively preserve the status quo and would address the issue of greatest concern. I hope that this amendment might be welcome to the Government, and that it might suggest a possible way through. Although I would regret weakening the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, I think that this might offer a position that the Government might be willing to adopt. I therefore encourage examination of Amendment No. 37.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, while I can well understand the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, moved this amendment, I intervene to say that it seems
1656
to me that in the question of controlling pollution one is dealing with the matter of degradation of the environment; whereas with the question of enhancing natural life forms, it is a matter of trying to build and improve things. They are essentially two sides of the same coin. One cannot improve the environment in terms of habitats and species unless one has first controlled the pollution. It seems to me that that is the greater evil that has to be addressed. It should not be made subservient to other interests. I do not know whether that is the reason that the Bill has been formulated in the way that it has. I should be interested to know from the Minister whether that supposition on my part is correct.
Lord Moran: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word on Amendment No. 36. Normally the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, at the head of an amendment is a guarantee that it is environmentally sound and sensible. I am therefore particularly sorry to have to differ from the noble Lord on this particular amendment. It is very rare for me to do so.
I think we are all agreed that the environment agency should have a strong duty to take conservation considerations very seriously indeed and do its utmost for conservation; and that that duty should be no weaker—and hopefully somewhat stronger—than that which is now imposed on the NRA. I think it is also generally accepted, and it is certainly my view, that the NRA has done very good work in dealing with conservation problems.
As we all know, late last year there was a great clamour by statutory agencies and NGOs arguing that the environment agency's duties as regards conservation were weaker than those that the NRA now has. In response, the environment Minister changed the wording of the duty to "further" conservation, except in respect of pollution control functions. The statutory agencies and a number of NGOs seem to think that to make that exception is simply perverse. For example, the RSPB says:
"The motive behind the Government's determination to exclude pollution control from the duty to further nature conservation remains obscure".
At Second Reading I said that I was one of the few who tended to think that the Government had got the matter about right. I referred to the evidence given by Dr. Slater, head of HM Inspectorate of Pollution, to the Environment Committee of another place on 23rd November last year. I hoped that the NGOs and others concerned would study carefully what he had said. In that hope I have been disappointed. Therefore, I ought to tell the House in summary what Dr. Slater said on that occasion. He was asked specifically whether it was a fact that pollution control was only to "have regard to" conservation. He replied as follows:
"Yes, but that is rather stronger than we have at the moment. At the moment under IPC we have to prevent, minimise and render harmless; we have to take clear note of impact of operations; and we have to basically put the environment back better than we found it. Here this direction actually, even in pollution prevention, requires us to have regard to the desirability of conservation. We think that is an extension of what we do at the moment".

1657
He went on:
"The Environmental Protection Act is pretty powerful in what it allows you to do in terms of environmental protection…We think adding a requirement to having regrd to conservation takes us further".
He concluded:
"1 think our position is that legally we feel, with the current wording of the Bill, we can do everything and more we need to do in terms of pollution control to protect the environment".
From someone who is intimately concerned in dealing with pollution control all the time, that seems pretty conclusive.
Clause 7(1) (a) of the Bill—the part that deals with all the duties of the agency except pollution control—says that the agency is to have a duty:
"to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest".
That is "so far as may be consistent" with four important qualifications, the first of which is that it must be consistent:
"with the purposes of any enactment relating to the functions of the agency".
So the duty to further is very heavily and powerfully qualified. However, in Clause 7(1) (b)—the part dealing with pollution control—the duty "to have regard to" conservation is not so qualified. So in practice, for Clause 7(1) (a), where the duty and the purposes of an enactment conflict, the duty may in some circumstances have to be put aside. It could be challenged in the courts. A qualified duty may therefore in practice be weaker than an unqualified one "to have regard to" it.
So maybe this amendment and its supporters are inadvertently arguing for a partial weakening of the conservation duty in relation to pollution control functions. In any event, from the information that I have it seems that the conservation duty has had a minimal effect on the NRA's functions.
Earlier this evening the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, mentioned the correspondence that he had circulated to some Members of this House. I was one of those Members. I read the Minister's letter to him with great interest. In that letter he made it clear that when the NRA has been tackling sewage discharges affecting SSSIs, it was:
"part of the NRA's general work of seeking to secure improvement in river quality and depends upon the powers to set discharge concentration conditions and to require improvements in the effluent quality…the advice my officials have received from the NRA is that the [conservation] duty has had no effect with regard to its issuance of discharge consents".
It seems to me that we are not therefore concerned with any weakening of a current function. I am surprised that the organisations that are supporting this amendment—I have received briefs for this Report stage from the Countryside Commission, the RSPB, the CPRE and the Wildlife Trusts—apparently have paid no attention to Dr. Slater's evidence, to which I referred at Second Reading, or to the qualifications to the duty to further conservation, which none of them mentioned at all in the briefs for Report stage, particularly as I wrote to one of the organisations on 3rd January drawing its attention to those considerations and the Minister's view as expressed at Committee stage.
1658
Therefore, I believe that this amendment is misconceived. I hope that the Government will not accept it. I believe that the wording in Clause 7 is right. On balance, in the light of what Dr. Slater said, it seems to me that, as we wish, it somewhat strengthens and extends the responsibility of the environment agency to give weight to conservation considerations.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, after that, I suppose I should be feeling rather chastened. I and a good many of my colleagues at the NRA have continued to be quite concerned about this issue, despite the observations of the noble Lord and the statements of Dr. Slater.
This is an extremely complex issue. One has only to read the letter that my noble friend Lord Ullswater wrote to me, and a similar letter that he sent to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, to see that we are in tricky legal waters. I am not a lawyer. I hesitate when I am asked to balance the likely strengths of various subsections against other subsections should they be interpreted by the courts.
It is perfectly true that in very specific terms the NRA has not been able to find a case in which we could say without qualification that it has enabled us to act. But my noble friend Lord Mills cited a case in the north-west of England in which certainly those who were acting for the NRA believed that they were acting because of those powers. What is more, they were very confident that the water authority reacted as it did because it too thought that those clauses had that effect. So we moved from a situation in which people were interpreting the law to that effect to a situation in which it might perhaps be different. So we must move with some caution.
I was taken by surprise when my noble friend Lord Cranbrook raised this issue with an earlier amendment, on the introduction of the Government's new Clause 4. He put a rather interesting question of whether the effect of the Government's new clause was to give cover on this particular point. I am not sure that my noble friend responded and gave a very clear answer then, but it was an interesting question. Turning to the list of SSSIs which English Nature suggested might be put at risk and to the observations of English Nature, I observe that there is reference to the special ecosystem classification for water quality objectives.
I observe also that in his letter to me my noble friend suggests, as did the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that Clause 7(1) (b) may be useful in that context. Fine, I think it may be. But if Clause 7(1) (b) is to have the effect that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and I want, it can only be really effective if statutory water quality objectives are implemented. I do not believe that sites of special scientific interest, including all those in the English Nature list, will be fully protected without the implementation of the special ecosystem component of SWQOs to which my noble friend referred in the paper that he circulated. My anxiety is that, while it is true that after five years the Government have started on the process of allowing us to proceed with a small number of trial statutory water quality objectives, there is a clear

1659
hint that they do not believe that the trial will be extended very far or that we are likely to have a large number of statutory water quality objectives.
I return to a point which I have made again and again and which I shall go on making, because I do not believe that the Government are right on this issue. We cannot have effective protection of the water environment and we cannot protect my noble friend's SSSIs and have a fully effective Clause 7(1) (b) unless we have a proper system of statutory water quality objectives and the ecosystem component of them. The Government may have convinced me that their lawyers are better than my own legal expertise—they certainly are—and I shall not challenge the careful balance of argument put forward by the Government's lawyers in the letter that was circulated. But from the practical experience of those on the ground I remain utterly convinced, after five years, that the environment will not be effectively protected unless a proper system of water quality objectives is introduced.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, it is convenient to have most of one's speech given by someone else, especially when that someone else is as authoritative as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. I intervened at an earlier stage on an amendment tabled by my noble friend the Minister. In fact I used the example to ask a question: if it is now—under his amendment, to which we agreed—the principal aim of the agency to achieve sustainable development, with all the corollaries that exist in the amendment, will that have the result of ensuring that the agency achieves the active conservation achieved by the NRA in conjunction with English Nature? That was the reason I brought forward elements that, as my noble friend the Minister said, were more appropriate to a debate on this amendment. But that is the critical question.
If sustainability feeds through in that way, we may be covered. Sustainability consists of a proper balance of regulation and economic measures. That is the essence of what we are trying to achieve, whatever we call it. I am not worried about the definition because I understand perfectly what it means. There must be a regulatory basis. I am convinced, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, that the special ecosystem and the levels of purity and quality of water required in order to sustain the conservation values of those waters need to be applied by regulation and cannot be achieved by economic measures. That is why I brought forward my figures and examples. Your Lordships have heard them before and I have no need to repeat them.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 36 and 40 seek to delete Clause 7(1) (b) and include the agency's pollution control functions in subsection (1) (a), meaning that the agency would be under a duty to further conservation in respect of all its functions. Amendment No. 48 is consequential on those.
The Government have considered carefully the conservation role of the agency. We are sure that it is right that it should have proper regard for the needs of
1660
conservation in discharging all its functions, and the Bill seeks to ensure that. We have already rehearsed the arguments on this duty on a number of occasions. As I have said before, the NRA's existing duty is not unqualified and must be adapted to the broader functions of the agency. To further conservation in every case would be inconsistent with the agency's role in issuing environmental licences. And I do not believe that the changes to the duty in relation to water discharge consents will in practice damage the interests of conservation, all of which I indicated at Committee stage.
The proposed provisions will give the agency all the powers it needs to protect the interests of nature conservation, and in certain respects it might be able to go further than would have been possible had its water discharge function continued to be subject to a provision along the lines of Section 16 of the Water Resources Act 1991. I think that the provisions in this Bill will be at least as effective as the current duty in the context of the agency's pollution control functions; I recently provided a lengthy explanation of how they might work in practice in a very detailed letter to my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Cranbrook which I understand my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and English Nature have made widely available to interested Peers.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the environmental NGOs hay e underestimated and misunderstood the effect and significance of the duty to have regard to the interests of conservation in what is now Clause 7(1) (b). That will apply to the agency's functions under the Alkali Etc Works Regulation Act 1906, Part I of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and so forth, listed under Clause 5(5). It was right for the noble Lord to point out that those functions are now listed in the Bill.
In formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions under each of these enactments, the agency will have a duty under Clause 7(1) (b) to have regard to the desirability of conserving and enhancing natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest. I believe that the extension of this duty in its more specific form across the whole of the agency's pollution control functions represents an important extension of its ability to take proper account of conservation in discharging its functions, while at the same time avoiding ambiguities and inconsistencies in the way that conservation is taken into account.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook returned to the consideration of how Clauses 4 and 7 met together. What we sought to do in Clause 4 was to identify the principal aim of the agency, whereas in Clause 7 we are looking to the duties of the agency. I believe that there is a distinction between the two. The distinction is sometimes blurred. We are careful to express what the duty of the agency is, but the aim of the agency must be qualified in guidance by Clause 4.
Amendments Nos. 37 and 51 are perhaps seeking to address the point I have made before, in that it would not be possible for the agency to further conservation while issuing authorisations under IPC. These

1661
amendments seek to limit the definition of "pollution control functions" to mean only the functions transferred from HMIP. The noble Baroness is thus making a very odd distinction between the pollution control functions of HMIP, on the one hand, and those of NRA and the waste regulation authorities, on the other. I cannot accept that there should be such a distinction between the conservation duties relating to the control of pollution of air, land or water. Such an approach is completely inconsistent with the Government's integrated approach to pollution control.
Amendment No. 38 would have the effect of removing the requirement from the agency of ensuring that its duty to further conservation under Clause 7(1) (a) is consistent with its duties in respect of sustainable development and other objectives under Clause 4. We have already discussed at length both the aim of achieving sustainable development and the guidance which will be provided to the agency in connection with this aim. Conservation is one part of sustainable development, but it is not the only factor to be considered. It is essential to recognise that at the end of the day the agency's core purposes are environmental protection and water management. The agency's conservation duty must logically be subject to the guidance on sustainable development and other aims.
Sustainable development is government policy. It is a policy of governments around the world and it takes proper account of the importance of conservation in balance with other relevant factors. That is in line with our approach to Clause 7 as a whole. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for their contributions. It is a very complex issue. I and the organisations which have supported the amendments will be reading Hansard very carefully tomorrow morning before we decide whether we shall want to do anything at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 41 not moved.]
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 8, line 38, after ("buildings,") insert ("structures,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise with a mixture of gratitude and shame to move this amendment and to speak to one or two other amendments standing in my name. I say "gratitude" because the Minister has tabled some amendments which respond to arguments which I posed at the Committee stage of the Bill and which I shall gratefully accept and will most thankfully support. I think that he followed the precedent of the British Waterways Act which I mentioned at Second Reading; but I may be wrong there. I know how difficult it is to move Whitehall, and I am extremely glad that the Minister has moved as far as he has. This is where my shame comes in. Despite my gratitude for the movement he has made, I am asking him now to move a little
1662
further in response to the arguments which I have already made and will now make again. That is why I have tabled Amendments Nos. 42, 46, 50, 77, 80 and 82.
I know that this is a sideshow in a Bill which is very vast and wideranging but it is a sideshow which is of importance to a substantial profession in our country. My amendments deal with the proposition that buildings include structures. In fact, they do not. The Institution of Structural Engineers, which is an important professional organisation, when it is speaking of its profession, describes it as,
"designing and making buildings, bridges, frameworks and other similar structures".
As noble Lords will notice, those who know about these matters distinguish between buildings and structures of many other kinds. I wonder why the law cannot do the same thing. Why cannot the law make the same distinctions as those who know about it do? For example, we talk of the building and construction industry. In our daily parlance we distinguish between building and construction. The building industry builds buildings. The construction industry for the major part constructs structures. Buildings and structures are not the same. There is no reason why they should apparently be the same in some definition in the law.
I remind the House of the Anderton lift to which I referred at the Committee stage. Its function is to lift a ship from one part of a canal at a low level to another part of the same canal at a higher level. The feature of the Anderton lift is that it moves. If it moves, it might be a vehicle or it might be a machine. It is certainly a structure. But I cannot for the life of me see how it can be a building. One of the characteristics of buildings is that they do not as a rule move; or on such occasions when they do move we become alarmed. A building does not move. Structures, however, might well move. So how on earth can a structure he a building? I know that the law is sometimes described as an ass, and I should not like to underline that. But it comes fairly close to it on this occasion. The same is true of a tunnel. How can a tunnel be a building, whether it is a tunnel on a canal or a tunnel on a railway line? How can a lock on a canal be a building? How can the lockgates be a building? The thing is absurd. How can the Forth Bridge be a building? None of them is a building. They are all structures. They are separate things. All I am saying is that we should separate buildings from structures and delete that part of the Bill which says that buildings include structures. There is no logic in this.
I see from their happy smiling faces that I have convinced the Ministers on the Front Bench, though I dare say that they will have to convince their masters in some way. But I have them in my sights. I know this. I know it from the letters they have written to me. The noble Viscount wrote to me very politely in January and explained that my demand then for a reference to engineering structures would have left out other structures. He may have been right but I could not think of any other structures that could have been left out, although I did think of Cleopatra's Needle. I do not think that is what he meant. But I could not think what he meant. So I turned away from that. Then he sent

1663
me another letter which took a different line. Perhaps Whitehall thought that that line was not too fruitful. It said that Whitehall,
"desired to avoid changing provisions from existing legislation except to the extent that this is strictly necessary".
One thing which has struck me during my 17 years in this House is that we keep changing existing legislation. I am certain that when we do that it is absolutely necessary at all times. But I do not believe that that is a very strong argument.
I know the Minister will realise that I do not intend to press these amendments. I want him to do something which is quite simple; namely, to consider what I have said not only tonight, but on the several occasions during the past seven or eight years when I have pursued these minor arguments. I ask him to consider those arguments with the same sympathy as he considered the arguments at Committee stage. I ask him to do the same as he did then and to return at Third Reading with a very simple amendment with which I agree. I ask him merely to put beside the word "building" the word "structure". If he does that we shall have solved the philosophical dilemma which seems to be dividing us. I know that that would make him happy and I can assure the noble Viscount that it would make me happy. He will have given substantial psychological benefit to the entire engineering profession. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 42, 46 and 50 spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, seek to include "structure" in addition to the terms "building, site or object" in Clauses 7(1) (c) and (2) (b), and to delete the definition at the end of Clause 7 which states that the term "building" includes the term "structure" for the purposes of the environment agency's conservation and recreation duties. Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 82 would amend Clause 30, for SEPA, in the same way.
The noble Lord spoke about these amendments in respect of engineering structures so eloquently at Committee stage that both I and my noble friend Lord Lindsay agreed to consider the issue further. It is for this reason that I have tabled Amendments Nos. 43, 47, 78 and 81. These amendments would ensure that buildings, sites and objects of engineering interest are treated in the same way as those of archaeological, architectural or historic interest under Clauses 7 and 30. The remainder of Lord Howie's amendments are not necessary as Clause 7(7) makes it perfectly clear that in this context, "building" includes "structure".
I have listened to the noble Lord this evening. We were persuaded at Committee stage that the issues raised by the noble Lord were valid concerns and therefore we propose that the word "engineering" should be included in Clause 7(1) (c) and subsection (2) (b) in respect of the environment agency and in Clause 30 in respect of SEPA.
We have met the substance of the noble Lord's concerns and as today is, I understand, the noble Lord's birthday, perhaps that is a sufficient present for him. In
1664
view of that, I hope that he will not seek to press his amendment which I truthfully believe in these circumstances is covered by the words of the Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his congratulations on my birthday. It seems such a short time since the last birthday! Does the noble Viscount believe that the Anderton Lift is actually a building?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is most probably a structure, in which case it is covered by the words in the Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 8, line 39, after ("architectural") insert (", engineering").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 8, line 42, at end insert ("and
(iii) to have regard to any effect which the proposals would have on the economic and social well-being of local Communities in rural areas.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak very briefly to Amendment No. 52 which is merely a technical amendment associated with Amendment No. 45. The environment of our rural areas is a managed one. It depends on the people who live there, who create it and those who have businesses there. In an earlier part of the discussion on the new clause my noble friend mentioned the fact that sustainable development is a balance between ensuring the environmental advantage on the one side and how to achieve development within it on the other. Having heard many of the debates during the course of this Bill, I believe that we also need to have a balance on the face of the Bill.
Therefore, this amendment is to add a third item to Clause 7 which states that the Ministers and the agency will also have a duty,
"to have regard to any effect which the proposals would have on the economic and social well-being of local Communities in rural areas".
I am sure that all noble Lords will agree with me that it is very important that this Bill pays due recognition to the importance of the people who work and have their well-being within our rural areas.
I am most grateful to my noble friend for meeting me and many other noble Lords for discussions on this issue. As a result he will be aware of the support that this amendment has on all sides of the House. I am also aware that I have the full support of the Country Landowners' Association, the Scottish Landowners' Federation, the National Farmers Union, the Confederation of British Industry and the Rural Development Commission. My noble friend Lord Shuttleworth would have supported this amendment had he been here this evening. Many other organisations which are involved with social and economic matters within our rural areas also support this amendment. I

1665
hope that my noble friend and many other noble Lords throughout the House will be able to support this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, after that catalogue of support for the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wade, it may seem somewhat of a work of supererogation that I should add my brief word in support of the amendment as well. There is a point to be made and it is important that it should appear in the Bill. People concerned with a wide range of environmental matters, particularly as regards parts of the countryside which are changing fast under the stresses and developments of modern civilisation, should also be asked to remember that there are people who have to live and work there and go about their daily avocations. They too should be in the minds of those who make policy.
I do not wish to anticipate debates which we may come to next week, but we know that in the national parks, where there has been a more intensivee environmental regime, the communities sometimes feel that the authorities responsible for administering those powers do not seem to care as much for the people as they do for the flora and fauna and the other parts of our national heritage. It is important that they do so.
My noble friend has made an extremely good point. Let us have those provisions clearly stated on the face of the Bill so that when there are the inevitable conflicts—and a balance will certainly need to be struck—at least people have something to which they can point and can say, "You have to pay attention to us because the Act says so". I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to respond favourably to the hopes that have been expressed.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Wade and Lord Jenkin, have made very relevant points which I do not need to repeat, but I should like to emphasise my support for the amendment. To continue the theme that has been set out, a formula such as is envisaged in the amendment already exists in the Bill in relation to the national parks. The national park authorities are charged with taking note of the "economic and social well-being" of the local population. We welcome that. However, that should be a general duty on all environmental agencies and authorities because without a sustainable population one cannot have sustainable development. That seems to me to be the key to the whole argument. I hope, therefore, that either immediately or at a later stage the Government can accept the provisions of the amendment.
Lord Moran: My Lords, a particularly strong case has been made for the amendment, and I very much hope that either this amendment or something along these lines can be incorporated into the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, made a powerful case for his amendment, which I wish to support. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, pointed out, there seems a curious anomaly in the Bill as presently drafted, in that the national park authorities are required to,
1666
"have regard to the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park",
but those outside the national parks do not have the same benefit. That leads to the idiotic result that the national parks are obliged to look after the "economic and social well-being" of people living within their area, but those living in rural areas outside the national parks do not have the same benefit. To add another argument to those adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that seems an illogicality which the Government might consider.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I would not want to cast any shadow on the welcome which has been given to this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Wade, except to say that perhaps the Scottish Landowners' Federation—and some of us who will be speaking later with its advice and support—feel that the clause is a little narrowly drawn, in that it is not absolutely clear that,
"the economic and social well-being of local communities in rural areas",
necessarily includes the interests of those who own and occupy the land. When we come to Clause 30, I and perhaps other noble Lords may be making that point. It would, of course, be of great succour to those of us who are perhaps more interested in Scottish than in English affairs to hear my noble friend confirm that those interests are, indeed, covered by this amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton seeks to add to the agency's and Ministers' general environmental and recreational duties a duty in formulating or considering proposals relating to the agency's functions to have regard to any effect which the proposals would have on the economic and social well-being of local communities in rural areas. Amendment No. 52 is consequential upon that.
In responding to a similar amendment from my noble friend in Committee, I made clear that the Government are at one with him in recognising the importance of the agency having proper regard to the wider consequences in exercising its functions. I suggested that it would have to consider the needs of agriculture and forestry—those were the words used by my noble friend in his original amendment—just as it will need to consider the needs of other sectors it would regulate, and that, in doing so, it would need to take account of a number of considerations not specifically included in the legislation, including social ones. I noted that reconciliation of the needs of the environment with the needs of economic development lies at the heart of sustainable development and suggested that the mechanism included within the Bill by which the agency is to have regard to guidance to be provided by Ministers offers the best way of ensuring that Ministers and the agency properly consider the kinds of issue with which noble Lords are concerned. In the generality of cases I still believe this to be true, but, like my noble friend Lord Jenkin and other noble Lords, I also recognise the need to be particularly sensitive to the economic and social well-being of local communities in rural areas.

1667
I find it difficult to indicate to my noble friend Lord Pearson that the social well-being of local communities in rural areas could somehow exclude landowners if they form part of their local community. I shall need to look closely at what he has said. If he says that there is a separation between being part of a local community and being a landowner, I shall need to think very carefully about it.
The Government believe it important to address the particular problems of rural areas on which the noble Lord and others have spoken so eloquently and forcefully this evening. I accept that in this Bill we have to acknowledge the damage that can be done if their social needs are not properly considered when deciding how best to protect and enhance the environment. Therefore, the Government are willing to accept the noble Lord's amendments. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider carefully whether or not to bring forward similar amendments in relation to the Scottish provisions.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for accepting the amendment. I am sure that the Bill is very much better for it. I am grateful to all the noble Lords throughout the House who have supported it. I beg to move.
Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 9, line 3, after ("architectural") insert (", engineering").
On Question Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 9, line 40, at end insert:
("( ) Nothing in this section shall enable the Agency to require from any party reports, evidence or documentation of a nature similar to that previously considered by a local planning authority in pursuance of that authority's planning functions under the Town and Country Planning Acts and related legislation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment in the hope that my noble friend will be able to respond to concerns expressed to him by the Law Society and planning lawyers as regards the effect of Clause 7. The fear is that Clause 7 as drafted may give the agency the power to act as a second planning authority, introducing a potentially conflicting, expensive and dilatory second level of regulation. Under normal development control process, an applicant obtains planning permission for his development from the planning authority. As part of the process, the authority consults the regulatory authorities, currently the NRA and HMIP. The responses of the regulatory authorities are taken into account by the local planning authority when it issues its decision. If, having considered the representations of the regulatory authorities, planning permission is granted and the developer then has to seek consent for works specifically involving the regulatory authorities, for example land drainage works, he will be placed in an
1668
untenable position. The agency can require the developer to repeat environmental exercises that have already been undertaken in respect of the original planning application to the local planning authority. This amendment will render the taking of those additional steps unnecessary. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 49 moved by my noble friend seeks to ensure that nothing in Clause 7 shall give the environment agency the power to require anyone to provide information similar to that which previously will have been considered by a local planning authority in relation to its functions under planning legislation.
I am sure that my reply would have benefited from hearing what my noble friend had to say about this matter at Committee stage. Unfortunately, at that moment I believe that he was prevented from doing so. We accept that there can be an overlap between the information that is required for planning purposes and information required for pollution control. We have tried to address it in various ways, one of which is through Planning Policy Guidance Note. No. 23. That provides guidance on the respective roles of the planning and pollution control systems. It stresses the need for proper consultation between planning and pollution control authorities, and has been prepared in consultation with interested parties.
I am sorry that I cannot give my noble friend a more detailed response to his amendment. The environment agency will need to obtain information for a variety of purposes, including the assessment of applications for licences. I think it is right that it should be able to obtain all of the information that it needs to carry out its functions properly. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment, although if he remains concerned about it I will be happy to meet and discuss it with him further.
Lord Colraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reassuring reply, which is reassuring as far as it goes. I know that what he has said will be read with critical interest by those who advise me. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Environmental duties with respect to sites of special interest]:
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 10, line 9, after ("above") insert ("(other than section 7(1) (c) (iii) above)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Advisory committee for Wales]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 12, line 27, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (5) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 53 standing in my name and the names of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. It may be for the convenience of the

1669
House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 54 and 55. Yet again, we turn to the question of the relationship between local authorities and the agency, this time in Wales.
Your Lordships will be aware that there has been a local government reorganisation in Wales along somewhat different lines from the local government reorganisation which has been proposed for England. I now gather that it will be on a slightly different basis. In speaking to this group of amendments, I wish to address the local authority matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, wishes to speak to his amendment (Amendment No. 54).
Local authority associations in Wales, particularly the Council of Welsh Districts, are especially concerned about the shift from local accountability, through locally elected members of local councils, in a more indirect route to Government Ministers. That change in accountability will be felt most keenly in the area of waste regulation which of course is a current district council (or unitary council as it will be) responsibility, but will be transferred, we now hear, to the environment agency. But local authorities in Wales will continue to play a significant role in the protection of the environment, as environment health and planning authorities; and it will continue to be to local authorities that members of the public turn when they have both specific and general concerns about the environment.
For those reasons, and to maintain the necessary link between local authority regulation and regulation by the agency, we believe that it is essential that the advisory committee for Wales has a sufficient number of elected representatives serving on it.
The draft management statement of the environment agency gives no greater commitment than to appoint members representing a range of interests in the principality. By nominating those already elected as representatives of local people, the Secretary of State will ensure that the greatest range of interests is in fact represented. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, in Committee on 19th January on this issue (Hansard, col. 843–845) I proposed a number of amendments relating to the membership of the advisory committee for Wales. I do not want to repeat those arguments, but to endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, about the importance of local authority representation, and the scale and nature of that representation. That argument relates to one I deployed more generally earlier about the agency in England and Wales; namely, the issue of whether the agency itself is to be a partnership and is to have local accountability, or whether it is to appear to be a non-departmental public body along traditional quango lines.
In that discussion (at col. 848), the Minister emphasised that he accepted that it was important for the advisory committee for Wales to comprise a wide range of representative views. He accepted that nature conservation and pollution control experience would be useful to the advisory committee. That is why in my amendment, which is grouped with Amendment No. 53, I have stressed membership of the Countryside Council
1670
for Wales, and of at least one member of the Countryside Council for Wales being also a member of the environment agency.
I do that for another reason, of course, which is my concern about the role of the Countryside Council for Wales in environmental protection and conservation activity within the principality. In that debate, and in a subsequent debate on 2nd February, the future of that agency was raised. I received subsequently a detailed letter from the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales in which he emphasised that the CCW grant for 1995–96 would be sufficient for it to fulfil its statutory duties.
I am still concerned that the review of the CCW has not been completed. It is not clear to what extent the CCW will be able to play a key role as a partner with the new environment agency if it is to see its activities curtailed severely. I am concerned that the action plan with which the agency is being threatened by the Secretary of State will concentrate its activities on limited aspects of protected areas and nature conservation without giving it that necessary broader remit of countryside activities and overall commitment to sustainable development in Wales, which seems to be necessary for a wide-ranging countryside agency.
For those reasons, and in view of the uncertainty surrounding the funding and the nature of the activity of CCW, it is even more important, in my view, that the Government should accept the amendment to ensure that there is at least one member of the Countryside Council who serves on the advisory committee for Wales, thereby ensuring that a link as regards environmental conservation, countryside management and the activity of the environment agency.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I venture to say a brief word about the amendments because I was for some years a member of the Advisory Committee for Wales under the NRA, so I have some experience of it. What concerns me a little is the fact that Amendment No. 55 would be inclined to make the committee too large and unwieldy.
I realise that waste disposal matters will be part of the remit of the environment agency and, therefore, that the composition of the advisory committee may need to change. However, at present, it is quite a small committee. When I was a member of the committee, it consisted of the NRA board member for the Welsh region, who was the chairman, the chairmen of the three advisory committees—that is, the fisheries, the rivers and flood defence committees—one representative of local government, one representative of industry, one conservationist and the regional general manager. That made a total of eight. In practice, it was useful to have just those eight people sitting down with the Ministers or the officials from the Welsh Office. We were able to make good progress.
If half the advisory committee had to come from local government, it would unbalance the committee and make it more difficult to include a proper representation of those who were either running the advisory committees under the agency—and I think that they should be members and contribute a great deal—and of outside interests like industry. I certainly believe that

1671
the advisory committee should contain a conservationist. Whether, as at present, it should be an outside conservationist or whether it should be a member of the Countryside Council for Wales is not something that matters too much. However, there certainly should be one on the committee.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. My reason for intervening is to make a brief reference to Amendment No. 54 and the suggestion that at least one member of the committee should be a member of the Countryside Council for Wales. It has only very recently been drawn to my attention that Clause 81 of the Bill (which provides that consultation should take place before certain subordinate legislation is made in England) for some curious reason for which I have not yet heard an explanation excludes Wales.
While in England advice has to be sought from the Countryside Commission and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission before certain quite important statutory instruments dealing with habitats and so on can be amended, there is no such reference here to Wales, to the Countryside Council for Wales or to Cadw. If they are to be left out—and I am not at all sure why they have been—it might at least be useful to have a member of the Countryside Council for Wales on the Secretary of State's Welsh committee.
Baroness White: My Lords, I have stayed here very quietly and, indeed, have not said a single word as yet. However, I feel that I should express my support on this occasion for Amendment No. 54. I believe that it is an essential step to take. I am not quite so sure as regards Amendment No. 55 as to whether we really need,
"half of the members of the Committee",
to be nominated as proposed. That seems to me to be rather excessive. Certainly there should be some. But I would hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will press the amendment if he feels so disposed. It is essential that in the Welsh scene we have adequate representation on the committee, and that both local authority and environmental experience should be catered for in some sensible arrangement. I would not necessarily want to go with every word of both these amendments, but I think they are very much on the right lines.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that at least half of the membership of the advisory committee for Wales comprises nominees of the local authorities in the Principality, and that a member of the Countryside Council for Wales is also included. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that the advisory committee will need to include locally elected members. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already committed himself to including locally elected members within the committee, which he feels is important to facilitate responsiveness to local needs.
1672
Under the existing Clause 11, the agency advisory committee for Wales would be set up in just the same way as was the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee for the Welsh region. It was not felt necessary to dictate in the legislation which established the latter committee any specific numbers of representatives from local government, nor indeed of other interests, and no rights of nomination were given to any body.
The National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee for Wales comprises a good balance of interests, including local authority representation. It has been very effective in bringing to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's attention issues of particular local concern. A recent example has been the serious pollution of the Neath Canal caused by mineral discharges. The committee was able to visit the site to examine the problem at first hand and has urged that the various parties involved should work together to bring forward a solution as quickly as possible. Following this involvement, a study has been set up to identify long-term remedial measures and an action plan put forward by the local authority has been given financial support by my right honourable friend under the strategic development scheme. The advisory committee has contributed to the development of a strong Welsh identify for the region and good links with the people of Wales—for example, by publishing in England and Welsh an annual report of the agency's activities in the Principality.
Welsh Office Ministers have already stated their intention that the advisory committee will include more than one locally elected member. I do not see that there is a need to constrain my right honourable friend's ability to choose an effective membership by specifying on the face of the Bill a precise minimum number of local authority members. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be responsible for approving the agency's membership scheme for its Environment Protection Advisory Committee for the Welsh region, which he will also wish to see include local authority representation.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will consult the local authorities in Wales, through the local authority associations, before selecting members for the advisory committee for Wales. I do not think, however, that the legislation should restrict my right honourable friend to appointing from local government only local authority nominees. I think it is important that my right honourable friend is given the flexibility to make appointments, not just at the outset but in the future, which reflect the particular needs of Wales at the time and which produce the best balance of interests on the committee as a whole. I can assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend intends to ensure that the advisory committee does encompass a representative range of views and wide-ranging expertise. Indeed, this will be vital if, as we intend, the committee is to provide effective advice to assist my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales as the Minister responsible for setting the policy framework within which the agency will operate in the Principality.

1673
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, encouraged by the noble Baroness, Lady White, suggests that the Countryside Council for Wales should have a member on the body. The Countryside Council for Wales is one example of the kind of body which could usefully contribute to the committee's consideration of conservation issues. There are others, however. For example, the senior conservation officer of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds serves on the existing NRA committee. I think it unnecessary, therefore, for the Countryside Council for Wales to be singled out on the face of the Bill.
To answer the question of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I understand that the Countryside Council for Wales is a statutory adviser to the Secretary of State and therefore its advice would be considered.
The advisory committee for Wales will need to advise on a wider range of activities than the current NRA committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, perceived. For example, it will need to have experience and knowledge of waste management, conservation, rivers, flood defence, fisheries and integrated pollution control. It will need to reflect the views of both industry and environmental organisations. I have to agree with the noble Lord that the requirement for half its members to he local government nominees could result in a very cumbersome and potentially less effective committee. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his response, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate.
The Minister has gone some of the way in reinforcing the declared intention of the Secretary of State for Wales to select elected members of local authorities. I do not see why he should not go a little further and accept members of local authorities who have been nominated by those local authorities. That would simply reinforce the accountability chain. I do not worry particularly about whether the membership is half, a third or an eighth. The numbers do not really matter. However, there should be a sizeable number of those who have their roots in local communities and are accountable democratically to those who elected them. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Concerning the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ellis-Thomas, there is considerable doubt about how the Secretary of State for Wales will deal with the Countryside Council for Wales. Any mention of the Countryside Council for Wales on the face of any Bill would have my support because it would guarantee the future of that body, which is now under great threat.
I have noted the point of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about Clause 81. I have already formulated an amendment, which is included on the Marshalled List, but I shall formulate a rather more elaborate amendment designed to ensure that similar consultation takes place in Wales as the Bill provides to take place in England. We shall deal with that when we come to Clause 81.
1674
I am grateful to the noble Viscount. The Government's position is not entirely satisfactory. I shall consult with my advisers to see what we do next or whether we leave it to another place to thrash the matter out. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Environment protection advisory committees]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 13, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to paragraph (b) of subsection (4) above, not less than one third of the members of any advisory committee appointed by virtue of subsection (2) (b) above shall be local authority members.
( ) A person shall not be appointed a local authority member of an advisory committee for any region unless he is a member of a principal council the area of which is wholly or partly comprised in that region.
( ) Before appointing any person to be a local authority member of an advisory committee for any region the Agency shall consult with every principal council the area of which is wholly or partly comprised in that region.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 56 follows the debate during the Committee stage and the welcome pledge from my noble friend the Minister at that stage that local government members would be included on the regional advisory committees of the environment agency. The amendment attempts to give form to that pledge and establish a consultation process so that local government is widely involved in the selection of its representatives.
The need for a close and intimate relationship between local government as the planning authorities and the environmental agencies as the regulatory authorities is illustrated simply by relating the kinds of terms and conditions that would go into a waste disposal planning permission. That has nothing to do with a waste disposal licence, but the terms are almost identical. Obvious factors such as suitability of site, impact on neighbours and long term future of the land are understood. Mode of transport, access and hours of work are understood. However, included in consideration of a planning permission today—they would not have been 25 or 30 years ago—will be the geology and hydrology of the site because movement of any waste under the ground is a matter of which planners now believe account has to be taken in the light of bitter experience over past years. Any emissions, and control of emissions, will also be subject to conditions of a planning consent. The method of working, standards and quality of cover, which could also be judged to be part of the licence, are also subjects of planning permission.
For planning permission to be given for a waste disposal facility, there has inevitably to be the closest and most intimate working relationship between the professional staff of local government and the professional staff of the appropriate regulatory body, soon to be the environment agency. At that level, I do not doubt that there will be the closest possible liaison. It is equally important that in parallel with that liaison,

1675
the political level of local government finds its involvement satisfactory. However good the professional working relationships might be, we would have a disastrous situation if a political separation between local government and the regulatory bodies ever developed.
It is in that sense that I move the amendment. I hope that the Minister might consider, if I may say this without being provocative, that the English provision is slightly more reasonable than the Welsh.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, my name appears also to the amendment. I begin by expressing my thanks to my noble friend on the Front Bench for the time he gave when I took the chairman of the south-east waste regulation advisory committee to see him to argue the case for a more structured system of representation of local authorities on the advisory committees. I stress that they are advisory committees. They are not part of the executive chain of accountability. The members are there to advise the executive arm, which in this case is the agency; and, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, who better to offer advice from a wide range of local concerns than those who are elected members of local authorities?
We had a very curtailed debate at the end of the proceedings on 19th January. We moved a more ambitious serious of amendments which envisaged—as in the recent amendment, and as was the point of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—that the agency should accept nominations, and accept nominated members. I understand the point my noble friend made to me, and to Mrs. Hawker (who came with me) that the Government are anxious to avoid representative members of these advisory committees. I refer to people who, in a sense, have not been chosen for their expertise in the field but somehow see themselves as accountable to the body from which they have come. It is a familiar argument. That dichotomy, that conflict, has been apparent in many different fields of Government activity. I understand that the Government are firmly committed to the idea that people shall not be representatives but shall be appointed for their merit and their value to the committee.
My noble friend's amendment moves away from that concept. All we ask is that the agency should consult with all the local authorities in the area to he covered by the advisory committee. No doubt it will receive suggestions for people who might be put forward and who will presumably be acceptable to the local authorities. From that body, the agency can select the people who it believes will make the best contribution to the work of the advisory committee.
The amendment suggests that no fewer than a third of the members of the advisory committee should be such people. I consider that that is the minimum for which we can reasonably ask on the face of the Bill in order to ensure that all the considerations are dealt with which my noble friend, with his great experience of local government, has outlined. Those considerations must be in the Bill, even after the extremely sincere
1676
assertion from the Front Bench that of course local authority elected members will be appointed. I wish to see that in the Bill, and the first paragraph of the amendment will give the Government what they want, while at the same time giving reassurance to the local authorities that they will have a say and that their members will be elected in sufficient numbers to have an influence on the work of the advisory committee. I strongly support the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too support the amendment. In our debate on the transfer of the functions of the waste regulation authorities, one of the threads running through the resistance to my attempts to avoid that transfer was the relationship that there would be with the committees. To include the provision proposed in the amendment on the face of the Bill would flesh out that assurance. It would make the transfer of the functions a little more palatable.
It is to the credit of those in local government that they continue to argue for such a provision. The temptation must be to say, "Well, if you want it, you get on with it", but in fact, they are keen to ensure that the new system works well, even if they do not necessarily support the whole of it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have no particular objection to the amendment except that if we are to write something on the face of the Bill for England, I see no reason why we should not do so for Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, may be less ambitious than the Welsh, but I would say that perhaps the English do not know how to play poker as well as the Welsh because you do not declare your hand at the outset of the game.
I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on nominations versus selection. However, we have had that argument on many occasions and I do not intend to elaborate on it now. I hope that we can agree on a middle way so that if the Secretary of State wishes to retain something called "flexibility", those selected at least have the endorsement of the authorities from which they come. There must be some degree of confidence between the authorities from which they come and the fact that they are members of an advisory committee for the agency. Otherwise the chain which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seeks to establish will break down.
There is a good deal of residual suspicion about appointments made by Secretaries of State to unelected bodies. We are learning to work through it by various constructions that have been set up by the Government, but there is still a good deal of residual suspicion. I am sure that by adopting the kind of formula which I have suggested the Minister could go at least some way towards alleviating the suspicion. I go halfway with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in supporting the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I have known very awkward members of local authorities who have

1677
worked on quangos and who have not been au fait with the work. Therefore, I prefer a cross-section of people to one set of "yes men".
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, has at least managed to contribute to this debate. In a way, he has indicated that he is on my side. I did not seem to have many friends in the House until he decided to speak.
As I explained on the previous amendment, I would indeed expect a number of local authority members to be included on the agency's regional environment protection advisory committees. There is no doubt that such individuals will bring significant experience of local authorities and local issues. I am sure that their advice will be of great value to the agency in developing its relationships with local authorities in general.
I therefore have some sympathy with the intention behind my noble friend's amendment. Nevertheless, I do not believe it would be right for the legislation to specify the proportion of local authority members on these committees. The Bill already provides a mechanism for the agency to propose schemes for the appointment of members in each region, for consultation on those schemes, and for the Secretary of State to approve, reject or modify proposals in the light of representations made. This is designed to enable individual schemes to take account of the particular circumstances of each region. I do not believe that the legislation should pre-empt that process by providing that local authority members should comprise at least one-third of the membership of these committees. There are many organisations with a claim to a place. We should allow the agency to propose what the balance should be, and not seek to fix all or part of it in statute.
I should also explain that the committees are not intended to be the only, or indeed the primary, means by which the agency interacts with local authorities. It will be important for the agency to develop working-level arrangements with authorities in areas such as planning and development control—as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said—local air pollution control and environmental health, and emergency planning. The committees should not be seen as a substitute for such arrangements.
My noble friend's amendment would also require the agency to consult every principal council in a region before appointing a person as a local authority member. I would submit that his concern is already covered elsewhere in the Bill, particularly in Schedule 3. Before appointing a member to a committee, the agency must consult appropriate bodies or persons identified in the membership scheme. In the case of individuals who are local authority members, I would indeed expect the agency to consult, under this provision, the principal councils in the relevant region.
I know that I shall not have satisfied my noble friend. But I hope I have indicated where, I believe, the right balance should lie. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have supported this amendment this evening. I shall not take the time of the House for very long. I
1678
sympathise, curiously enough, with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn. The last thing we want is a committee of yes-men; but equally, the last thing one would want is a committee of no-men. We need a committee of people who know what they are about. In that respect, the views of local government, because of the practical implications, are very significant.
I will consider what my noble friend the Minister has had to say, and whether I need to take this matter any further at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 13, line 23, leave out from ("to") to the end of line 24 and insert ("establish a Wales region").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to establish a Welsh region for the agency. I shall move it in a very reasonable manner, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said earlier.
Reverting to our debate in Committee on 19th January (specifically at cols. 844–845), the noble Viscount responded to this question of the boundaries of the new agency and its activities. He emphasised that this was a decision for the agency itself, and that it should be determined, in the case of Wales, by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales in consultation with the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture.
However, it is now time that this issue was clearly discussed in this House, so that the thinking that is taking place within the agency should emerge. In particular, I would want to argue that the question of the national boundary of Wales in relation to the activity of the agency is a matter for Parliament.
No doubt I shall excite the opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on this issue. When dealing with the amalgamation of the three parts of the agency, we deal with different boundaries relating to different structures and different functions.
I want to start the argument from the point of view that the Government have decided not to go ahead with the proposal to establish a separate agency for Wales, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel earlier. The issue was debated and no doubt it will be returned to in another place, if not in this Chamber, at a later stage of the Bill.
But given that that is not happening, it is very important that the structure of the Welsh region should remain strong in the activity of the agency. The noble Viscount said that. He said:
"It is important that the agency's Welsh region has a strong identity".—[Official Report, 19/1/95; col. 844.]
A strong identity is best maintained by indicating clearly how the region of the agency is to function. The combination of some 430 full-time staff from HMIP, some 7,500 staff from NRA and about 1,100 staff from local waste regulation authorities joining together in the case of England and Wales—at some stage I should welcome the figures for Wales as well—will create an imbalance in the way in which the structure develops.
My fear is that HMIP's present mode of operation will be over-determined, if not drowned—that is another metaphor—by the NRA's mode of operation and structure. The expertise of HMIP in developing the integrated pollution control system and all the important features of the EPA 1990 are extremely important not only in Wales but in the regions of England as well. As we know, HMIP is responsible for regulating the large polluting processes under the IPC; the smaller processes are governed by the local authority air pollution control.
As those aspects come together in the new agency, it seems to me that at this stage it is not clear which of the options for the geographical and managerial structure of the proposed environment agency, as discussed in the Touche Ross report last year, is the most likely to be implemented. I shall not repeat this evening all the models. Some of them emphasise the activity of the waste organisations and others emphasise the NRA model. But it concerns me that this should not be a matter just for the agency itself to resolve. It should be resolved in a relationship between the agency and the Secretary of State. I believe that Parliament should express a view, in particular about the integrity of the Wales region and its boundaries.
In the structure of the agency there are nine voluntary regional waste regulation committees in England; the Welsh districts carry out that function in Wales through the Council of Welsh districts; HMIP has field teams implementing the IPC system with its seven regions; the NRA has, I believe, eight regions where previously it had 10 regions. The NRA regions do not correspond to the geography of the waste regulation regions, which tend to follow local authority boundaries.
In the debates on this issue there have been arguments from the NRA about maintaining the integrity of river basin management. On the other hand, there has been the argument from HMIP that functions should be split because of the separate nature of the activities and the dangers of self-policing. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to respond, and if he cannot reply in detail tonight, perhaps he would ask his right honourable friend in another place, the Secretary of State for Wales, to consider what has been said in this debate and perhaps respond by letter. I am concerned by what seems to be happening. I describe merely a scenario which may only approximate to what is in fact going on.
It seems to me that a working group is trying to bring about a structure for Wales which is over-determined by the activity of the NRA. The Wales region of HMIP operated as a strong region, coterminous in its activities locally with local authorities. The NRA operates under the catchment areas. If the agency is allowed to decide the nature of its regions, then we may well see an England and Wales structure led by the NRA imposed on Wales. That will mean not only ensuring that Powys remains forever England—if one can use that expression—as part of Severn-Trent, as it is under the present structure of the NRA, but also that the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be dealing with two regions of the environmental agency.
As the waste regulatory functions are coming into the environmental agency, presumably the Part II functions of the 1990 Act now being transferred, based on existing local authorities, will be based on the new unitary authorities. But the Part I, if HMIP as part of the new environmental agency is to follow the new NRA boundaries, will be based on river catchment areas which are not coterminous with local authorities.
It is an important issue. We are in the middle of a local government reorganisation and the activities of the agency should follow similar boundaries. Part II of the Control of Pollution Act will no doubt conform with the NRA model. We may well see a situation where not only is the river catchment area structure taking place at the Wales regional level, but it may also be replicated at sub-regional level so that again the activity of HMIP, as taken into the agency, will not follow the boundary of the new unitary authorities and so the local authorities and the unitary authorities will not have parallel structures with the local activity of HMIP.
All that did not emerge in the debate on the Bill. Apparently the Government have not yet taken a view on the matter. The Government should express a clear view. It is not a matter for the agency. I am not putting forward a political argument for the Welsh political boundary in a devolutionary context; I am arguing for what I see to be a more efficient structure than that which may well be imposed upon us. For those reasons, I beg to move Amendment No 57.
10 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I wish to make a brief intervention. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, need not be concerned that I shall be excited about the issue, though there are some important questions to be asked. One matter on which I am clear and which I share with him is that the Secretary of State for Wales must be responsible for what goes on in the whole of Wales. That has always been accepted. However, a group has been set up by the new advisory committee to look at this matter and examine the Touche Ross report. When one knows that Professor Ron Edwards is involved, it is likely that Welsh interests will be well looked after.
When a group is making a detailed study it seems to me to be a good idea that it should be allowed to complete its work and make recommendations before we rush into imposing solutions on a situation on the basis of a brief debate after 10 o'clock at night in this House. It does not necessarily follow—this goes for England as well as Wales—that it is appropriate to have coterminous boundaries for all the functions of the agency. There is a case, and it may well be a solution adopted in England as well as in Wales, that the boundaries in every case will not be exact. It may be sensible to have boundaries for waste functions and HMIP functions that match more closely to local authorities. But for the important reasons that the NRA advocated for employing catchment management, it may be important to keep the catchment management principle operating for the NRA functions.
I simply want to record the importance of managing rivers on a catchment management basis. Some sensible proposals were put forward before the Bill was

1681
introduced and they were discussed in great detail with the Welsh Office at the time. They would have enabled that principle to be carried forward into the new agency. They were the subject of wide consultation with the advisory committees in Wales and of wide agreement. I hope that we can leave the matter to the outcome of the discussions that are going on in the fairly confident belief that a sensible, practical solution will be developed which will both protect the environment and leave the Secretary of State for Wales with his proper responsibilities.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government did not believe it sensible to come to a decision on the boundary of the agency's Welsh region in isolation from the agency's proposals for its organisational and management structure, in just the way my noble friend Lord Crickhowell indicated. It is intended therefore that the boundary of the agency's Welsh region will be determined by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales in consultation with my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the basis of proposals from the agency. Those are the words I used in Committee and have now repeated to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas.
It is important that the agency's Welsh region has a strong identity, and it is for that reason that the Bill as drafted requires the Welsh region to consist wholly of, or mainly of, or of most of, Wales. The boundary will, however, need to be consistent with the structure chosen by the agency.
The Environment Protection Advisory Committee will be set up by the agency to advise the agency on how it can best carry out its functions in its Welsh region, whatever the boundary of that region. It makes sense therefore that the Environment Protection Advisory Committee for the Welsh region should not have a remit extending beyond the Welsh region, even if it transpires that not every part of Wales is included in the Welsh region. That is different from the position in relation to the advisory committee for Wales, which will be set up to advise my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales on the carrying out of the agency's functions in relation to the whole of Wales, whatever the boundary of the Welsh region.
That is the position the Government have taken. I understand the noble Lord's concerns. However, having listened to what I have had to say, I hope he will be in a position to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for stating the Government's position. It does not seem to have moved from what was stated in Committee. I was pleased to hear the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that it might be possible to take different boundaries for different functions of the agency. Functions should lead in this matter rather than there being any question of trying to maintain an over-unified structure for what are, after all, diverse functions but functions which in the broad environmental remit of the agency complement one another. It is important that the integrity of the function and activity of HMIP in its relationship with local
1682
government in its Wales region should not be diminished in the transitional arrangements or indeed in the final arrangements that emerge from the Bill. With that caveat, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Regional and local fisheries advisory committees]:
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 60:
Leave out Clause 13 and insert the following new clause:
("Regional and local fisheries, recreation and navigation committees
13.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Agency—

(a) to establish and maintain fisheries, recreation and navigation advisory committees;

(b) to consult those committees as to the manner in which the Agency is to carry out its functions relating to fisheries, recreation and navigation; and

(c) to consider any representations made to it by those committees (whether in response to consultation under paragraph (b) above or otherwise) as to the manner in which the Agency carries out those functions.

(2) (a) Each fisheries, recreation and navigation committee shall consist of—

(i) persons who appear to the Agency to be interested in salmon fisheries, trout fisheries, freshwater fisheries or eel fisheries;

(ii) persons who appear to the Agency to have knowledge of recreation interests; and

(iii) persons who appear to the Agency to have knowledge of navigation interests.

(b) The members of fisheries, recreation and navigation advisory committees shall not be members of the Agency.
(3) The duty to establish and maintain fisheries, recreation and navigation advisory committees imposed by subsection (1) above is a duty to establish and maintain—

(a) a regional fisheries, recreation and navigation advisory committee for each region of England and Wales; and

(b) such local fisheries, recreation and navigation advisory committees as the Agency considers necessary to represent fisheries, recreation and navigation interests in the different parts of each region;

and it shall be the duty of the Agency in determining the regions for which regional committees are established and maintained under this section to ensure that one of those regions consists (apart from territorial waters) wholly or mainly of, or of most of, Wales.
(4) If the Agency, with the consent of the Ministers, so determines, it shall also be under a duty to consult the fisheries, recreation and navigation committees, or such of them as may be specified or described in the determination, as to—

(a) the manner in which it is to perform its duties under or by Virtue of such of the enactments relating to conservation as may be the subject of the determination, or

(b) such matters relating to conservation as may be the subject of the determination.

(5) Where, by virtue of subsection (4) above, the Agency is under a duty to consult those committees or any of them, there may be included among the members of the committees in question persons who are not members of the Agency but who appear to it to be interested in matters—

(a) like to be affected by the manner in which it performs the duties to which the determination in question relates, or

(b) which are the subject of the determination,

if the Ministers consent to the inclusion of persons of that description.
(6) There shall be paid by the Agency—

(a) to the chairman of any regional or local fisheries, recreation and navigation advisory committee established and maintained under this section such remuneration and such travelling and other allowances; and

(b) to any other members of that committee such sums by way of reimbursement (whether in whole or in part) for loss of remuneration, for travelling expenses or for any other out-of-pocket expenses,

as may, with the consent of the Treasury, be determined by one of the Ministers.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I seem to be somewhat fated with this amendment. I did not move it in Committee. I withdrew it without speaking to it because it was part of a grouping and came up at the magic hour of 10 o'clock when the Committee wanted to go home. I have brought it back in the same form and I say at the outset that it is by way of a probing amendment. However, I am slightly thrown again by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, not speaking to her two amendments which are also down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I am sorry in a way because I rather favour those two amendments as opposed to mine. They go slightly broader and include conservation as well. I had not presumed to enter into the realms of conservation.
The reason for tabling this amendment is as a result of the Touche Ross study on the potential management structure for the new environment agency. All the navigation organisations and many other respondents favoured a management structure based somewhat on that of the National Rivers Authority. They also favoured the concept of a line of management which was based on fisheries, recreation, conservation and navigation. That line would flow through head office, down through regional offices and into an area structure.
With that in mind, I propose to amend Clause 13 to include regional committees for recreation and navigation in each of the areas, as I believe it is important that these activities should be defined as part of the consultation process for the environment agency, the regions and areas.
I assumed that perhaps navigation was rather too small a part of the whole new agency to warrant representation on the main environment committee. That may have been a somewhat naive assessment. I shall be delighted if the Minister can reassure me on that point and say that there might be a way of including a navigational interest on the main committee. That original assumption made me bring forward this amendment to see whether navigation and recreation can be represented on some of the lesser committees if they have no chance of being represented on the main committee. I beg to move.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I have some direct experience of the existing NRA advisory committees and in particular the regional fisheries advisory committees. I too had prepared an answer to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but I believe that the principle remains the same. The regional fisheries advisory committees already deal with matters concerning recreation and navigation where they
1684
directly impinge on fisheries activities. That is very necessary. But for these committees to try to deal with all matters concerning these various other functions would be counter productive for the very simple reason that it could easily result in a committee, which would fail to deal with all or some of the constituent functions in an adequate manner. For that simple reason alone I cannot support this amendment.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I too am not happy about this amendment. I have some experience of committees. For five years I was chairman of the regional fisheries advisory committee in the Welsh region. I believe that the effect of this amendment would be to dilute the fisheries committees in a way which would unbalance them and which would greatly upset fishery and angling interests. They are already very concerned about the possibility that fisheries are going to be downgraded. There are so many new and important aspects of the environment agency's functions that fisheries, which on the whole have been very well dealt with by the NRA, will become less important. As I pointed out at Second Reading, fisheries have suffered a drastic reduction in funding. There is real anxiety and I beg the Government to take account of it.
The formulation in Clause 13 of the Bill is right. It preserves the fisheries advisory committees as they are, but allows the new agency, if it wants to, to permit those committees to take on responsibilities for navigation, conservation and recreation. I believe that they can do that. But, if it is laid down in the Bill that the committees are to include all these functions, it would mean that fisheries would be one of four functions and presumably representation would go accordingly. That means that, instead of having committees of people who know and care about fisheries, there would be committees in which only about one-quarter of the members would be so qualified. I think that that would be worrying and a mistake. Therefore, I hope that the Government will stick to their guns and to the current wording of Clause 13.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although what the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, suggests looks reasonable on the surface, we must bear in mind that the new environment agency will have enormous responsibilities. It will be one of the biggest quangos ever. It will have to accept guidance from more than one Minister and will need quite a large organisation. If, in addition to all that, it is going to have the responsibility for finding, choosing and providing opportunities for information to be given to a number of separate committees dealing with each subject, we may well be asking too much of it. Therefore, I must join those noble Lords who have expressed doubts about the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I apologise briefly to the House. I had thought that by not moving my two amendments and allowing a debate to take place on the

1685
amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, I might shorten proceedings a little. I am sorry if I have confused your Lordships.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I wish to make the briefest possible point in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said. Although there is a case over time for making some changes, I think that that should be done locally. The truth of the matter is that the situation varies enormously from region to region. In some regions the NRA at present (and the agency in the future) will have no navigation responsibilities; in others, the river may be an important fishery and the balance may be different. This is a case where it would be sensible for the agency to be able to move over time to a balance which represents the interests on its advisory committees. If we rush into this in legislation, I believe that the concerns which undoubtedly exist among fishing and angling interests will be magnified and we shall be getting off to a very bad start. If, however, flexibility is maintained, there is a possibility of moving over time to arrangements which suit each region.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I do not want to go into a great deal of technical detail, but it is clear that there is a great deal of anxiety among many different quarters and many different interests. I wonder whether it would be a good idea to have some consultation between those different interests and the department before the Bill goes to the other place.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 60, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, would amend or replace Clause 13. This clause requires the agency to establish fisheries advisory committees and to consult them as to the manner in which it performs its fisheries duties. It also provides that the agency may, with the consent of Ministers, additionally consult those committees as to the way in which it performs its duties in respect of recreation, conservation or navigation, and may expand the membership of the committees accordingly. The amendment would instead require the agency to establish committees which would from the outset be consulted not only on matters relating to fisheries, but also on those relating to recreation and navigation.
Although fisheries will by no means be the largest of the agency's functions, it will nevertheless be a very important one. There are some 3 million coarse and game anglers in England and Wales around whom a valuable industry has developed. The future of the sport and of the businesses it supports is largely dependent on the health of our salmon and freshwater fisheries. Salmon and freshwater fish are also an important indicator of water quality and of the general status of our inland waters. The importance of the role of the fisheries function within the agency is recognised by the existing clause, which provides for the establishment of separate fisheries committees, as is presently the case under the NRA.
That is not to say that we consider the agency's duties with regard to recreation, conservation and navigation to be unimportant. At present those activities are dealt
1686
with by the NRA's regional rivers advisory committees. Under the agency, they would come within the scope of the environment protection advisory committees provided for in Clause 12 of the Bill which, in the sense that they would be responsible for all of the functions of the agency, could be regarded as the successors to the regional rivers advisory committees. It is the Government's view that recreation, navigation and inland waterway navigation interests should be properly served by the environment protection advisory committees. The chairmen of environment protection committees will be appointed by the Secretary of State and their members appointed under membership schemes prepared by the agency and approved, with or without modifications, by the Secretary of State in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Bill.
I can assure noble Lords that in appointing the chairmen and considering the membership scheme the Secretary of State will ensure that account is taken of the desirability of securing the representation of recreation, navigation and conservation interests. Schedule 3 also places a number of obligations on the agency to ensure that those likely to be interested are given the opportunity to make representations or objections as regards the schemes for appointment of members to each of the regional advisory committees.
These provisions should ensure that recreation and navigation interests are properly represented. However, we recognise that because the responsibilities of the agency will be wider than those of the NRA it is possible that the environment protection advisory committees would not be able to do full justice to recreation and navigation issues. It is for that reason we have provided that the agency may, with the consent of Ministers, consult additionally the fisheries committees as to the way in which it performs its duties in respect of recreation, navigation, or indeed conservation, and may expand their membership accordingly. The provision is there to meet the concerns that have been raised, and it can be used if need be. This may not be necessary, in which case the provision need not be used. In view of this, we consider that there is no need for combined fisheries, recreation and navigation advisory committees to be established by the Bill.
This particular amendment has attracted a good deal of interest from noble Lords around the House. Therefore, I have sought to explain rather carefully the Government's thinking. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his new clause.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having explained his reasons in some detail. I will go away and look at them carefully. I am not surprised at the siren voices ranged against me. In fairness to my noble friend Lord Moran who speaks of the dilution of the fishing lobby's interests, I too am very concerned about the dilution of the navigation interests. But the Minister has given me slight comfort by saying that he feels the matter will be suitably covered. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for his support. However, in the light of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [The Scottish Environment Protection Agency]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 20, line 19, at end insert:
("(3) SEPA shall, in exercising any of its powers under any enactment, protect and enhance the environment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 61 has been linked with Amendment No. 74 in my name and also with Amendment No. 75 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
The Minister will be aware that during the Committee stage of the Bill the general consensus after considerable debate was that both the environmental agency and SEPA required clearly defined purposes centring about environmental protection and enhancement. As described by the Government on a number of occasions, the purpose of the establishment of the agencies is exactly that: the protection and enhancement of the environment. During the debate in Committee the Minister made it clear that
"Environmental protection and enhancement are, indeed, the main purposes for which the agencies are being established."—[Official Report, 17/1/95; col. 548.]
Such a purpose is also quoted in the draft sustainable development guidance. When asked why the purpose quoted in the guidance could not be used on the face of the Bill, the Minister replied that the Government were concerned that it would render the guidance inflexible.
It is our concern that those new large quangos will have a flexible purpose and be open to modification at the whim of Ministers, and without recourse. That is worrying. A further argument advanced by the Government against giving the agencies a clearly defined purpose on the face of the Bill was that they are due to inherit a long list of functions already prescribed in legislation, and an attempt to give them an overriding statutory purpose might create duplication or conflict. That surely must be a good reason why the agency requires such a clearly defined role.
The new agencies are effectively merging a large number of independent organisations, each with different areas of work and emphasis. In the light of that, it would appear that they have a greater need than ever for a single overall clearly defined role, and that they are given directions by which they can organise themselves and function in a holistic fashion. I hope that the Minister will look on the amendment favourably. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, before speaking to Amendment No. 75, I declare an interest as a modest landowner in Scotland and member of the Scottish Landowners' Federation, of which I am a member by subscription. I thank the noble Earl, the Minister, and his officials for meeting us recently, but I fear that further clarification is needed. I have read the Minister's reply in Committee to an amendment similar to Amendment No. 75, and I note that the Secretary of State will consult
1688
the eight specified bodies and others before giving guidance to SEPA with respect to its aims and objectives.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister why there is a reluctance to put the bodies mentioned in the amendment on the face of the Bill.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in supporting Amendment No. 75, I should declare an interest, in that I own modest land in Scotland which could be affected by the Bill and all the amendments to which I shall speak tonight. The amendment was ably moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Balfour and supported then by the noble Earl, Lord Kintore. But I have to agree with the noble Earl that the assurances then given on behalf of the Government by my noble friend on the Front Bench were not entirely reassuring.
If my noble friend and the Government are prepared to guarantee that the Secretary of State will consult all the categories mentioned in the amendment, then I cannot see that there is any harm in making sure of them on the face of the Bill. Clause 29(1) requires that the Secretary of State shall from time to time give SEPA guidance as to the aims and objectives which he considers it should pursue in the performance of its functions.
Subsection (2) requires that guidance to point SEPA towards achieving sustainable development. I am not quite sure that anyone knows what sustainable development really means, although we all approve of it in theory. Whatever it means, it certainly encompasses a very broad church of possible activity. To illustrate this point, could I ask my noble friend if integrated river catchment management could be covered by subsection (2)? I believe it could, which would confirm that the clause has very wide implications.
Be that as it may, subsection (3) of Clause 29 is very strong stuff indeed. It says:
"In performing its functions, SEPA shall have regard to guidance given [by the Secretary of State) under this Section".
So we are not dealing with guidance which SEPA may easily ignore or, indeed, ignore at all. The clause as it stands appears to me draconian and does not require the Secretary of State to consult with anyone at all. It is for those reasons that the noble Earl and I, and others, believe that all the consultees should be on the face of the Bill. The Secretary of State would, of course, be free to consult others if he so wished.
The Bill is a longish document, running to some 267 pages at the moment. It would not be made noticeably longer by the addition of the 14 lines required by the amendment. However, it would be much improved. I very much hope that my noble friend can accept the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I shall refer first to Amendments Nos. 61 and 74, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I can assure the noble Lord that we want SEPA to protect and, where possible, to enhance the environment. Such an aim is already included in the draft management statement and in the outline of the scope of guidance

1689
which we intend to issue under Clause 29. The agency is of course to be called the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The question, therefore, seems to be whether that aspiration should be enshrined in legislation.
In practice, an aim of this type in a management statement or guidance can sit more comfortably alongside any duties of the agency which could in other circumstances have led to conflict with the aim. However, if that non-statutory aim were to be enshrined in the Bill as a duty, along the lines of Amendment No. 61, there would be no obvious way of establishing a hierarchy of action. Certainly the guidance proposed in Amendment No. 74, might help. But, as guidance, it could not resolve the legal wrangles which a duty of the nature proposed could cause.
The noble Lord stressed that flexibility is one of the underpinning issues that he would be seeking from the agency. By having the objective of SEPA issued in a management statement and guidance, I believe that we shall achieve that flexibility with the other aims that SEPA will be pursuing.
Given the fact that SEPA would already have a more defined focus on the prevention and control of pollution than the Environment Agency for England and Wales, which would have wider functions, the Government are not convinced that it is necessary for SEPA to have a principal aim set out in legislation.
Amendment No. 75, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, to which my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch spoke and to which he has also attached his name, would set out in detail on the face of the Bill the bodies that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State must consult before issuing guidance to SEPA on its aims and objectives. As regards whether or not it would be appropriate to include such a list of consultees for the guidance on the face of the Bill, I can confirm that the bodies included in the amendment would, in either event, be consulted.
I agree with the principle behind the amendment; namely, that statutory consultation in relation to the guidance should take place with interested parties. The Government will, therefore, bring forward a suitable amendment on Third Reading. I should add that that amendment will also incorporate appropriate provisions for publicity.
I should tell my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch that we shall consider carefully what he said about whether or not such bodies should be on the face of the Bill. He described sustainable development as being a policy area that incorporates a "broad church" of activity. If anything, I suggest that it is because sustainable development covers almost all human activity that we are reluctant actually to start specifying individual interest groups on the face of the Bill for fear of having to run to many pages of legislation to cover all such parties. However, I have given the assurance that those bodies mentioned in the amendment will be consulted in the formulation of Clause 29 guidance.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I invite him to withdraw his amendments on that basis. I would also ask my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, to withdraw
1690
Amendment No. 75 on the basis of the undertaking that I have given about a government amendment on Third Reading.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, that is probably the most generous thing that has happened to me this evening while I have been sitting here for many hours listening to the debates. It would be very wrong of me not to welcome the Minister's concession. However, in his later reply, could the Minister give me a definition of the expression "the hierarchy of action"? I wondered exactly what he meant. I can see it vaguely as meaning that the same thing would come to the top every time. But, if you have basic principles such as those suggested in my amendment, which are so simple, then the prime motive should be fairly clear to most reasonable people. I must admit that I have not heard that phrase before; and, indeed, I am dying to use it at some point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [The Scottish Environment Protection Agency]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 136, line 26, leave out from ("appoint") to ("such") in line 27.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Transfer of functions to SEPA]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 21, leave out lines 4 to 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the proposals in the Bill, contrary to seeking to strengthen the organisation of environmental protection in Scotland, merely seek to supplant the operational aspects of pollution control work which should be a matter for locally based personnel, locally accountable and remaining as close as possible to the industries and communities with which, and within which, they operate. District and islands councils in Scotland have been responsible since 1975 for waste regulation in Scotland, first, in terms of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and, since May 1994, under the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 which brought into force the licensing provisions of Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The principle of separation of regulation from operation in the area of waste disposal is already achieved through administrative arrangements made by local authorities. I am not aware of hard evidence to support the case for physical separation of these functions.
New powers were given to district and islands councils to implement local authority air pollution control (LAAPC) in terms of Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 over "less polluting processes". These new controls came into effect only in April of 1992 following a very great deal of preparatory work, including the training of enforcement officers. It is scarcely credible that after such a short time the Government should propose to remove these duties from local authorities in Scotland, especially as their English counterparts are, as far as I understand the Bill, to retain the function. Has there been any criticism of Scottish

1691
local authorities in their carrying out of local authority air pollution control? It is clearly anomalous that differences should exist in Scotland when the 1990 Act is a Great Britain measure. The logic behind the argument is that there are fewer air emission processes which fall under the scope of the regulations in Scotland than in England and Wales.
I hope that the Minister will be able to shed some light on this matter before I decide whether to withdraw the amendment. Even if I do, I may return to the matter on Third Reading. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord in moving Amendment No. 63 has raised a number of topics. He asked whether there have been any complaints to date about the role of the local authorities in Scotland in controlling air polluting processes. I can confirm that there have been absolutely no complaints whatsoever about the local authority administration of this policy. Indeed, I believe there have been no complaints about any of the constituent ingredients going into SEPA. Generally it is realised that all these functions can be done much better if they are done on an integrated basis by a central agency rather than on a segregated basis across the country.
Further, the noble Lord asked why it was necessary at all to centralise the duty given that the local authorities have only had this duty for a comparatively short time in Scotland. In Scotland there are, I believe, some 1,100 processes throughout the whole country that qualify as LAAPC processes, whereas in England and Wales I believe there are some 12,000 or 14,000. Therefore in Scotland it makes considerable sense to centralise the management of those 1,000 to 1,200 processes with one group of skilled personnel, whereas in England it would be unrealistic to hope to manage all 14,000 processes from one central unit.
I turn now to the rest of the ground that the noble Lord covered. Under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which the noble Lord mentioned, disposal authorities are responsible for the disposal and regulation of waste. Clause 21(1) (c) therefore seeks to transfer only those functions which cover waste regulation. Waste disposal functions will remain with local authorities.
The functions of disposal authorities under the 1974 Act are being progressively replaced by new provisions in Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. There may therefore be no need to transfer the specified functions of disposal authorities to SEPA because there may be no existing functions to transfer. However, I am sure that the House will agree that it would be better to include this provision than to omit it and be left with a possible legislative gap. I do not believe that it would make much organisational sense to leave local authorities with responsibility for licensing one or two waste sites at the most when the overwhelming number of waste sites would be regulated by SEPA.
I hope that the noble Lord understands the explanation I have given. I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I grasped roughly what the Minister meant. He said that
1692
there had been no complaints about the present system. I thought that we were in an age when if something is not broken you do not repair it. I read out the number of Acts that have been passed on this subject in the past few years, which is quite horrendous.
I accept the point that because England is so much bigger it would be difficult to handle the matter from the centre. That is a factor which is in the Minister's favour. I shall consider his statement with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Transfer of property, rights and liabilities to SEPA]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 23, line 20, at end insert ("but only after consultation with SEPA and, in the case of a scheme which was approved by him (with or without modifications), after consultation with the local authority which submitted the scheme to him for approval.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Transfers of property etc: supplemental provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Consultation with respect to drainage works]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 23, line 38, leave out ("pollution to controlled waters") and insert ("any environmental damage").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 67 it may be convenient to speak also to Amendment No. 68.
The amendment makes certain changes to the provisions of Clause 24 relating to consultation with respect to drainage works to ensure that those who carry out such works properly inform SEPA regarding the effect of the works and carry out SEPA's recommendations to prevent environmental damage.
The provisions regarding the obligation to consult with SEPA in respect of drainage works require to be strengthened. The clause limits the duty to consult to obtaining views about the precautions which should be taken to prevent pollution to controlled waters. The amendment seeks to extend the advice from SEPA to preventing environmental damage. It would have a duty to ensure that its advice was guided towards protecting against environmental damage. So there is no need for the Secretary of State to make regulations exempting certain drainage works from Clause 24(1). It is inappropriate for the Bill to have a circumvention provision of this nature.
I hope that the Minister will agree that again this is a neater way of dealing with the matter than that suggested in the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I understand the sentiment behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. However, I believe that it would increase SEPA's interest in drainage works considerably beyond its normal span of responsibilities. There is one very clear reason why it would make sense for SEPA to he consulted as to the precautions to prevent pollution

1693
resulting from drainage works. If pollution was to result from the carrying on of such works, SEPA might have to prepare a case for the procurator fiscal. The agency would have no corresponding role if the drainage works were alleged to have caused other environmental damage.
Behind this amendment seems to lie the noble Lord's ambition to expand the role of SEPA beyond the clearly focused regulatory body charged with the prevention and control of pollution, which the Government believe to be most appropriate. As we have debated at length in Committee the broad principle of the scope of SEPA's functions, I do not believe that your Lordships would wish me to repeat the arguments again.
Amendment No. 68 requires SEPA's views, or "recommendations" as they are styled, to be followed. This would leave no discretion. SEPA's advice would have to be taken and acted upon in each and every case. Whatever the agency says, the person carrying on the works would have to comply.
This would be an extremely onerous requirement. Even the system of integrated pollution control includes an appeals procedure, which would enable an operator to challenge a decision of the agency. Yet, in relation to these consultation arrangements a person would be obliged to accept SEPA's views lock, stock and barrel.
It is right that SEPA's views should be made available and taken into account, but it is for those carrying out drainage works to accept the final responsibility for their actions. To do otherwise would be to distort the meaning of "consultation" as it applies generally in practice and in statute.
What the noble Lord is suggesting in the second amendment is more akin to a system of consent rather than consultation. No case has been made that this level of regulatory burden, which would unduly interfere with the execution of such works, is justified.
The noble Lord did not feel that there was need for exemptions to be issued by the Secretary of State. However, once again I have to point out, as I believe I did at Committee stage, that some drainage works carried out in Scotland would be of a minor nature, involving maintenance or small repairs to farm field drains, and so forth. It would clearly be sensible for the Secretary of State to consider how best to deploy the resources available to SEPA and therefore to focus those resources on that part of the drainage activity which most required attention.
On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the trouble he has taken to explain the Government's view. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Clause 25 [Power of SEPA to purchase land compulsorily]:
The Earl of Kintore The Earl of Kintore moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 24, line 2, at end insert ("—but only—

(a) after SEPA has taken all reasonable steps to reach agreement for purchase of the land and has been unable to do so on terms which the Secretary of State considers reasonable; and

(b) it is reasonable in all the circumstances that the land he purchased compulsorily.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 69, I speak also to Amendment No. 70.
Clause 25 provides that the Secretary of State may authorise SEPA to purchase land compulsorily. I have no argument with that, but would like to see some mention that the powers will be used only as a very last resort. In his reply to a similar point at Committee stage, the Minister said:
"The Secretary of State will act as a safety net against any such unreasonable use of such powers. In a sense, he acts to protect against the abuse of such powers".—[Official Report, 26/1/95; col. 1223.]
As the Secretary of State authorises the use of compulsory purchase powers, but must also guard against their abuse, I wonder whether the Secretary of State will have a conflict of interest. This was certainly recognised in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 and a special parliamentary procedure, as in Amendment No. 70, is in place. It is to be hoped that compulsory purchase powers will have to he used only rarely, but when they are, individual landowner's rights must be protected. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, who has ably moved Amendment No. 69, and to speak to Amendment No. 70 which requires a compulsory order to be subject to a special parliamentary procedure if the owner of the land in question objects to its compulsory acquisition. At Committee stage, an amendment similar to Amendment No. 69 was moved by my noble friend Lord Balfour and supported by the noble Earl.
I have to say that I agree with the noble Earl that the reply of my noble friend from the Front Bench did not strike me as reassuring. My noble friend suggested that the Secretary of State could be relied on in future to act as a shield against any unreasonable use of the absolute power of compulsory purchase which is now contained in Clause 25.
I have to suggest to my noble friend that that cannot be right. Whatever faith one may be tempted to place in a Conservative Secretary of State—and mine would not be complete because even Conservative Secretaries of State are human and seem to be more and more under the influence of their civil servants—I fear we must face the ghastly prospect that one day, within the lifetime of the Bill when it has become an Act, a Socialist Secretary of State might hold office. I would, of course, agree with my noble friend that such a prospect is not only unpleasant but also remote. Nevertheless, it does exist and the Bill should be amended to cater for the eventuality, however distant.

1695
That is a general and rather obvious reason why the amendment should be included in the Bill. But there are other more specific and perhaps more important reasons. The first is that the amendment mirrors subsection (4) of Section 5 of the Scottish natural heritage Act, which was included in the SNH Bill by your Lordships' House under the far-sighted influence of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who piloted that Bill through this House in 1991. All the arguments which applied to SNH and which were accepted by your Lordships and the other place apply to SEPA. Indeed, some of them apply more strongly in SEPA's case than they did for SNH.
SNH has been and is a success. It has done much to promote harmony in Scotland between the various different interests which bear upon the land and which have often been in conflict. It is generally accepted that the root of much of its success lies in the amendments to the SNH Bill which were carried in your Lordships' House, even though some of them were controversial at the time, and in the amendments agreed here by the Government, guided by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
One of the most important of your Lordships' amendments was to insert the protection for landowners to be found in Section 5 (4) of the SNH Act, which Amendment No. 70 today imitates. I said that the argument in favour of this amendment is, if anything, stronger in this Bill than it was in the SNH Bill. This is so because, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, has rightly pointed out, SEPA is to be very much more the creature of the Secretary of State than was or is SNH. As drafted, Clauses 29, 30 and 38 of this Bill ensure that. So SEPA will not be, as originally intended by the Government, an agency at arm's length from government. It will, alas, in most respects be an arm of the Secretary of State.
This state of affairs, which many might regard as unfortunate, means that the protection afforded by this amendment is more needed than it was for SNH. Even a well-intentioned Secretary of State would find himself more in conflict with his duty to safeguard an individual from SEPA (which will be largely his alter ego) than he would have done with SNH as originally designed. For all these reasons, I very much hope that my noble friend can accept the amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch have both spoken to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. Amendment No. 69 would prescribe on the face of the Bill the conditions which would have to be met before the use of SEPA's powers to purchase land compulsorily. Amendment No. 70 would mean that the compulsory purchase order would be subject to special parliamentary procedure in the event of any objections to it.
At present, the Secretary of State has powers to authorise river purification boards to purchase land compulsorily under Section 9 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951. Local authorities also have similar powers under separate legislation. Clause 25 of the Bill does not therefore introduce anything new; it merely re-enacts this existing power in respect of
1696
SEPA and extends it to all the agency's functions. The powers under the 1951 Act have not in fact ever been exercised. I point out to my noble friend that that is despite the passage of many Secretaries of State from both main parties. There is no reason to suggest that the establishment of SEPA will materially alter the need to exercise compulsory purchase powers.
I can assure the House, and my noble friend and the noble Earl in particular, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would authorise SEPA to use such powers in relation to specific land required by the agency to discharge its functions effectively only in circumstances where other locations were unsuitable and where it was not possible for a reasonable agreement between SEPA and the landowner to be reached. In other words, I can categorically say to the noble Earl that this compulsory purchase power would be a last-resort option open to the Secretary of State.
The noble Earl also suggested the possibility of a conflict of role for the Secretary of State in discharging this duty. I stress to him and my noble friend that the Secretary of State will be able to prevent misuse by authorising only in reasonable circumstances. Therefore, it is not so much a conflict as a prevention of a misuse of a power.
My noble friend Lord Pearson explained that he based his amendment on the limits imposed on SNH's use of its compulsory purchase powers. Given that the compulsory purchase of land has the potential to be a powerful tool in the hands of a nature conservation body to further its interests, we agreed that it was necessary to limit the exercise of such powers to fairly specific circumstances in the case of SNH. However, the purchase of such land is not a normal means of preventing or controlling pollution, and there is therefore not the same risk of these powers being used by the SEPA as a means to help achieve its objectives.
If my noble friend feels, on reflection, that further discussion is needed, I suggest that this discussion is pursued between now and the next stage of Bill, so that we can try and sort out where we may have ground that is common to us both.
Given those reassurances, I hope that both noble Lords will be able to withdraw their amendment.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his very full reply, which I should like to read in Hansard. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 69.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 70:
Page 24, line 7, at end insert:
("(3) Where the Secretary of State or SEPA has prepared a proposal which involves the compulsory acquisition of land, a compulsory purchase order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure in any case where an objection has been duly made by the owner of the land and has not been withdrawn.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it is order for me also, as the mover of Amendment No. 70, to thank my noble friend for what he said, and to say that I very much welcome his offer of further discussion on the compulsory purchase powers of the Bill before we reach

1697
Third Reading. I would just point out that, although I accept what he said about the pollution control powers of SEPA, I think we need to have further talk in regard to the powers towards the natural heritage which are also bestowed on SEPA. I look forward to those discussions.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 25, line 9, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 72 and 73. These amendments would ensure that SEPA makes its records open to inspection by the public.
As the Bill stands, the use of the words,
"may afford members of the public … facilities for inspecting … those records",
is unsatisfactory. It leaves the decision to the discretion of SEPA.
In addition, the amendment would ensure that merely inspecting records is free, and where charges are made for photocopying, they do not exceed local copying costs. I spoke about this matter in Committee.
There must be this right for the public. You can go to the national archives in Scotland and get almost any other record. You can go to the local library and get details of local council meetings. And of course the press attend most council meetings. You can even attend the committees of local authorities now. This facility will not be abused; there will be only certain matters for which certain people will wish to be there. It is extremely important that these amendments, or others that are in empathy with them, should be accepted. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 71, 72 and 73 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, deal with measures related to public access to information held by SEPA. We covered this subject in some detail in Committee, as the noble Lord said. However, these amendments are specific to SEPA's preserved records—that is to say, those records which in the agency's view are worthy of preservation and are kept and managed accordingly.
Amendment No. 71 would require SEPA to make all of its preserved records available to the public. Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 taken together would mean that inspection of those records would be free of charge, and copies or extracts would be obtainable either free of charge or on the payment of local photocopying rates.
The specific provisions in respect of preserved records are in addition to provisions in the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, which do give the public a right of access to information. SEPA will not therefore have the discretion to withhold information without good cause. Only exemptions permitted by the regulations will be possible.
1698
Preserved records may contain sensitive information, just like any other records. I should not therefore support an absolute requirement to give the public access to all of SEPA's preserved records. Such a requirement may mean that companies would be reluctant to pass commercially confidential information to SEPA because the agency would be obliged to make that information publicly available. That would surely interfere with the efficiency with which SEPA is able to pursue its duties. Moreover, their manner and location of storage may make public access quite tricky. If the inconvenience and staff time involved appears disproportionate to the value of the data on the record, then it is surely right that SEPA should have some discretion.
Amendment No. 72 would use the approach that we have adopted to public registers and apply it to preserved records. However, I believe that there is a clear distinction between a public register, which exists solely as a means of making information about authorisations and consents readily available, and records, which have other justifications.
The clause as drafted in the Bill would enable SEPA to make inspection facilities freely available; but it also gives the agency the flexibility to charge a reasonable amount. Free access to registers is one thing, and it would be appropriate for SEPA to bear the costs involved; but access to preserved records has much wider implications because of the sheer scale of material stored. Against that background, I believe that it is right and proper that SEPA should be able to recover some or all of the expense involved.
I also believe that SEPA should have the scope to recover, through reasonable charges, the costs involved in obtaining copies or extracts of records. I cannot therefore accept Amendment No. 73, which would restrict payments to "local photocopying rates", assuming that such a term can be defined. One of the potential benefits of SEPA is consistency of procedures and I would hope for a standard photocopying charge, not fluctuations depending on which local office is involved. Again, the clause as drafted in the Bill does not require there to be a charge. But if one were to be levied, I think that SEPA should be able to recover some or all of its costs.
The Government recognise the importance of public access to environmental information. The amendments would, however, unduly fetter SEPA's discretion and possibly tie up staff resources, which could be better deployed on tasks more central to pollution control. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I understand the point made by the Minister about the records and competition and the disadvantage that could be incurred by people doing specific work of whatever nature for the agency. But I find it difficult to believe that there is any great loss in payment at local photocopying rates, when one considers that practically every new post office in the country has a little machine in the corner from which for two or three shillings (in old money) a member of staff could obtain copies. Also,

1699
most libraries have a machine that will make copies. It makes one wonder whether there is any eagerness to let the public know what is happening.
The Earl of Lindsay: Perhaps I may point out that this point was touched on earlier at Committee stage. The photocopying machine in the corner of a post office or library which charges a certain number of pence per copy is a machine to which you take the information that you have brought to the premises, photocopy it yourself and again leave the premises. With SEPA you may go in and request information which may not even be stored in that building and which has to be retrieved from another building, and so on. There is a worry that a disproportionate amount of SEPA's resources may be deployed in simply retrieving pieces of paper from other buildings at too low a cost in these circumstances.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the speech of the Minister cleared up some points. I have no objection to such a situation in that there are bound to be delays and so forth, as there are with wills and things like that. But after a certain time a will can be obtained merely by going to the appropriate office in Edinburgh. We are not suggesting that a person should be able to go to a village in Scotland and demand that somebody be sent to obtain a record. The individual involved must obtain it.
I have a feeling that we are not going to get a great deal further with this matter tonight. We have raised the point and I hope that at some future date we shall be able to look at it again—perhaps not in this Bill but in some other Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No 72 to 74 not moved.]
The Earl of Kintore The Earl of Kintore had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 75:
Page 25, line 29, at end insert:
("(4) The Secretary of State shall consult the bodies and persons specified in subsection (5) below before giving guidance under subsection (1) above.
(5) The bodies and persons mentioned in subsection (4) above are—

(a) SEPA;

(b) Scottish Natural Heritage;

(c) Historic Scotland;

(d) Scottish Enterprise;

(e) Highlands and Islands Enterprise;

(f) the East of Scotland Water Authority;

(g) the West of Scotland Water Authority;

(h) the North of Scotland Water Authority;

(i) such bodies, representing the owners and occupiers of land, and industry in Scotland, as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult; and

(j) such other persons as he considers it appropriate to consult.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments and look forward to the Government's amendment at Third Reading. In the meantime, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Clause 30 [General environmental and recreational duties]:
[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 25, line 36, after ("architectural") insert (", engineering").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Kintore The Earl of Kintore moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 25, line 40, at end insert "and—

(d) to have regard to the needs of agriculture, fisheries and forestry;

(e) to have regard to the need for social and economic development in Scotland or any part of Scotland; and

(f) to have regard to the interest of owners and occupiers of land and of local communities.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I can be brief in speaking to this amendment following the acceptance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to consider the Scottish aspect in Amendment No. 79 before Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in supporting Amendment No. 79 I shall recall what I said in relation to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wade.
I begin by reminding your Lordships of the passage of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill through your Lordships' House. Clause 3 of the SNH Act includes the words,
"it shall be the duty of SNH in exercising its functions to take such account as may be appropriate in the circumstances of".
It then goes on to identify various categories which SNH is obliged to consider, including,
"(b) the needs of agriculture, fisheries and forestry; … (e) the interests of owners and occupiers of land; and (f) the interests of local communities".
I think I am right in saying that all those categories were inserted into the SNH Bill either by Divisions in your Lordships' House or by agreement with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who was in charge of the Bill. Here again, exactly the same arguments apply to our consideration of SEPA's duties (especially when they are physically linked with those of the Secretary of State as they are in the first line of Clause 30) as applied to our consideration of SNH's duties in 1991, which then led us to make the changes in that Bill to which I referred.
In those circumstances I hope that my noble friend will feel able to consult with those of us who are interested in the clause before he brings forward amendments similar to the ones made to Clause 7 earlier this evening.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, Amendment No. 79, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and spoken to by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would place balancing duties on the Secretary of State and SEPA in relation to agriculture, fisheries and forestry, social and economic development and the interests of owners and occupiers of land and of local communities.

1701
I envisage that the matters addressed by this amendment will be covered by the guidance we will issue under Clause 29. Nevertheless, I shall consider further whether additional balancing duties should be written on the face of the Bill. The Government will bring forward their own amendment at Third Reading. In framing our amendment, we shall certainly wish to take the noble Earl's amendment into account during our deliberations, and indeed everything that has been said tonight. We shall also want to look at any implications for Scotland resulting from the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wade to Clause 7 in relation to the environment agency for England and Wales. On that basis, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 26, line 3, after ("architectural") insert (", engineering").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Clause 32 [General duties with respect to water]:
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 85 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Incidental general functions]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 29, line 21, after ("property") insert ("and").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 88 and 89. I shall speak to all three amendments. Amendment No. 88, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, seeks to delete the power under Clause 35(1) (b) for the environment agency to institute criminal proceedings. I would stress that the NRA already has this power under Section 4(1) (b). The NRA has made good use of this power. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded that the agency should be denied the power which the NRA now has and has needed to use in order to carry out its functions. I am sure that my noble friend will want to speak to the amendment but I have indicated that I believe that the power is required. Indeed, in Committee I undertook to consider an amendment from my noble friend Lord Crickhowell about the agency's ability to institute civil proceedings also. I am giving careful consideration to what might need to be done in this respect. However, I wish to clarify the position which we have been discussing about the environment agency's powers under Clause 35(1) to institute criminal proceedings. Amendments Nos. 87 and 89 are minor and technical government amendments which make it clear that the environment agency and not SEPA has the power to bring criminal proceedings and that it may do so only in respect of England and Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89. I assure my noble
1702
friend on the Front Bench that it is not the intention of Amendment No. 88 to delete the power of any agency to institute criminal proceedings. The intention is to make it quite clear by the deletion of this line that the power extends to both criminal and civil proceedings. I rely for this on the contention that under subsection (1) (a) the powers granted are sufficient to cover both civil and criminal proceedings and that the reference to criminal proceedings is not necessary in subsection (1) (b).
I go back to the discussions in Committee on 31st January (at cols. 1343 and 1344 of the Official Report) when my noble friend Lord Mills sought to introduce a specific reference to civil proceedings. On that occasion my noble friend assured him that subsection (1) (a) was sufficient to cover the civil proceedings.
I would use the same argument in relation to criminal proceedings. I go a stage further and say that I do not believe that my noble friend's answer in Committee was completely correct. Certainly, there is bound to be doubt that civil proceedings are included in the wording at present in line 23. Although it appears to be covered as an example of a general list of things which the agencies can do, nevertheless there is another principle that the reference to one matter may be thought to exclude the other. Therefore, there would be a very considerable body of opinion which would say that when criminal proceedings are referred to it is automatically suggested that civil proceedings are not included.
Having dealt with my own Amendment No. 88, as regards the way in which the Bill stands at the moment, I should look at the two amendments in the name of my noble friend. He said that they are simple drafting amendments. I agree that the drafting of line 23 may be defective. I do not believe that it would be improved all that much by Amendment No. 89 to add as a limp tail to a list of things which each new agency may do the bald rider that the English and Welsh agency may,
"institute proceedings in England and Wales".
In my opinion, that flies in the face of good and clear drafting. It is both confusing to the reader and leaves at large and in limbo the question of what proceedings may be instituted by the Scottish agency. I have some considerable doubt as to when and where the English and Welsh agency may institute civil proceedings.
At this late hour, I suggest that my noble friend might take this matter away. The point which my noble friend wishes to make can best be dealt with and best made with a different amendment altogether delegating to the generality of subsection (1) (a), and that the Bill would be improved by the acceptance of my Amendment No. 88 to which Amendment No. 87 is a most welcome paving amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in speaking to the previous amendment, I addressed this amendment. I believe that we tabled these amendments to make certain that there was no doubt remaining on the face of the Bill. I said as regards the previous amendment that I needed to look to see whether the agency's ability to institute civil proceedings was there. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell was concerned about that. I have given careful consideration to what might be done in

1703
that respect. I believe that the Government amendments are the correct ones in the correct place in order to clear up doubts.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am entitled to rise after the Minister. It is clear that I am not.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 29, leave out line 23 and insert:
("and the Agency may institute criminal proceedings in England and Wales.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 29, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) Each new Agency shall work with such industry bodies as it considers appropriate to promote in the United Kingdom—

(a) research into clean technology; and

(b) monitoring of the use of clean technology.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendment No. 91. We had a short debate in Committee on these two matters. I thought it worthwhile raising them again at Report stage in the hope that we might get something more encouraging from the Government than we had in Committee. It seems to us that both agencies should encourage research into clean technology and monitor its use. This is a very simple proposition. As we have argued from Second Reading onwards, the agencies are not simply a joining together of three bodies, as some have tried to pretend. Their remit is much wider than that and, in our view, part of that remit should be the subjects mentioned in Amendment No. 90.
As regards Amendment No. 91, it is again a question of promoting the proper reporting by private companies, government departments and other bodies of the effects on the environment of their activities. As I said in Committee, the CBI and local authorities have gone quite some way in that regard. It is a matter of general interest and I very much hope that the Government will accept that it is a proper function of the agency to engage in such promotion. As I have said, I am waiting for words of encouragement from the Minister so I shall not take up any more of your Lordships' time. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, he has returned to these two subjects which he raised during the Committee stage of the Bill, and I hope that this time I can satisfy him as to why I do not think that his amendments are necessary.
Amendment No. 90 seeks to place a duty on the agency to promote research into clean technology, and also to promote monitoring of its use. The agency is already required under Clause 5(4) to follow developments in technology and techniques for preventing or minimising or remedying or mitigating the effects of pollution on the environment. Clause 35(5) (a) places a duty on each new agency to make arrangements
1704
for the carrying out of research and related activities, whether by itself or others, in respect of matters to which its functions relate. Where clean technology can make a contribution to controlling or preventing environmental pollution, the agency already has clear duties. Similarly, Clause 5(2) requires the agency to compile information relating to pollution of the environment, whether obtained through its own monitoring or other activities, or from other sources, for the purposes of facilitating the carrying out of its pollution control functions or enabling it to form an opinion of the general state of environmental pollution.
In addition, in exercising its IPC functions, each agency must encourage the use of the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs (BATNEEC), and the concept of the best practicable environmental option underlies many of the agencies' functions. BATNEEC in itself encourages innovation, and this seems the appropriate way for regulatory bodies such as the agencies to encourage clean technology.
Amendment No. 91 seeks to place a duty on each new agency to promote the proper reporting by private companies, government departments, local authorities and other appropriate public bodies of the environmental effects of their activities. I would not wish to disagree that such reporting on environmental performance is something we would wish to encourage; we would also wish to see the development of business-led good practice in environmental reporting, and similar initiatives throughout the public sector. But I am not persuaded that that is a role for the agencies.
Of course it is right that, in seeking authorisations for potentially polluting processes, companies should assess and provide information on environmental impacts. That is why the Environmental Protection Act 1990 already provides for this. Similarly, the agencies will deal with local authorities at a local and practical level in the context of carrying out their pollution control and water management functions. I do not think that promoting environmental reporting to local government fits in naturally with this, or that it is something the agencies should logically do. Government departments are required to carry out environmental assessments of key new policies, and to make an environmental statement in their annual departmental reports or equivalent documents. And while we would indeed wish to encourage other public bodies to set out details of their environmental performance, I do not think it is for the agency to decide which of those bodies should be encouraged to do so. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I am reasonably satisfied with his reply to Amendment No. 90 although I shall have to read what he said in the light of his reference to provisions in the Bill. However, I am not satisfied with his reply to Amendment No. 91. I believe that it is a proper function for the agency to do what the amendment asks. Again, that is a difference between us about the agency's role and how wide it should be. We believe that it should be wider than the Government at present intend. However, at this time of night and at this

1705
stage of the Bill I am not prepared to press the matter, but I give notice to the Government that this will certainly be taken up when the Bill goes to another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No.92:
Page 29, line 43, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 92 I wish at the outset to thank the Minister for a very useful exchange of letters. I also thank his officials for some very useful consultations over this and other matters to which I shall return, probably next week. Your Lordships may feel that this amendment is only a matter of perception. However, I draw attention to what the Minister said in Committee when he set out the two categories of information that might be made available by the agency. The first is that obtained through pure research. The other, which is of more concern to me, is environmental information which the agency obtains through its statutory duties. The agency is under a duty to make that information available at reasonable charge, according to the environmental information regulations.
In the Minister's own words, there is doubt whether it is right to use the word "reasonable" or the word "appropriate". He says in his letter that the only doubt is whether the use of "reasonable" in the Bill will have unintended effects. I ask my noble friend why that doubt should arise when it has been used previously in primary legislation, notably in Section 52 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Control of Pollution Act 1974, although I accept that those provisions have now been superseded.
Perhaps I may say a little mischievously en passant that in Amendment No. 161 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ullswater the relevant wording is
"to secure that the registers maintained by them under this section are available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge…"
If it can be used effectively in the 1974 and 1990 Acts and in Amendment No. 161 in this Bill, why cannot it be used in the instance to which Amendment No. 92 refers? I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I speak briefly to Amendment No. 93 which is grouped with the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The purpose of Amendment No.93 is to ensure that the agency's power to charge such fee as it considers appropriate for research and related matters is subject to a reasonable cost.
Clause 35(5) (b) attempts to give the agency power to charge whatever sum it considers appropriate for the results of research and related activities. The advice that I have been given by EarthRights—the law and resources centre—is that Article 5 of Directive 90/313/EEC provides that any charge for the provision of the agency's environmental information may not exceed a reasonable cost. Therefore, EarthRights argue that the clause as it stands may be unlawful. The results
1706
of research and related activities carried out by the environmental agencies will virtually always constitute environmental information within the terms of the European directive. So, if the agencies' power to charge for the supply of that information where it was in the form of "research or related activities" was "such as it considers appropriate", there is a danger that the directive's requirement of "reasonable cost" would be evaded. I do not expect the Minister to comment on this in great detail at this time of night, but I request that he consider the matter further during the Bill's passage.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 92 would amend Clause 35(5) (b) to enable the agencies to charge a "reasonable" fee for research and related activities, instead of an "appropriate" charge, as currently provided.
I have some sympathy with my noble friend's wish to ensure that the charges which the agency makes for its research are reasonable. That is indeed the Government's intention, and I have considered the matter further since my noble friend raised the issue in Committee. However, I am advised by my lawyers that "appropriate" is the correct adjective to use in order to achieve that objective. It provides a wide discretion, from no charge at all—as is expressly provided by Clause 35(6)—to the market price. But while the agencies will have that discretion, they will also be fettered by the requirement that the charge is "appropriate". So, where it is appropriate to make research available free of charge the agencies can do so. On the other hand, where the market price is appropriate—as, for instance, in the development of a new piece of monitoring equipment—then the agencies may charge at that level. However, the agencies must not charge unreasonably. If they did so, they could be subject to judicial review.
My noble friend referred to other legislation where the term "reasonable" is used. I do not want to get into a long debate about the merits of existing legislation. I merely point out to him that Section 52 of the Environmental Protection Act, which is the section he quoted, concerns charges which may be levied by waste disposal and collection authorities on one another. It is right to use the word "reasonable" when determining statutory fees and charges, but what we are referring to in Clause 35 is payment for research and related activities. That needs to cover a range of charges, depending upon what is appropriate. All public bodies must act reasonably, and that applies to the agency in charging for research.
I hope I have convinced my noble friend that we have the right formulation for this provision, and that there is no intention of allowing the agency to make unreasonable charges for research and related activities.
Amendment No. 93, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would further amend Clause 35(5) (b) to make payment of charges subject to Article 5 of Directive 90/313 on the freedom of access to information on the environment, which says that charges must not exceed a reasonable cost. That directive has been transposed into law here by the Environmental Information Regulations 1992. Those regulations

1707
(Regulation 3(4) (a)) include provisions for the imposition of a charge on any person in respect of costs reasonably attributable to the supply of environmental information.
Since those regulations will apply directly to the supply of any environmental information by the agency, they already lead to the result that the noble Lord's amendment seeks to achieve. If any agency attempted to charge a fee for environmental information, and that fee exceeded what was permitted by Article 5 of the directive, it could be subject to judicial review. So I hope that with those words I have managed to persuade the noble Lord that his amendment is not required.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he said, in connection with the term "appropriate" in Clause 35(5) (b), that a fee that was not appropriate could be challenged by way of judicial review. Will he confirm that with the fee being described as such as the agency considers appropriate, as distinct from such fee as is appropriate, the same degree of objectivity applies? In other words, will he confirm that the agency's discretion does not reduce the objectivity of the appropriateness of the fee, if I may put it in that way?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that under Clause 35(5) (b) the agency is in charge of:
"such fee as it considers appropriate",
so it is a responsibility of the agency. I believe that that is where the responsibility should lie, and so it should be subject to judicial review if the consideration is that the fee is inappropriate.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response, which I have to say was somewhat disappointing. He did not comment—I do not know whether he will—on the use of the word "reasonable" in Clause 54. It always amuses me that one calls in aid the lawyer's opinion; and we all know that one lawyer will give you one opinion while another will give you a different opinion. In the instance which I am discussing with your Lordships this evening, I cannot help thinking that there is a certain obstinacy in not acceding to my request. However, I do not believe that I can take the matter much further this evening. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 94, I have to point out to the House that, if it were to be agreed to, I could not call Amendments Nos. 95, 96 or 97.
Clause 37 [General duty of the new Agencies to have regard to costs and benefits in exercising powers]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 31, line 28, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("( ) The Ministers shall from time to time give guidance to each new Agency with respect to the new Agency's assessment, or otherwise, of the financial and environmental costs which are likely
1708
to be incurred and the financial and environmental benefits which are likely to accrue, in consequence of the exercise or non-exercise, or manner of the exercise, of a power of a new Agency.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I believe that that proposal might be a relief at this time of night. However, I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 94, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 97, 98 and 102. Amendment No. 98 is also tabled in my name and is consequential.
I accept that the Government have moved considerably with their new definition, but I remain troubled by the provision in the Bill for assessing costs and benefits. It has been described as a "novel duty", which positively invites challenges by way of judicial review. Be that as it may—and I do not suggest that that is in any way an unimportant observation—I commented at the last stage of the Bill that, as technology was moving so fast in the environmental area and public assessment of the issues was also moving fast, certain factors were going somewhat against some of my other arguments on earlier clauses.
I wonder whether the issue of costs and benefits would not more appropriately be dealt with in guidance rather than in primary legislation. I suggest that because guidance could more easily be altered to reflect the changes which, as I say, may be both at the technological level and at the level of public awareness and public opinion. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 97, 98 and 102 are grouped with the amendment now under consideration. Therefore, I am rather surprised that my noble friend Lord Marlesford did not address the matter when he had the opportunity. With one exception, this group of amendments seeks to amend the way in which the new agencies should take account of costs and benefits. The exception is that my noble friend wishes to remove Clause 37 from the Bill.
We have already discussed at length and agreed in Committee that Clause 37 should stand part of the Bill. I undertook then to consider the one outstanding point about the extent to which costs other than purely financial costs could be included. I have spoken to amendments this afternoon, which I intend to move shortly, which clarify the meaning of the term "costs" in Clause 37, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, drew attention. They ensure that environmental costs as well as financial and other costs are to be included in the agencies' assessment of likely costs and benefits. I therefore believe that Clause 37, amended in this way, should be included in the Bill. I believe that Clause 37, amended in the way I have explained, is the right approach to this subject.
Amendments Nos. 94 and 98 seek to replace subsection (1), which requires each new agency to take account of costs and benefits, with a new subsection which would require Ministers to give the agency guidance on costs and benefits. We have already said that we will give guidance on the taking into account of costs and benefits as part of the guidance on the contribution the agencies are to make to sustainable development. But we do not believe that the agencies' taking account of costs and benefits should simply be a matter for guidance; it is fundamental to the responsible

1709
operation of the agencies. I think that the amended version of this clause is what is required and sets out clearly what the agencies need to do. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I had hoped—as it states at the top of the groupings list that one can speak to any amendment in its place in the Marshalled List—to speak separately to Amendment No. 102, as it is a "stand part" amendment. Is that in order?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the grouping is for the convenience of the House, but as the groupings list makes clear, a noble Lord may speak to his amendment when it appears in the Marshalled List.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. My view remains that, particularly as the draft guidance alludes to the issue of costs in connection with the references to sustainable development, perhaps it would be better for the whole issue to be dealt with by way of guidance. But in view of the hour I do not seek to press the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 31, line 28, after ("Agency") insert ("and any local authority to the extent specified in subsection (3) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise briefly, and with some diffidence in view of the cross currents of the past few minutes, to move Amendment No. 95 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 99 and 101 in my name. It seems anomalous that the agencies should be under the costs and benefits duty but local authorities exercising similar statutory functions are not subject to those duties. This amendment, or Amendment No. 101, would extend Clause 37 to apply to the powers of local authorities in relation to local authority air pollution control, statutory nuisance and contaminated land. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 95, 99, and 101 spoken to by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, seek to apply to local authorities exercising powers with respect to local authority air pollution control (LAAPC), contaminated land and statutory nuisance, the duty to have regard to costs and benefits under Clause 37. I can, of course, understand the concern behind my noble friend's amendments, but I do not think that they are necessary or appropriate in this case. The agencies have a wide and complex range of functions; in addition to their core functions in respect of the control of wastes and industrial pollution, and water regulation, they will need to carry out research, make reports and, in fact, under Clause 35, will have powers to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the carrying out of their functions. The powers of local authorities which are caught by my noble friend's amendments have none of this breadth and complexity, but the statutes under which they operate address the issue in other ways.
1710
In the case of statutory nuisance, local authorities are already required to use the best practicable means to deal with the nuisance. The definition of this under Section 79(9) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes specific reference to the need for financial implications to be taken into account with other factors.
For local authority air pollution control under Part I of the 1990 Act, local authorities are required to use the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs (BATNEEC). My right honourable friend the Secretary of State issues comprehensive statutory guidance for local authorities on what constitutes BATNEEC for each category of industry. This is issued only after close consultation with the representatives of the industries concerned. In respect of contaminated land, the Bill already provides for the consideration of costs and benefits by enforcing authorities, which may be the agencies or local authorities. The new Section 78D(2) provides that enforcing authorities should have regard to costs and the seriousness of the harm or pollution of controlled waters in question when specifying what is to be required by way of remediation on any site.
I am not, therefore, persuaded that it is necessary for local authorities to have the further and additional proposed duty to have regard to costs and benefits. Costs and benefits are already taken into account by other means appropriate to these functions. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, at this hour I shall merely thank my noble friend for the comprehensiveness of his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 31, line 34, leave out from first ("the") to first ("of") in line 35 and insert ("likely costs and benefits").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 97 to 99 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 31, line 39, leave out ("or meet any aims or") and insert ("any").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 102:
Leave out Clause 37.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this amendment separately because I believe that the proposal to omit Clause 37 is a separate proposal although we have debated some aspects of that clause.
I have two reasons for believing that the clause is unnecessary. First, the new Clause 4, which the House has already agreed and which was welcomed, makes Clause 37 that much less necessary as it provides for a

1711
principal aim of the agency to be to take into account any likely costs. In addition to our discussions in Committee, that makes it less necessary for costs and benefits to be taken into account in a separate clause.
I also suggest that there is still a real danger of vexatious litigation, with requirements for judicial review, arising from decisions taken in the context of the provisions of Clause 37. I sent my noble friend a copy of the legal advice from the CPRE's honorary standing counsel, Mr. Jeremy Sullivan QC, who made it clear that in his opinion there was a real danger that the effect of this clause would be such vexatious litigation.
I therefore ask my noble friend to consider seriously whether it is necessary to include Clause 37 in the Bill. Perhaps he would like to give his view on that question.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, that seems to be a fair question, particularly in view of Amendment No. 124 which the noble Viscount will move and which includes "costs to the environment" in "costs". If anyone can calculate what environmental benefits are, I can guarantee that they will not be able to calculate environmental costs. Therefore, the whole of Clause 37 relating to cost benefit analysis, given that costs now include environmental costs, seems to be a nonsense.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I indicated, we have discussed this at length in Committee. I have no reason to believe that a requirement to take account of cost benefits is over-restrictive or bureaucratic. It does not override the agency's other duties and obligations. It applies to those areas of the agency's work where it has a discretion and ensures that the agency cannot incur or cause others to incur costs unjustified by the environmental benefits. It does not bite where it would be unreasonable—for example, in cases of emergency where the agency must be able to act immediately.
The proposal that the environment agency should have regard to compliance costs for industry when setting environmental standards was included in the consultation paper on the agency which was issued in 1991. It simply enshrines existing good practice in the legislation.
At Committee stage we had quite a long discussion on the concept of cost benefit analysis. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, indicated that it was one which industry was quite prepared to undertake. I believe that to be the case. That is the reason why I believe that Clause 37 should stand part of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am not convinced by what my noble friend says. Obviously we can take the matter no further tonight. It will be interesting to see whether further consideration of the Bill results in Clause 37 becoming part of the Act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Ministerial directions to the new Agencies]:
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Clause 39 [Power to make schemes imposing charges]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment Nos 104 to 110:
Page 33, leave out line 14.
Page 33, line 15, at end insert (", or any application for, or for a variation of, such a licence").
Page 33, line 18, at end insert (", or any application for such a transfer").
Page 33, line 19, after ("licence") insert (", or any application for such a renewal").
Page 33, line 19, leave out ("or").
Page 33, line 20, leave out (", or") and insert ("(where permitted) of an environmental licence, or any application for such a surrender; or
(g)").
Page 34, line 2, after ("procedure,") insert ("suspend or").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendments Nos. 104 to 110, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 112 to 123 and 289. While I accept that this is a large group of government amendments, they are minor and technical amendments which deal with only three subjects.
First, Amendments Nos. 104 to 110 arise from my promise during Committee stage to consider points raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas in connection with the current charging schemes for waste management licensing. These amendments aim to clarify that charging schemes may cover all necessary activities in relation to the granting of environmental licences.
Secondly, the effect of Amendments Nos. 112 to 123 to Clauses 45 and 46 is to enable each new agency to borrow from the National Loans Fund as well as borrowing money voted by Parliament from Ministers.
Finally, I undertook at Committee stage to look again at the important issue raised by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills to Clause 52 regarding transitional provisions for charging schemes. Having considered the need for such a provision, I am now bringing forward Amendment No. 289 which includes in Schedule 19 transitional arrangements for charging schemes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 34, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) A new Agency must provide each applicant for, and holder of, an environmental licence with a copy of any charging scheme made by it, which is for the time being in force and which is likely to affect the applicant or holder.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 111 which goes back to the question that we discussed at Committee stage with respect to licence holders being advised of their responsibilities regarding charging. I have again to thank my noble friend for his letter of last evening in which he deals at some length with the matter of subsistence payments. That is quite clear to me.
However, I have to ask him this question. The Bill currently provides for the agency to take such steps as it considers appropriate for bringing the provisions of the scheme—that is, the charging scheme—to the

1713
attention of those it affects. I am not terribly happy about that. I should like to see licence holders receive details of the charging scheme. I do not refer necessarily to the amounts because I understand that they are subject to variation year on year. But the licence holder should know the obligations to which he is subject in relation to charges and the penalties that would accrue were those charges not met.
In relation to revocation of licences following non-payment of the subsistence charge, the Minister states in his letter of 1st March 1995:
"in accordance with the appropriate procedure. That procedure must be specified in regulations".
He goes on to suggest that the Government would wish to consult on the regulations. I do not believe it is necessary to put into the Bill that the licence holder or potential licence holder should have a preview of the arrangements, but it is necessary to ensure that he has the ability to preview.
In an earlier letter of, I believe, 23rd February, the Minister offered to consider whether there was any guidance which the Department of the Environment could give the agency on the matter. The purpose in putting down the amendment, and speaking even at this late hour to the last amendment of the day, is to inquire whether the Minister has given further and direct consideration to the matter and will bring forward a government amendment to meet my anxiety. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Clause 40(6) requires the agency to take such steps as it considers appropriate for bringing the provisions of any charging scheme to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them. This will require the agency to notify licence holders of all charges that are payable. Indeed, the charge for licence applications, transfers and surrenders must accompany the licence application. We envisage that it would be good practice for the agency, at the same time as informing licence holders of the level of charge, also to inform them of the penalties for non-payment. We do not consider, given all the safeguards that are already contained in the legislation, that it is necessary to include further statutory provisions to this effect. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend and that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it does not quite satisfy me. Has my noble friend given further consideration to the point raised in his letter when he said that he would consider whether guidance should be given to the agency? I should be grateful if he could answer that, then I should know how far to take it.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if I said in my letter that I would consider it, I shall do so.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful for that, but I had hoped that between the end of the previous stage and now we would have progressed further along those lines. I shall have to press my noble friend in other quarters on the subject, perhaps on another day. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Borrowing powers]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 112 to 117:
Page 38, line 9, leave out ("the") and insert ("each new").
Page 38, line 10, leave out ("Secretary of State or the") and insert ("appropriate").
Page 38, line 13, after ("the") insert ("appropriate").
Page 38, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) Subject to subsection (6) below, each new Agency may borrow from the appropriate Minister, by way of temporary loan or otherwise, such sums in sterling as it may require for meeting its obligations and carrying out its functions.").
Page 38, line 19, leave out subsection (4).
Page 38, line 24, leave out ("or (4) (a)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 104. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 46 [Government loans to the Agency]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 118 to 123:
Page 38, line 36, leave out ("Each of the Ministers") and insert ("The appropriate Minister").
Page 38, line 37, leave out ("the") and insert ("a new").
Page 38, line 39, after ("the") insert ("appropriate").
Page 39, line 1, leave out ("either of the") and insert ("any of the appropriate").
Page 39, line 1, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a new").
Page 39, line 11, at end insert:
("(5) The Treasury may issue to any of the appropriate Ministers—

(a) out of the National Loans Fund, or

(b) out of money provided by Parliament,

such sums as are necessary to enable him to make loans to a new Agency under this section; and any sums received by a Minister of the Crown in pursuance of subsection (2) above shall be paid into the National Loans Fund or, as the case may be, the Consolidated Fund.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments were also spoken to with Amendment No. 104. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 53 [Interpretations of Part I]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 43, line 7, at end insert:
(""costs" includes—

(a) costs to any person; and

(b) costs to the environment;").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was also spoken to with Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at midnight.

  Guinness Case: Disclosure of Evidence Investigation
  Guinness Case: Disclosure of Evidence Investigation
  Frontier Controls
  Frontier Controls
  Coach Standardisation: Draft Directive
  Coach Standardisation: Draft Directive
  GEST Grants: Take-up by Schools
  GEST Grants: Take-up by Schools
  Human Rights Convention and Scots Law
  Human Rights Convention and Scots Law
  Gypsy and Traveller Children
  Gypsy and Traveller Children
  Hospitals for Mentally Handicapped: Opposition to Closure
  Hospitals for Mentally Handicapped: Opposition to Closure
  Local Government Reorganisation: Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and County Durham
  Local Government Reorganisation: Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and County Durham
  MoD Document BA2000
  MoD Document BA2000
  NATO Costs
  NATO Costs
  Army Administrative Services: Relocation
  Army Administrative Services: Relocation