Sitting of 7 March 1995

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

    Long-term Unemployed
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of how the long-term unemployed are affected by Government policies.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Portillo): The Government have developed a range of measures to help the long-term unemployed back into work. The proportion of those who are long-term unemployed is markedly lower in Britain than the EC average.
    Mr. Streeter: In view of the rapid fall in unemployment, is it not the case that the prospects of the long-term unemployed obtaining work are now better than they have been for many years? Does my right hon. Friend agree that to introduce now the job destruction programme of the social chapter and a national minimum wage would be for those who are genuinely seeking work nothing but a massive kick in the teeth?
    Mr. Portillo: The aspiration of those who developed the social chapter was to create a social dimension to the European Community. It was a massive raft of legislation under qualified majority voting which would have loaded costs on employers and destroyed jobs. I make it clear to my hon. Friend that there will be no end to the opt-out negotiated by this Government. The Labour party would sell out anything at all in its craven attitude to Brussels.
    Mr. Soley: Is it the intention of the Secretary of State to achieve full employment?
    Mr. Portillo: It is my intention that the maximum number of people should be able to participate in work. That means developing a flexible labour market and it means helping people with practical measures from Government. It means establishing policies that enable the country and the economy to grow. It means establishing policies to encourage people to invest in this country and to create job opportunities. It means avoiding the Labour party's technique of trying to mislead the unemployed into believing that a Government can spend their way out of unemployment.
    Mr. Merchant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a minimum wage is one of the greatest threats to measures to curb and to overcome long-term unemployment? Does
    126
    he agree that a minimum wage would not just get in the way of job creation, but would result in the loss of many valuable jobs that exist today?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes, it is a complete fallacy to believe that a minimum wage has anything to do with the reduction of poverty. Many people who work on low wages are second or third earners in their households. Those are the sort of jobs that could easily be destroyed by the introduction of a minimum wage, with the result that families who enjoyed the benefit of extra incomes would be made poorer. As the trade unions insist on the maintenance of differentials, the bulk of the resources that would go into establishing a minimum wage would benefit people who were better off and not the people at the bottom.
    Mr. Chidgey: Is the Secretary of State aware that outcomes show that training for work policies are failing the long-term unemployed, with only one in 10 gaining full-time employment after leaving such schemes? Does he accept that instead of slashing training budgets by more than £125 million, the money should be redirected and targeted at long-term unemployment which remains an unacceptably and disproportionately high part of the unemployment total?
    Mr. Portillo: The training for work budget is targeted at the long-term unemployed, who are precisely the people who can qualify for training for work. The hon. Gentleman is on to quite a good point in saying that not enough people are getting jobs or other what we call positive outcomes at the end of their training—in other words, going into other opportunities that are valuable to them. I am determined that that proportion shall rise and I shall get the proportion of those who achieve a positive outcome from their training of one sort or another up to 50 per cent. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that development.
    Mr. Couchman: How many of the long-term unemployed owe their predicament to employment consultancies that give advice on how to sack people, such as the JSB Group which is headed by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment?
    Mr. Portillo: I am not able to give the figure. Every hon. Member is the guardian of his own conscience and, certainly, people should be in the business of removing any beams from their own eyes before they search for motes elsewhere.
    Mr. Barron: If one half of the long-term unemployed on training for work courses are not getting any qualifications at all and more than half the men who come off those schemes go back on the dole, as do a third of women, how can the Government justify cutting the training budget by 20 per cent. and slashing 55,000 chances for the long-term unemployed to go on to a scheme?
    Mr. Portillo: Although the hon. Gentleman asked the question in all innocence, he knows perfectly well that the objective of our training for work reforms is precisely to ensure that the training is not only for training's sake, but to get people into jobs and into other opportunities of value. I shall increase the proportion of people who get

    127
    those positive outcomes. I shall increase the numbers of people who get those positive outcomes. If the hon. Gentleman is attacking that, let him stand up and say so.
    Ms Short: By magic?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady says that because she has no understanding of improving efficiency or value for money. That, if I may say so, is what distinguishes the Labour party from the Conservative party.

    Departmental Employees
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are in (a) his Department and (b) the Employment Service agency; what the figures were two years ago; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): There are 55,693 staff in the Employment Department group, of whom 44,737 work in the Employment Service agency. Two years ago, there were 61,897 staff in the Department, of whom 47,652 worked in the Employment Service agency.
    Mr. Greenway: On International Women's Day, would my hon. Friend join me in welcoming an end to discrimination against women in employment? May I also be assured that there will be no discrimination against men in employment? From the figure that she has kindly supplied, is it not clear that lower unemployment means that fewer staff are needed by her Department and that everyone saves because those people go to other jobs?
    Miss Widdecombe: Fewer staff are needed because, of course, there has been a fall in unemployment, which should be welcomed by all parties. I can confirm what my hon. Friend says. We welcome moves which reduce discrimination against women and we are committed to eliminating discrimination against women, but, of course, that should not involve, in turn, discriminating against men.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that the greatest discrimination is against people with disabilities? Will she tell us, therefore, how many disabled people are employed in the Department and in the Employment Service agency?
    Miss Widdecombe: The number of registered disabled people in the Department of Employment at 1 July 1994 amounted to 2 per cent.

    Coal Mining Areas
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to improve employment prospects in former coal mining areas.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): As a result of the Government's sound economic policies and a flexible deregulated labour market, as well as the £200 million special measures package, unemployment is falling in Barnsley and most other former mining areas as it is in the rest of the country.
    Mr. Illsley: Is the Minister aware that a recent survey carried out in former mining areas, as he refers to them, particularly in Barnsley, showed that 44 per cent. of
    128
    miners who were made redundant in 1992 were still unemployed, that 9 per cent. were in training and that, overall, something like 89 per cent. of those miners were worse off, especially those who had taken jobs which paid around £65 a week less than they previously earned in the mining industry? That is a consequence of this Government's policy towards the coal mining industry and towards employment. Those 44 per cent. of people and 30 per cent. of males who are economically inactive in former coal mining areas are the positive outcomes of Government policy. Those are the positive outcomes of the Department of Employment. What will the Government do to restore employment in those areas?
    Mr. Paice: Any change in the economic structure of any locality obviously creates disruption. As has happened in so many parts of the country over many centuries, it takes time for local communities to adapt to new circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the survey and work done by Sheffield Hallam university on the subject—
    Mr. Illsley indicated dissent.
    Mr. Paice: In that case, the answer to his question is no, I do not know anything about the study to which he has just referred. If he would draw it to my attention, I am sure that I would discover that it is based on just as much flawed information as the survey carried out at Sheffield Hallam university.
    Mr. Devlin: Has my hon. Friend seen the answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled last week, which shows that in five years the previous Labour Government closed three times as many pits in the northern region as the Conservatives have closed since 1979? In the light of that, is it not a bit rich of Opposition Members to make a great fuss about this Government's record on the coal mines when the Labour party's record is far worse?
    Mr. Paice: The House is no stranger to the hypocrisy that we often hear from the Opposition Benches. As my hon. Friend reminds us, we are well aware that previous Labour Governments closed 313 pits in total and lost 205,000 jobs—far more than have been lost in recent years. British Coal now has a new future in the private sector. Pits are being reopened and people can look forward to greater job security.
    Mr. McCartney: Those of us who live in mining communities need no lessons from Conservative Members. Between September 1992 and December 1994, 34,000 miners lost their jobs as a result of the actions of this Government. That amounted to 83 per cent. of British Coal's work force. Labour local authorities have joined British Coal Enterprise Ltd. to try to regain the ground lost as a result of the huge job losses. However, even now the Government are trying to close British Coal Enterprise. What will the Minister do to protect the continuation of British Coal Enterprise and its activities in mining communities? The closure of British Coal Enterprise will see the loss of 400 more jobs while thousands of miners are still on the dole.
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman forgot to mention the pits that have been reopened since they went into the private sector. He knows as well as I do that the funding of British Coal Enterprise is guaranteed until March 1996 and that its future beyond that is a matter for my right

    129
    hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is obviously extremely concerned that the good works of British Coal Enterprise are not lost.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those major countries in the European Union where the level of unemployment is on a clear downward trend.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Philip Oppenheim): The United Kingdom is the only major EC country where unemployment has continuously fallen over the last six months, using the internationally recognised and comparable International Labour Organisation figures.
    Mr. Martin: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, despite the Labour party's constant bleating about fiddling the figures, unemployment—including youth unemployment—is falling in this country as a result of policies that recognise that businesses best create jobs as a result of low rates and low taxation and without Labour encouraging envy and over-regulation?
    Mr. Oppenheim: Perhaps uncharacteristically, I am on the side of the Trades Union Congress on this one. The figures that I have quoted are the international standard ILO figures, which the TUC said were wholly reliable. Those figures show that unemployment in the UK is falling faster than in the rest of Europe and that employment in the UK is rising faster than in the rest of Europe. The ILO figures, which the TUC supports, show that the unemployment total in Britain is 2.4 million, which is almost exactly the same level as the claimant count which the Opposition say is fiddled. How can they both show the same totals when one is apparently fiddled, but the other is not?
    Mr. Hardy: Would the Minister care to tell the House of any areas in Europe where the problem of unemployment is more intense than it is in areas like the Dearne valley and certain other coalfield counties? Whatever the Government may say about the statistics, can the Minister provide evidence that our position is better than that of anywhere else?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman considers several countries within the European Community, not least Spain where youth unemployment is three times the UK level and overall unemployment is twice the UK level. It is no coincidence that Spain has a Socialist Government and one of the most regulated economies in Europe. As a result of that regulation, whereas Britain has only 5 per cent. casual workers, Spain has 33 per cent. casual workers because employers there cannot afford to employ people within the regulated system. Is that what the hon. Gentleman wants for Britain?

    Flexible Labour Market
    Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what impact the Government's flexible labour market policy has had on the ability of the Employment Service to place people into jobs over the last year.
    Miss Widdecombe: Progress in achieving a flexible labour market means that a diverse range of job
    130
    opportunities is increasingly available. That is good news for unemployed people, who are more easily assisted into finding work by the Employment Service, which placed 1.8 million people into jobs last year, an increase of 16 per cent. over the previous year.
    Miss Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that considerably more people are in employment in the United Kingdom than in other member nations of the European Union? If she agrees with that point, does she believe that our more flexible regulations contribute massively to that excellent result?
    Miss Widdecombe: I can indeed confirm that we have a higher participation rate than other major EU countries and that our excellent employment position is owing to our flexible policies—policies which have caused unemployment to fall steadily for two years, which give us among the highest take-home rates of pay and lower than average youth unemployment, which created 220,000 full-time and 83,000 part-time jobs last year, and which put nearly 2 million people into work. We have the second highest percentage of female participation and among the highest number of part-time jobs.
    Ms Short: Is the Minister aware that fewer hours are now worked in the British economy than were worked in 1979, that women in Britain have a bigger gender pay gap than women in any other European Union country, and that the percentage of men in employment, which was 93 per cent. in 1971, is now 75 per cent? Does she agree that the Government's version of flexibility means insecure, low-paid employment for increasing numbers of British families?
    Hon. Members: Over-rehearsed.
    Miss Widdecombe: Not only over-rehearsed, but largely inaccurate.
    As for the pay gap, perhaps the hon. Lady would like to welcome the fact that the gap between women's and men's pay is now narrower than ever. It is decidedly narrower than it was when the hon. Lady's party was in power. Perhaps, when the hon. Lady deplores levels of work, she will welcome, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, our high participation rates compared with those of our European neighbours. As the hon. Lady is talking about women, will she welcome the fact that this is the only country with a lower female than male unemployment rate?

    Industrial Relations
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the long-term improvement of industrial relations.
    Mr. Portillo: I have no current plans for such a meeting, but that is no reason for us to neglect the fact that the number of days lost in strikes last year was the lowest since records began in 1891.
    Sir David Knox: Although there has been a great improvement in industrial relations in recent years, does my right hon. Friend agree that, in that sphere as in all others, there is no room for complacency? Does he agree further that employee participation plays an important part

    131
    in the consolidation of that improvement in industrial relations? Will my right hon. Friend discuss that point when he next meets the Confederation of British Industry?
    Mr. Portillo: That might be a good subject for discussion with the CBI. I agree with my hon. Friend that consultation with employees is a hallmark of good employers. The important point is that that should be a matter for employers and employees; it should not be imposed upon them either by Governments or by Brussels. It is extraordinary to see Labour Members wishing to sign up to things like the works councils directive, which would impose a wholly inflexible, wholly rigid superstructure on companies, and thus make them less able to respond to the marketplace. I do not believe that my hon. Friend would want anything like that.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is considerable concern among the work forces of privatised utilities, who see their job opportunities slashed by managements who give themselves massive pay awards? Is that not criminal? Should not the Government take action to stop it now?
    Mr. Portillo: I have noticed that customers of the former nationalised industries used to worry day to day and year to year about their security of supply, but that is no longer the case. Whereas in the past, people were afraid that there would be strikes in the gas or electricity industries, on the airlines or in the coach companies—all the important services that were provided to the public—they no longer fear such strikes, because privatisation has improved industrial relations in those essential services. We shall continue that policy in some of the other essential services. Doubtless, by that means, we shall restore industrial peace in those sectors, too.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why there are only 1 per cent. as many strikes now as there were in 1979 is that people on both sides of industry realise that the only beneficiaries from strikes are our foreign competitors? In the increasing climate of co-operation rather than confrontation, is it not appropriate to say that works councils imposed upon industry either by Brussels or, potentially, by the Labour party are a total and absolute irrelevance and a waste of time?
    Mr. Portillo: It is worth dwelling for a moment on the figure given by my hon. Friend that there are 100 times fewer strikes now than there were in 1979. In January 1979, there were 10 times as many days lost to strikes as in the whole of 1994. The Labour party had a miserable record.
    I do not know whether my hon. Friend was right to say that that is now accepted by both sides of industry. Bill Morris recently said that he wished to repeal a dozen pieces of Tory legislation on industrial relations.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson indicated assent.
    Mr. Portillo: There have been only a dozen pieces of legislation. I see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) nodding. Perhaps she could
    132
    tell us whether the Labour party's policy is to repeal all of the pieces of legislation which have brought peace to British industry.
    Ms Harman: Does the Secretary of State think that it will improve industrial relations—(Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must calm down. Members on both sides are much to noisy.
    Ms Harman: Does the Secretary of State think that it will improve industrial relations at British Gas that its chairman Cedric Brown has had a pay increase which takes his pay up to £475,000? Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister that such increases are distasteful and that legislative action may be necessary to prevent them, or does the right hon. Gentleman stand by what he said only last week, that there should be no Government intervention in those matters?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady ought to quote the Prime Minister accurately, as she ought to quote me accurately. That is the courtesy that she owes to every Member of the House. If the hon. Lady can make her case only by misquoting people, we must draw the conclusion that she does not have a case at all.
    Let me tell the hon. Lady about British Gas. When British Gas was nationalised, the Opposition told us not to privatise it. We were told that the service was as good as it could be, and that prices were as low as they could be. Since then, the service has been improved, the number of customers has increased and prices have been slashed in real terms. The company has improved its efficiency so much that it is able to make profits.
    The hon. Lady—who has been wrong year after year and whose every premise has been proved wrong—now complains that people who knew better than she and who could manage better than she are being rewarded. She wants to unleash the politics of envy, but I tell her that those politics will gobble up her and her party.

    Young People
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people in the United Kingdom have either education or training places; and what were the figures in 1979.
    Mr. Paice: The answer is 1.1 million in spring 1994. This is 84 per cent. of all 16 and 17-year-olds, which compares with 54 per cent. in 1984, the first year for which information is available.
    Mr. Evans: Opposition Members have a sad obsession with job-destroying policies such as the social chapter, the minimum wage and adding social costs on to employers. Are not the policies which we have adopted—including training and education, the national curriculum, general national vocational qualifications, national vocational qualifications, youth credits, the modern apprenticeship scheme, the accelerated apprenticeship scheme and the schemes adopted by training and enterprise councils—far better? Are not those policies the best way of giving hope and opportunity to our young people for the future?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right. The Government have put in place a range of measures so that all our young people—whatever their background or ability—can choose the best way to maximise their talents and to drive

    133
    forward Britain's economic recovery and skills for the future. Nearly all of the changes have been opposed by the Labour party, which has begrudgingly come round to accept them, because it knows that what we are doing is right in the long term for our country.
    Mr. Barry Jones: How many apprenticeships exist today in Britain?
    Mr. Paice: Apprenticeships at present are a matter for individual industries. There is no national apprenticeship scheme for which records could be kept. The modern apprenticeships scheme that the Government are launching is presently in prototype form and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are 18 prototypes up and running. This autumn there will be another 40. By the time that the programme is complete, there will be 70,000 skilled people coming out of modern apprenticeships each year.
    Mr. Jones: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree—
    Mr. Jones: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) cannot raise a point of order; it was not his substantive question.
    Mr. Evennettrose—(Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have a little quiet so that we can hear the hon. Gentleman who is on his Feet—Mr. Evennett
    Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the many sixth formers staying on after the age of 16 and the many young people in training constitute a real achievement and a real success story? Does he further agree that that lays the foundation for successful training to be built on by those young people in the future, so that we shall have a well-trained and skilled work force?
    Mr. Paice: Yes, my hon. Friend is right; 73 per cent. of 16-year-olds are now in full-time education, compared with only 48 per cent. 10 years ago. That is a tremendous achievement, and must bode well for the future.

    Twenty-one-hour Rule
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance has been given by his Department in relation to the current operation of the 21-hour rule.
    Miss Widdecombe: The Employment Service issued guidance to staff in January 1995 on the rule that allows people to study part time while claiming unemployment benefits. The guidance also referred to the 21-hour rule, which is a separate rule in income support.
    Recent changes in the way that education courses are organised have made those rules increasingly difficult to administer. The purpose of the guidance was to reduce the inconsistency that was arising in practice.
    Mr. Chisholm: So why are the Government adopting such a perverse approach towards reskilling the unemployed, first by issuing new regulations by the month to make it more difficult for unemployed people to take up part-time education and training courses, and then
    134
    by announcing that only 16 hours of guided learning will be allowed under the rules for the jobseeker's allowance? Is that because the Government believe the surreal logic of their own arguments, or because they have not a clue how to run a modern economy, where skills are the key to success?
    Miss Widdecombe: I find it difficult to believe that the hon. Gentleman can seriously be as ignorant of the new proposals as his question suggests. There is no reduction. At present, the 21-hour rule covers both guided learning hours and private study; in future we shall rely on a limit of 16 guided learning hours a week, with as much private study as is compatible with being available for work. There is no reduction—the same number of students will be able to study—and there is no reduction in the cost to us. The hon. Gentleman really should do more homework before asking such questions.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the profitable use of time while people are unemployed, especially if that directs them towards achieving the confidence that will enable them to get back to work, is most important? In that light, will she reconsider the very limited amount of notice that volunteers on unemployment benefit are allowed to give to the organisations that use them?
    Miss Widdecombe: Volunteers can of course already exercise a delay before taking up a job, which unemployed people in general are not allowed to do. So we have already recognised that problem. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that constructive use of time while people are unemployed is important, especially in helping them to acquire skills and experience that can then be used in the labour market. For precisely that reason, we not only encourage volunteering but have made certain that our study rules have been carried through into the jobseeker's allowance so that people can study part time while on benefit. That seems to me an excellent balance to strike.
    Mr. Simpson: What advice or explanation would the Minister offer to unemployed people undertaking part-time learning within the rules but who find that their benefits are cut because their fees exceed £100?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is not the purpose of the benefits system to resource the education system, but a balance must be struck for people who are involved in modest, part-time study that does not impinge on their active job search. If such people could be on full-time or long and expensive courses, that is where they should be, rather than on benefit.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make an assessment of the effects of a national minimum wage on the employment prospects of young people
    Mr. Oppenheim: In Belgium and France, which both have a national minimum wage set at a significant level, youth unemployment is, respectively, one and a half times and twice as high as youth unemployment in the United Kingdom. I will make an estimate of the effects of a national minimum wage in the United Kingdom when the

    135
    Opposition decide the level at which it would be set and what they would do about differentials. I notice that they are laughing at that.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is easy to talk about a minimum wage but more difficult to set the level? Does he recall that when President Clinton came to power in the United States he said that he would increase the rate from $4.25 to $4.75 but has failed to do so because he recognises how damaging that would be? Does he further agree that just talking about the minimum wage without setting the level is sheer tokenism and that the Opposition would do well to understand that?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) tittered loudly when my hon. Friend said that Labour had not set a level for the minimum wage. It is also interesting that the Labour leader last week scuttled off to the TUC to say that Labour would not set a level until after the next election. Labour is telling the low-paid that it will wave a magic wand and, at no cost, will increase their standard of living, but it is not prepared to be honest enough to reveal the cost in terms of lost jobs. That is the low level of opportunism and cynicism to which Labour policy has now sunk.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the young Minister aware that it is now 20 years since a Labour Government introduced equal pay for women and that the Tories voted against it, saying exactly what they are now saying about a minimum wage—that it would destroy jobs? Is he aware that when the young women working at Marks and Spencer got their extra money they went to Debenhams and bought curtains and that when the people at Debenhams got their extra money they went to C and A and bought children's clothes, thus increasing the number of jobs?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The not quite so young Minister will reply that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in referring to the previous Labour Government because the previous two Labour Governments refused to implement a minimum wage. They, at least, were honest enough to admit that there was nothing they could do about the problem of differentials. I quote to the hon. Gentleman his former colleague, Lord Healey, who only a couple of months ago said on Radio 4:
    "Don't kid yourselves—the minimum wage is something on which unions will build differentials … and therefore the minimum wage becomes a floor on which you erect a new tower."
    Until the Opposition have the honesty and guts to tell the House at what level they would introduce the minimum wage and what they would do about differentials, the House will treat their policy with nothing but the contempt that it deserves.
    Mr. Sykes: Will my hon. Friend ignore the old fogeys in the Opposition and confirm that policies such as the absurd social chapter and the minimum wage are shredding jobs in Europe even as we speak? Is he aware that a large company in my constituency cannot afford to build a factory in France because of such polices and has decided to double its production line in Scarborough instead?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is quite right. Unemployment in European countries such as Belgium and France, where the minimum wage is set at a
    136
    significant level, is far higher than in Britain. The situation in the United States is also instructive. For years, successive Governments hardly raised the minimum wage. When he came to power two and a half years ago, President Clinton committed himself to raising it but he has done absolutely nothing about it because his own Labour Secretary, Robert Reich, said that it would threaten the recovery. Even the left-leaning Democratic Leadership Council recently said that the
    "Minimum wage is anachronistic, it's a loser, it's got no life".
    No wonder it is Labour party policy.
    Ms Harman: Will the Minister accept that I am not prepared to be accused by him of tittering? It is puerile—[Interruption.]It is puerile and it demeans the debate.
    Will the Minister confirm that the taxpayer now has to fork out £2.5 billion a year to top up the pay of the low-paid through benefits? Is not that nothing more than a subsidy for bad employers? Does he not realise that that sum will continue to spiral upwards unless he accepts that there should be a floor under pay with a national minimum wage? How long will he carry on topping up the bottomless pit that he has created in pay?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Lady was tittering; she is now wittering. She fails to mention that a minimum wage would cost the taxpayer more because it would increase unemployment, as it has in France, Spain and Belgium. If she is serious about that policy—if she is serious about putting a floor under low pay—why cannot she tell the House at what level a Labour Government would introduce the minimum wage, and what she would do about differentials?

    Child Care
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve child care to assist women into employment.
    Miss Widdecombe: We have committed £45 million to the out-of-school child care grant initiative to help create up to 50,000 new after-school and holiday places for school-age children throughout Great Britain.
    Ms Eagle: I recognise that Britain's record in provision for the under-fives is the worst in the European Union and acknowledge that affordable and adequate child care is a major barrier to many women who are trying to work or who want to work longer hours. When will the Government do something to solve that problem, create a national child care strategy and start making some decent provision for 51 per cent. of the people in this country?
    Miss Widdecombe: I suggest that the hon. Lady starts with her constituency. Perhaps she will welcome in her constituency the Wirral Latch Key scheme, the School House scheme, the Scamps scheme and the Rainbow scheme. When she has welcomed them, she might even smile at what is happening in her constituency.
    Mrs. Gillan: Will my hon. Friend confirm that female earnings have increased by 30 per cent. since 1990, compared with male earnings, which have increased by only 23 per cent.? Will she further confirm that, compared with 1970, when women made up 36 per cent. of the work force, they now make up 46 per cent.? Are there not, in

    137
    practice, far fewer barriers to women in obtaining employment than that lot over there would have us believe?
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes, and it is entirely due to the policies of the Government, which have a greater effect on women than anything that that lot over there ever did.

    Minimum Wage
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of a statutory minimum wage on the employment prospects of unemployed people.
    Mr. Oppenheim: A statutory minimum wage would destroy jobs and job prospects. Set at two thirds of male median earnings and assuming full restoration of differentials, 2 million jobs could be lost. Even set at half male median earnings and assuming only half restoration of differentials, 750,000 jobs would be lost.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Will my hon. Friend confirm that a report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies showed that a national minimum wage would benefit the richest 30 per cent. of the population more than the poorest 30 per cent.? Does not the adoption of such a policy sit rather oddly with the Opposition's claim that they will be tough on success and tough on the rewards of success?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right. One of the major problems with a national minimum wage is that it would benefit better-off families disproportionately because many low-paid people are trainees or young workers who live in families with two or three incomes, so the national minimum wage would increase unemployment among poorer households and increase wealth in better-off households.
    Mr. Eastham: I remind the Minister that when the Government abolished the wages councils three or four years ago they advanced the very same arguments. They said that abolition would create more jobs, but a horrendous number of young people are now without jobs. How does the Minister explain that?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman predicted when the wages councils were abolished that the wages of former wages council workers would fall; in fact, they have increased slightly faster than the wages of workers in the rest of the economy. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that the previous Labour Government abolished no fewer than 11 wages councils, affecting no fewer than 600,000 workers.

    Industrial Relations
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the causes of Britain's current industrial relations situation.
    Mr. Paice: The step-by-step reform of trade union and employment legislation has returned control of trade unions to their members and brought realism to the workplace. The industrial relations scene is better than at any time this century.
    Lady Olga Maitland: How many working days were lost through strikes last year, and how does that figure
    138
    compare with the one for 1979? How does Britain's strike record compare with that of the rest of the European Union?
    Mr. Paice: Last year only 0.26 million working days were lost in only 178 stoppages. As has already been said this afternoon, that constitutes less than 1 per cent. of the 1979 figure and it is much lower than the averages of the 1970s and 1980s. Our record has been below the European average for the past nine years.
    The Labour party has failed to tell the House which reforms it would get rid of if it had the chance to do so. What will be the price of buying off the Transport and General Workers vote on clause IV?
    Madam Speaker: We have made abysmally slow progress with Employment questions owing to a combination of factors, such as long answers, long quotes, long questions and far too much noise. Let us make up for that now.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Ottaway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Government's policies have done much to help the leisure industry in this country? So much so—(Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    Mr. Hoyle: Sit down.
    Madam Speaker: Who are you telling to sit down? Be careful.
    Mr. Hoyle: I am telling the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to sit down; I am trying to be helpful.
    Mr. Ottaway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Government have done much to help the leisure industry in this country—so much so, that Ladbroke leisure group has been able to award 1.2 million share options to its directors? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a member of the remuneration committee who approved that share option scheme is also Chairman of the Employment Select Committee?
    The Prime Minister: As I said to the House last week, the Greenbury committee is examining executives' remuneration. A number of important issues must be addressed, especially the disclosure of remuneration to directors and ensuring that bonuses and share options

    139
    reflect the performance of a company. I am sure that practical, first-hand advice of that sort will be useful to every hon. Member.
    Mr. Blair rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must say to hon. Members that I have taken a Minister to task for less than that; I will not allow Back Benchers to hold up newspaper headlines.
    Mr. Blair: Now that the electricity regulator has finally bowed to months of pressure and has cut prices because of excess profits, will the Prime Minister agree that there should be a thorough overhaul of the regulatory regime of all utilities so that we can be sure that the same thing is not happening in gas, water and in the other privatised monopolies?
    The Prime Minister: As I understand the position, the regulator has decided to have a look at the prices charged by regional electricity companies to consumers. That shows that the regulatory system that the House approved is working and that the regulator is using his powers to act in the light of the information available. I think that the action of the Director General of Electric Supply does exactly that. It shows that he can take into account the latest information. Information has become available since his last review. He is now looking at it again. That shows that the system is flexible and is working.
    Mr. Blair: Surely it shows precisely the opposite. Is not the point that the electricity regulator acted only after the Trafalgar House bid for Northern Electric exposed the full scale of the excess profits and because of public pressure, not his own internal investigations? Does that not strengthen the case for a review of the system to make sure that the same abuses are not happening in gas and water?
    The Prime Minister: No, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the point fully on board. He cannot claim at one moment that the regulator has too few powers and a few moments later complain that he is using his powers to deal with the situation that has arisen. New circumstances have arisen in the regulator's mind, and the regulator has used his independent powers to look again at the question of pricing. Those are precisely the powers the House required him to have and he is now using them.
    Mr. Blair: The information became available not because of the regulatory system but because of the external requirements after the bid. Does the Prime Minister not understand that unless he acts firmly to stop the abuses in the privatised utilities—whether they are the pay deals, the overcharging or the excess profits—they will stand as a visible symbol of everything that is rotten in a Conservative Government?
    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has now managed to unleash his soundbite, but what he is actually proposing would not enlarge but would narrow the authority and options of the regulator. The fact that this arose out of something that the regulator did not determine shows how wide his powers are. That is the point. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that the regulator should have acted only if he himself had discovered precisely what was likely to happen.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend make it his first priority to travel the country and start a national debate on the importance of the common ownership of
    140
    the means of production, distribution and exchange? Is it not extraordinary that a major political party should spend so much time on clause IV and does it not prove—
    Madam Speaker: Order. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister has no responsibility for that matter. He is, no doubt, coming to a question for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend consider travelling the country to establish whether there should be common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange?
    The Prime Minister: I think the evidence of the past two or three decades will spare me the necessity of travelling the country on that point because very few people who have sensibly looked at the matter do not believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is right to seek the abolition of a dinosaur that most sensible people realise has been dead for the past 20 or 30 years. The only surprise is that a substantial number in the right hon. Gentleman's party still do not understand that.
    Mr. Ashdown: How does the Prime Minister justify the fact that, contrary to the specific recommendations of his own personal efficiency unit, the amount of public money that the Government spend on private consultants has now increased by £130 million to £865 million—sufficient to provide every child in the country with a year of pre-school education? How can the Prime Minister expect parents, teachers and governors to cut, cut, cut, when the Government's record is spend, spend, spend?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman did not address the savings and improvements brought about by the activities of consultants. All that concerns him is making a spurious point that would have been better made about his own Liberal Democrat-controlled county council in Somerset. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the record on consultancies, he will find that one costing £50,000 yielded savings of tens of millions of pounds for the taxpayer.
    Mr. Rowe: Did my right hon. Friend note that in the recent debate on utilities many Opposition Members were keen to see utilities restored to the public sector? Is not it an extraordinary definition of monopoly to imagine that in a world in which foreign companies compete globally with our former public utilities, we should not stimulate competitiveness across the world?
    The Prime Minister: Opposition Members may still relish the day when it cost the taxpayer £50 million a week to subsidise utilities so that Ministers could run them inefficiently. These days, those utilities are yielding about the same amount of money each day for the taxpayer. Many utilities are selling their services and expertise abroad to great effect, generating from overseas activities huge sums of money for this country.
    Mr. Rooney: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rooney: It is three and a half years since Operation 2000 was launched. Is the Prime Minister

    141
    aware that today fewer than 4 per cent. of directors and fewer than 3 per cent. of senior managers are women? Does he consider Operation 2000 a success?
    The Prime Minister: When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster speaks in this afternoon's debate, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the improved opportunities for women across a range of circumstances—not least in public appointments for which the Government are directly responsible, where there has been a dramatic improvement. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is some way to go, but a significant improvement has been made in recent years, and I look forward to that continuing.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the document published by the Department of National Heritage last week, "Tourism: Competing with the Best"? It states that tourism could be the largest single issue by the year 2000. Tourism currently employs 1.5 million people, but the report makes it clear that we could do better. Does my right hon. Friend agree that tourism should have higher priority and that a single body should be responsible for encouraging inward tourism?
    The Prime Minister: I should like to reflect with greater care on my hon. Friend's last point because of regional disparities in tourism in Scotland, Wales, the west country and elsewhere. My hon. Friend is right about tourism's importance and the number of people that it employs. In some parts of the United Kingdom—not least, most recently, Northern Ireland—increased tourism is making a material improvement to the local economy.
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Burden: Does the Prime Minister recall specifically ruling out three months ago Government action on executive salaries on the ground that it would constitute—I believe that I quote the right hon. Gentleman correctly—"a pay policy for a small number of key executives"? In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's statement to the House last week, does he think that is a policy or is not a policy—or, as usual, does he not know?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether you, Madam Speaker, would like to let the hon. Gentleman try again, so that he may get his question right. Only one side of the House wants a pay policy for top executives. Labour wants a pay policy for people at the top—a maximum wage at the top, and a maximum wage at the
    142
    bottom because then it would have the justification for a pay policy right the way down British industry. I am seeking to cope with abuses where they occur. If the hon. Gentleman had read what I said last week, he would understand that.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that education provides an escalator of opportunity for all children? Does he believe that choice and standards would benefit from the abolition of grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, all of which are popular? Would not the abolition of grant-maintained schools be particularly harsh on parents who prefer them to schools run by local education authorities, especially in Islington?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that education is one of the areas that gives the greatest opportunity to people. The reforms that we have introduced in recent years extend choice, create a diverse education system and aim to give the best possible education to every child. It is for that reason that we have made reforms right the way through the education system—reforms that have been welcomed by parents and schoolteachers and, increasingly, are welcomed and used by hon. Members in every part of the House.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lloyd: During this, the 50th anniversary of the ending of the war, will the Prime Minister today give some consideration to that generation who were prepared to fight and, in many cases, made considerable personal sacrifices in forced labour camps, for example, in Europe and elsewhere? Is the Prime Minister of the view that it is a fitting reward for that generation that they now spend their lives in poverty as pensioners under the Government?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the respect that everyone in Britain has for the generation who fought in the war. He will also know what has been done, not just in the past few years but during the past couple of generations, to ensure that their living standards are as high as can possibly be the case.
    An hon. Member: Not successful.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says, "Not successful." Perhaps he would like to reflect on the number of improvements that we made in 1979 that had not been introduced by the previous Labour Government.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the serious allegations made in the Daily Express yesterday about vote rigging by Labour party hopefuls and the exploitation of ethnic minorities, have you received a request from Labour Front-Bench Members to change the business of the House today, so that that fresh example of Labour sleaze can be fully debated by the House?
Madam Speaker: No, I have not.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order from alternate sides.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Rather than that, I wondered whether there was any chance of getting a statement from the Government about the future of the Consett steel works?
Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a Member of the House who sits on a Select Committee to be interviewing his own clients? That is happening on a Select Committee of the House at 4.15 this afternoon. It seems wrong that the Chairman of that Select Committee should be interviewing his own clients, because there may be a conflict of interests.
Madam Speaker: I was not aware that the interview was with the Chairman's own clients. I do not know the procedure on such a matter, but as the hon. Member has made a serious allegation, I must obviously look into the situation.
Mr. Shaw rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I know exactly the point of order, and I shall now deal with it.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you advise me whether there is a conflict of interest in the Chancellor investigating the Barings collapse, when that bank contributed some £700,000 to Tory party funds?
Madam Speaker: I think that we have seen the end of points of order, which are not at all points of order but points of view.
Mr. Alan Duncan rose—
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member raised a point of order with me two days ago. Does he have another one?
Mr. Duncan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you consider inviting the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) to apologise to the House? He has publicly declared his intention to flout the rules and conventions of the House, which now appears to be Labour party policy.
144
In a public statement, he has demanded that the Committee stage of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill be packed 100 per cent. with supporters of the Bill. That, if it is anything, is legislative fascism. May I invite you to ask him to apologise to the House?
Madam Speaker: If any hon. Member is flouting the rules and procedures of the House, I will take that seriously. I shall look at what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he made a statement to that effect—
Mr. Duncan rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member does not need to give me a copy. I have a set of Clerks who will provide me with copies of everything I want, thank you very much.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order are getting totally out of hand. They are no longer points of order. Hon. Members seem to think that we are still on television. That has quite a lot to do with it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
I know the dodge on Tuesdays. Hon. Members want to get on television when they have not been able to ask a question.
I will take only genuine points of order. They had better be genuine points of order from now on.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), Madam Speaker. As one who will be sitting on—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point. Will the hon. Member resume his seat? The hon. Member for Dover raised an issue with me. It will remain with me, and I will deal with it. Thank you.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will you confirm that it is the tradition of the House that, when a Bill receives its Second Reading and goes to Committee, the Committee reflects the views of the House when it votes? Given that the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill on Friday had the unanimous support of the House, it therefore follows that the Committee should contain Members who reflect the views of the House.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct.
I am able now to respond to the point of order that was raised by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). Perhaps I can make it quite clear. I understand that the Chairman of the Employment Committee declared his interest at the outset of the relevant inquiry.
Mr. David Shaw: My point was not that the issue was not declared; it was declared. I was not suggesting that it was not. My point was about the conflict of interest. The Committee is examining whether directors of companies are capable of presenting their case properly. The Chairman of the Committee has an interest in a business

145
that deals with the presentation of directors' issues and cases. Therefore, there is a direct conflict of interest between his parliamentary and his business roles.
Madam Speaker: That is for the Committee to determine. The Chairman of the Committee declared his interest. If the Committee was not satisfied, it would have required him to leave the Chair during that period. It did not do so, and the Chairman declared his interest quite properly.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would you confirm, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: Just a moment.
Mr. Skinner: Would you agree, Madam Speaker, that, if we investigated the Chairmen of all the Select Committees that are chaired by Tory Back Benchers, we would almost certainly find a conflict of interest in nearly every case, and would be without a Chairman in every one of those Committees?
Madam Speaker: I certainly would not agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I think that we have more positive things to do, especially this afternoon.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Have you had a request from a Treasury Minister to make a statement today about the Audit Commission, and whether there will be a full public inquiry into the grants-for-votes scandal which is sweeping Labour councils at the moment?
Madam Speaker: If any Minister had been seeking to make a statement today, it would have been on the Annunciator screen by 1 o'clock.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would you confirm that it was the Leader of the House of Commons who tabled the resolutions, which we all approved, on the question of conflict of interest in Select Committees, following reports produced in 1992 by the Select Committee on
146
Members' Interests, that the report was carried unanimously, and that the Chairman of the Select Committee involved is abiding by the resolution that was carried by the Commons?
Madam Speaker: I have no doubt about that, and I assumed that hon. Members who take an interest in the proceedings and the activities of the House were aware of all that, and should not be raising these issues on points of order.

BILLS PRESENTED
  RAPE VICTIMS COMPENSATION
  Mr. John Austin-Walker, supported by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Ms Jean Corston, Ms Joan Walley and Ms Tessa Jowell, presented a Bill to amend the law in respect of the compensation payable to victims of rape by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 31 March, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]
  ADOPTIVE MOTHERS (MATERNITY RIGHTS)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson, supported by Ms Tessa Jowell, Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, Ms Liz Lynne, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Ms Glenda Jackson, Ms Joyce Quin, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Richard Burden and Ms Jean Corston, presented a Bill to amend Part III of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and Part XII of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 so as to require the Secretary of State by order to confer rights on adoptive mothers in relation to employment similar to those enjoyed by mothers whose children are born to them, including the right of an adoptive mother to paid leave and protection from dismissal during the period following the date on which the child is due to have its home with her with a view to adoption: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 31 March, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

Women and Information Technology
3.38 pm
Ms Judith Church: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide means of increasing women's involvement in information technology.
The Bill focuses on measures to address the serious under-representation of women in information technology at all levels—a result of the IT culture that alienates girls at a very early age, and continues to deny them access throughout their careers. The Bill is not a matter for discussion; it is a mandate for action to deal with the problem, and provides the opportunity for a response to an expanding IT employment market. So far, the response has been slow, incoherent and underfunded, and I demand a change.
The Bill recognises that we are at the take-off stage of another IT skills crisis, as reported comprehensively by Philip Virgo in his 1994 IT skills report entitled, forebodingly, "The Gathering Storm". As IT employment figures increased, the tragedy of women's under-representation was acknowledged by the Government in their White Paper, "Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology". To put it simply, there is a sharp and steady increase in demand for IT labour, and a decline in supply. The gap is widening so quickly, when it should be halted by attention to our female population as a resource.
In last year's report on women in science, engineering and technology, "The Rising Tide", a committee—chaired by a man—made powerful recommendations; but I believe that the situation is so serious that only concerted effort and a high priority will dent the already male edifice of information technology. By the year 2006, women will account for 80 per cent. of the growth in the domestic labour market. There are tremendous opportunities for women in IT, but the evidence shows that they are underprepared. That evidence makes depressing reading.
The percentage of girls studying computer science at A-level dropped from 22 per cent. in 1978 to a mere 19 per cent. in 1993. Today, entry to computer science courses in United Kingdom universities is only 17 per cent. female, compared with 22 per cent. in 1980; yet 65 per cent. of employers want to employ someone with a degree qualification. At Southampton university—one of the country's leading research universities—only nine out of 93 of this year's first-year intake in computer science are women: fewer than 10 per cent. In much study at degree level now, particularly in the Open university, home computing is a critical component.
As for employment, only 4 per cent. of IT managers are women, compared with 9 per cent. of managers generally. IBM recently replaced its outgoing chief executive not with the widely tipped and respected Ellen Hancock, the senior vice-president, but with Lou Gerstner from Nabisco, a cereal company.
What causes the problems? Research in past years suggested that there was little gender difference in attitudes to IT among people aged between six and 10. That has clearly changed: even those aged seven are beginning to see computing as masculine. With the rapid growth in lower-priced, hand-held games, the retail market is making it clear whom its targets really are. Let us take Gameboy, for example. Does anyone seriously
148
believe that young boys would play with something called "Gamegirl"? So Gameboy it is: what a perfect example of toys for the boys.
Most computer games are inherently male-friendly, involving football games, space wars and "destroy" and "conqueror" themes. The use of weapons is common, and violence is often portrayed. This is a retail market that targets young males, and reinforces the predominantly male IT culture at a perilously early age.
We cannot afford to ignore the worsening problem. IT will be the most economically critical sector of the 21st century; the advent of the information super-highway will mean that information is power, and unless there is intervention, women will effectively be excluded.
The IT jobs market is portrayed in a grossly male way. One has only to examine the advertisement pages of the main computer journals. They are full of images of would-be male employees playing football or touching the tape first in an athletics competition. The excellent leaflet, "Why Me? Why IT?", produced by the National Council for Educational Technology, addresses 14 to 16-year-old girls. I fear, however, that by that age, the damage has already been done.
Compared with other countries, Britain is falling behind, with only 23 per cent. of IT employees being women, compared with 39 per cent. in France, 45 per cent. in the United States and 55 per cent. in Singapore. IT is the key to keeping Britain up to date, to competing with other countries and to making the most of our industrial base. A company's success depends on how it applies and uses IT, and so does Britain's success. Our international competitiveness is at stake here. This can hardly be called a women's issue.
I recently visited John Brown, the engineering construction conglomerate, to see its IT global super-highway in action. We linked up with Australia, Bombay and Texas. It was impressive, but it was so disappointing to see not a single woman in this fast-emerging world of work, in which there is high investment and the need to be constantly ahead.
I also visited British Telecom's research headquarters at Martlesham. It was a fascinating day, but again, I discovered that, in one important section researching the new technology of packet switching, of 65 software engineers, only three were women. It was hard to swallow. Although women represent 45 per cent. of total employment, in IT jobs they represent less than 17 per cent., and they are mostly in the lower-skilled jobs. Even in sectors of the economy that are predominantly female, there are disproportionately few women in senior IT positions.
There is a popular and unfortunate caricature of women as being congenitally incapable of dealing with machines. One has only to witness the jokes about women drivers, although we have been proved to be safer than males. There is no evidence that I know of that women have any problem with washing machines, dishwashers or microwave ovens, unlike a great many men, who seem to be afflicted by sudden blind spots when it comes to technology in the kitchen. So many of the skills necessary in IT employment and especially in senior management, including the ability to adapt and to communicate, are signature characteristics of the female population. The Bill would address many of the problems.

149
Henley Centre research shows that women have less experience and confidence in the new technology. Some 70 per cent. of men feel confident in using video recorders, but only 58 per cent. of women feel confident. The research, however, relied on asking men and women whether they could use them. I do not think that it is a gross generalisation to say that there are not many men who admit to not knowing how to work something. The evidence is that it is men who first learn to use the video and the home computer, and that most home computers are bought for boys, by fathers and for fathers. The evidence is that men control their use in the home.
The market cannot solve the IT skills shortage, and it cannot produce well-qualified young women to take up substantial employment opportunities, if they have already turned their backs on a career in IT in the primary schools. The Government have made a few attempts in this area, but those attempts have been fragmented, unco-ordinated and largely ineffective. We have no time to waste. If the situation is allowed to continue, the real losers will be not just women, but Britain's competitiveness in our rapidly changing global economy.
3.48 pm
Mr. John Butcher: I had not intended to speak against the Bill until I heard the terms in which the hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) moved the motion. To establish what I hope are my non-sexist credentials, I point out that I ran a programme called Women into Science and Engineering—WISE—and I am on record as saying in terms of engineering that we cannot afford to turn our back on 50 per cent. of the nation's intellect. We have a shortage of well-trained engineers and scientists; we need them. Wasted human and other resources are not to be tolerated in this country.
As someone who earned his living in the computer industry until I came into the House, I know that opinions are changing on how people are best qualified for entry into the computer and IT industries and how people can be best trained into becoming articulate and well-educated users of those systems. It may sound a heresy to say this today, but there is growing evidence that employers will go a long way to avoid hiring computer scientists. They would far sooner hire analysts and programmers who have not been tainted by that particular discipline.
Therefore, to measure the success of women and girls, at 16 or 18, or as graduates at 21 years old, on whether they populate those computer science courses to an appropriately balanced level is to embark on an area of assessment which may be already discredited in the eyes of those who hire people as analysts, programmers or future electronics engineers.
I oppose the Bill because I adopt what will probably be seen as another heresy, but which we shall come to recognise in due course as having grounds for review. I plead guilty as someone who adopted the IT revolution root and branch, but there is now reason to believe that we have too many computers in our schools and that they are being used by children who are too young. We should welcome computer literacy, but a module which says that there shall be some compulsory introduction into IT keyboard skills for our youngsters in primary schools and even in infant schools may be a grave error. I shall tell the hon. Lady why I believe that to be so.
150
One of the strengths of the countries that are now making great headway in IT skills and in developing information technology and electronics industries is the highly traditional education system. Japanese young people or German young people or Singaporeans or Malaysians are not allowed anywhere near a computer keyboard until they have fully developed that muscle in their heads which we call a brain. To turn to the hon. Lady's second point, it therefore need not be a valid measurement to argue that girls who do not populate computer classes as much as boys are therefore at a disadvantage.
When one wants a software program, especially a complex program, written in the world today, does the House know where one goes? One goes to India. Software factories there are populated by Indian graduates who did not touch a keyboard until they were 16 years old, but learned multiplication up to the 20 times table ad nauseam at school.
I appreciate that what I am saying may be unorthodox at this stage, but the hon. Lady's speech was more compliant with the culture of the late 1970s and early 1980s than it is with the hiring culture of IT and electronics companies today. I am not arguing against IT skills or against women acquiring IT skills in the appropriate proportion, but other nations are showing us that the fashion of early education, total education and immersion at too early an age is merely that: a fashion. I repeat that I say that as someone who earned my living in the industry for a long period. I oppose the Bill, because the logic and the measurement on which it was asserted may well be flawed.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to he brought in by Ms Judith Church, Ms Janet Anderson, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Ms Jean Corston, Ms Angela Eagle, Ms Margaret Hodge, Ms Glenda Jackson, Ms Tessa Jowell, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Ms Estelle Morris, Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Mrs. Barbara Roche.

WOMEN AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Ms Judith Church accordingly presented a Bill to provide means of increasing women's involvement in information technology: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 April, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. From my recollection, Speaker Selwyn Lloyd ruled that hon. Members who spoke in opposition to ten-minute Bills were under an obligation to carry through their speech and vote. Could we have some guidance from you, at your convenience, as to what the practice is? It is a bit of an abuse to speak on a subject and then not—
Madam Speaker: Order. I can answer that point of order right away. That has never been the practice. Ten-minute Bills are often opposed. That was the case even in Speaker Selwyn Lloyd's time. The only procedure that we have to carry out is that I have to hear the hon. Member who opposes the Bill say "No" when I put the Question. He or she does not have to name tellers or seek a Division. The hon. Member must call out clearly, "No." That is what the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) did. I am perfectly satisfied with those procedures, which I have always seen carried out in this House.

Opposition Day
[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Women
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.56 pm
  Ms Clare Short: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the Government's failure to implement its undertakings made at the 1985 UN Conference to promote the progress of women towards equality by the year 2000; in particular notes the damaging effects of labour market deregulation on the position of women, the growing divide between families with two earners and families with none, and the cutbacks in pension entitlement which have had a particularly damaging effect on women; and believes that, taken together with its failure to implement a national childcare strategy, the Government is wasting the talent and diminishing the life opportunities of women in the UK.
  This is the second annual debate that the Labour party has organised in order to ensure that, henceforth, at least once a year the House of Commons takes stock of the progress of women towards equality. Last year, in the same week—the week of International Women's Day—we staged the first such debate to take place since a Labour Government passed the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
  It is no coincidence that that debate took place when John Smith was the leader of the Labour party. Many tributes have been paid to John, and I would like, if I may, to add a tribute on behalf of British women. John's deep commitment to fairness, social justice and public service is well recognised. His fierce commitment to women's equality has been less widely celebrated. I suspect that John's commitment was particularly strong because he had three daughters. He was immensely proud of his daughters, and he simply wanted the world to be fair for them; he therefore realised that the world had to change.
  It was under John's leadership that the Labour party committed itself to the selection of women candidates in half of all the seats that we must and will win in order to form the next Government. The process that was agreed is now working its way through. The consequence will be that, after the next election when we occupy the Government Benches, there will be at least 80 or perhaps 100 women Members among our ranks.
  That will constitute only a quarter of the parliamentary Labour party, and there will still be some way to go to reach equality. However, I believe that that number will be sufficiently large to transform the culture of the House of Commons. Women of all ages, backgrounds and ethnicity will be a normal part of public life in Britain.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Lady will know that it is the Labour party's policy in my part of the world to create a directly elected Scottish Assembly of which, by law, half the members will have
  152
  to be women. What does that do for the role of women in Scottish public life? What sort of electoral system will she introduce to ensure that that happens?
  Ms Short: I applaud that commitment. Parliaments around the world are moving to require half the candidates to be women—
  Mr. Robertson: Members.
  Ms Short: They are moving to half women representation in Parliaments. Parliaments around the world recognise—in this regard, our Parliament is very backward—that democracy is incomplete when half the population is so grossly under-represented in the democratic politics of that country. I look forward to the Scottish Parliament being 50 per cent. men and 50 per cent. women. It will be a finer Parliament for that reason.
  Once Labour has made the breakthrough which will produce so many women in the next House of Commons, other parties will scrabble to catch up with us. The transformation and improvement that that will bring to British politics and to the House of Commons will stand as a lasting tribute to John Smith.
  The second change that will remain as a result of John Smith's commitment to women's equality is this annual House of Commons debate. Following last year's debate, I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Employment and Minister with responsibility for women, now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), to suggest that the Government should facilitate an annual debate to monitor the progress of women towards equality.
  The right hon. Gentleman wrote back and said that there were many opportunities to discuss sex equality matters, and that the general principle was that the business of the House was a matter for the business managers, not for him. Well, I must say that my relationship with the Labour business managers must be much better than the right hon. Gentleman's relationship with his business managers. Given his failure, the Opposition decided that, in opposition and in government, we will facilitate an annual debate to monitor Government policies in promoting women's equality.
  Weak as the posture of the Secretary of State for Employment was a year ago, it is interesting to compare the Government's response to the 1994 debate with their response in 1995. Last year, the debate was answered, as I have said, by the former Secretary of State for Employment, who was openly willing to admit that he was also the Minister with responsibility for women.
  This year, we have a new Secretary of State for Employment. He is notorious for his hatred of all things European, many of which benefit women, and, of course, for being a fanatical advocate of low pay. We could only imagine his embarrassment when he found that his promotion to Employment Secretary also made him Minister with responsibility for women. The consequence seems to be that he has quietly dropped that aspect of his responsibility. The result is that the Government's 1992 reorganisation of the Whitehall machinery to deliver equality for women, centring responsibility on the Department of Employment, has been turned into nonsense.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster now chairs the Cabinet sub-Committee on women's issues. The sex equality branch remains in the Department of

  153
  Employment. The Secretary of State pretends that such issues have nothing to do with him, and he leaves his responsibilities to the Minister of State, who, of course, is responsible for opposing the legal right to abortion in Britain, and who left her Church because it decided to ordain women priests.
  We see the Government's commitment from 1994 to 1995 and their commitment to equality for women deteriorate because of the ministerial reshuffle. It is noticeable, however, that, when we refer to the Government's behaviour on the international stage, we find a completely different picture. It seems that the Government are willing to sign up for international agreements that commit them to action to promote women's equality, but that they have no intention of publicising those commitments at home, or of turning them into reality.
  It is important to examine the Government's record on this matter in 1995, because the commitments that they made at the United Nations conference in Nairobi in 1985 are to be revised and updated in Beijing in September. I understand that the Minister of State, Department of Employment, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), is to head the British delegation.
  Already, Britain has produced a glossy report suggesting that the position of women in Britain is highly advanced and deeply satisfactory. Indeed, the Government boast about that in their amendment. Let us therefore briefly examine some of the commitments that the Government made in 1985 and compare them with their record.
  On employment, in paragraph 67 of the Nairobi forward-looking strategies, the Government agree that
  "Employment legislation should ensure equity and provide benefits for women … by providing minimum wage standards, insurance benefits, safe working conditions and the right to organise."
  We must conclude either that the Government were in favour of minimum wage protection in 1985 and changed their minds by 1995, or that they cynically signed up to those agreements without intending to implement them.
  In paragraph 135 of the Nairobi forward-looking strategies, the Government agreed that
  "Measures based on legislation and trade union action should be taken to ensure equity in all jobs and avoid exploitative trends in part-time work, as well as the feminisation of part-time, temporary and seasonal work."
  In 1985, the Government appeared to be keen to avoid women being trapped in low-paid work. In 1995, 87 per cent. of part-time workers in Britain are women, and they are overwhelmingly low-paid workers.
  The final part of the forward-looking strategies to which I shall refer concerns governmental machinery to deliver equality for women. Paragraph 57 states:
  "Appropriate governmental machinery for monitoring and improving the status of women should be established where it is lacking. To be effective, this machinery should be established at a high level of government and should be ensured adequate resources, commitment and authority to advise on the impact on women of all government policies".
  It is fair to say that, in 1992, the Government supported that recommendation; but by 1995, with the new Secretary of State for Employment, it had been ditched.
  Did the Government ever really support the agreement that they made in Nairobi in 1985? Did they mean to implement those commitments—particularly the
  154
  commitment to protect the minimum wage—or were they so embarrassed when they found themselves out of step with world opinion on women's equality that they agreed to commitments which they had no intention of honouring?
  My view, and the view of the Labour party, is that the Government's failure to implement the undertakings which they gave in Nairobi in 1985—particularly on the question of low pay and the minimum wage—is wasting the talent and diminishing the life opportunities of women in the United Kingdom, and is seriously damaging the performance of the British economy.
  Despite their commitments in Nairobi, the Government have adopted a strategy of encouraging competition by wage cutting. Thus, they have stripped away all the protections which previously existed for low-paid workers. That is why they are so strongly opposed to the European social chapter and to the national minimum wage.
  Women have borne the brunt of the Government's strategy, but it has also been deeply damaging to the position of men in the labour market and to the overall performance of the British economy.
  Mr. John Butcher: Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a fairly old-fashioned distinction in attitudes between both sides of the House? The Opposition are arguing for equality for women, while the theme among my hon. Friends is equality of opportunity for women. If, as the hon. Lady wishes, equality for women is to be mandatory in this House in terms of the imposition of quotas for Members, does she take her logic further into any other sectors of public or industrial endeavour? Is she arguing for a quasi-quota system in other types of activity?
  Ms Short: The Labour party has proudly decided that we will put forward women candidates in half the seats which we intend to win to form a Government after the next election. We believe that British democracy is gravely incomplete when women are so under-represented in the House. We also believe that the quality of debate in the Chamber will increase enormously when more women are represented here.
  I take the view that the measures which are appropriate to ensure that we have proper and democratic representation here are not necessarily the same measures as should be used to promote women in employment, but the principle of promoting women's equality should inform all our social policy.
  Ms Jean Corston: Is it not rich for a Conservative Member to criticise the Labour party for ensuring that half our electoral representation will be women, when the vice-chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), spends half her life trying to persuade Conservative associations around the country to select women candidates, because there is a 50 per cent. target in the Conservative party for candidates at the next election?
  Ms Short: Those who will the end, will the means, and the Labour party will deliver the goods. There will be a massive increase in the number of women in the next

  155
  House of Commons, and I am sure that the Conservative party will introduce stern measures to catch up with us after we have made that enormous breakthrough.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Is the hon. Lady not aware that her party's campaign to bring more women into Parliament is patronising and insulting to women, because it is trying to introduce positive discrimination rather than allowing women to get to Westminster on merit, which is how I prefer to be here?
  Ms Short: The hon. Lady must be aware that the view of the people of Britain is that the people who are in the House of Commons at the moment could not possibly have been selected on merit. The selection of a lot more women to come to the House will massively increase the average standard overnight.
  The central argument that I shall put before the House is that women's demand for equality is not a zero-sum game; it is not a question of advancing women at the expense of men. Indeed, the present Government strategy of encouraging low-paid employment damages all interests. Labour's strategy, based on the need for a minimum wage, full-time rights for part-time workers and family-friendly employment policies, will benefit the performance of the British economy and the quality of life for all.
  If we look at some of the facts, we see a devastating picture. In recent years, there has been a massive growth in part-time, low-paid and insecure employment, from 4.6 million part-time jobs in 1979 to 6 million in 1994; 87 per cent. of part-time workers are women, and nearly half of all women work in part-time jobs.
  Of course, there is nothing wrong with part-time work in itself, but in Britain part-time work goes with low pay, poor employment rights, little pension entitlement and little access to training or promotion. We have the biggest gender pay gap in the European Union. Women part-timers earn only 59 per cent. of the hourly rate of male full-timers, and even women full-timers earn only 72 per cent. of the male rate.
  The average mother of two loses half her total lifetime earnings as a consequence of having children; mothers in the United Kingdom have the largest such earnings loss in Europe. There is, of course, no income loss for men as a result of the birth of their children.
  The Government's encouragement of low-paid work and the lack of a national child care strategy—we have another record here: Britain has the lowest level of publicly funded child care in the EU—traps many women in badly paid part-time work, and permanently blights their life opportunities.
  The effects continue into old age, because low-paid workers have poor pension entitlements. In 1992, one in six women retired on a full state pension, compared with two in three men, and 87 per cent. of single pensioners on income support are women. The Government's pensions policy, which has eroded the value of the state pension and cut the value of the state earnings-related pension scheme, will disproportionately damage women pensioners and ensure that, in future, an even higher proportion of them will have to survive in poverty.
  Under the Government's strategy, all parties lose. The consequences of the strategy that promotes part-time low-paid work for women also damages the interests of
  156
  men. The restructuring of work since the 1970s has led to a massive increase in the number of men excluded from the labour market.
  According to the family expenditure survey, in 1971, 93 per cent. of men were in full-time employment, 1 per cent. were working part time and 7 per cent. were not working. The deterioration has been devastating. By 1992, only 75 per cent. of men were working full time, 5 per cent. were working part time, and 20 per cent. were not working. The shortfall has been only partly made up by the growth in women's employment, as the number of hours worked in the economy has dropped; fewer hours are worked in the British economy now than were worked in 1979.
  When we Members of Parliament sit in our advice bureaux, many of us find that older men who have been made redundant come to see us and talk about the fact that they are no longer employed and have exhausted their right to unemployment benefit. They say how useless and marginalised they feel having to live in a household that relies on their wives' earnings. I am very conscious that many families in that situation find that their marriages break up. That is one of the cruel consequences of the Government's employment strategy that affects men.
  Thus, using women as cheap labour does not benefit men, but leads to their being displaced in the labour market. Women and men have a shared interest in achieving decent employment rights and pay for part-timers, to bring to an end the pricing down of secure jobs.
  The effect of the changes between women and men in the labour market also increases the polarisation and divisions in British society. While part-time work and unemployment has grown, British full-time workers work the longest hours in Europe. We are witnessing a growth in the number of pressurised, work-rich, two-earner families, and impoverished, marginalised work-poor families. That is a result of the fact that traditional male jobs are declining, while the new jobs are low-paid women's jobs, with wages insufficient to support a family. The consequences are that only women living with an earning partner can afford to take them.
  Eighty per cent. of women part-timers are married or cohabiting, and 91 per cent. of them have earning partners. An Equal Opportunities Commission study projects that such labour market changes will continue for the next 10 years. The consequences are socially and economically unsustainable. Growing male unemployment and a rising divorce rate will lead to a continuing growth in the number of families trapped outside the labour market.
  The changes in the labour market are generating a massive benefits bill. Unemployment costs £10.1 billion in direct benefits to the unemployed. In addition, a portion of the £18.7 billion spent on the sick and disabled goes to people seeking work, especially older discouraged male workers. More than 500,000 low-paid families are dependent on family credit to bring them up to the subsistence level.
  For example, the average payment to lone mothers is £48.69 a week. This subsidy to low pay is costing the taxpayer more than £1 billion in family credit alone. We have to ask whether it is right that the taxpayer should subsidise the wage levels paid by some of the meanest employers in the land.

  157
  It is clear that the Government's failure to promote women's equality at work and family-friendly employment policies that enable men and women to work and care for their families is costing us enormous sums in benefit expenditure. It is also damaging the performance of the British economy. Competition by wage cutting leads to high labour turnover and poor investment in training. In both respects, Britain is very backward.
  Britain is one place below Turkey at the bottom of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's skills league for the proportion of 18-year-olds in education. Only one third of the United Kingdom work force has a vocational qualification; apprenticeships have virtually disappeared; and fewer people participate in higher education than in any of our major competitor countries. Investment as a percentage of gross domestic product in Britain was only 17.5 per cent. between 1979 and 1992, compared to 29.8 per cent. in Japan.
  It is clear that there is no turning back from the changes that flow from women's demands for an equal chance in society. The days when women ran the home and men ran the rest are long gone. It is absolutely clear that women have made many advances. The struggle for the vote, for education and for the right to own property after marriage, access to contraception and the right to escape from a violent partner have transformed our lives compared to those of our mothers' and grandmothers' generations, but there is still a very long way to go before women have full equality.
  Women are still absent from senior positions in all our major institutions. As has already been said, there are not many women Members of Parliament, nor are there many female judges, managers, senior police officers, professors and so on. As I said, the fate of nearly half British women is to be trapped in part-time, low-paid work, which damages their life1 opportunities permanently, right through to retirement.
  The Labour party believes strongly that a modern and successful economy must promote equal opportunities for women. Thus, our commitment to the social chapter, the national minimum wage, full-time rights for part-time workers, a national child care strategy and family-friendly employment policies will improve the quality of life for women and men, so that both can enjoy a satisfying career and share in the care of their children, and their parents as they become more elderly, without being forced to depend on state benefits. However, we also believe that we must encourage investment in training and infrastructure to secure a healthy economic future.
  The present Government's policy of encouraging low-paid employment is deeply damaging to the women of the United Kingdom and to the performance of the British economy. Labour's strategy will promote the interests of women, stop men being pushed out of the work force, and lead to a high-training, high-investment economy. We have a backward Government, taking us continually further backwards.
  4.20 pm
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "notes with approval the progress made in the United Kingdom
  towards equality and increasing opportunities for women, as described in the United Kingdom National Report for the Fourth
  158
  United Nations World Conference on Women; and calls on the Government to continue the policies which have made this possible.".
  Last year, it was a pleasure for me to respond to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) in a wide-ranging debate about women in Britain. As Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on women's issues, I am proud once again to have the chance to respond to her opening speech, and to remind the House of what the Government are doing to promote equality of opportunity for women.
  I am glad that the newly appointed Government co-chair of the Women's National Commission, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), is here to reply to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on that important appointment. I know that the House will join me in wishing her well, and also in thanking her predecessor, Lady Denton, for the great contribution that she made during her three years in that post.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Portillo): Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hunt: I hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment echoing my views. When I was Secretary of State for Employment, I came greatly to value and respect the work of Lady Denton and the work of the Women's National Commission.
  I am interested to note that, last Thursday, the debate was originally entitled, "The Position of Women in Britain", but the title on the Order Paper has now altered to, "Lives of Women in the United Kingdom". I welcome that, because it recognises the fact that we are discussing women in the United Kingdom as a whole.
  Ms Short: The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that, rightly, one of the Ulster Unionist Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland objected to the fact that the debate was entitled, "The Position of Women in Britain". That was a slip and a snub that was in no way intended, and we immediately adjusted the title to, "Lives of Women in the United Kingdom".
  Mr. Hunt: As I said, I welcome that.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: The Minister referred to the Cabinet Committee that he chairs. I have asked questions of that Committee, and it appears to meet very infrequently to consider women's issues. I have asked about the issue of women suffering from domestic violence. When will the Government formulate a programme for safe hostels in every part of the country, so that women can be safe from domestic violence? I cannot obtain an answer as to what that Cabinet Committee has been doing about the issue. Perhaps the Minister will tell me.
  Mr. Hunt: Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman. The way in which those Committees are referred to has been established by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the first time ever. The present Prime Minister has recognised publicly the existence of Cabinet Committees, whereas under previous Administrations that was not even made public. He has not only published the identity of Cabinet Committees, but published the membership and the terms of reference. However, he and I follow time-honoured tradition in not revealing to the House the

  159
  nature of the subjects being discussed or the dates of the meetings of the Committees. I believe that it is right to follow that tradition, but let me assure the hon. Gentleman that the work of the Committee continues apace. The correspondence and meetings take place, and indeed we shall meet this month. Let me simply say—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when the Labour party tried to oblige Labour Members of Parliament to elect more women to the shadow Cabinet, one fewer was elected and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) lost her seat, but the Leader of the Opposition ignored the vote and simply appointed her regardless?
  Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The artificiality of positive discrimination can often have the opposite effect. I take this opportunity to welcome the Labour party's change of policy, which is illustrated by the motion. It has at last dropped its idea of having a Ministry dedicated to women's issues.
  For some time, the Opposition have demanded a separate Ministry for women, but their current proposals look remarkably like the arrangements that the Prime Minister introduced in 1992. It has taken the Opposition some time to catch up, but I am very glad to see that they are getting there. I welcome their change of policy and I am glad that Opposition Members do not deny it.
  I therefore invite the Opposition to take another giant step forward and explain to the House why, of 68 general secretaries of trade unions affiliated with the Trades Union Congress, only four are women. In telling almost everyone under the sun what he or she should be doing to improve equality of opportunity, the hon. Member for Ladywood unaccountably omitted to proffer advice to the trade unions on that point. I hope that some of the later Opposition speakers in the debate will make good that omission.
  Ms Short: I listed a series of our major institutions that have that deficiency, and the trade union movement was included in that list. It has been taking major steps to increase the representation of women—perhaps the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) will contain herself—on trade union executives and among senior officials. My union, Unison, has committed itself to the principle of proportionality. It believes that the officers and representatives at every level should reflect the number of women members. Clearly, a generation of trade union general secretaries are male and a generation of women are waiting to take over when the present secretaries reach retirement age.
  Mr. Hunt: I am glad that the hon. Lady took the opportunity to set out her policy on that point. I hope that there will be some progress in the very important area of representation by general secretaries.
  I hope that the Opposition are not confusing gender politics with gesture politics. Let us not forget that what really counts, in this as in any other area of policy, is practical action all year round, which leads to measurable progress. The Government have taken action and we are making good progress.
  We have the figures to prove that. In the past 10 years, the number of women in employment has increased by 1,369,000. There has been a 14 per cent. increase in the
  160
  number of women working full time and a 19 per cent. increase in the number of women working part time. The proportion of women in the labour force has been increasing and that trend is set to continue. As the hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church)—who is not in the Chamber at present—said when she introduced her ten-minute Bill, women will account for 1.2 million of the projected total rise of 1.5 million in the labour force over the next decade.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to take credit for the fact that, because his Government have done away with so many of the heavy manufacturing jobs in society, almost inevitably more women are entering the work force in low-paid part-time jobs, because that is the only alternative form of employment that his Government intend to encourage.
  Mr. Hunt: Although, for decades, there has been a progressive decline in manufacturing employment, particularly at the heavy end, in the past three months, manufacturing employment has increased by more than 30,000. I believe that that very welcome development is largely due to the Government's policies.
  The proportion of women in the labour force has been increasing and that trend is set to continue. Women are also getting better pay. In 1970, before the Equal Pay Act, women's full-time average earnings were 63 per cent. of men's. By April last year, they had reached almost 80 per cent. of men's and the gap has closed in each of the past six years. Men's real terms earnings have gone up over the past 10 years. The figures show simply that women's earnings have been rising faster.
  Together with the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equal Pay Act provides a full legislative framework second to none in the European Union to combat and deter sex discrimination and to provide protection against sexual harassment.
  Of course, legislation is not the answer to everything and the Government are taking many practical steps to promote the advancement of women. I have seen that at first hand, as Secretary of State for Wales and then as Secretary of State for Employment, before taking on my current responsibilities.
  As the hon. Member for Ladywood will know, while at the Welsh Office I introduced a programme called "Chwarae Teg", which is Welsh for fair play. "Chwarae Teg" is the model for "Fair Play for Women", the joint initiative between the Government and the Equal Opportunities Commission that I had the pleasure to launch almost a year ago with Kamlesh Bahl, the chairwoman of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
  The Equal Opportunities Commission continues to play a vital role in ensuring progress on women's issues. The Government do not always agree with the views and actions of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which properly and keenly guards its independence. I have no hesitation, however, in paying tribute to the work of the commission and its many lasting achievements.
  "Chwarae Teg" has demonstrated that a consortium approach to tackling the barriers facing women really can work well. Under "Fair Play for Women", a consortium has been set up in each of 10 English regions. I wish those consortiums well and they have already got off to a very good start.

  161
  There is a huge amount of activity taking place all over the country this week to mark International Women's Day. The London "Fair Play" consortium is hosting a meeting to get across the good business reasons for improving labour market opportunities for women. The west midlands consortium is supporting pilot workshops for personal and career development and the Yorkshire and Humberside consortium is providing financial and promotional support to the university of Huddersfield and its "Women into Technology and Science" course.
  As Cabinet Minister with responsibility for science, I attach great importance to promoting the participation of women in science, engineering and technology. That is why, at the end of last year, I set up a women's development unit in the Office of Science and Technology, which is already working on a number of imaginative new projects with partners in the field.
  I listened carefully to what hon. Member for Dagenham said earlier in introducing her ten-minute Bill and to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), warning about changing attitudes, but there are a number of important initiatives. For example, the unit is funding a special high-profile event at the science museum on the relationship of women to information technology, which will be linked to a planned exhibition on the information super-highway. Later this month, I shall be speaking at a reception to mark the National Council for Educational Technology's new project on attracting girls to information technology.
  Of course, this is not exclusively Government business. The private sector initiative, "Women in Technology", encourages women to enter or return to careers in information technology. Over the past three or four years, it has organised 3,500 workshops for employers and a pretty well-established database for women returners.
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend is moving from Government intervention to other forms of intervention, but may I draw to his attention one discrepancy that his Committee may like to consider? It may relate to the change in the title of the debate as it concerns the discrepancy between abortion laws in Northern Ireland and Britain.
  As my right hon. Friend is probably well aware, abortion is governed by the Abortion Act 1967. That Act does not apply to Northern Ireland. As a result, there are underground and back-street abortions in Northern Ireland and women have to come to Great Britain to get abortions. Will my right hon. Friend consider the difference between the two jurisdictions?
  Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend raises an issue on which strong views are held in Northern Ireland.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And here.
  Mr. Hunt: And right across the United Kingdom, of course. I shall bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and we shall respond.
  My unit is working with Opportunity 2000 to produce a joint brochure targeted at employers of scientists and engineers in universities, Government and industry. It will use case studies to highlight the benefits to employers of family-friendly working practices.
  162
  The Government have supported the employer-led Opportunity 2000 from day one, and four years later, 28 Government Departments and agencies are involved. As a large employer, the Government recognise the need to take a lead in promoting opportunities for women. For more than 10 years, we have had a programme of action for women in the civil service. I shall shortly launch a report that sets out the progress made over that period.
  There is plenty of good news. The proportion of women at executive level has risen from 29 per cent. to 47 per cent. The proportion at higher executive level has risen from 14 per cent. to more than 22 per cent. At senior executive level, the proportion has more than doubled, from 6.4 per cent. to 15 per cent. The proportion of women at assistant secretary level, or grade 5—a senior management and policy grade—has doubled, from 6.6 per cent. to 13.3 per cent.
  In the top three grades, nearly 10 per cent. are women, and a formal benchmark figure has been published, that by the year 2000, 15 per cent. of people in the top three grades are expected to be women. There is still a long way to go, but we have made steady and clear progress, and I see no reason for not meeting our future targets.
  I am pleased to say that the Cabinet Office has a particularly good record on women's issues. A career break system allows individuals to take up to five years' unpaid special leave. At grade 5, the Cabinet Office tops the table of Government Departments, with women at grade 5 comprising 35 per cent. of staff.
  The Government are committed to increasing the number of public appointments held by women. They hold 30 per cent. of Government-appointed posts, compared with 23 per cent. in 1991. Nearly half last year's appointments were of women. That shows what can be achieved by a positive approach—not falling back on some system of artificial quotas, which we all know to be unsatisfactory and which risks devaluing women's achievements.
  That is being realised in the United States and—who knows—Labour may realise it one day, instead of undermining the status of some of its women electoral candidates in selection contests that are a million miles away from providing equality of opportunity for the sexes.
  Opportunity 2000 is about not quotas but individual employers developing and rewarding their employees according to their merits, and addressing the factors that may prevent women achieving their full potential. There are 275 members of Opportunity 2000, employing 25 per cent. of the country's work force. Opportunity 2000's third-year report highlighted the range of measures being taken by employers to address directly factors that are holding women back.
  Opportunity 2000 found that 58 per cent. of member organisations offer job share arrangements, 60 per cent. offer flexible hours, 23 per cent. offer the option of working from home, 25 per cent. offer contracts linked to school terms, 71 per cent. offer maternity arrangements above the statutory minimum and 67 per cent. offer paternity leave.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: How many offer a seat on the board?
  Mr. Hunt: Too few, and I recognise that. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, with her women's issues working group, is addressing a

  163
  series of problems such as the absence of a proper representation of women at board level. Opportunity 2000 is also directly addressing that problem.
  The figures that I have quoted show the extent to which employers are setting their own priorities for action. I do not believe for a moment that new legislation or more interference from Government would help. In fact, since 1979 we have removed many unnecessary restrictions and burdens on employers, which hampered the flexibility of the labour market. As a result, there has been a clear growth in the number of opportunities for flexible working, enabling individuals to balance their professional and domestic responsibilities to the benefit of everyone concerned.
  The number of women in work in the European Union increased by 8 million between 1983 and 1991, and 25 per cent., a quarter of that increase—2 million jobs for women—was here in the United Kingdom. We have created the sort of deregulated environment in which employers can create jobs. To reimpose the sort of burdens to which the hon. Member for Ladywood referred would destroy work, particularly the flexible job opportunities that women find most attractive.
  The Government are trying to maximise the options available to working parents by increasing child care. In 1993 we launched a £45 million initiative to help expand the provision of out-of-school and holiday child care by around 50,000 places. The funds are being channelled through the training and enterprise councils and the local enterprise councils. More than 13,000 places were created in the first 18 months and another 9,000 are already in the pipeline throughout the country.
  Those new places build on what was already a much improved framework. Day nursery provision more than doubled between 1983 and 1993 to almost 134,000 places in all. There are two and a half times more registered child minders than there were 10 years ago and the total is now almost 300,000. Nine out of every 10 three and four-year-olds attend some form of child care provision.
  The hon. Lady mentioned that in October last year the Government introduced a new disregard for child care in family credit, worth up to £28 per family per week. That is set to help some 150,000 families, including 50,000 women who are expected to be able to take up work as a result of that change.
  The Government do not believe that the taxpayer should subsidise child care costs across the board, regardless of need. We are targeting children who are most in need and taking action where we can have most impact, for instance in developing out-of-school child care. It is worth recalling that the 1990 British social attitudes survey found that only 6 per cent. of mothers who were not in employment gave the cost of child care as one of the main reasons.
  Ms Short: The right hon. Gentleman has just referred to the disregard for the cost of child care introduced by the Government, which they expect to provide some 150,000 child care places. In answer to a recent parliamentary question I was told, speaking from memory, that about 7,800 child care places were being provided
  164
  under the scheme. Can the Minister explain why the result appears to be so much less than the promised figure that he has just quoted?
  Mr. Hunt: I think that the hon. Lady is confused. The new disregard for child care in family credit, which is worth up to £28 per family per week, was set to help some 150,000 families, including 50,000 women who are expected to be able to take up work as a result of the change. Those are the correct figures, which I stand by.
  I take pride in that, because the Government want to create the right conditions for women to have access to work, and the right conditions for women to have access to education and training. We are committed to ensuring that there are training opportunities that address the specific needs of women. Training and enterprise councils are required to set out an equal opportunities strategy with a plan for implementation and a procedure for monitoring progress. The Department of Employment has also asked TECs to report on the anticipated numbers of female participants in training for work and youth training in 1994-95. About half the places in further and higher education are taken up by women and many courses have flexible attendance arrangements to fit in with individual needs. I greatly welcome that.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Perhaps the reason why many women are not benefiting from the disregard for child care is that £28 a week comes nowhere near the full cost of child care. That is why many women still have to rely on informal carers, particularly when they are taking up employment. If the Government really want to help, they should look realistically at child care opportunities and help for women who want to go back to work. The present arrangements are not realistic for most women.
  Mr. Hunt: I am glad that the hon. Lady did not challenge my figure of 50,000 women who are expected to be able to take up work as a result of the change. That endorses the reaction to the move of the Chancellor of Exchequer, which was widely to welcome his announcement, which a number of organisations said would have a real impact. The figures show that.
  Ms Short: This may not be the best way of getting to the bottom of the matter, but the Minister has just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) that he was glad that she did not challenge his figures. I have here the figure given to me in answer to a parliamentary question, which states that only 7,180 families are in receipt of the disregard for child care in family credit and 35 per cent. of them receive less than £10 per week. Will the Minister explain the difference between the figure of 150,000 that he claimed today and that which the Government stated previously?
  Mr. Hunt: It is simply that the new disregard was introduced only last year, in the way that I have said. I understand that the latest figure is that 10,500 families are currently receiving help. That is the figure at January 1995. I stand by the fact that the disregard will help some 150,000 families.
  Ms Short: In the longer term.
  Mr. Hunt: Of course in the longer term, as the disregard is increasingly introduced. There is no dispute between us. Let the hon. Lady at least acknowledge that

  165
  the disregard received a wide welcome. Already 10,500 families are receiving help and it is anticipated that 150,000 will do so in the longer term.
  Where the Government see clear evidence of a problem, they take action. I give one example. Last month, I announced additional funding to the Royal Society for the new Dorothy Hodgkin fellowships. They will be targeted at top-class scientists who have just completed their PhD—a time when, as "The Rising Tide" report showed, many women are lost to science. That is a step in the right direction.
  There is no question but that in the past women who wanted or needed to work often got a raw deal. But during the past 10 to 15 years, the Government have taken action on a broad front to change that. The future looks promising. In our schools, girls are responding to the challenges that they face. They are outperforming boys in science subjects at GCSE level, breaking down those old stereotypes. As the benefits of the national curriculum work through, I expect to see young women coming through ever more strongly at A-level and in our university system.
  Combine the Government's education policies—a crucial fact is that we are getting the macro-economic conditions right for growth and job creation—with our initiatives in child care, training, regional equal opportunities consortiums and Opportunity 2000, and we have a coherent package of practical measures to help ensure that women in Britain have the chance to realise their potential.
  The Conservative party believes in equality of opportunity, not crude attempts to ignore the problem and to try to fix the outcome. Today's Labour party, however, is a prisoner to political correctness, blowing along willingly with every fad and whim. In its PC mania, Labour will compromise even the principle of equality before the law. It even plans a network of PC thought police throughout central Government and, no doubt, its proposed new regional governments, too.
  When I came to the House 19 years ago, the Labour party may have been pretty incompetent, but it still stood not too far away from the mainstream of British—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a convention of the House that Ministers of the Crown and members of the Opposition refer to themselves as Her Majesty's Government or Her Majesty's Opposition. There is a developing habit among Ministers of addressing Her Majesty's Opposition as the Labour party. Unless it is now our intention to refer to the Government only as the Conservative party, I hope that we might explain one or two of the conventions of the House to the Minister, as although he may have been here for 19 years, it is obviously not long enough.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have stated repeatedly in recent times that I am becoming greatly concerned about the lack of the common courtesies—on both sides—with which I have grown up in the House. Those courtesies seem to be going out the door. I hope that they will rapidly return.
  Mr. Hunt: I listened obediently to the hon. Member for Ladywood, and she referred to the Labour party on several occasions during her opening speech. I am not too sure about the point, but, of course, I respect what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  166
  I was merely saying that, when I came to the House 19 years ago, the Labour party was pretty incompetent, but it was not far away from the mainstream of British common sense. But ever since then, I have watched the Labour party move inexorably into an ideological cul-de-sac of trendy posturing and political correctness, while the Government—not the Opposition—make steady progress in improving opportunities for women, indeed for everyone. Labour's fixation with window dressing on the outskirts of town just grows more embarrassing and I urge the House to reject the Opposition's sham motion and approve the Government's amendment.
  4.51 pm
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I find debates on gender inequality worrying, particularly in this place with its 91 per cent. masculinity. There seems to be a consensus on both sides of the House in that everyone agrees that gender inequality is something that they do not like and that it should not exist in society. Everyone says that they have never practised discrimination and that they are working very hard to achieve gender equality.
  Complacency is added to hypocrisy by the insistence that the situation is getting better all the time. There is an assumption that the liberating effect of the combination of washing machines, contraception and Sunday shopping will lead inevitably to the greater involvement of women in positions of power, influence and wealth. That makes me feel profoundly uneasy, and I feel considerable disquiet about the analysis of what the future holds.
  There was extreme complacency again today, writ large in the Government's submission to the United Nations conference on women, to be held in Peking. The number of women in the judiciary has increased from 4.8 per cent. to 7.8 per cent.—marvellous. The number of women police officers is up from 9 per cent. to 13 per cent.—marvellous. We heard today that in the top three grades of the civil service 10 per cent. of the posts are held by women—which means that 90 per cent. are still held by men.
  Those figures increasingly give me cause to worry, for three reasons. First, the facts spelt out by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short)—and, indeed, the facts spelt out by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about improvements—serve only to highlight the imbalance which still exists. It is true that only 2.8 per cent. of senior managers and only 3.7 per cent. of members of company boards are women. There is an incredible imbalance in the positions of power and influence.
  Secondly, every suggestion that is made in the House to build on the progress that we are told is being made is met with implacable political hostility from Conservative Members. A major measure such as the introduction of a minimum wage would clearly affect women employees in this country for the good, because three out of four people affected by the Government's abolition of the wages councils were women. A vast majority of women would be affected by the implementation of a minimum wage; they are the people who would mainly feel the benefit of that change. Yet that is one of the causes of discord between Conservative and Labour Members.
  Even a minor measure is met with implacable hostility—for example, the Bill that I presented this afternoon to extend to adoptive mothers the same

  167
  maternity rights as are given to natural mothers, although it would possibly have added only 0.5 per cent. to the overall maternity bill. When a minor amendment was tabled to the employment legislation last year, it was met with implacable hostility and thrown out, leaving couples in my constituency to live on part-time earnings, incredibly badly off, during the bonding period following the adoption of a small child or a baby.
  Then there are measures which cost nothing at all, such as provision for more openness and insisting that all employers produce gender-based employment statistics about who gets the best opportunities for training in their companies and who gets the best opportunities for preferment and career development. Without the collation of such information and statistics, there can be no real and permanent progress; yet it is at that point that we meet implacable political hostility to further progress.
  Thirdly, I am concerned about hypocrisy and complacency because I do not believe that the improvements are inevitable: I believe that they could go into reverse. Women's suffrage, achieved in 1928, is only a generation behind us. It is only 50 years since the 1945 Labour Government brought in universal health care, state education for all and a universal pension. The drive behind the undoubted changes that have taken place has nothing whatever to do with the practices, thoughts or policies of the present Government and everything to do with democratic changes stemming from the actions that were taken by the Labour Government in 1945.
  I believe that the current retreat from democracy to a quango state—the privatisation of public services and utilities and the emphasis on profit, share options and markets rather than on public service—could reverse the changes that have been made. Questions of public provision and collective accountability expose the need for gender equality and other types of equality between citizens.
  The national health service is for everyone. A well-funded state education system allows boys and girls to feel that they have equal rights in regard to education. It has taken a generation of children, since comprehensive education became the norm, to bring us to the point at which—as has been rightly pointed out—achievement begins truly to reflect ability. Indeed, girls now outperform boys at every stage from O-levels to university degrees.
  Women in their thousands toiled to sign millions of petitions against the increase in value added tax on heating. Women, in particular, feel outraged by the damage caused by the privatisation of our public utilities, and the fact that the bosses are taking the payments for which they have budgeted so carefully. Women who run household budgets know to their cost the difficulties involved in making those payments and they are personally outraged at the knowledge that their money is paying for multi-million pound salaries, share options and dividends.
  In the past 10 or 15 years, local democracy—democracy in local government—has enabled councils to recognise the problem caused in their communities by gender inequality. They have taken the lead in monitoring the position, collecting figures, launching positive action projects and offering women enhanced training facilities. They have opened up the job market to women in local
  168
  democratic institutions, pioneered job sharing schemes, and so on. We welcome the changes in the civil service that the Chancellor has described, but it should be remembered that they were pioneered in the public sector.
  Having sat on the board of the Sheffield development corporation and also been a member of Sheffield city council, I observed a startling change between the two. The other members of the board exhibited the utmost complacency and ignorance in relation to anything to do with equal opportunities in jobs and training. They either treated such matters as a joke, or admitted that they knew nothing about them and had not heard of such practices in their private sector institutions.
  More recently, I served on the Select Committee on the Environment and noted the obvious surprise when it was pointed out that only three members of the board of the Housing Corporation were women. That did not reflect the interests of housing association tenants. The same applies to many quango appointments: it is commonly felt that a retired business man is an appropriate appointee, because he will know about business and will therefore be more able than a woman to look after quango institutions or privatised utilities.
  So although changes have been outlined ably this afternoon, the move from open competition for civil service jobs to head hunting and the appointment of Ministers' friends is symptomatic of a return to the old boy network. A drift back to the two-tier education system and the two-tier health service could well take the next generation back to the days before 1945 when the welfare state legislation brought about major improvements which have eventually found their way into our lives.
  I fear that the basic instincts of an unchecked society are dominated by hierarchies. There is a tendency towards elitism, establishments and exploitation of the majority by the minority. We can never assume that equality of opportunity will happen automatically in any society. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's speech was riddled with inconsistency; having claimed that the Government had taken action, he said in the next breath that they were succeeding because they had allowed no action to be taken. He seemed to be saying that they had allowed deregulation to take place so that equality could take its natural course. But that is not the way of the world, or the way of British society.
  Opposition Members believe that only through constant vigilance, constant monitoring and—yes—constant intervention by a good, accountable Government can fairness and equality flourish. As soon as they begin to flourish, the development of a sound economic base, a reduction in crime and higher standards of education and skills will follow. On that the House can agree wholeheartedly and, I hope, achieve consensus today.
  5.7 pm
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I begin with a quotation which, I believe, sets a background for much of what will he said today:
  "Can it be pretended that women who manage a property or conduct a business—who pay rates and taxes often to a large amount, and frequently from their own earnings—many of whom are responsible heads of families and some of whom, in the capacity of schoolmistresses, teach more than a great many of the male electors have ever learnt—are not capable of a function of which every male householder is capable?"

  169
  That was said in the House by John Stuart Mill when he moved the first women's suffrage amendments to the 1867 Reform Bill. I am sure that it was true then, and certain that it is very true today.
  The topic of today's debate provides an opportunity to speak about the whole spectrum of women's issues. I would like to discuss many of those issues in depth, but time will not allow me to do so. I shall begin by highlighting the aims of the United Kingdom Federation of Business and Professional Women. In the 1940s, that federation of women's clubs had a number of positive objectives: they were to awaken and encourage in business and professional women a realisation of their responsibilities in their own country and in world affairs; to facilitate effective co-operation between business and professional women throughout the world; to raise the standards of education and training for business and professional women; and to work for the removal of sex discrimination in opportunities for employment, promotion and remuneration.
  Here we are, 50 years later. What has happened since those aims were first laid down? It is interesting to analyse what has been achieved in the past 50 years; I shall look at that in a moment. What is certain is that, whatever progress has been made, much remains to be done. When women look at women's issues, they must never be satisfied with progress if they are permanently to believe in equality with men.
  I believe that we often achieve equality with men, sometimes to the annoyance of the men. We often more than equal them; we out-achieve them. That has been proved by many girls and students in schools, colleges and universities. What do the men do then? I think that they move the goalposts and we then have to start the game all over again. We must never be satisfied with progress.
  What have we achieved towards those aims of almost half a century ago and what needs to be done? Have women realised their responsibilities in their own country and in world affairs, perhaps by effective co-operation between women throughout the world? Women have, I suggest, always recognised their responsibilities, both here and throughout the world. The United Kingdom has not always given the lead. Certainly, in terms of women's suffrage we did not. On 28 November 1893, New Zealand women flocked to the polls as they gained the vote, and obviously made good use of it.
  I recall that, at the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in New Delhi in 1993, Dr. Najma Heptulla presented a paper entitled "Women, a Saga of Struggle". She spoke about the meeting of women parliamentarians which preceded the IPU conference. The meeting took place on the day of rest for the conference. It was Sunday and all the men had a day off while the women went to work on what they wanted to discuss. Dr. Heptulla also said that, despite the pressures of societies and systems, women had, in different periods of history, emerged at the forefront and had proved their mettle, many in this country and many in other parts of the world. We can look back to Queen Elizabeth I—what a determined woman she was. We can look back to Queen Victoria and to our own Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. We can look at Benazir Bhutto and we can look back to Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir and Mrs. Bandaranaike, all of whom were leaders in their countries before we had a woman leader. I recall meeting Lucy Mobuelo, who was the
  170
  leader of the South African Garment Workers Union. What that lady told us about the work she did in that country at a very difficult time was most encouraging.
  There is, of course, always more that needs to be done. While we debate the position of women, we should also spare a thought for the many women throughout the world who do not have the advantages that we have here. We should try, and we should continue to try through our international women's organisations, to improve their daily lives because many of them do not have the advantages and facilities that we have, even though we believe that we can go further.
  We must also look at what steps have been taken to raise the standard of education and training for women. We all recognise that education is vital to enable all people to achieve their full potential. It is widely recognised throughout the world that if one educates a woman, one educates the family; we must not forget that.
  The number of women in higher education has risen by 100,000 since 1979. The proportion of women to men in the intake to higher education is now almost 50:50. I should like to be able to stand here in a year's time and say that we have passed that 50 per cent. mark. That would truly reflect the proportion of women in this country.
  At A-level, girls have a higher success rate than boys, not only in English but in mathematics, physics and technology. At GCSE level, almost 46 per cent. of girls gained five or more passes at grades A to C compared with under 30 per cent. of boys in 1993. I suggest that our school students are making their own way towards the end of their education and the start of their careers.
  Ms Short: Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the advantages of women asking for the statistics of achievement to be disaggregated—or, if the Daily Mail cannot handle that, broken down by the performance of boys and girls—is that we would see that the performance of boys in school is worryingly bad? Does she agree that equal opportunities mean everyone achieving his or her full potential? Does she agree that it is a priority for education policy to examine why boys seem to be underachieving so badly in school?
  Mrs. Peacock: I was going to make that very point. The Government have encouraged choice and diversity in education, allowing parents to choose to send their children to single-sex schools which, on average, produce better academic results for girls. I was going to go on to say that it is, however, worrying, no matter how pleased we are at how well the girls are doing in school, to note that boys are not achieving so much and that we should find out why. Are they giving up because they see the girls doing better? I had sons and not daughters. I think that girls doing well helps to keep boys' noses to the grindstone. One of my sons benefited from that. However, we need to examine seriously why boys appear in some areas to have given up.
  We need to encourage women who are now working, but who did not have the opportunity to gain qualifications at school, to become part of national vocational qualification training schemes and to take other training opportunities that will give them greater confidence in their future. This is happening to quite an extent in our textile industry where there have been specific schemes to train men and women between the ages of 25 and 35 who left school with no qualifications.

  171
  Through NVQs, those people have been able to achieve a qualification and, often, to move on with promotion through their company and to take a more responsible job. We are all told nowadays that people need a certificate of competence, whatever that might be, to say that they can perform certain tasks. That is one of the great moves forward that we have made with NVQs.
  We must consider steps to remove sex discrimination in opportunities for employment, promotion and remuneration. I do not believe that the position is as gloomy as it is always painted. The United Kingdom has the second highest proportion of women in work; Denmark has the highest. Women here account for 45 per cent. of the labour force and 12.1 million women are either working or seeking work.
  The number of women in self-employment has risen by almost 80 per cent. since 1981 and women account for one in four of the self-employed. It is sometimes said that women who find that the glass ceiling, or the shutter, whichever one likes to call it, descends on them then decide that they will set up and run their own company. They are extremely successful in doing that and we should encourage more of them. However, we still want the many capable women in businesses to continue to push at the proverbial glass ceiling to ensure that it rises as the women rise throughout their careers.
  Forty-five per cent. of women work part time. Between spring 1984 and 1994, there was an 18 per cent. increase in part-time employment. Part-time employment is often derided as not being good or sensible employment. However, I must tell the House that many women in my constituency want to work part time because it fits in with their family commitments and with having children at school. In Fox's biscuit factory, women can work twice a year—in the run-up to Christmas, when the company takes on lots of extra staff, and in the other peak period. Those women know that they have regular work each year for so many weeks. They find that that is ideal and that they can cope with that and a family. The work at Fox's is not slave labour: the women pack high-quality biscuits and high-quality goods; they have good training and the company has good working practices. This very good company looks after its workers, as many of us like to see. All part-time employment may not be quite as good; part-time work at Fox's is good. As an employer of more than 2,000 and sometimes 2,500 people in my area, the company is a most important employer. If women and, occasionally, some men could not work part time, the company would have to install machines. Before long, it will be possible to pack high-quality delicate biscuits by machinery. At the moment, that is not quite possible. Certainly, Batley would lose a huge amount of employment if it were decided to put machinery in to do that packing.
  Since the Prime Minister launched the Opportunity 2000 initiative in 1991, company membership has more than doubled, and it now covers more than 25 per cent. of the work force. There is still a long way to go. We need to keep pushing such initiatives along and never sit back and think that we have arrived and achieved our goal, because we have not. The public appointments unit, of which many of us have been critical over many years, reported that in 1993 women took 40 per cent. of all new appointments to public bodies. That is certainly an
  172
  improvement, as it was something like 30 per cent. in 1989. We also need to move that forward. I am sure that, by 1996, 50 per cent. of public appointments will be filled by women, which will reflect the number of women in the United Kingdom.
  The Government have helped to create a more flexible environment for working women, especially by the provision of workplace nurseries, which attract tax relief, and by introducing a child care allowance worth up to £28 a week for those on family credit. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) said that that allowance was not worth much and did not buy very much. It may not be as much as many of us would like, but it is certainly £28 a week more than was available at one time. It may be that such help has to be given bit by bit to ensure that the country can afford all the schemes that we would like.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: May I point out to the hon. Lady that although, in theory, £28 is available, many women are not eligible and many families do not receive that £28 because there is a maximum limit on family credit? As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) mentioned, most receive less than £10 a week. That does not go far enough, realistically, to help women with child care expenses.
  Mrs. Peacock: I have been looking at who benefits and by how much in my constituency and, at the end of my inquiries, I shall report to the Minister on how effective I think that the allowance is. We were told that there was an opportunity for those on family credit to receive £28 a week. I am very interested, as always, to see how that works in practice.
  Mr. Don Foster: I, too, was going to raise the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). I am delighted to hear that the hon. Lady will look into the matter. The whole House will be interested to hear the results of her inquiry. Was she, too, slightly puzzled when the Chancellor said that the child care allowance disregard was to be gradually introduced? I thought that the House had been told that it was introduced already and was available. I was slightly surprised. I wonder if the hon. Lady was surprised, too.
  Mrs. Peacock: My understanding of what my right hon. Friend said was that the disregard had been introduced but it had not been taken up all at once. As I understood it, the take-up would be more gradual as more people entered the system. I shall also look at that aspect. If the hon. Gentleman had been here a little longer, he would know that I am always fairly thorough in looking at how Government policies affect the people whom I represent. The disregard will be the subject of another one of my inquiries. I may not publish my results, but the Minister will certainly get them.
  It is a fact that women in Britain enjoy the longest period of maternity absence of any country in the European Union and one of the longest periods of paid maternity leave— 18 weeks. Married women have independent tax status and may now choose whether to share the married couples allowance with their husbands, thanks to Conservative tax reforms in 1990 and 1993. Many of us campaigned for many years to have the right to be taxed separately. Although I do not mind my husband paying my tax, I would like to know on what I

  173
  am assessed. As the House may imagine, he does not especially like to pay tax for me, but we have every right to he totally independent if that is what we wish.
  Yorkshire, a very fine county, part of which I represent and where I was born and bred, recognises achievement, particularly in women. Each year, the Yorkshire women of achievement awards result in a great gathering. They reward achievement in all walks of life—not only public figures but, often, people who have made great achievements in their own life, perhaps connected to their family. Those awards are a very good way in which to highlight much of the work that is done behind the scenes by women. We also have the Yorkshire woman of the year award. We are not totally biased, however, because there is a Yorkshire man of the year award as well, so we have equality in that respect.
  We all need to recognise that women of whatever age or background need to have some choice in what they do. I do not believe that many of the young women whom I sec in schools and colleges in my constituency and further afield need quotas. They have many more opportunities now and they are very determined. When I go along to listen to what they have to say, it never fails to amaze me how capable they are. In public-speaking competitions, they stand up, debate and win prizes. I do not believe that they want quotas. They do not want places saved for them. I certainly do not want quotas. I know from my experience over the past 12 years in the House that, if there were quotas and I turned up as a quota woman, my colleagues would say that they did not need to listen to my comments because I was here only because they had saved me a place. That is not the type of position or job that I would ever wish to have. I wish to be present on my Own merits and, therefore, to be taken seriously when I contribute to a debate.
  It is true, of course, that although we would like women to have choice, some need to work to help the family budget. That is nothing new; it has always been so. Women go to work, not only to occupy themselves and to pursue careers but to help to keep the family and provide some of life's necessities. It would be nice if that did not happen, but it does, it always has and I cannot see a total end to it. The part-time earnings brought into the family budget by many women are most welcome.
  Some women will choose to stay at home and look after their small children and we should recognise and applaud their choice. We should not devalue the role of motherhood or the woman who wants to say at home and look after her children. Being with a child in the first few years of his or her life is probably the most important job of a mother. We should, therefore, welcome that choice and put a high value on it.
  Of course we need to see more women in Parliament, but I cannot see 300 of our colleagues laying down their arms, as it were, and saying, "Do have my seat." That will not happen. When I first came into the House in 1983, there were just 23 women. It was a very low percentage—I think, the lowest ever. There are now 62 women in the House. In just over a decade, we have almost trebled the number and moved on. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) said, next time, watch this space. We cannot wait. Even this House has moved on from Churchill's comment when Nancy Astor arrived in Parliament. He said it was
  "like being found naked in the bathroom with nothing hut a sponge to protect you".
  174
  I hope that hon. Members do not take a similar view.
  Mr. Ottaway: I do not wish to disagree with my hon. Friend, but will she correct me if I am wrong—perhaps some Labour Members may correct me—in thinking that when the Labour party put forward positive discrimination in favour of women candidates, a committee was set up to decide what was a woman and it decided that, in fact, it was someone who lived as a woman? That of, course, would include someone who dresses as a woman and did not rule out transvestites. What would the reaction be if a transvestite were to encroach on such matters, as is possibly envisaged by the Labour party?
  Mrs. Peacock: I am afraid that I do not know anything at all about that.
  Ms Short: Just for the record, I do not know where the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) read that. There was never such a committee.
  Mr. Ottaway: In the Observer.
  Ms Short: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers. I can assure him that there was never such a committee or such a judgment.
  Mrs. Peacock: We must recognise that women who wish to become Members of Parliament will decide at different times in their lives when it is right to do that. Some young women might decide in school, as men do, that they wish to pursue a career in Parliament. Some will become Members as young women before they are married. Some will come in after they are married. Some may become Members before they have children, while some may come to the House afterwards.
  Shortly after the 1983 general election, an article in The Times asked why the average age of the new male Member of the House was 31 or 33 while the average age of women Members was 45. The reason for that age difference is obvious. The majority of the women who became Members then came to the House after having children. They allowed their children to reach a sensible age and then decided that they wanted to do something else.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is the hon. Lady aware that all the studies in schools of schoolchildren reveal that the expectations of the jobs that boys and girls will have retain incredible gender imbalances? Virtually no girls at school think that they will become politicians. Most girls leave school thinking that they are going to he nurses, teachers, or part of the caring professions. It is the boys who see themselves as becoming politicians. That position has not changed significantly.
  Mrs. Peacock: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I do not believe most of those surveys. From my experience of talking to young people in schools, and particularly of talking to girls, I have found a totally different approach. Many of those young people are talking about doing quite different things. Although not many of them are talking about becoming Members of Parliament, there is an interest in politics. I am often invited to speak on that subject in schools in my constituency and further afield. I shall visit a school on Friday to talk to girls in a very male-dominated environment in an industrial area. It was felt that those girls have no role models. They wanted

  175
  someone to talk to them about women performing jobs other than those which they might traditionally have performed.
  I did not have any hopes or thoughts about becoming a Member of Parliament when I was at school. That desire developed over a much longer period through involvement in other things. Perhaps many young women will become Members as a result of that kind of progression instead of starting off with a desire to become a Member. It is our job as lady Members to encourage girls to think otherwise. We cannot do that through surveys. We must have personal contact and talk to girls in schools. We must listen to what they have to say.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Obviously, a fair number of hon. Members become Members at a relatively early age and stay for a long time. There is also a fair amount of turnover. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is just as important that people who may spend two or three Parliaments serving in the House feel that they can become Members for the first time in their 60s, 50s or 40s, just as much as in their 30s? We should not have an agist approach to the effect that it is better to be an ex-Member at 45 than to be one at 65 or 75.
  Mrs. Peacock: I could not agree more. My advice to any young man or woman who wants to become a Member is that he or she should go away, get some experience of life, do various jobs outside so that that person has a little more idea about what he or she is talking about, and then become a Member at 40 or 45 because there is still time to bring outside experience to the House. Although many young people are becoming Members, they are single-minded and just want to be Members of Parliament. I am not sure whether we want to see a House full of such Members. We want a variety of interests and ages and also a great variety of backgrounds.
  In a debate such as this, it is very easy to stand up and make a great noise about the terrible position of women in Britain. I do not believe that the position is so terrible. Having travelled in one or two countries abroad, I am always pleased to come home to the advantages and the position in the United Kingdom, as opposed to that enjoyed by some of our friends abroad.
  The position of most women in Britain today is much better than it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago. We now have organisations like the women's network where women get together and discuss professional issues and any other issues that women may wish to get together to discuss. Ten years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) and I set up an old girls' network. Having become Members of this place, we decided that it ticked on the old boys' network. Over a cup of coffee, we decided that if we wished to survive, we should set up an old girls' network and we unashamedly did just that.
  We now have a group of women from all over the United Kingdom—from the north of Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and elsewhere—who meet two or three times a year. It is a non-political organisation. The women welcome the opportunity to get together, to discuss and to hand out business cards. Our old girls' network is very successful. We now have a mailing list of 460 women of all ages and backgrounds throughout the United Kingdom. It is our responsibility to encourage
  176
  others, in particular the younger women and others who may not want to come to Parliament but who want to take a leading role in public life generally.
  We must consider women's issues with a more balanced approach. We must compare and contrast the position of women in Britain with that of women elsewhere in the world. Although there is much to be done, we have a pretty good story to tell. We must consider what has been achieved and I have tried to do that today. We must look positively at what needs to be done and I believe that I have highlighted one or two areas in respect of which we could move forward.
  As women, we must now decide how to achieve all our aims and objectives, whatever they may be. I am quite sure that we all have different aims and objectives. We must begin by being very constructive. However, if that fails, as some of my colleagues will know, I am not against a little bit of militancy. One of my greatest regrets is that I was not born in a slightly earlier age so that I, too, could have been a suffragette and helped in the fight for votes for women.
  I am not sure whether I would have been as brave as some of those suffragettes. Without their bravery and their actions—and although I am sure that we disapprove of bricks being thrown through windows—we would not be where we are today. We have a lot for which to thank the suffragettes.
  I have always believed in standing up and fighting for what I believe is the positive way forward. I have been a member of the Business and Professional Women's Club for 30 years. Although the club does not see very much of me, I keep in touch. I believe that the club's aims and objectives will benefit all women, not just one particular branch of women. We are talking about support and education for women.
  As I have said, we owe much to many brave women in the past. However, I also believe that women today must march onwards together, as much as possible, in the cause of our own future.
  5.37 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: I join the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) in paying tribute to the suffragettes. I am pleased that she paid that tribute, and I am sure that her feelings are echoed on the Opposition Benches.
  In addition to the very well known women like the Pankhursts, women all over the country from various social classes were involved in the suffragette movement. We would do women a service if we did more to preserve their memory and to educate girls—and often ourselves—about the achievements and efforts of the suffragettes. For example, the first suffragette in Preston was Edith Rigby. An excellent book entitled "My Aunt Edith" describes her battles. I use the word "battles" advisedly, because battle is what she did. It is very important to carry forward those memories, but we do not do enough of it.
  There are two problems in women's employment. One is that it is too narrowly based. Reference has already been made to the need for women to cast their nets wider. Girls should be encouraged to consider jobs that are not traditionally women's jobs. All hon. Members would endorse that.

  177
  The other problem is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) said, traditional women's jobs such as nursing and teaching—the legitimate ambitions for girls—are undervalued. One thing that we must do to improve the position of women is enhance the value which society places on such jobs. They are honourable callings. I should not like, in our eagerness for girls to go into other jobs and other aspects of decision making, to connive in the undervaluing of teaching, nursing and other caring professions.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson indicated assent.
  Mrs. Wise: I see my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough nodding vigorously.
  I wish to concentrate on the problems of unemployment, under-employment and low pay. Official figures show that, apparently, fewer than a quarter of unemployed people are women. That is a gross misrepresentation of unemployment among women. Women's unemployment is not properly counted. Each of the 20 or so changes in the method of counting unemployment has worked to hide women and their problems in obtaining jobs.
  Women are much less likely than men to be able to claim benefit. Therefore, they will not be counted. There are strenuous efforts even to prevent women from registering as available for work. Unreasonable requirements are placed on them to forecast child care arrangements in respect of jobs that they have not been offered, the hours of which they do not know, and the place of which they do not know. It is impossible for women who have not been born with second sight to outline child care arrangements when they have not been offered jobs. They are then deprived of the opportunity of registering as available for work.
  Women, as well as being more unemployed than we think, arc also very much under-employed. By that, I do not mean underworked; under-employment is different. Official figures do not provide information on the extent of under-employment, but thousands of women experience it. For example, women who go back to work after having a family often return to lower-graded and less-skilled work—and, of course, lower-paid work. That is a type of under-employment. Such women are not permitted to use their skills and experience.
  There are women who want to work full time but can find only part-time jobs. Women in part-time jobs have found their hours of work being steadily reduced. I endorse the comment of the hon. Member for Batley and Spen that many women want to work part time. I speak as the president and sponsored Member of Parliament for the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. We have many part-time workers in our membership—if we did not, our union would hardly exist. It is not that we are against part-time work.
  At one time, women seeking a part-time job might have wanted to work, say, mornings or three days a week. The situation has changed vastly for the worse. Such women find their hours of work being steadily reduced against their will. Whereas, in 1981, 6.5 per cent. of women worked fewer than eight hours a week—they were counted as employed—by 1994 the figure rose to 11.7 per cent. The figure is well on the way to doubling. I do not believe that many of those women prefer to work fewer than eight hours a week. Employers often prefer it,
  178
  because it cuts employees out of entitlement to employment rights, however long they have worked for the firm.
  In 1981, 31.7 per cent. of women worked fewer than 16 hours a week. The figure rose to 52.5 per cent. in 1994. We are talking not about part-time work, which can have a useful part to play and be very popular with women, but about women whose hours of work and wages are being steadily squeezed.
  There are also women who are on zero-hours or on-call contracts. They are supposed to be available at the end of a telephone when an employer says, "I want you in tomorrow, because somebody has gone sick." If someone says, "I am afraid I cannot get my child looked after at a minute's notice; I need a week or so to plan," that does not suit the employer, so no work is forthcoming.
  I do not call that freedom or flexibility for women. I call it women being at the mercy of employers, who fail to plan their labour needs adequately and properly. It is rather like the system by which employers would say to the dockers in a pen, "I want you, you and you today, and the rest of you go home," except that one now has the dignity of not being in a pen but instead has the expense of providing a telephone. That is part of the process of casualisation, which has resulted in a massive increase in insecure, temporary and casual work.
  That is a severe problem for women, and it is reflected in their pay. I do not intend to give tedious lists about what women earn, but there are some striking figures. More than 3 million people earn less than the income tax threshold, and 85 per cent. of them are women.
  On 9 February, in answer to a parliamentary question, I was told that, according to the latest available figures—April 1994—3.1 million employees earned more than the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions, over which, of course, contributions are not increased, so those people are in the happy position of paying a lower total rate of tax. Half a million of those fortunate people were women—16 per cent.
  The mirror image of that can be seen in the fact that 3.1 million employees earned less than the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions. There are 3.1 million people earning above the upper limit and 3.1 million earning below the lower limit, but 2.3 million of the latter are women. That is three quarters of these very low earners, who earn less than £58 a week. Those women are counted as employed, but the result is that they are not eligible for statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay or main contributory benefits, including pensions. That is a stark example of what happens in respect of women's pay.
  I have already said that my trade union is USDAW, of which I am the president. Retailing has borne the brunt of the Government's policies as they have acted to deregulate it completely. The last remaining thread of protection which existed for shop workers for tea breaks and meal breaks and the controls on excessive weekday opening hours have been wiped away.
  There are increasingly complex shift patterns associated with extended hours, and it is usually part-time, temporary and casual workers who face the demands arising from the changes, with all the stresses and strains that those put on the individual worker and the family. Those workers have the least protection, and frequently have no protection, under our employment protection laws.

  179
  Research on low pay conducted by my union has demonstrated that, since the abolition of wages councils, wage rates in former wages councils industries have dropped drastically. USDAW carries out regular surveys of pay rates on offer in jobcentres throughout the country. Recent examples include such jobs as a part-time supermarket cleaner in Hull at £2.05 an hour, a shop assistant in Northampton at £100 for a 40-hour week, and a hairdresser capable of working "to a high standard" in a Rochdale salon at £60 for a 42-hour week.
  Those examples are not the most stark. There are examples which are worse, but we do not want to be accused of being completely untypical. Those examples could he seen by any hon. Member going into his or her local jobcentre tomorrow. It would be a good idea if some hon. Members did that. The new earnings survey shows that more than half women checkout operators earn less than £3.60 per hour.
  It is true that there are now improved rights for part-time workers. The Government have been dragged kicking, screaming and resisting every inch of the way—they are squeezed between the European Union and the legal judgment of the House of Lords—and have given part-time workers, most of whom are women, some equal employment rights. But in reality, women workers are treated less favourably than male workers. They are not allowed to make the contribution that they would like to make, for themselves, their families or the economy in general.
  I should like to mention with great approval the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), which has received its Second Reading. The Bill aims to give carers some rights to have their needs assessed. That is extremely important to women, because three carers in every five are women. Of course all five car s will benefit—the two men as well. It is fair to say that, every time one improves the situation for women, the situation for men—often men who are making an unsung contribution—will also be improved.
  Following the welter of all-party support given to my hon. Friend's Bill, I wonder whether there will he the resources to match the rights which arc being extended to carers. A veil was drawn over that on Friday, and, while I do not like to disturb the equilibrium of the unaccustomed all-party approval, I must say that the thoughts going through my mind were less than charitable. Government support is given at the stage when further responsibilities are placed on local government, but will the resources he available when they are needed by local government'? Will there be all-party support then'? I hope so, but I have my doubts.
  One reason why caring and caring jobs are undervalued is because women are under valued. The contribution which carers make to the economy was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon. North-West, and probably amounts to £30 billion a year. That is a substantial economic contribution, which could he more than matched by the other contributions made by women's unpaid work which is not counted as a part of GNP. I am pleased to associate myself with the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) for women's unpaid labour to he counted when we are assessing the production of the economy.
  180
  The undervaluing of women has turned them into cut-price people, and has meant that their caring and economic role is undervalued. I believe that an essential prerequisite for getting real equality for women in the United Kingdom will be for women to cease to be cut-price people in their work, whether inside or outside the home.
  5.55 pm
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: First, I apologise, both to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), for not being here during their opening speeches. I had spoken to Madam Speaker earlier, and I was detained on a matter elsewhere in the House.
  I would like to welcome to the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who I am delighted to see will be winding up for the Government. My hon. Friend is a shining example of a mother and business woman who has chosen to change her career to come into this House.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Ladywood on securing the debate, which seems to be becoming an annual affair. I remember exchanging blows with her last year during a debate on sex discrimination. It is good that she has been able to persuade her right hon. and hon. Friends to set aside a whole day to debate what I believe is an extremely important subject.
  I was a little disappointed that, during International Women's Week, we could not have debated the subject of women on a far wider international motion. I believe that we are very fortunate as women in the United Kingdom. That is not to say that there are not still things to be done on our behalf. I would have liked to see the Members of this House turn their faces outwards to look at the plight of women in less privileged countries.
  We have made a lot of progress in this country, much of which has been aided by good, sound Conservative Government legislation, but I would like to raise a matter on which progress has not been made.
  I introduced a ten-minute Bill last year which simply asked for the same employment rights to he conferred upon adoptive mothers as are conferred upon mothers who give birth to their children. Adoptive mothers do not have parity with natural mothers. They do not have a statutory right to return to work after the adoptive period, and they do not receive any statutory payment during such an absence.
  The condition prevails today, even though an adoptive mother may have paid the same national insurance contributions. I not only introduced a ten-minute Bill on the matter, but raised it on the Adjournment. It is not a party political matter. I would like to thank the hon. Members for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), all of whom supported my ten-minute Bill last year, together with members of my own party, who also supported the Bill.
  Once again, I would like to ask Government Front-Bench Members to level the playing field for adoptive parents, and to introduce amendments to the employment protection legislation.

  181
  I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who today laid a similar Bill on the Table. We have already been in contact on the matter, and I am proud to have added my name to the list of sponsors. I hope that Ministers will take the request seriously. We are talking about a small group of women who are disadvantaged—a group that provides a service to some of our children and to the country as a whole. Those women actually save the Government money, and I think that they should have equal treatment with natural mothers.
  As for the Government's record on legislation benefiting women, the impression often left by the debate surrounding women in this country is that the Tory party at best pays only lip service to women, and at worst does not care at all. However, the reverse is true.
  I should have to speak at great length to cover all the measures introduced since 1979 that have benefited women, but three of the most important such changes, which have benefited women directly, have occurred in the tax system. The introduction of independent taxation in 1990, along with the replacement of the married man's allowance, was welcomed both by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). It was also welcomed by my husband with some relief, because he no longer had to try to get to grips with my simple—but to him fairly alien—tax affairs.
  The provision of tax relief for workplace nurseries also took place in 1990. In 1991, no fewer than 20,000 women took advantage of that measure. In 1988, the reform in the taxation of maintenance payments occurred, so that maintenance was taken out of the tax system today. Those are probably the best known reforms; they are certainly those that are mentioned most often during debates on women's matters.
  However, I shall also remind the House of a couple of other reforms introduced by successive Conservative Governments that are equally important, although often forgotten. It was a Conservative Government who in 1979 abolished the married women's half test. That was an additional contribution condition requiring married women to have paid national insurance contributions in at least half the years between marriage and pensionable age.
  In November 1994, we introduced the severe disablement allowance, which, unlike its predecessor, was available to married women for the first time on the same terms as other claimants. In April 1990, we introduced the special payment for pre-1973 war widows, who had long campaigned on the basis that they had not benefited from improvements in the armed forces pension scheme. People often forget that it was a Conservative Government who did that.
  In 1981, we introduced the British Nationality Act, which for the first time allowed women who were British citizens, whether married or not, to transmit their citizenship automatically to their children born abroad. Before that Act, citizenship could he transmitted only by the father, and then only to legitimate children. It was a Conservative Government who did that, too.
  I could go on to talk about the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which established the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, and the Sex Discrimination Act 1986, which removed restrictions on women's hours and times of work. That may have been a controversial measure in some areas, but it is not controversial for the members of staff in this place. many of whom are women,
  182
  and who support us so admirably throughout our parliamentary year by working some very anti-social hours. I could go on and on, but I do not think now that I need remind the House any more of the commitment of successive Conservative Governments to the cause of women.
  I now return to my opening remarks, about how disappointed I was not to be debating women's matters on an internationally framed motion. I wish to remain in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I have given some thought to how to do so, and I have decided to talk about the work of one woman in our Government—Baroness Chalker, at the Overseas Development Administration.
  If the Labour party had framed the debate more widely, we could have talked about the women pearl divers in Lesotho whose lives are shortened because of the depths to which they dive, and about the way in which the Women's Institute has helped them. We could have talked about the women of central Africa who walk 15 miles a day to fetch water. I do not believe that any woman in the House walks 15 miles a day for water.
  We could also have talked about the women of China who face the dilemma of being allowed to produce only one child. If that first child is a girl, what a terrible decision they have to make. What sort of privation are they forced into?
  Dr. Lynne Jones: If the hon. Lady feels so strongly about those issues and about women's lives in the international scene, will she ask her Government to arrange for a debate on them in Government time?
  Mrs. Gillan: I thank my friend—I mean, the hon. Lady, although I think of her as my hon. Friend-for that intervention. What she suggests would he a good idea. Perhaps we could both make the point to the Leader of the House during business questions on Thursday. I have not heard many voices from the Opposition Benches calling for a debate on that subject, but it would he an excellent idea. The Opposition have missed an opportunity by not highlighting the plight of women internationally.
  Surely we should get our priorities right. Surely we should not gaze at our navels, but should look outwards to see how we can educate and help women in other countries. Baroness Chalker is giving us a formidable lead at the ODA. Indeed, on the front page of the booklet containing the ODA's annual review for 1994, among the aims of the aid programme, she specifically includes:
  "Promote the status of women".
  In many developing countries, women arc usually the poorest and work longer hours gathering hare essentials. They often have the sole responsibility for bringing up children. In 1993-94, the ODA almost doubled the sum spent on projects specifically aimed at women. It supported the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee and the Aga Khan Rural Support Project.
  In the Pacific region, the ODA supports a judicial, legal and rights education programme aimed at providing training for women and encouraging them to go into a profession dominated by men. In Africa, it supports the work of African women's organisations in educating families and their children, especially about the problems resulting from female genital mutilation, which still occurs throughout the world, and which I find abhorrent.

  183
  Baroness Chalker is taking direct action on desperately urgent projects. Many other women's organisations in this country—for example, the Women's Institute—also choose to direct some of their efforts abroad. I should like us to turn our eyes to those women. We must continue to make progress here. It is much more important to try to empower women who are so severely disadvantaged in underprivileged countries, when we in the United Kingdom are so privileged today.
  Yes, we still have further to go, but as women, especially as women in the House of Commons, we have a strong message to take abroad. I hope that Baroness Chalker will continue to carry that message, and I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will support me in looking for more help for women in other countries.
  6.8 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) in urging the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to bring to bear what pressure she can on the Government to arrange a debate in Government time on the situation of women in the third world. However, given that since 1979, under successive Conservative Administrations, this country has moved from being the second largest donor nation to being the second smallest donor nation, it is more than likely that her requests will fall on stony ground. However, I join her in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) for creating what I hope will be an annual event in the Chamber, that is, the discussion of women's position in this country and abroad.
  The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) said that women's suffrage had been introduced in New Zealand in 1893, and I shall come back to that point in a moment. She also wondered whether she would have had the courage to withstand the pressure endured by the suffragettes. I can assure her that her concern about her possible lack of courage is not shared by any other hon. Member. We all know how she withstood the pressure exerted on her by Conservative Whips, so no one would argue that she lacked Yorkshire grit.
  The hon. Member for Batley and Spen said that women had been granted suffrage in New Zealand in 1893. Last year, I was privileged to he invited to attend the celebration of the centenary of the same event in South Australia. We shall have to wait for 30-odd years to celebrate the centenary of women's suffrage in this country. Women from all over the world, from developed nations such as ours and from the developing nations, attended the conference in Adelaide. The theme that ran throughout the conference was that, despite women having suffrage in many countries, we still have a long way to go, given that women comprise half the world's population.
  That feeling was reinforced by a report published by the United Nations in 1980. It showed that two thirds of the world's work was done by one half of the world's population, that one tenth of the world's income was earned by one half of the world's population and that one hundredth of the world's property was owned by one half of the world's population. It is no surprise to me or, I am
  184
  sure, to any other female hon. Member, to learn that the half of the world's population to which the report referred is the world's women.
  Nowhere is the failure of nations, including our nation, to reflect the fact that women constitute half the world's population more evident than in the world's legislative assemblies. It is especially apparent here, in the mother of Parliaments. Some women have had the vote in this country for 78 years, but the country is yet to he represented by 10 per cent. of women sitting in the available seats.
  Since some women first had the vote in these islands, I believe that there have been only 10 women holding Cabinet office, but we have never had a woman Foreign Secretary, we have never had a woman Secretary of State for Defence, we have never had a woman Chancellor of the Exchequer and we have never had a woman as Home Secretary. For me, it is of course a bitter irony that the first woman Prime Minister that this country produced had to be Margaret Thatcher.
  Some Conservative Members have described as patronising my party's proposals to enable more women to present themselves to the electorate in order that the electorate may judge whether they wish to return them to Parliament. I, in common with every other woman in the Chamber, have had a soubriquet far worse than "patronising" or, indeed, "token", hurled at me, and I have little doubt that much harsher insults will he thrown at us in the future. I find nothing patronising in the idea that, in certain targeted seats, it should he a requirement that constituency parliamentary parties make a final short-list of all women. What I do find patronising is that the Government can suggest, for example, that a nurse should accept an increase of one and a half pennies in her salary.
  No political party could function without women. It is the women members and activists who do the hard and sometimes extremely boring work on the street that facilitates the election not only of Members of Parliament but of councillors in local government elections. It is patronising that women should be deemed to he capable and fitted for such work but not to sit at the table where the decisions are made. That view still seems to inform the opinion, not only in the Chamber but without, that women still have an awfully long way to go before they are capable of fulfilling the functions which, in the past, have automatically been presupposed to he spheres for which men are most suited.
  There is a tradition and, in a sense, a culture, that seems to regard the abilities which men are supposed to possess and which, on occasion, they feel a necessity to express, as particularly valid in this Chamber. They tend to he those of aggression and abrasiveness and an adversarial style of argument. It is no accident that this Chamber is, I think, the only one in the European Union that physically still encourages the adversarial style— I understand that the parties are still kept two-and-a-half sword lengths apart. The majority of European Union debating chambers are oval, round or rectangular. It seems that the architecture reflects the tone of the debates.
  Women arc not expected to he aggressive, adversarial or argumentative, characteristics still admired within the Chamber, but, I would suggest, less so in the country at large. That is one of the reasons why it is vital that all political parties, not least my own, should attempt to

  185
  balance the less than even playing field that women have to traverse if they wish to present themselves to the electorate for possible return to the House.
  An opinion poll recently carried out for one of the more popular newspapers found that the two least popular professions were that of journalist and politician, in that order. One of the reasons why politicians tend to be less than popular with the electorate stems directly from what is perceived as their ill-tempered, ill-judged, loud and, in some instances, schoolboyish approach to our debates.
  If we disaffect the very people who send us here, if we present the image that matters of moment are not seriously and levelly discussed here and that it is the scoring of points that is valued rather than the attempt to achieve a solution to a particular problem, interest in our political system could decay. Our democratic system depends as much on the interest of the electorate and their willingness to participate in our elections as on anything that happens in the Chamber or elsewhere in the House, such as in Committee.
  One sometimes meets people who say with no small amount of pride that they have never voted. That strikes me very hard as a woman because I am aware that women died to give me the right to vote. It is a responsibility that I exercise with great seriousness. I urge everyone whom I meet, especially young women in my constituency, to vote. Although I would much prefer that they voted for my party, it is more important that they simply vote. It would he desperate if our freedoms in respect of the franchise, for which lives were given, were lost due to a lack of interest and commitment on the part of the electorate. I suggest that we have a responsibility to ensure that their interest stays alive and fresh.
  No one could reasonably argue that any country approaching the 21st century can afford to discount, discard and disregard the undoubted talents, abilities, energy, imagination and commitment that the women of that society present.
  I am of a generation to be extremely grateful, in one sense, to have been raised by the women in my family, simply because the men were away at war. During the second world war, as during the first world war, women ran not only their homes, but their country's factories, transport systems and hospitals. They ran the entire structure of their nation states because the men in those nation states were away, giving their lives in the defence of democracy and freedom.
  Those women, at those times in our history, did not in that sense additionally have to improve themselves. No one thought that that was patronising them. They were by no means tokens in those positions. Our nation state was run extremely well during both—
  Mrs. Peacock: I am listening with great interest. I agree with much of what the hon. Lady has said, but does she accept that it was the sterling work carried out by the women of this country, especially during the first world war, that helped to convince the men representing us in Parliament to pass, eventually, the Bill that enabled us all to have a vote, and enabled women to stand for Parliament? Does she agree that, without that war and the work done by women, we might not have made that progress?
  Ms Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, but I do not agree with her analysis of the
  186
  way in which the vote was given to women in this country, not least because, at the cessation of hostilities in the first world war and certainly in the second world war, women were patted on the head and told, "Thank you very much indeed, but now go back to what you really do best"—which tends to be situated in the kitchen and the nursery.
  I think that, in the House at least, progress resulted from a lack of energy to sustain opposition to the giving of the vote to women, and shame that the country had denied it. Given the contribution that women had made during the first world war, there would have been an even greater outcry, but I do not believe that the House was convinced of that argument. I am unaware that any major move was made, between those two—one cannot say "high points" because they were world wars—low points in our civilisation, to facilitate opportunities for women to rise to what I regard as the positions that they should occupy.
  I regret that I am unaware of any major concentrated effort in this place, or by the Government, business or the professions, to acknowledge that women have a great deal more to offer to our society, throughout all its aspects and all the levels and layers of which the nation state is comprised.
  Mrs. Wise: I have followed my hon. Friend's argument with keen interest. It is true that women proved that they could run everything that men could run, but is not it also a fact that it was demonstrated that the nation, society and business were willing to accept that work, yet pay only half rates for it? Women shop assistants, for example, who coped with rationing as well as money, received about half the rates that men shop assistants received. That was a very poor reward for the efforts that women made during the war.
  Ms Jackson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am afraid that the position is pretty similar today. I heard an exchange on the radio, as recently as last week, about the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 arrangements that had come into being in a local authority in the north of England. The gardeners, who, in the main, were male employees, retained their salary rates, hours and conditions of work, but the dinner ladies had to take a reduction in wages and an extension in their hours of work before they won the contract.
  In 1992, I believe, the museum of London rightly held an exhibition based on the suffragette movement. I distinctly remember standing in that place and saying that one of the aspects of women's life in our country that most motivated the Pankhursts, all those years ago, was the conditions in which women were forced to work in sweatshops, in this city and every city throughout the land. The Pankhursts wished to remove the possibility of women having to work in appalling conditions for interminable hours, for very low rates of pay. Yet today, less than three miles from the museum of London, it would be possible to find women working in homes in circumstances that are as bad as, if not worse than, they were 78 years ago.
  I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Batley and Spen said. We have made progress in this country and in other parts of the world, but I contend that the country has a very long way to go. I do not think that any woman in the country needs to he apprised of the inequality of many of our positions and conditions. It is

  187
  not women necessarily who need to change; it is those who arc less willing to help and move us forward to genuine equality.
  All we ask, in essence, is to be able to exercise rights along with our responsibilities. No woman, in my experience, has ever shirked the responsibilities that life has placed on her. Every woman whom I have known has been able to balance and carry those responsibilities with no small grace, and often a great deal of humour. We have always made, and always will make, a major contribution to our societies. We are justified in asking very gently, and I have no doubt with a great deal of charm, that, on more than one occasion, we should be recognised for the contribution that we have made, and undoubtedly will continue to make.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: As many other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall speak for only a few minutes.
  I wish primarily to discuss the forthcoming conference in Peking, but first I wish to say how much I agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who congratulated my colleague, the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), on the introduction of his Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill on Friday 3 March. It showed that, compared with another Bill that was debated on Friday, if consensus is sought progress can he made.
  Before moving to my main argument, I wish to mention a couple of other matters. There are two distinct sectors in which progress has been made on women's rights—the government sector and the non-government sector. Huge advances are obviously being made in the government sector. Many women are employed in the civil service, especially in senior positions. A woman heads Customs and Excise and a woman heads the Crown Prosecution Service. and I understand that we shall shortly have a woman permanent secretary at the Department of Social Security.
  In the forces, huge progress has been made from the early 1990s onwards. The mistake made in dismissing pregnant women from the services has been recognised, and I am proud to say that a woman from Croydon became the Royal Air Force's first woman fighter pilot. Progress has been made by deploying Wrens at sea. It is riot always an easy and comfortable state of affairs, but it has established a significant right in terms of equality.
  I am afraid to say that the one organisation in which little progress has been made in employing women in government service is the European Commission, where I understand only four out of 300 people in the top two grades are women.
  In the non-government sector, progress is not so obvious. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) mentioned difficulties that arose in the Trades Union Congress. The same difficulties arise in business. There is undoubtedly a glass ceiling. Women who are perfectly competent—probably more competent than their male counterparts—are often denied career advancement. They come up against all sorts of harriers. My wife experienced that in her career in advertising. The only way in which she could get around it was by starting her
  188
  own business and becoming her own boss. I believe that it will be another generation before the barrier is removed completely and we recognise that women often run things much better than men.
  The right to reproductive health care services is not just essential for the maintenance of women's health, but crucial to the establishment of women's equality. The White Paper "The Health of the Nation" recognised the importance of reproductive health care services, particularly for young people. One of its key targets was a reduction in the number of teenage pregnancies.
  Teenage pregnancy is a fundamental problem. One in five young women today report having had sexual intercourse before her 16th birthday. The good news is that, as a result of the efforts of the Department of Health, in 1991 the number of women younger than 16 who became pregnant fell for the first time in 10 years. It is far too soon to tell whether that represents a trend, hut those who work in family planning are optimistic.
  In an intervention, I said that, as progress is made towards a settlement in Northern Ireland, it may he appropriate to consider the discrepancies in the abortion laws of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Abortion Act 1967 applies in Great Britain, but the House deemed that it should not apply to Northern Ireland. That is causing serious problems for young women in Northern Ireland in this modern sophisticated world. They are forced to have back-street abortions, to pay to have abortions because there is no national health service provision or to come to this country to have abortions.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster replied to my intervention by saying that it is a very sensitive subject. It does not appear to be high on the list of Government priorities. I hope that that issue may he put on the agenda as we examine the overall situation in Northern Ireland.
  The fourth world conference on women will be held in Peking in September under the auspices of the United Nations. I was lucky enough to attend the UN conference on population and development in Cairo, where women's issues were very much to the fore. That conference advanced a plan of action which provided for a number of fundamental women's rights in the area of reproductive and maternal health. When I attended the non-government organisation forum, which is where all the bright ideas come from, it became quite clear that women's issues will dominate United Nations and international considerations.
  The all-party group on population, development and reproductive health, which I am privileged to chair, decided to look at the draft plan of action for the Peking conference and it was appalled to find no mention of reproductive health or sexuality. In the past couple of months we have conducted hearings with some 30 women's groups, inviting them to comment on what they think should be included in the draft plan of action for the Peking conference. As a result, the group is releasing a report tomorrow to coincide with International Women's Day and I shall inform the House of some of its main findings.
  First, the group believes that the conference should endorse and incorporate the agreed principles and language of the international conference on population and development's programme of action, with particular reference to inequalities in health status and access to health care services, violence against women and women's rights. Secondly, it believes that the draft plan of action should specifically include women's

  189
  reproductive and sexual rights when addressing human rights. Thirdly, the group believes that, without reproductive and sexual health and rights, women cannot play a full and equal part in the economic, social and political life of their community and country.
  The group's unanimous view was probably best summed up by Annette Lawson from the Fawcett Society, who said:
  "Women need to be empowered to make decisions about themselves and their own bodies. Without that empowerment—and we see that, and indeed the major international conventions do, as a human right (and women's rights are human rights)—but without that capacity, rather like not having the vote, it disables women to function equally in society".
  A preparatory conference will be held in the next few days to discuss the draft plan of action. I believe that it is important that that conference should take into account the strong feeling among women's groups that were consulted that those fundamental rights should be included on the agenda of the Peking conference. It is incomprehensible that they should not be included in this day and age.
  I shall not take up any more of the time of the House. I simply make the point that we have consulted virtually every leading women's group in the country and we recognise that a number of rights are omitted from the draft plan of action. I hope that they will be included and discussed at the Peking conference.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: It is a happy coincidence to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) because he is my Member of Parliament. I thank him for his generous remarks about my private Member's Bill.
  I wish to approach the debate by examining the impact on women and men of changes in work, family life and care patterns in this country. Many of those issues are particularly important for women because they often take on most of the burden of care—whether it is care of the young, those with disabilities or the frail elderly. If we are to achieve greater gender equality, those issues must be considered more seriously by boys and by men. I think that that is occurring.
  Patterns of employment in this country show trends towards mass unemployment and a concentration of joblessness in certain families. Paradoxically, at the same time we have seen the rise of the dual worker family and the concentration of employment in certain kinds of family groups. I wish to address the issues involving dual worker families that have resulted from the dramatic increase in female employment outside the home.
  The rise of the dual worker family has brought many benefits, not least material ones. The most effective family social security policy in this country is not the child benefit scheme—although I applaud that—but the earning power of mothers. That has been the major anti-poverty strategy of the post-war period. I think that we should he aware that many dual worker families are increasingly overactive, overworked and, I think, overly stressed. That is a trend throughout the western world. We are living longer—women are living rather longer than men—usually into our seventies and sometimes into our eighties. It was my father's 80th birthday on Saturday, so I have some experience of that.
  190
  Although we are living longer, we are concentrating some of our most important activities into a small proportion of our lives. We enter the labour market much later than previously—normally for good reasons such as higher education and training—and many men and women are not fully active in the labour market until their late teens or early twenties and those with post-graduate qualifications do not start work until their early twenties.
  We are also witnessing an earlier exit from the labour market. Many people who in a previous generation would have worked up to and beyond retirement age are now, either voluntarily or because of redundancy, being forced to leave the labour market in their fifties or, certainly for men, in their early sixties.
  Discussions on the equality of retirement and pension age and decisions on whether the pensionable age should be 60 or 65—it is now 65—are based on an increasingly ignorant assumption that men actually work until they are 65. One third, or 33 per cent., of men aged 55 to 59 are officially unemployed or defined as economically inactive.
  We are concentrating much of our labour market activity into a small proportion of our lives, which to some extent coincides with the important time for family building. That particularly impacts on women. Like men, many women need to be fully active in the labour market and spend their late twenties and early thirties career building. That increasingly coincides with when they are considering having children, becoming pregnant and taking on the responsibility of caring for young children.
  Those pressures also affect men. Many men find that when their wives are no longer in the labour market or working part time after having babies, they have to work harder to earn more money and develop their careers at precisely the time when, perhaps in a more civilised society, they should be able to spend more time at home as fathers. I am worried by what I see as the care-career collision, which puts tremendous pressures on men and women from their late twenties to their early and late thirties.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is my hon. Friend aware of evidence showing that 10 years after graduation four times as many women graduates as men graduates have chosen not to start a family? The pressure of worrying about making that choice clearly impinges much more on women's career patterns—and they may, therefore, choose to have children much later—than it does on men, who do not feel that it interferes too much with their careers.
  Mr. Wicks: I am aware of that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point and I shall say something about the impact of that on fertility patterns and average family size in Britain.
  Many families are overworked and overactive, trying to build their families at the same time as building their careers. If I am right about that, it is not an argument—as it might have been among some hon. Members a generation ago—about a woman's place being in the home, but one of increasing relevance to men and women, about the need to take seriously an agenda for family and work.
  May I say something about changing patterns of care, which is obviously a major role—perhaps the major role—for the family? Traditionally, it has been the major

  191
  role for women in all societies to provide care for those in the family who need it. However, if we are to draw up the agenda that we need, we must be aware of and fully understand the changing patterns of care as they affect men and women.
  We think immediately of children. Women in Europe are having fewer children. On average, women in Britain arc having more children than those in most European Union nations, but the numbers are declining. In 1970, the average British woman had 2.4 children; in 1992, the figure was just 1.8. It will probably continue at about that level until the turn of the century.
  Let us consider the average figures for the European Union, which relate to 12 member states rather than the present larger union. In 1970, the average European woman had 2.4 children. In 1992, she had just 1.5 children and the trend is downwards. A child has gone missing in Europe. That explains why fertility and birth rates are of great national concern and inform and instruct domestic policy in many other Parliaments in Europe. In Germany, the average number of children is just 1.3, in Catholic Italy it is 1.3 and in Spain it is 1.2. Those are dramatic trends and although we need to explain them in a number of different ways—and I shall not do so today—my guess would be that the pressures of work, career and family building on women and families lie behind some of the fertility trends.
  We are having fewer children in Europe, although, interestingly, the trend is less marked here in Britain, and our children are dependent financially on others—typically parents, but sometimes the state—for longer. Gone are the days—although in Britain those days were only in the early 1970s—where six out of 10 children left school at 16 and got jobs. Today, many children will be dependent on their parents their until late teens or early twenties and sometimes their mid-twenties. The role of the family and the pattern of having children is changing considerably.
  We are becoming aware that one of the major roles of women—and, increasingly of men—is the caring role for the frail elderly, as the aging of our population is such a dramatic trend. In 1981, there were half a million people aged 85 and over, whereas in 1901 the figure was just 57,000, so the number has risen 10 times in 80 years. The figure will double again between 1981 and 2001, so that by 2001 there will he more than 1 million people aged 85 and over. Many of them will be fit and healthy, but many will need care and have physical and mental problems. For example, Alzheimer's disease is a growing problem.
  The issues of care that now impinge so much on women increasingly wear an older face, and we need to look at care patterns across four or five generations and examine how men, women and families respond to them. It is a cruel coincidence that family sizes are smaller at precisely the point in the country's demography when there are more elderly to care for. In previous generations, there might have been six or seven children to look after one elderly relative. The ratios today are moving in the other direction, with smaller families having more elders to care for.
  Parliament and other institutions woke up, albeit late in the day, to the fact that many workers have the "annoying" habit of being parents, so there is an agenda covering maternity or paternity leave and provision for
  192
  under-fives. We must wake up to the fact also that women employees and a growing number of male employees care for the elderly, so the carer-worker issue is growing more important.
  At meetings that I have attended to inform myself for the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill that I introduced last Friday, I was struck by how many carers—mainly women but men too—had to give up their employment and often successful careers to care for an elderly relative or disabled child or adolescent. Many people find it impossible, sometimes because of unsympathetic employers, to continue the dual role of carer-worker.
  Up-to-date information is not available, but years ago the Equal Opportunities Commission published a survey that showed that the main reason for women leaving the employment market before retirement age was to care for an elderly relative.
  If in future, for the benefit of women and gender equality, we are to balance work and the family, a newer analysis of the issues is needed that places less reliance on conventional economic indicators. Most people in the west think of work in terms of getting up in the morning, going to a job and getting paid for it. That kind of work, and only that kind of work, is quantified in employment statistics and it contributes to the gross domestic product. It excludes some of the most important work, typically done by women but also by men, in the community.
  Such work excludes, for example, the female general practitioner whom I met in Cardiff. For years she was able to practise as a doctor but when her grown-up child became schizophrenic she had to leave the formal labour market to become a full-time carer. She immediately disappeared from employment statistics and her labour is not measured. Neither, in terms of conventional indicators, does she supposedly contribute to the country's GDP. In other words, she counts for nothing officially.
  "Counting for Nothing", a book by an influential New Zealand academic and one-time National party politician, Marilyn Wareing, authoritatively challenged male-dominated economics. Although that line of analysis is of academic interest in the best sense of the word "academic", if we are not to make mistakes in analysing work and care issues about how to care for our children and the elderly and about the implications for social and employment policies, seemingly academic argument must move into the political world. There is an argument for Parliament, as an exercise, drawing up rival national accounts that introduce some of the value of care.
  People rightly ask about the public expenditure implications of provisions such as those contained in my Bill, but they rarely ask about the cost-benefit analysis. Some years ago, I and a colleague—Melanie Henwood at the Family Policy Studies Centre—sought to calculate the value of care provision, and we have since updated the figure to £30 billion. The British Medical Association recently used the same methodology but produced a larger sum. That is not an argument for giving carers £30 billion, but in a society that, sadly, increasingly puts a price on everything and knows the value of nothing, sometimes it is necessary to attach a cash price to something to make people appreciate its value.
  If community care services could be improved, that would show up in public expenditure documents. Some members of the Treasury Bench might see that as a problem. However, if only one carer in 10 surrendered

  193
  that task so that the person for whom they cared had to enter a state institution or hospital at a cost of £2 billion, that would not show up in national accounts and would he invisible. It is nevertheless real arithmetic. Every week, as we know from our surgeries, a carer collapses under the strain and the national health service or a private nursing home has to take in one more person. An analysis that considers only public expenditure costs and does not undertake a wider cost-benefit calculation is misleading.
  Care issues, the way in which we define work and a better balance between family life and employment are among the most crucial topics facing men and women. Parliament and Governments are less aware of those issues than the public. How we enable the modern Briton and European to be successful as a partner to the person to whom they are married or with whom they live, as a parent and as a carer if necessary—and also successful in the labour market and as a career builder—is crucial to women. Many men want to share the caring role, so that issue is of growing importance to them.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: First, I apologise for not having been present throughout the debate. I had to attend a Committee in another part of the House, but I did hear the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). I appreciate that today is an Opposition day and, quite naturally, the hon. Lady wanted to make complaints against the Government and set out Labour party policy, although we did not hear too much about that. However, had she taken a more bipartisan view on some of the issues that she raised towards the end of her speech, she would have found cross-currents coming from the Conservative Benches.
  For example, the hon. Lady spoke about the legal position of women and the protection afforded to them by the law. That is an important subject about which there is some controversy at present regarding female victims of serious sexual offences. I would make common cause with the hon. Lady on the need to give maximum protection through the law to victims of sexual offences, particularly in relation to the disclosure of identity. There has been controversy about disclosing the identity of defendants in such cases and I do not want to argue about that—
  Ms Short: I am more than happy when there is consensus on any issue that is dear to me because it means that we are more likely to make progress, but I sometimes think that Conservative Members do not live in this country of ours. The number of families struggling on low incomes with all the stress that results from the way in which the labour market is being restructured constitutes a crisis for our society. I meant every word that I said. I am afraid that the Government's strategy is making things worse for such families. If there is no consensus, then that is how it is.
  Mr. Clappison: I shall take issue with the hon. Lady about that, but I am talking about an entirely separate and important matter which is of public interest at the present time and the subject of some controversy. I hope that the hon. Lady will make common cause with the point that I am about to make. I do not want to go into whether defendants should remain anonymous, save to say that the arguments about that are entirely separate from those
  194
  concerning whether the victims of sexual offences should remain anonymous. It is important that they should remain anonymous and have that protection from the law.
  I would go further and say that it is important that all impediments should be removed which prevent victims of serious offences from taking their cases to the courts. I welcome some of the progress that has been made recently on that, including the important change in the criminal justice legislation, which I think had cross-party support, in relation to the treatment of the evidence of complainants in cases of sexual offences, where we removed the need for judges to give warnings about corroboration. That important step forward will benefit many victims.
  It was monstrous that in the past judges had to give a warning about the evidence of complainants in such cases as though they were inherently unreliable people. Many judges, particularly women judges, have referred to having to give that warning through gritted teeth and I am pleased that the requirement for it has been removed. We need to consider carefully how to make it possible and easy for victims in such cases to go before the courts without suffering unnecessary fear. I hope that the hon. Lady will make common cause with me on that.
  I take issue with the hon. Lady on the substance of her speech today. She referred to living in the real world. If in her speech she was trying to suggest that there has not been any progress in the status of women, particularly in the opportunities for women to move forward in careers and the professions during the past 15 years, she has been living in an unreal world.
  There is plainly a great deal of evidence that women have made progress during the past 15 years. One can look across the board at the professions. In my profession there has clearly been a great deal of much needed progress during the past 15 years. When the Labour Government left office—this was no reflection on the Labour party, however—only 10 per cent. of members of the Bar were women. Today, 22 per cent. are women.
  The hon. Lady complains about the lack of female judges, and I agree that it is desirable that there should be more women judges, particularly in the higher reaches of the judiciary, but we have so few women judges today because of the lack of progress in the past and the lack of suitably qualified and experienced candidates. As progress is now taking place and the shortage of women at the Bar is being remedied, I happily predict that there will be more women judges in the future. The same is true across the board in the professions. Today there are more women doctors, dentists, accountants and architects. Across the board, women are making welcome advances.
  I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said about the position of women in the civil service. Women are advancing in the civil service. The overall percentage of women employed in the top seven grades in the civil service has risen from 7 per cent. in 1980 to 13 per cent. today. I agree that there is still scope for improvement, but let us acknowledge the improvement that has been made.
  Education is one reason why there will he more women entering the professions, but the hon. Lady cast doubts on the Government's achievements in promoting higher education and access to higher education for women. In the academic year beginning in 1979 when the Labour party left office, 190,000 women students were in higher education. That figure has more than doubled to 410,000

  195
  today. The proportion of full-time students has also risen, from 40 per cent. in 1979 to 49 per cent. today. I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that as progress and joins me in welcoming it.
  Ms Short: I am fairly sure that I said that women are now equalling and even excelling boys in large parts of the education system. Nevertheless, the proportion of our young people in higher education is lower than, for example, in South Korea. There has been progress, but it is not good enough in terms of the future of the British economy compared with the investment in education taking place in other countries.
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady is having to scrape around for some international comparisons. The fact that stands out is that when the Labour party left office one in eight people in the relevant age group, male and female, went into higher education and today the proportion is one in three. The hon. Lady would do well to recognise that achievement. If we are lagging behind in any comparisons today, which I doubt, it is because we started from such a low point when Labour left office. The same applies to further education, where there has similarly been an extremely large increase in the number of females.
  We have had a welter of statistics today on women in employment generally. I rest my case for saying that women's position has improved on three statistics. First, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, there are more women in the work force today than ever before, more than there were in 1979 when 40 per cent. of the work force was women. Today the figure is 46 per cent. Those women are also earning more than ever before. In addition, the gender gap in earnings, to which the hon. Lady referred, has been closing since 1980. In 1980, women's wages were 37 per cent. less than those of men; today the figure is 30 per cent. The gap is closing, and closing quickly. Since 1990, female earnings have increased by 30 per cent. compared with 23 per cent. for men.
  Those three statistics—the number of women in the work force, the increase in women's earnings and the closing of the gap between men and women's earnings—are significant, broadly based and persuasive. They demonstrate that, across the board, the lot of women is improving. Whether they are employed by large employers or in the professions or whether they are in managerial positions, there has been a significant improvement.
  It is important for women to have successful role models to show them that it is possible for them in their chosen career or profession to rise to the top on the basis of their merits, judged on their abilities, enjoying full equality of opportunity.
  Today's debate is timely in one respect, at least, in that approximately 20 years ago today this country elected the first female leader of a major political party, who went on to become Prime Minister and to win three successive general elections. When the now Baroness Thatcher became leader of the Conservative party in 1975, it gave an enormous boost to women in this country, because it showed them that they could rise to the very top. It gave a boost to women in public life.
  196
  One prominent female figure in public life told her diary, after hearing of Mrs. Thatcher's election as party leader:
  "I have had a growing conviction that this would happen: she is so clearly the best man among them and she will, in my view, have an enormous advantage in being a woman too. I can't help feeling a thrill … I have been saying for a long time that this country is ready—even more than ready—for a woman Prime Minister."
  Baroness Castle wrote that in her diary in 1975. She was objective in those comments. She was speaking as a woman, setting herself apart from her political views, which were obviously vastly different from those of Margaret Thatcher, but she felt that there was a lesson there for the Labour party.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a pity that the Labour party is unable to sustain, even remotely, the kind of progress that we have made? Is he aware that only three out of 73 trade union leaders are women, and they come from the Labour party?
  Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend's extremely good intervention was very well anticipated. I was about to quote again from the noble Baroness Castle's diary. I invite the attention of the hon. Member for Ladywood, as she will remember the time, I am sure. Barbara Castle wrote:
  "I think it will be a good thing for the Labour Party too. There's a male-dominated party for you—not least because the trade unions are male-dominated, even the ones that cater for women. I remember just before the February election last year pleading on the NEC for us not to have a completely producer-oriented policy, because women lose out in the producer-run society."
  Ms Short rose—
  Mr. Clappison: I will happily give way if the hon. Lady wants to tell us about a producer-run society.
  Ms Short: I know that the hon. Gentleman apologised for not having been in the Chamber earlier, but that point was dealt with in an exchange between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and myself.
  Mr. Clappison: I did say at the beginning of my speech—I do not know whether the hon. Lady was here—that I was present for her speech. I heard that intervention and it made me think back to what I had read in the noble Baroness Castle's diary. I will share my thought with the hon. Lady. For all that the hon. Lady said to my right hon. Friend about what was taking place in trade unions, it struck me that there has not been a great deal of progress since 1975—20 years ago—when Barbara Castle wrote those words.
  Today that lack of progress is indicated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) made clear in her intervention, by the small number of women who are trade union leaders. The hon. Member for Ladywood will appreciate that there is a big difference between women being treated as some sort of sectional interest who can be accommodated—who can be made to make do with a gesture—and being given full equality of opportunity to rise to the top on the basis of their merits. There is a clear distinction between those two things. Clearly, an enormous amount of progress remains to be made in the trade union movement.
  The hon. Lady will know that last year there was a leadership election in her party. I do not want to go into that, as that is a private matter for the Labour party, but

  197
  she must concede that, from that election, it is clear that the Labour party is still a considerable distance from electing a female leader. I happened to read, because I am interested in these things, the election statement of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who now leads the Labour party. It came as a surprise to me that not once in that statement did he mention the role of women or what he intended to do for women. I know that the hon. Lady will say that things have changed since then and that the right hon. Gentleman has set out his policies, hut that seemed to me to be something of an omission and it says something about the subconscious attitude of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: In my constituency the Labour party has decided to put up an all-woman list of candidates for selection. Is that not a disgrace? Does it not show a remarkable lack of confidence in the ability of women to rise to the top in the election process? If my hon. Friend looks around the Conservative Benches, he will see great examples of women rising to such positions.
  Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he has caused great interest among the hon. Ladies who surround me.
  I do not want to go into private Labour party matters, but there seems to be a great deal of turmoil in that party—in its leadership elections, its candidate selections, and so on, in which women are fighting very hard to overcome what they see as prejudice. The difference between Labour Members and Conservative Members is that we do not have to fight against that sort of prejudice, because it does not exist here; it was expelled 20 years ago when we elected a female leader.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. in case I do not have an opportunity to get my fourpenny-worth in the debate. Leaving party politics aside, does he agree that the House is the jury of the nation? It is not an Olympic track, where the best person wins. It is not a company where the top talent rises. We are talking here about an institution which should represent the whole of our community—stupid, white, black, women, men, three-legged, two-legged, whatever. That is why getting into this place is different. It should be different from the race metaphor, which has been used time and again in the debate.
  Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, which she made clearly. I would not want in any way to comment on or challenge the point that she made, save to say that she is living proof of the vibrancy of views within our party.
  To return to party politics, since the Leader of the Opposition issued his personal statement, which omitted to mention women altogether, he has come to appreciate the importance of the women's vote. Speaking recently, he decided to announce an important policy initiative for his party, to She magazine, which is described as a magazine
  "For women who juggle their lives".
  It was a well thought out initiative and he was clear to whom he wanted to speak, as that magazine is produced by the same group which produces Country Living, The Antique Collector and House Beautiful. He was clearly making a bid for a different sort of readership for Labour party policy. He seems to have been conscious of that
  198
  throughout his interview, in which he gave the lady interviewing him the impression that he was prepared to show, in her words
  "two fingers to the educational dinosaurs of the ultra-Left."
  I cannot imagine who he was thinking of at that point.
  The right hon. Gentleman spelled out Labour party policy with his usual great clarity and restated much of what he said in his personal manifesto. When asked what he stood for, he said "social-ism", which he described as
  "the belief that people do best in a strong society. Unless you are prepared to create the underpinnings of that strong society, the individual does not move as fast as he or she can. It is not about class, or trades unions, or capitalism versus socialism. It is about a belief in working together to get things done."
  I hope that the readers of She magazine were illuminated by that and that Labour party policy was clarified for them. I hope that they had a nice cup of hot milk before bed as well.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the same article the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) pledged support for tax relief for nannies? Indeed, Labour Members have tabled a new clause to the Finance Bill advocating tax relief for nannies. The Labour party is putting up a nannies charter—a total U-turn after years of being utterly dismissive of professional women who choose to employ nannies.
  Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has an uncanny knack of anticipating what I am about to say. She mentioned the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill. I hope I am not doing the Labour party an injustice, but it seems that its leader chose to reveal what would become party policy not to that Committee but to the readership of She. Although he said that he was cautious about committing his Government at this stage, he is quoted as also saying:
  "Tax relief is one of the things we are looking at".
  There we have it: the first step that the right hon. Gentleman has taken on his way to a caring, sharing society of social justice and co-operation is to consider tax relief for nannies.
  I do not know whether that proposal will receive warmer applause from the working women of Sedgefield, who will presumably have to subsidise the tax relief with their income tax, or from high earners in Islington and elsewhere in the south of England, but I do not envisage Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and his friends dancing with glee in the Lobby at the prospect of voting for tax relief for people wealthy enough to employ nannies.
  Perhaps this will be the start of a new Labour campaign. Perhaps there will be a new slogan, and a new definition of the welfare state: "Full employment for all from the cradle to the nursery". The expression on the face of the hon. Member for Ladywood suggests that the policy has not been received with much enthusiasm by the Opposition and we would do well not to take it too seriously; it looks to me like another bit of window dressing from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield which will bite the dust before much longer.
  Women in this country today can place their trust in the substantial and fair progress that has been made. There has been a move towards equality of opportunity: that is clearly demonstrated by the increasing number of women in top jobs. Women are moving through the professions;

  199
  they are better paid than ever before in real terms. The gender gap is closing. All of that is solid progress—for which I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends—as opposed to the pie in the sky offered by the Leader of the Opposition.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: There is no better indicator of the health of a society than the health of its individual citizens; but to examine women's health in Britain is to see a divided nation. Many women, especially in the home counties and the south, enjoy the best of health, while many others in inner cities and the north bear an unnecessary burden of disease and premature death.
  The 1991 census established the number of women with a "limiting long-term illness" in each health authority. According to that definition, the five healthiest health authorities are West Berkshire, North West Surrey, South West Surrey—that authority, of course, covers the constituency of the Secretary of State for Health—Mid-Downs and Tunbridge Wells. The number of women with limiting long-term illnesses in each of those authorities is more than 20 per cent. lower than the national average. The five health authorities in which women suffer the greatest burden of ill health are Central Manchester, North Manchester, Barnsley, North Durham and Sunderland. The number of women with limiting long-term illnesses in those health authorities is more than 30 per cent. higher than the national average.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the same ratio would apply to men? He is centralising the statistics to apply them to women, but what he says is irrelevant to the debate.
  Mr. Bayley: I do not think that it is irrelevant. The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no: these figures do not apply to men as well. As he would see if he referred to the Department of Health's public health common data set, there are wide variations between the health of men and that of women.
  The purpose of today's debate is not merely to highlight differences and inequalities between men and women. It is a debate about the lives of women in Britain today, and the inequalities in life opportunities and health between certain groups of women also matter greatly. Barnsley is one of the five health authorities with an exceptionally large burden of ill health. The census revealed that 20,809 women in the area had a limiting long-term sickness—36 per cent. above the national average. If the national average figure applied in Barnsley, there would be 5,508 fewer women with limiting long-term illnesses.
  The national health service has simply failed to meet the health needs of women in Barnsley. Their needs have been ignored by a Government who are obsessed with the efficiency of the service, which they measure in terms of numbers of completed episodes—numbers of patients treated—rather than in terms of the underlying principle of the NHS, which is to provide health care on the basis of equity; in other words, on the basis of health need.
  When people talk of women's health—this is also an answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie)—they often refer to diseases such as cervical cancer and breast cancer, from which only women suffer.
  200
  In fact, the big killer diseases for women are strokes, heart disease and respiratory disease. Perhaps, on National No-smoking Day, I should also mention lung cancer, which is fast catching up with breast cancer in terms of the number of women's lives that it claims each year; indeed, it may have just overtaken it.
  Smoking may cause those illnesses, but overwhelmingly they are caused by poverty. As others have pointed out—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise —poverty is more usually a woman's rather than a man's problem, and that mars the position of women in Britain.
  According to the Department of Health's public health common data set, the death rate among women of all ages is lowest in South West Surrey—the area represented by the Secretary of State for Health. According to the census, two thirds of its population are members of non-manual social classes. The death rate is highest in Central Manchester, where fewer than a third are members of social classes I, II and IIIN—the non-manual classes. In other words, death rates are higher among women in lower socio-economic groups. If I may put it crudely, poor women die younger.
  The death rate among women aged between 15 and 64 is lowest in Huntingdon health authority —in the Prime Minister's area—at 25 per cent. below the national average. Four other health authorities tie in second place: Tunbridge Wells, North West Surrey, Winchester and Norwich. There the death rate is 21 per cent. below the national average. It is highest in Salford, Central Manchester and North Manchester health authorities, where the figure is more than 40 per cent. higher than the national average.
  The premature death rate among women in the poorest parts of the country is not only high but increasing. In the past five years, the Salford rate has increased from 42 per cent. above the national average to 53 per cent. above it; the Central Manchester rate from 58 per cent. above the national average to 69 per cent. above it; and the North Manchester rate from 68 per cent. above the national average to 80 per cent. above it.
  The Secretary of State for Health says that the Labour party should not concern itself with health inequalities because the health of all groups of the population is improving and it is just that the health of the healthiest is improving fastest. That simply is not true. The health of the poorest and the most disadvantaged groups of women is declining in real and absolute terms.
  It is not just inequality in terms of death rates. The same pattern of inequality between north and south and between inner cities and shires exists at birth. The percentage of low birth weight babies—babies weighing under 2,500 g—is lowest in a similar collection of health authorities, including Tunbridge Wells, Halton, Worthing, East Sussex and Salisbury, and highest in Nottingham, Central Manchester, Rochdale, North Manchester and West Birmingham. The NHS provision for women is marred by women's health inequalities from the cradle to the grave.
  There are two ways in which to look at the problem. In the White Paper "The Health of the Nation", the Government tend to shrug off the problem. The White Paper says:
  "The reasons for these variations are by no means fully understood."

  201
  The Australian Labor Government in their equivalent to "The Health of the Nation", a very hard-hitting report entitled "Enough to make you sick: how income and environment affect health", conclude:
  "Ill-health can lead to worsening social and economic circumstances, which in turn adversely affect health. So health care should be distributed according to physical and social need, not just physical need."
  The report identifies the social and economic circumstances that particularly affect women. It says that certain groups of women, especially sole parents, are likely to "have very poor health."
  The British Government need to take a leaf out of the Australian Government's hook. First, they need to acknowledge that there is a problem—a widening problem—of women's health inequalities. Secondly, they need to agree that the health inequalities are not inevitable. Thirdly, they need to agree that there is a need to seek solutions.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Although I do not dispute the general picture of ill health or poor health among less economically viable women which the hon. Gentleman gives, does he agree that that is why it is so important that we have a health service that delivers excellent health care at the point of delivery, always free of charge? More than that, we have a health service which, by ensuring that we eliminate waste, puts more money into patient care to look after the very women about whom, rightly, the hon. Gentleman and I are concerned.
  Mr. Bayley: The first point on which I take issue with the hon. Lady is her description of "less economically viable" women. It is not that the women are inadequate but that the society that the Government create does not provide economic opportunities for those women. Secondly, the hon. Lady suggests that the national health service simply has to run itself in a way that maximises the number of treatments given.
  Lady Olga Maitland indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bayley: That is what I understood the hon. Lady to have said. She said that the health service should be efficient and should maximise the number of treatments that could he given. What is important is to target treatment on those who most need it—those who will benefit most from health intervention. That patently is not happening.
  Lady Olga Maitland rose—
  Mr. Bayley: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment. I hope that she will listen to what I am saying.
  Such targeting patently is not happening at the moment. The health inequalities are widening in the area of what the Government themselves describe as "avoidable diseases". If the burden of avoidable disease is increasing among the poor, why is the national health service not targeting those avoidable diseases? Why does the NHS not target strokes and hypertensive diseases, to reduce their incidence among the social groups that are most seriously affected? That is not happening as a result of the NHS reforms.
  Lady Olga Maitland: On the broader picture, is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are deprivation payments to GPs in inner-city areas so that they can deliver the service that these women need? He is skating over the
  202
  problem and trying to create alarm when help is available. I am sure that he agrees that we must help women to take advantage of the available assistance.
  Mr. Bayley: The test of whether the policy is working is whether the health of the poor is improving. The Government's own figures show that the health of the poor is not improving as fast as the health of the better-off because resources are being targeted in favour of health interventions for the better-off. In the worst possible cases—I cited three earlier—the mortality rate of poor women in poor health authorities is deteriorating. The death rate for women between 16 and 64 in those northern health authorities increased in absolute terms between 1987 and 1992. That shows that the interventions made under Government policy are not matching the growing burden of ill health which environmental and social conditions are creating.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not want to get involved in the detailed points that the hon. Gentleman has exchanged with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). I ask him, because he is knowledgeable in these matters, how much of the change in some of the women's killer diseases, which have been growing, is the predictable outcome of smoking and how much is linked to what people eat? Obviously, there are environmental issues as well, which I do not dispute. Could we predict what the change over the next 10 years in the death rate among women who smoke will be, as a result of the increased number of women who smoke? I agree that we need to have fewer women smoking in areas where women still smoke too much. We should talk about those issues as much as we talk about deprivation payments and the concentration on inner-city health areas. We should try to get the improvements in other areas of women's health that we have achieved in maternal mortality and infant mortality, which are the two crucial points that the Black report, of which I have an original copy, said were the test of whether Government policy was right.
  Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman has an original copy of the Black report; he has a very rare volume indeed.
  It is, of course, important to focus on the causes of ill health. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am concerned that, because of promotion by tobacco companies, the incidence of smoking among young women, especially, is increasing. The hon. Gentleman asked what effect that would have on mortality rates from lung cancer among women. I suspect that we shall see the result in the long term because lung cancer is a long-term disease. There is a typical pattern of 30 or 40 years of smoking before the penalty of lung cancer develops. Of course we must address those issues, as we must address the issue of diet.
  The Government, however, make a mistake when they suggest that women's health inequalities are caused by genetic, cultural and behavioural factors. They are to some extent, but they arc also caused by poverty, poor housing, a lack of community care and a mistargeting of NHS resources on those women whose health needs are not the greatest. Those issues must be addressed if women's health inequalities are to he reduced. There is a maldistribution of resources for community care and health. Resources are not targeted on those women whose health needs are greatest. The time has conic for the Government to concentrate on putting those problems right.
  7.39 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for not having been in the Chamber for a couple of hours, while I had to attend other committee meetings. I very much hope that I shall not repeat any of the arguments, although I shall doubtless be advised if I begin to do so.
  Unusually for a politician, I wish to raise questions to which I have no glib answers. I would not expect my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to provide any answers, hut if she will consider the issues I raise, it would go some way towards reassuring me that we are moving towards a considered reaction to some of the complex issues that concern me.
  Hon. Members have referred to economic changes in the past 20 to 30 years, and I have no intention of repeating those references. I was very active in campaigning for equal rights for women in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, which is why I shall not go into the matter in great depth.
  Many hon. Members will not remember the days when there were no women news readers on the television. One of the achievements of myself and my friends in the organisation Women in Media was to change that in television and radio. Now, of course, there is more than equality among news readers.
  That is a minor illustration of the major economic changes to the position of women in the past 30 years. Those changes, however, have brought with them some of the problems that we are discussing today. We have seen and gone through the increase in the number of women in the professions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) gave a very good exposition of it.
  Those of us who have been involved in women's issues for a long time will know the phrase "the glass ceiling" very well. That glass ceiling has risen substantially, but we have still not got it up to the top, as witnessed by the debate about trade union leadership, the number of women directors and the number of women in significant posts.
  I have some sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) about the difficulty of more women coming into the House of Commons, but that is a different issue, because one takes a most unusual career path to get here. I shall therefore take the number of women in the House of Commons out of the debate.
  When I go around schools, as I am sure many of us do, to speak to girls and mixed classes in the sixth form, I still find the age-old problems that we all identified all those years ago: peer pressure, parental pressure and—the key problem among women—lack of confidence and belief in their own abilities. Women need a degree of encouragement that we do not necessarily find among their male colleagues. It is being overcome in education, hut socially it is still a problem, and needs to be dealt with. Sixth-form girls need that extra hit of confidence to put their foot on that ladder and know that they can get to the top and through the glass ceiling.
  Not only is it true that, over the past 20 to 30 years, women have made tremendous strides in their economic position, hut the technology of work is changing towards favouring women. Heavy, unskilled work is being taken
  204
  out of daily life and being replaced with the use of technology, dexterity and brains. Those are women's abilities and their principal contribution to the work force. We can most crudely describe that change as brawn now being cheap and brain being dear.
  That brings us to a conflict. There is no reason why women who wish to progress cannot do so as far as they want, but—I hope not to be making either a party political or a moral judgment—there are also women who opt out. We need to consider very carefully the latter category of women. We need to find out why they opt out. Why do they become the single mums who are causing such problems and angst in our society? Many hon. Members have referred to the issue.
  There are various categories of single mums. I am a product of a single mother who took over the family firm. I am therefore in one very privileged category. It is not new or unique. There are divorced mothers—left, perhaps, with a reasonable maintenance settlement. There are widows with children. Then there are those who are unmarried.
  In my constituency, it is reckoned that more than 50 per cent. of all live births are to single mothers who are not in a stable relationship. That is a most horrendous statistic with which to deal. We all know that the children of those mothers, who—broadly—are condemned to a life of poverty, face a life of deprivation and find it difficult in school and in later life to become the social and economic animals that we all need to be to succeed.
  Ms Short: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Lady's general point, as I want to see where she is going, but is she aware of statistics that show that many of those young women go on to form a partnership and a stable relationship? We often talk as though it is a condition for life. From the figures, it is not. Those women frequently form partnerships.
  Mrs. Lait: I completely accept the hon. Lady's point, but, if I were to describe every category, I would not get through to the question that I am trying to pose. I hope that the hon. Lady bears with me and agrees that there is a category of women about whom most of us are concerned.
  The group includes young girls, who—with the benefit, one would have thought, of sex education in school—are pregnant when they leave school. Alarming statistics show the number of girls leaving council care at the age of 16 who are either pregnant or with a child, and one has to ask, why are they in that position? What drives them to create a set of circumstances that they will find very difficult to get out of?
  We may all offer simple explanations. The problem is that every explanation is different. There arc about 20 or 30 explanations and I shall not go through them, but they include getting away from mum, having a baby that is one's own and is a toy rather than a reality, and getting a house and benefits. I am not making any moral statement, but those explanations are given time and time again.
  I am sure that it goes much deeper than that. Until we find out why this coterie of women are condemning themselves to a life out of the mainstream of society, we cannot fix the problem.
  Mrs. Gorman: Before my hon. Friend leaves an extremely important and very interesting subject, I hope that she will turn her thoughts to the role of single young fathers. Young men, of course, get these young women

  205
  pregnant and walk away from their responsibility. Does she not think that we should do more to educate our young boys in what used to be called good behaviour and honour towards women?
  Mrs. Lait: I have tremendous sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. I, too, would like it if everybody who had a right also had a responsibility. By making it easier for boys to walk away, we are placing the responsibility for contraception and for the child on women. But I want to deal with the reality. It is the woman who is left with the child. One of the most recent sociological explanations is that, because unskilled young men can no longer maintain a family, women are rejecting them. They are positively deciding to reject them.
  Ms Short: Because they have no income.
  Mrs. Lait: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is yet another explanation of the phenomenon. We have not yet got to the bottom of the problem. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is now aware that there is no easy answer to it. I would be more than grateful if someone could come up with an easy answer, but I am sure that there is no such easy answer.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: There is no easy answer. The hon. Lady has raised a very important issue. A large group of people in our society are alienated to such an extent that they have no hope for the future. They therefore have no aspirations beyond having a baby and obtaining the minimal levels of benefit. That is not a good life; it is a life of poverty. Why have those women lost that aspiration? Why has the situation become worse during the period of this Government, under whom inequality has risen? We should be concerned about that group in society which is alienated from the rest of us.
  Mrs. Lait: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has added yet another explanation as to why the phenomenon has arisen without, other than in a very glib party political way, trying to solve the problem. This is the third time that I have made my point, and I apologise if I am being repetitive. However, we must be clearer in our minds what is genuinely causing the problem, so that we can begin to address the solution more effectively than the remedies that have been tried so far.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet (Fookes): Order. I assumed that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) was giving way. Is that correct?
  Mrs. Lait: Yes. I was giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
  Lady Olga Maitland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, in what has been the most thoughtful and most useful contribution in the entire debate. I totally accept that there is no easy answer. However, will my hon. Friend ponder for a moment or two why marriage has now slipped from the agenda as the normal way of family life? It is now accepted that people will have partners and transitory relationships. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot put the blame entirely on schools or
  206
  the media? Society as a whole is to blame. Does she not agree that we must reinvigorate the concepts of the family and of marriage?
  Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend has added yet another strand to the conundrum we face. I have tremendous sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. We must get to grips with the problem, because society cannot afford those young women opting out and not making the best of their lives, quite apart from the lives of the children whom they are raising.
  I have a further, possibly more radical, thought, on a different area. I said earlier that I campaigned very vigorously in the early 1970s for equal rights for women. One of the things I campaigned for was the Equal Opportunities Commission. It is now 20 years since the EOC was founded. It has funded and achieved some very distinguished legal victories. While many of us may find them difficult to live with, we probably agree in our heart of hearts with what has been achieved.
  However, it is now about time that we reviewed whether the EOC meets today's needs. I have a brief resume of what the commission did in 1993. It produced 13 publications, including the annual report. Grants were given to 27 voluntary sector projects. Twelve research projects were commissioned, on topics such as women and low pay, and black women in the labour market. In 1993, the commission assisted 195 cases in industrial tribunals and the European Court of Justice.
  Does the Equal Opportunities Commission need to perform those tasks? Are there sufficient research institutes, grant-giving bodies and legal help organisations to perform that function instead? If the EOC did not exist, would those bodies have performed that function?
  Those are very difficult questions to he posed by a great supporter of the commission when it first started and to those who have become used to the commission. However, after 20 years, it is perhaps time to consider whether the commission is required, whether its composition needs to be changed and whether its aims and objectives need to reflect more closely the changes that have been achieved in the past 20 years.
  Mr. Derek Enright: Does the hon. Lady agree that, under article 119 of the treaty of Rome, the Equal Opportunities Commission, from its very inception, has been the most effective body by a long way throughout Europe—and I do not normally say this kind of thing—in pursuing cases in respect of which women have been badly treated? It would be a tragedy to get rid of its expertise in that area.
  Mrs. Lait: I acknowledged the commission's work, however inconvenient some of us may have found the results. I am not suggesting that that body of knowledge should necessarily dissipate simply because we change the aims and objectives of the commission, or review them in such a way that we decide that we do not need the EOC as such and move its responsibilities to some other policy institute. I am simply opening up the question for debate because, after 20 years, we need to do that. If we do not do that, such things ossify and become part of the system, which does not deliver what is required given the changes that have occurred.
  I apologise if my next issue was raised earlier, but I became aware of its complications very recently. That issue is sexual harassment. Sexual harassment has been

  207
  an issue for action and debate in the United Kingdom. However, I became aware of it as an even more potentially difficult problem as a result of a conversation that I had recently with a retired professor of international law from the United States.
  The professor told me about the realities of life in an academic faculty where the politics of sexual harassment were such that men and women found that the level and quality of teaching was being affected purely because, in any one-to-one relationship between the sexes, neither could react in an academic but at the same time friendly way.
  It usually takes 10 years for ideas from America to cross the pond. I would hate it if we were to over-react to allegations of sexual harassment in future and put in place techniques and controls to deal with sexual harassment which reduced the level of academic teaching. If we did that, we would be doing ourselves a profound disservice in terms of the ability of men and women to contribute to our economic and cultural success in the United Kingdom. We must be aware that we could over-react and penalise ourselves—for all the right reasons, but taken to excess.
  I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for posing questions rather than offering answers. However, I should he grateful if she would consider whether she can say that work will be done on some of the difficult questions that I have posed.
  7.59 pm
  Ms Mildred Gordon: At the moment, the world summit for social development is meeting in Copenhagen, and the United Nations is using the summit to highlight the problem of poverty and to discuss solutions. In Britain, as in the rest of the world, the poorest section of the population are women and their children. The UN has said that women do two thirds of the world's work for 5 per cent. of the income and only I per cent. of the assets.
  I apologise to the House for missing a good deal of the debate, because I was chairing a meeting on the Child Support Act 1991. Representatives of the single parent action network and the Child Poverty Action Group came to tell us of their reaction to the latest statement by the Government on alterations to the Child Support Act. They told us a story of the increased poverty of women; that the Act, which was supposed to help children, has in many ways made things worse. They told us of single mothers who at lunchtime went out and bought their children a bag of chips and had nothing to eat themselves. When members of those organisations went to visit those mothers, they found their cupboards and fridges empty of food. Increasing numbers were having water and electricity supplies disconnected, and even more were self-disconnecting because they did not have the money to charge the key or card meters which they are now forced to use and through which they pay even more for electricity than those who can afford to pay a quarterly bill.
  I was shocked to find that 10,000 women have already suffered the benefit penalty because they were denied the right to refuse authorisation for their husbands to be pursued for maintenance, and that 17,000 more have been denied that right. They will also suffer a benefit penalty.
  208
  That means that their benefit is cut by nearly £9 a week, so that, although they are already on the poverty line, there will be even less money to feed the children. There will not even be money for the bag of chips. That is a terrible situation.
  There is great pressure on those women to go out to work, but the only jobs they can find are low-paid, part-time, insecure jobs. They cannot take insecure jobs. If they do, they go on to family credit. The family credit system sets the amount that they will receive for six months, and then, if the maintenance does not come through or the job is lost, because the jobs are not secure, the women are in serious financial trouble.
  It is not a victory for women to be forced to go out to work for low wages, because they then have less time for their children. Child care is very lacking in some areas. There are not enough nursery schools, there are not enough qualified child carers, and good child care is usually not affordable. Mothers who work all day have less time to go to schools for parents' day. There are all kinds of problems. It is not all hay when they go out to work, especially when they cannot earn much money.
  There is an increasing stigma on single mothers on benefits and on women who stay home to look after their children. They have been attacked by many Ministers, and they are beginning to feel the stigma, because society picks it up. Teachers begin to say, "That child is a nuisance; no wonder, he comes from a single-parent family," and the women themselves are affected by it. I say here and now that there is no disgrace in a woman wanting to stay home to look after her children.
  Every mother is a working mother. Every woman works, whether she works for wages or she works in the home and does unpaid work. It is high time that the unpaid work that women do was counted and valued. It is counted on, but not counted by society.
  It was recently disclosed that £30 billion had been saved for the state by the work of carers. That is probably an underestimate. If we counted women's work, we would begin to see just how much money has been cut from social services, because women have picked up the pieces of the shattered welfare state.
  In addition to looking after their own sick and elderly relatives, women look after neighbours when the meals on wheels fail to roll up. They do a great deal of voluntary work for churches, schools and hospitals. That work is essential for the good of the community and for the happiness of the community, but it is not valued by society. Society has very strange values, because it values the work of soldiers as productive, but it does not value the work of mothers.
  The EC social charter, which is anathema to Conservative Members, asks that the maximum working week be 48 hours, but nothing is said of the maximum working week for women, which can be as much as 80 hours if they go out to full-time work, and do the shopping, cooking, cleaning, caring for children and the myriad other tasks that women have to undertake for the family. Women would he rich if they were paid for the importance to society of the work that they do, but it is not women who are rich: it is the company directors who get the fabulous salaries and the tax-free share options.
  It is not only single mothers who are poor: it is children, their mothers and their grandmothers—especially their grandmothers, because most pensioners, who are mostly

  209
  women, are very poor. I am sick and tired of seeing in my constituency elderly women hovering outside the window of a butcher's shop, trying to make up their minds whether to go in, and whether there is anything that they can afford to cook.
  After a lifetime of work, after living through the war, after living through the depression and after bringing up their families, women should not have to suffer that. They should not he unable to heat their homes properly, they should not have to stick to one room or sit in the kitchen, by the open gas oven as the cheapest way of heating, after a lifetime of work of value to the community.
  The Government's statistics distort the reality of women and their pensions. It has been said that men retire but women tire. When women finish their paid work and finish bringing up their families, they often help to bring up their grandchildren, so that their daughters can go out and earn a hit of money. The Government are worsening the position for older women. The change of pension age from 60 to 65 will mean that women will lose £14,500 each, based on 1992 prices. It will probably be £15,000 if we base that on today's prices, and it will be even more when the change comes about.
  The Government's statistics also give a false impression of occupational pensions. Only 28 per cent. of women over 65 have occupational pensions, and 72 per cent. do not. Only 12 per cent. in a recent survey had their own pensions. When my first husband died, I received half his occupational pension. It is not true that one person can live half as cheaply as two, because the bills come in for telephone, heat and light, and they are the same as those for two people who live in a home. My position was worsened, and the position of many women is far worse than mine was.
  There is also the inequity of the occupational pension going to the husband when there is a divorce, and the wife who helped him to build his career and his pension receiving nothing. I hope that that matter will be addressed, and that changes will be enacted to give women a fair deal in receiving a share of the occupational pension when there is a divorce.
  Middle-class feminists have a strategy for equality, and their strategy is to get more women to the top and to hope that power will trickle down. If women have talent, it is great if they can get to the top—if they can break through the glass ceiling—but that is not the way to help the majority of women. Women in politics were not lifted up by having a woman Prime Minister, despite what some Conservative Members think.
  The facts speak for themselves. Having more women at the top will not lift up the majority of women. What will address the needs of women at the bottom of the scale will be to value and to count their work in the gross domestic product and in satellite accounts.
  We must stop considering the work of women to he of no value to society and allowing it to be invisible. When women's unwaged work is ignored, their waged work is badly paid. It is a reflection of the value placed upon their unpaid work. The unpaid work of women is like the base of a pyramid on which the whole economy is built, and that should be recognised by society.
  More women in organisations such as the Women Count network are demanding that women's work be counted. The Counting Women's Unremunerated Work Bill, which I presented to this House in 1989, has been
  210
  replicated and passed in the European Parliament, and measures based on that Bill are now passing through the United States Congress and through Parliaments in the Philippines, Trinidad, and Germany. People in many countries who have read my Bill and have come to see me are now trying to get similar Bills through their legislatures.
  I shall end by quoting Juan Somavia, the chairperson of the world summit on social development which is now taking place. I shall read two quotes. First, talking in February about the unpaid work of women, he said:
  "The devaluing of this work runs parallel to the subordinate status of women, since it is women who do most of this 'caring and sustaining'. To link productivity only with paid employment continues to render invisible the enormous amount of unwaged work that women do that undergirds and subsidizes all other kinds of work".
  In his opening speech to the conference on 4 March, he said:
  "The contribution made to society by voluntary work, artists, the elderly, and most especially, by women through unpaid household work, together with cost-free use of the environment, are in fact subsidising the economy. The women's movement is rightfully demanding that this contribution be measured, if not remunerated, to at least factor in the invisible components of an economic system that ignores the actors which indirectly deserve a share of the benefits".
  It is time that society changed its values. If we value the work of soldiers more than the work of mothers, it will have an effect on how we spend our resources. Instead of money going to help the welfare of children and future generations, it will be blown up and spent on Trident and more obsolete arms for the military.
  8.12 pm
  Mrs. Angela Knight: I apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the House for not being present for much of the earlier debate. Like other hon. Members, I was in Committee. It may be of interest to the House to know that the Committee on which I was sitting was the Finance Bill, on which six women are sitting. I believe that that is more women than have ever sat on the Finance Bill Committee before. I also had a wry smile at a note which was sent to me a few days ago, which stated that an Opposition Member was hosting the launch of a new beer in honour of International Women's Week this week. The new beer was to be called Femme Fatale.
  I have some concerns about this debate in general, and they are related to two aspects. First, it is too general a debate. We could easily have done a better job had we discussed specific issues; for example the issues of health, which was raised by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), single parents, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), education, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), or pensions and the Child Support Agency, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon). The issues could have been dealt with better if we had had a series of separate debates, rather than the general one that we have had today.
  My second concern is that today's debate seems to he hugely negative. Many of the speeches that I have heard and the Opposition motion have been negative. I do not think that women's issues are negative—I think that they are hugely positive—and I am sorry that they have been

  211
  put in such a negative way. Some of the speeches have also denigrated to a considerable extent women's role in society, in this country and elsewhere.
  One of the matters touched upon in the opening speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) was the number of women in the House of Commons. In many respects, I agree with her. Clearly, when about 52 per cent. of the population—and only 10 per cent. of Members—are women, there is something very much out of balance. I would like to see more women in the House of Commons, but I do not agree that a quota system is the way in which to achieve that.
  In any job—whatever it might be—one must have the best person for that job. I do not think that that can be achieved by all-female lists or by all-male lists.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: But if it turns out that, in 80 per cent. of cases the list is all-male and that there are very few cases where it is all-female, what positive action can we take that is not positive discrimination, to get more people into the recruitment pool from which lists can be selected?
  Mrs. Knight: I shall come to the issue of bringing more women into the recruitment pool after I have dealt with quotas. The Labour party has decided to designate my constituency as one where an all-women list will apply for selection purposes. There has been an outcry, and not just from the men. A number of well-known female Labour politicians who are local councillors believe that it is wrong to have women-only lists for my constituency. It has caused disruption in my area and division within the Labour party. I am not sure what conclusion the party will come to. Male and female members of the Labour party must feel that, by forcing upon them a selection from just one gender, the party is not giving people a true choice to select the person whom they want to represent them.
  The real issue has been brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). We need to get more women on to the candidates' lists for all parties. There will always be restrictions, because clearly it is always difficult to be mum and to work. If one is a mum and doing this job with all its peculiarities a long way from home—in my case it is about 160 miles away—it adds to the normal complications that we all have in trying to combine bringing up children with a career.
  It is likely that we shall get far more women to sit for constituencies in the south and the south-east. It is not so likely that women—and especially mothers—will represent seats a long way north of London. When I was checking some of the facts related to the debate, I noticed—Opposition Members may correct me if I am wrong—that only two female Opposition Members represent seats a long way north of London and have small children. On Conservative Benches, there is only me. Being a mother and a Member of Parliament is one of the hardest combinations to put together.
  More can he done though in bringing women into public life, by encouraging them to take part in local councils. To serve on a local council is not only very interesting, but it gives one a good taste of public life. It can be done more easily because a local council is close to home. That, in my view, is the best stepping stone, and
  212
  is a way of bringing people forward into this type of role. I have noticed that the number of women on local councils has increased substantially during the past 10 years. On average, more than 25 per cent. of councillors are women and, in some councils, the proportion is considerably higher than that. That is a positive step, and I would like to see it pursued with a view to increasing the representation of women in the House.
  In general, I believe that there are four ways which, put together, constitute the greatest steps that can he taken to encourage women along the way, whatever job they seek to do. Encouragement is certainly one, but education, a range of employment opportunities and creating true equality by treating men and women fairly, especially in job opportunities, are the others. Put together, those are the four ways in which true promotion of women can take place.
  I do not believe that people's lives are suddenly changed because a handful of people go and do something extraordinary. People's lives change because thousands of ordinary people start to do their ordinary things in a slightly different way. That is the way in which we have seen great changes take place over time in this country, and that is how great changes will take place steadily in the future.
  Let us consider the key achievements of the past decade. We have more women in work than ever before. The fact that we have managed to get so many women into jobs shows that we must be getting quite a lot right in this country. Indeed, we have more women wanting to work than almost any other country in Europe. Moreover, women take up about 50 per cent. of all further and higher education places—and education is the key.
  If we educate women, we give them the skills so that they can take the opportunities that become available. It is important to note how girls are now starting to outperform boys at school. I read an interesting article in the summer, which asked whether we should consider taking boys out of mixed classes and teaching them separately, to enable them to achieve what girls of the same age can achieve. That outperformance by girls is especially noticeable in science.
  Another key change has been caused by more equality in the pensions system. We can now contribute to pensions in a way that was not open to us as women as few years ago. I know that the new national targets for health have created some concern for the hon. Member for York, but the fact remains that those targets are there: in screening for breast cancer and cervical cancer. The opportunities are there to be taken up. The difficulty, as so often, is getting women to take up the opportunities available. That brings me to one of the unknown questions and quandaries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye asked earlier, "What can we do about it?"
  None the less, some of those key improvements sound good to me. They do not sound anything like the negative motion on the Order Paper. The trend in choice for women is moving upwards, too.
  When I went to university in 1968 I read chemistry because it never crossed my mind that I, as a woman, could take an engineering degree. Only when I arrived at university did I realise that I should have been doing an engineering degree. When I entered the House, I asked the Library to tell me how many women entered university or other forms of higher education to read engineering in

  213
  1968. The answer was 500—only 500 in the whole country. So I feel that there was some excuse for my ignorance at the age of 18, when I did not quite know that I could have had that opportunity. However, at the beginning of the 1990s, 30,000 women a year were taking engineering degrees at university or in other forms of higher education. That is a good example of how opportunities have broadened for women.
  Pursuing that line further, I asked the Library to compare the current figures for women employed in engineering and science with those from 10, 20 and 30 years ago. Again, the answers were extraordinary. The increases have been immense. In 1971, about 84,000 women in all were employed in science and engineering. In the early 1990s, the figure was five times that.
  The proportion of women members of science and engineering professional institutions has increased, too, from 2.5 per cent. to 22.5 per cent. Again, dramatic improvements have taken place, because hundreds of thousands of people have gone about their ordinary jobs in slightly different ways.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: It is certainly encouraging if that is what is happening with professional institutions, but does the hon. Lady agree that it is rather appalling that the Royal Society, whose proportion of women members increased to 3 per cent. in the 1960s, still has only 3 per cent. of women members today?
  Mrs. Knight: There is always a last bastion for us to break down. The proportion may be 3 per cent. now, but one wonders what it will be in 10 years' time. Just as changes have taken place in other areas, they can take place there, too. None of us can expect to win every battle on the first day that we open fire.
  Let us consider some of the wider career opportunities, because we are now getting away from the traditional jobs that women were expected to do. Yes, there are still far more women then men in secretarial and clerical jobs, and in some of the caring professions, but nearly one third of the 3 million general managers in the United Kingdom are women. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere mentioned the percentage of women barristers, and indeed about one third of all lawyers are now women.
  Furthermore, 29 per cent. of dentists, 29 per cent. of general practitioners, 40 per cent. of pharmacists, 26 per cent. of vets, 24 per cent. of chartered accountants and 42 per cent. of people in the media are women. The numbers are rising steadily both because of education and because of the wider job opportunities available to them.
  Ms Short: Of course those figures are right, but does the hon. Lady appreciate that every woman has only one working life, so if the odds are still stacked enormously unfairly for the women who have not had the opportunities, those opportunities have gone for the whole of their lives? To say that things are changing slowly will sound a bit complacent to those who have missed out on some of their life opportunities.
  Mrs. Knight: Again, that is an extraordinarily negative approach. It is not as if we were debating a situation that is much the same as it was 10 years ago. We have seen substantial changes—most of which have taken place within my lifetime, since the early 1950s—and women now have far more opportunities available to them.
  214
  One of the conclusions that ultimately emerged from what the hon. Member for York said was that the health care opportunities available for women were simply not being taken up. That also applies to the jobs market. There are considerable opportunities available that, sadly, are not taken up. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye made that point, and it is partly related to the education system in this country.
  It is true that not everything in the garden is rosy, but there are far more blooms than there were a few years ago, and there will be a lot more in a few years' time.
  We tend to talk about the employment situation in a fairly superficial way. We often seem to imply, "Full-time jobs good, part-time jobs bad." Yet the reality of bringing up a family means that a part-time job is often the best opportunity for a woman. It not only brings extra money into the household, but it gives her as an individual that hit of independence and freedom and the knowledge that she is earning her own way in the world, which she would not otherwise be able to do. The part-time sector in the present job market is of considerable benefit, especially to women in my constituency, who still tend to work in the textile trades.
  The greatest limiter of women's participation in the work force is having children—by which I mean the presence of young children in the family. Although one can work out the logistics, it is often difficult to work out the other aspects, and to deal with the feeling that as an individual, as a mum, one ought to be there. I have not yet learnt to come to grips with the guilt and I suspect that I shall not find out how to do so until my children are grown up.
  The provision of adequate and affordable child care, which is often discussed in the House, is vital to working women. Participation in nursery education has increased substantially, but there is always a doubt in my mind when it is discussed. One of my children enjoyed nursery and one did not, and even the one who went to nursery attended no more than three mornings a week. Both liked playgroup and going to Grandma's—the alternative forms of child care that are available—and I believe that to opt for nursery care alone would ultimately be detrimental to many children, especially those who, like one of mine, did not like nursery at all.
  Child care and nursery education with part-time working are necessities. But another problem arises because women tend to look after not only the children but the aging population as well. It is something that women have traditionally done and managed to combine with their careers. As the population ages, the demands on women to assist the elderly will undoubtedly increase. There is no getting away from it and there is no solution, but it means that more women will be able to say categorically that for most of their lives they did not one but two jobs at the same time.
  I now deal with the encouragement given to pupils at school. The encouragement given to girls will colour their view of the types of jobs that they can take when they leave school. I am greatly concerned about the careers advice given at school. Too often, it is given by teachers who left school, went to teacher training college and then went straight back to school to teach. Consequently, their careers advice tends to be limited. The expectations of teachers and parents, especially when girls are involved, are the most fundamental moving force when it comes to girls choosing the career to follow.

  215
  When my teachers asked me at the age of 14 what I wanted to be when I grew up, I said that I wanted to go into industry. The school had a fit and provided me with a series of career novelettes that had wonderful titles such as "Susan Becomes a Secretary", "Nora Becomes a Nurse" and the wonderfully named "Angela becomes an Air Hostess". That was their idea of careers advice for a 14-year-old girl in the 1960s, when going into industry was not one of the things that nice girls did. There has been a considerable improvement since then, but the encouragement given to children at school and the advice from teachers can enable children to have a wider vision of the jobs available to them when they leave.
  The very fact that women now make up half the young people going into further and higher education is an example of how careers advice has improved, but also of how girls are improving their skills so that they have more opportunities available to them.
  The Institute of Management recently produced a report enticingly called "The Key to the Men's Club" and subtitled "Opening the doors to women in management". The recommendations set out clearly the type of policies that we should perhaps consider. It is in employers' interests to keep women in the work force and to attract women back to a company if they have left for the traditional career break. The reason why employers are especially interested to keep women is that women are reliable, responsible and accurate and, dare I say it, to a greater extent than the equivalent male work force.
  The institute makes three recommendations in particular. The first is that employers should remove age limits or any unnecessary criteria to ensure that women who have taken career breaks or who are late entrants into the work force are eligible for all management schemes. The second is to ensure that women on a career break do not suffer downward mobility. The institute urges employers to keep in touch and to provide training and updating and scope for flexible working.
  The third recommendation is that employers should recognise, accept and be positive about caring responsibilities and make clear their view that caring is the responsibility of all employees, not just women, and that child care support or provision should not be targeted only at women.
  The companies that have signed up to those recommendations include the Midland bank, British Gas, the Bank of Scotland and Marks and Spencer, all of which are organisations that employ women extensively in a wide range of jobs. I believe that they are the sorts of policies that the House should pursue.
  8.35 pm
  Dr. Lynne Jones: The House has been discussing the need to ensure that women participate at all levels in our society. It is gratifying that, with the exception of a few dinosaurs on the Conservative Benches, hon. Members have been united in recognising the waste of our nation's talents because so many women fail to reach positions of influence. The difference between the two main parties is that we have practical policies to redress the imbalance.
  216
  It was interesting to hear that the Minister who chairs the Cabinet Committee on women was not even aware of how few women have been able to take advantage—if that is the correct word—of the opportunities that the Government have made available through their child care disregard. The fact is that many of the Government's policies on women are tokenist and do not meet women's practical needs, such as the need for child care that enables them to go back to work.
  As for getting more women into Parliament, again the Labour party will show the way. We will have more women in Parliament. We have learnt from the practical experience of other countries, especially the Scandinavian countries, where more than 30 per cent. of parliamentarians are women, thanks to the means that the Labour party has been advocating to get more women sitting on these green Benches.
  Ms Short: On the Government Benches.
  Dr. Jones: On both sides. The Conservatives will follow once we have shown the way.
  Most of my remarks relate to the participation of women in a sphere in which increasing numbers are a matter of concern, not something to be applauded. I am referring to the large increase in the number of women going to prison. As of last Friday, there were 1,982 women in our prisons, which have a capacity of 1,858. The figure is up about 40 per cent. on two years ago. The increase is not a result of more women committing offences. In fact, the peak of offences occurred in 1992 before this increase in the prison population. Instead, there seems to have been a change in sentencing policy rather than an increase in crime.
  More than a third of women who go to prison do so because they have been unable to pay fines for offences that would not usually warrant a prison sentence. For example, in 1993, 292 women were sent to prison because they could not afford to pay their fine for being unable to pay for a television licence.
  The Home Office thinks that those figures are trivial, but hundreds of women who are not a danger to society are being put away for several weeks at a time. For those women and for their families, it is a devastating experience. Half the women in prison are mothers.
  Poverty is resulting in women being sent to prison, but men too are being sent to prison for non-payment of fines. A recent study by Rona Epstein, a law student at Coventry university, showed that, of 116 people who were imprisoned for not paying the poll tax, 53 per cent. were on benefit and 14 per cent. had no income. The National Association of Probation Officers reckoned that about 80 per cent. of people gaoled for non-payment of fines are on benefit and already in multiple debt.
  Some examples of people sent to prison have been highlighted by those studies, and I shall mention a few of them. An asthmatic woman with learning difficulties spent 10 days in prison for non-payment of poll tax before she was released on bail following the intervention of our very own Madam Speaker. A part-time cleaner, earning £42 a week, with five children, the youngest under five, was sent to prison for 20 days for being unable to pay her fine.
  Many women who are being sent to prison are first-time offenders who have committed petty offences. Those have been highlighted by the National Association of Probation Officers.

  217
  A pregnant mother was gaoled for 21 days for stealing £380 from the place where she worked, after she had already repaid it. She had borrowed it to try to keep a roof over her children's head. A 20-year-old mother served 56 days in Holloway prison for obtaining goods worth £91 by deception; she had no previous convictions.
  It would be much better to give such people non-custodial sentences than to send them to prison, where they meet other people and are likely to be exposed to a culture of drug taking. Judge Tumim has noted that, in Styal women's prison, eight out of 10 of the women take drugs. It is an offence to our society that such women arc being sent to prison.
  My interest in the matter was first raised by recognising that we were sending women to prison because they could not afford to pay for their television licences. A 39-year-old woman with two children was fined £200. She had a history of psychiatric treatment and no previous convictions. Her income was income support, and she had a catalogue of other multiple debts. She was sent to prison for seven days.
  A 25-year-old west midlands mother of two children, one of whom has learning difficulties, was sent to gaol for 14 days. On the day that she was in court, no one was available to take care of her children. It was only after the intervention of social services that a relative in Liverpool was found to look after the children.
  One can imagine the devastation that that must cause to those families, who are already living with the stress that results from poverty. That stress appears to have been growing during the past 16 years of Conservative government, as has been well documented.
  Conservative Governments have allowed benefits to lag behind the general standard of living in society. The Conservative Government condone low pay, as evidenced by their abolition of the wages councils and the spurious defence of those policies by Ministers in the Department of Employment when they issue misleading statistics. Since the abolition of the wages councils, wages have decreased and are continuing to do so. Women especially find that the opportunities that are available to them offer poverty pay and mean continual stress in their lives, which means that they are unable to meet the basic needs of their families, which results in perhaps some of them being unable to pay for their television licences.
  What is society's remedy? We send such people to prison. We should not tolerate that. I understand that the population in our women's prisons has become so great that crisis proposals have been made to send some female prisoners to male institutions. The Government should consider that growing problem, and should act to make it impossible for the courts to send people to prison because they are poor and cannot afford to pay their fines. In any case, it costs £15 million to send such people to prison, and in the end their fines are not paid. There are other means of making them contribute to society, and there are ways of making them contribute, to the extent that they can afford to do so, towards those fines.
  I ask the Minister to consider that issue, and I ask the Government to take seriously their responsibility for the growing alienation of that section of our society that lives in poverty. Sending those people to prison is not the answer.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) made some good arguments in the middle of her speech, but I think that the House would believe that she would be more effective if she dropped the idea of blaming everything on 16 years of Conservative government.
  It is true that we should be moving past the time when people are sent to gaol because of pure poverty. If people are thought wilfully not to be paying who would otherwise be able to pay, some alternative, cheaper deterrent or way of recognising that they had done something wrong would be advisable.
  The hon. Member for Selly Oak spoke about civil debts. It is worth noting that, 19 times out of 20, crime is a male offence. Drink-driving is, 19 times out of 20, a male thing. Male misbehaviour is the other side of the caring and conscientiousness that women show in fulfilling most family responsibilities.
  I shall speak primarily about poverty and about Parliament. I hope that ordinary, middle-class people will forgive me for not concentrating on their problems, which have been well illustrated by others who have spoken.
  One of the factors associated with caring for children and for elderly parents is that a woman tends to know more about her residential area and its problems than does the man who, if in work, tends to leave the area in the morning and return at night, and probably has a social life away from the home.
  The Joseph Rowntree Foundation "Inquiry into Income and Wealth" discusses the local authority areas that were the poorest in 1981 and those that were the poorest in 1991. It is interesting that, of the 15 poorest areas, five are common to the list at both ends of the decade but 10 of them make some dramatic changes. Corby was the poorest local authority area in 1981 and was a long way from the danger zone 10 years later.
  Some of those changes are interesting. If we change our focus to ward level or estate level, we begin to notice a constellation of factors of failure—not purely as a result of inadequate money having been put into the estate, but because one tends to find pockets of high unemployment and some of the other problems that were well illustrated in the Rowntree report.
  I quote now from volume 1 of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation "Inquiry into Income and Wealth". Among other things, it mentions
  "A cycle of 'poor parenting' resulting not necessarily from poverty, but from lack of experience of 'good parenting' themselves, inexperience because of youth, lack of understanding of the needs of children, lack of support networks and facilities, and isolation which can lead to depression and health problems."
  Those who have gained most from trying to spread a checklist of good facilities, good practice and good community approaches tend to be women. When I occasionally compare parts of my constituency with parts of my wife's constituency, I begin to see a complete contrast of opportunity between a town or village of 2,000 people in south-west Surrey and 5,000 people in an estate built in the London borough of Greenwich.
  On an estate on an old goods yard, which was in my constituency and is now just outside it, 5,000 people lived for five years with no pub, no post office, no church or chapel, no police officer, no bus stop and no place at which anyone could work within a mile and a half. That

  219
  is pulling out of people's lives many of the things that matter to them—things which lead to the natural growth of a community.
  I believe that, in many of our residential areas, if we brought four or five people together—whether current parents or streetwise grannies—who would start saying what they wanted to happen, what type of activity they wanted that would be part of worthwhile activities for young people—the organised chaos of the scouts, the Boys' Brigade, the Woodcraft Folk or a junior band, or some amateur dramatics or some sports involvement—we would begin to receive a positive answer to the question that I have posed to groups throughout the country, "What do you, aged 12 or 14, do after school or after homework?" There is nothing to do in too many inner-city areas. Many of the programmes that I have talked about are run at virtually no cost, and communal fund raising could provide more and better activities. That would create a sense of hope, which may translate into better take-up of educational opportunities for women.
  My borough of Greenwich comes 99th out of 109 education authorities around the country in terms of the proportion of pupils who get five GCSEs at A to C grade—the equivalent of the old O-levels. Someone must come 99th, but it need not be Greenwich. The local council should make headlines and the local press should carry headlines about that result. Parents in Greenwich should organise themselves in the way that workers would if they discovered that they came 99th out of 109 in a survey of wage levels. But we tolerate such things, and too often it is the women who carry the burden of inadequate performance by our public facilities, such as education authorities.
  I praise the Evening Standard for its continuing in-depth study of the east end of London. It has highlighted the absence of good community facilities and the need to develop good general practitioner services. If the newspapers could spend more time examining those issues as well as education results, I think that we would see a general improvement in the situation.
  More women in their teens and older must learn to appreciate the value of having higher expectations. We should look to remove barriers and embrace positive action, not discrimination. We must build competence and confidence, raise expectations and give encouragement.
  One of the reasons why birth rates in countries such as Italy, Spain, France and Ireland are decreasing faster than in this country is that young women in those countries do not allow themselves to drift into a life of poverty. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) said about people who have babies too early.
  We do not inherit celibacy from our parents. However, I believe that we must overcome the embarrassment-such as that caused by a 44-year-old male Member of Parliament talking about the need for sexually active people to worry about birth control or family planning—and discuss those issues. Family planning or birth control is the last thing on the minds of most sexually active young people. If they have the option, they may consider conception control. However, this week 6,000 people will contribute to a conception which will end in abortion—6.000 did so last week and there will be another 6,000
  220
  next week. Some 300,000 people contribute to conceptions that end in abortions every year in this country.
  About 45 per cent. of sexually active people in this country will contribute at some stage to a conception that ends in abortion. In a relatively open country where information is readily available and we have the opportunity to learn from our own behaviour and that of others, we should be able to halve that figure in six weeks. Our abortion record may be 10 times higher than that of the Netherlands, but it should be lower.
  We must achieve some openness in this area. I believe that the approach adopted by the headmistress of a girls' school in west London could be useful. Instead of saying, "We are now going to talk about contraception," the headmistress says to her girls—who come from mixed backgrounds—"Let's first discuss for whom contraception is not relevant." The girls then discuss the matter and they decide that it is not relevant for many pensioners, everyone below the age of puberty, those who are celibate, infertile or pregnant or those who want to be pregnant. She does not suggest that it is compulsory for everyone else; she simply points out that it has some relevance. That approach signals a move away from the idea that society is looking down on a bunch of hyperactive teenagers, and it makes contraception a part of normal life.
  I agree strongly that males should be part of the decision-making process as well—it takes two to tango. We need to be more open about the contraception issue. Instead of a 44-year-old talking about it on Radio 4, those matters should be discussed on radio stations, such as Radio 1, Kiss FM and Virgin, to which young people listen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) said, if we can get hundreds of thousands of ordinary people to do ordinary things often it will help to transform outcomes for society.
  While we must try to reduce the number of people who fall into circumstances not of their own choosing, which they do not enjoy and which may affect their lives for the next 30 or 40 years, we should have sufficiently broad shoulders, big enough hearts and enough common sense to help people in whatever situations they face.
  It is often women who visit people in gaol. Some 2,000 people—mainly male—commit their first serious crime every week, which makes a total of 100,000 people per year. Some 34 per cent. of men have already been convicted of a serious criminal offence by the age of 30. They may have been sentenced to gaol for six months or more. It is women who often perform a caring role when health—mental or physical—breaks down.
  Sadly, the emancipation of women has seen an increase in the smoking habit among women. If women account for half the smoking in our society, they will account for half the 100,000 who will die prematurely every year as a result of smoking.
  The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) said that we must be aware of health inequalities. Part of that problem is due to inequality of behaviour, which is probably a cultural issue. We cut the incidence of drink-driving among young men by 1.5 million per week over a year and a half with no changes to the law or to sentencing or enforcement procedures. We must try to do the same thing in other areas of avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap in our efforts to promote general well-being.

  221
  I think that we should adopt the key message in the first chapter of the Pope's new book, which essentially says: "Be not afraid." We must try to work out what we want to achieve and go for it.
  I turn to the question of outcomes for children of mothers in different types of relationships. I hope that research will show whether I am correct in my belief that children are most likely to be brought up successfully—if that is defined broadly, without detail—if they are reared by widows. I think that is in part because widows know that they need to care, and in part because society is more willing to share the burdens that widows bear. I suspect that married parents are the next most successful at child rearing and that that group is followed by a mixture of those who have never married, those who are divorced and those who are separated.
  That analysis is not really helpful in practice; we cannot say to children, "You will be all right," or "You are born to fail." However, it gives some guidance to people who believe that they have a choice. No one should be told nowadays that they should live with someone, marry or have children—that is a matter of individual circumstance and individual choice. I believe that if we can share information, more people will learn that they have a choice and will exercise their freedom of choice. Therefore, they will he likely to make fewer mistakes and less likely to get into undesirable situations. I agree that recognising home and work responsibilities is an important aspect that has been well covered by others.
  I return to Parliament. At the risk of pre-empting my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I increasingly believe that she was right to say that we should halve the number of constituencies and have a man and woman representing each constituency. It would save a lot of bother and provide a great deal of encouragement for people to believe that it should be relatively easy to take the chance of being elected to Parliament.
  Not everybody who volunteers gets selected and not everybody who gets selected gets elected, but it is worth giving my hon. Friend's proposal serious consideration over the months and years. However, that is only one part of Parliament.
  Most life peers appointed on the Prime Minister's recommendation are male, and all the judges who attend the House of Lords Appeal Court are male. At the moment, all the bishops are male, yet it should he quite easy and a matter of consensus to try to increase the number of women in the House of Lords.
  At the risk of embarrassing them, it is not difficult to think of a whole range of women who would make a good contribution. I do not know the politics of any of them, hut, for example, the deputy chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, June Bridgeman, who was a distinguished civil servant experienced in family responsibilities, could serve there well.
  Ros Howells, who has been running the Council for Racial Equality in Greenwich, has immense experience, talent and street experience of young people, including those from ethnic minority backgrounds. She helped to reduce the avoidable distress that followed some terrible incidents in my constituency and my borough.
  Hazel Treadgold is the central president of the Mothers' Union, a large voluntary organisation, which, if it were a male one, would have had its central president, or the equivalent, on the candidates' list for public appointments
  222
  to places such as the House of Lords or for appearances on "Any Questions" or "Question Time", but she is invisible because women in general do not push themselves forward.
  One generalisation I can make is that most men who are half qualified for a job think that they are overqualified, and most women who think they are half qualified for a job think they are disqualified, and that needs to be changed.
  Margaret Harrison started Home Start, the organisation which gives support to families and helps trained volunteers to support six families with great changes in outcome. I do not see why we should not have as many such people in the House of Lords as we have people in business and employment.
  Anne Frye is a current civil servant who runs the mobility unit in the Department of Transport and has declined to move from her job in the past 10 or 14 years because her contribution goes beyond statute and public provision, but knits together the mobility improvements.
  Dame Sue Tinson, editor of ITN for many years, was omitted from Ginny Dougary's book on women in the media, perhaps because she was successful and had done so well. Diane Warwick of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, Sheila Masters, the former financial director of the health service and Gareth Pierce, the lawyer who has shown by her competence and her willingness to take up unpopular causes that she has a contribution to make, would all be excellent candidates. We should be asking such people to come forward.
  I admit to one minor disappointment: that when Emily's list promised to make awards to women in public prominence, I thought it would give one to my wife. I discovered later that only Labour women would get such recognition. If Labour Members would drop the idea to promote only women in their own party, a cross-party approach would encourage those with no politics and all kinds of politics to come forward.
  Having said that, I believe that we should change the Women's National Commission into a family commission. I do not think it has done enough. There are ways to put together family policy issues and women's issues on the public agenda and keep them there.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: When I think of equality for women, I always think of that splendid Chinese revolutionary poster of the 1950s showing a woman up a telegraph pole fixing telephone wires against a beautiful sunrise, with the slogan, "Women hold up half the sky." Women hold up more than half of our society and our economy, but they certainly do not get their fair share of pay, property, jobs and positions of power and influence or life chances. The Government's attitude is often akin to a cartoon of Andy and Florrie Capp. Andy Capp has a pint of beer and Florrie has a half pint and Andy says, "Florrie always gets her full half of what I get." It sounds reasonable, but it is not.
  I want to put sex discrimination into context with class discrimination and race discrimination, as that point has been absent from the debate. They are all severe in their own right, but they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They impact on each other and compound discrimination and inequality.

  223
  Nearly all women are likely to face some discrimination during their lives, for example, the burden and cost of child care with the glass ceilings and stereotypes which have been mentioned. Working-class women face economic as well as sex discrimination and are likely to spend much of their lives in poverty; working-class black women are even more likely to do so. Cases arise in my work load, as in that of other hon. Members, of immigrant women brought over to be with men who either beat them up or desert them. Those women, instead of being allowed to remain here in their own right, are picked on by the state and threatened with deportation or deported. Such women are victims of sex, class and race discrimination. Specific measures are needed to overcome class and race inequality, which also holds hack many women.
  Low pay cuts across all forms of discrimination. The Equal Opportunities Commission estimates that 4 million women are on low pay, and the Council of Europe reported that 6.5 million women in this country fall below its decency threshold. Part-time workers are among the low-paid, because they receive only the hourly rate equivalent of 59 per cent. of male full-time earnings. The increase in the number of part-time jobs is welcome, but not the appalling pay that goes with them.
  The proliferation of low-paid part-time jobs contrasts with the collapse of job sharing in better-paid work throughout the country, and the Government should explain why. A statutory minimum wage is needed, which would benefit four out of five women; otherwise, we will repeat the experience in the United States of the working poor—women employed but still in poverty and dependent on state benefits. Decently paid jobs are the key to cutting the benefits bill and to helping women.
  Nine out of 10 lone pensioners forced to rely on income support are women. Only one woman in six retires on a lull state pension, compared with two out of three men. The Government's proposal to raise the retirement age for women to 65 is unfair and represents indirect discrimination. Many women do not have private pensions, whereas some men do.
  Mrs. Peacock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cohen: No. I apologise to the hon. Lady, but time is short.
  Many women without private pensions will he compelled to go the full distance and work until they are 65, whereas many men will not. The situation surrounding occupational pensions in cases of divorce is also unfair but, as I have presented a private Member's Bill on that subject—the Pensions (Divorce) Bill—I shall not discuss it now.
  Many women are damaged by Government cuts in health, public transport and education. Only yesterday, a radio programme reported that teenage pregnancies in Holland number just seven in every 1,000. The figure for England is 33 in every 1,000—five times higher. What a failure of education, which can be blamed on the Government's prudishness and cuts in family planning services.
  Inadequate child care holds hack many women. This country has the lowest level of publicly funded child care in the European Union. The Chancellor of the Duchy of
  224
  Lancaster said that nine out of 10 women have access to some form of child care, but that is not true in my constituency or in the constituencies of many other hon. Members. I do not know where he gets those figures from. Child care provision is patchy to the point of being threadbare. Lack of child care is a major obstacle to a woman's ability to work and to enhance her life.
  The Chancellor said that child care needs to be targeted, but it is not targeted in the poorest areas. In my area, there is a shortage of child care provision and the cost of a child minder is way beyond the means of working-class women. That means that child care provision is unequally distributed among working-class, middle-class and richer areas. I wish that it were targeted. It should be universal so that all women have access to child care.
  If nine out of 10 women have access to child care, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, it should be easy for him to make it 10 out of 10. In those circumstances, why have the Government been dragging their feet over universal nursery provision for three and four-year-olds? There should be a public sector boost to nursery provision, with local authorities providing nurseries. There should be an employment boost with businessplace nurseries and crèches. There should be a tax incentive for businesses to provide such facilities and there should be an increase in parental leave as well. That would provide a real choice for women.
  Many women experience crime and a fear of crime. The Government have reduced the compensation available for women who are the victims of crime. Early-day motion 730 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) draws attention to the case of a woman who was the victim of a brutal rape and left for dead, who received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board amounting to £76,000 because of the horrendous injuries that she suffered.
  Under the tariff that the Government are introducing, a woman would receive a maximum of £7,500 if she had been raped by a single person, a maximum of £10,000 if she had been raped by two or more people and a maximum of only £20,000 if she had suffered multiple injuries and permanent disability. It is a disgrace that such a tariff should be introduced, worsening conditions for women who are the victims of such crime.
  There should be improved police practice for cases of domestic violence and a major zero violence campaign. The Government should co-ordinate a network of safe refuges for women throughout the country. They have been tardy in not doing that.
  Inequality under the law should also be tackled. I draw the attention of the House to homicide cases and the law of provocation. At the moment, the defence of a sudden and temporary loss of self-control applies more to men. They can plead provocation and get off with a light sentence. That often does not apply to women. The law takes no account of sustained domestic violence against women. Therefore, women often receive a life sentence for a similar offence. That is unfair; women such as Sara Thornton should not be imprisoned for life.
  When I raised the case of Sara Thornton with a Home Office Minister, his attitude was, "Well, she's only a crazy woman killing a slob of a husband." His attitude was that the Government therefore need not do anything. He betrayed other traits in his thinking, but that was his general attitude. That is most unfair. Women's institutes,

  225
  the townswomen's guilds and other organisations representing millions of women have said that the law is unfair and should be changed. The Government should listen to them and change that unfair law.
  In conclusion, to return to the Andy Capp analogy, I am in favour of lifting the cap of inequality on women. I want to see Andy and Florrie both with full pints and full rights, too.
  9.14 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Much has been said in the debate and I commend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), who opened the debate for the Opposition, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who pointed out the wonderful things that the Conservative party has done for women. I commend the Labour party in particular for introducing a debate on the lives of women in the UK.
  The tenor of the debate has been one of gloom and doom and we have talked about all the negative things, it seems to me. I am awfully sorry if I missed some of the marvellous contributions from my colleagues and, of course, from Opposition Members. Personally, I think that the lives of women in the United Kingdom today are infinitely better than anything that has gone before even within the lifetime of my mother and my grandparents. My mother would probably have been trapped in an unhappy marriage and would not have been able to get a divorce, because that was difficult in those days. In my grandparents' day, women had no property rights if they married; they were chattels. Barely more than two generations ago, women who were pregnant were locked up in mental institutions and the babies were taken away and put in orphanages, where they often died, conveniently, of starvation.
  If one looks at parish records, one will find that as many children were horn out of wedlock, as it was then known, or soon after the marriage took place, as today. I personally think that society today, with its more liberal attitude to women, and their right to a sexual life of their own, is liberating. I am not here to make a big fuss about the way in which women arc victimised. I do not want to repeat the material about putting more women in this place. Of course we could get more women in this place if we had the will, as I pointed out—and I pinched the idea from Bernard Shaw. We simply need to have a man and a woman elected in each constituency. With a little adjustment of the Representation of the People Act 1985, that could quite easily he achieved, hut, of course, the will does not exist in this place.
  I want to say once again, as many of my colleagues were not here, that we regard this place as though it were an Olympic race, where only the best can get to the starting post, and they are the ones who get in, or some big company, where the best people rise to the top. This place is not like that. It is a jury of the nation. We are meant to he representative of the whole nation. Therefore, there should he more women here, and all sorts of other people as well. We are not—nor should we be—the crème de la crème. The women should he able to he as lazy, idle and good for nothing as many of the men in this place. Then we would know that we have real equality. That, in my view, would he success in this place.
  I reject the idea of women as victims. I do not know how many hon. Members are old enough to remember that wonderful serial "The Prisoner", in which the hero
  226
  said, "I am not a number. I am a person." I think of that whenever I hear these debates. I am not a victim. I am a woman. I just happen to be a woman, but that does not make me a victim. Yet so much of what has been said in the debate implies that women should be, that somehow we have to he helped, because we are underdogs. I disagree with that.
  When I was being brought up, my mother always said to me, "The one thing you must be is independent." That is what we should aim for in society, to create the opportunities for independence, both in the way in which we educate our daughters and in the legislation that we enact. We could do a great deal more to help women to independence.
  When I read the blurb that was put out by the Labour party on the debate, I wondered what kind of an image it has of women. It is all about women being victimised and ground down, and about part-time workers being badly treated, as though women going out to work, particularly those who choose part-time work, are all being exploited for doing so. There is another aspect to work. Wages are important, but so, too, is work satisfaction, to which, I think, women give a higher priority than men, and also the ability to contribute towards a family income. They do not necessarily put as their top priority the wage level, but rather the opportunity either to contribute, or sometimes just to get out of the home for a break, so that they can get away from their domestic routine. Jobs provide that opportunity.
  I often recall, from the days when I used to battle for small businesses, the story of a firm that employed women to sew buttons on cards in the cast end. I see that Opposition Members' faces are beginning to screw up in distaste. Each week, those women used to turn up to collect a bag of buttons; they would socialise, have a cup of tea and a couple of buns, then go off to stitch the buttons on to cards. They earned a few shillings an hour, and I am sure that the trade union movement would have called it gross exploitation.
  In the end, the trade union had its way. The company was caught by one of the wages councils, which jacked up the pay rate—and, lo and behold, the button-carding concern went out of business. Eventually it went over to Malta. Something was achieved—a certain level of wages for those women—but the jobs were no longer there for them to do.
  We keep going on about employment for low pay. I sometimes think that we imagine that the alternative is automatically high or better pay, but it is often no pay at all. Let me commend to the Labour party a more positive attitude to working women. We should hear it in mind that we are actually damaging many of those whom we are supposedly trying to help by making it more difficult for employers to take them on. That may give the Labour party something to be a little more cheerful about.
  I am being heavily leaned on by the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), but I am sure that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) will grant me a couple of minutes more. The French have begun to allow tax relief on the whole cost of employing domestic assistance, which has been an enormous success, providing many low-skill women with jobs. More than a million jobs have been created in France. The scheme has enabled many highly skilled women who want to work to

  227
  afford the home help that allows them to do so; it has taken many people off social benefits; and the sum of human happiness has increased.
  If there is one tiny contribution that I can make to the debate, it is this. Instead of um-ing and ah-ing about giving small amounts to women to enable them to pay for child care, we should decide that domestic jobs are respectable and decent employment to which women in particular may well be drawn, as they have been in the past. It is not all about little boys being sent up chimneys, or "Upstairs, Downstairs"; it is about people becoming nannies or home helps. That is a respectable way of employing women, which gives them a variety of opportunities.
  I now bow to the interests of my hon. Friend the Minister and sit down, but I hope that we shall continue this debate in the future.
  9.22 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: I welcome the Minister to the debate, and look forward to her speech. Let me make a comment that is directed not at her, but at the Government. It is curious that the Minister responsible for animal welfare should have been given responsibility for women's welfare; I hope that the Minister is more successful in championing the cause of women than in championing that of calves in veal crates.
  As the debate has made clear, nothing less than a revolution has taken place in women's lives—a social and economic revolution. It has been caused by many different factors, some of which have been touched on today; but everyone seems to agree that women's lives now are very different from those of their mothers.
  Change in women's lives inevitably affects men and children. The question is whether the Government will shape public policy to take account of the effect of that revolution, or persist with policies that relate to how the world was 50 years ago. Let me list some of the changes that constitute what I have described as a revolution. The fact that women are leaving full-time education with qualifications equal to those of men, for instance, constitutes an enormous difference from the position only a generation ago.
  Women are getting married later and having children later. They are having fewer children. That change in women's fertility rate is enormous. Many women are bringing up children on their own in one-parent families. With the growing number of people living to very old age, women are spending longer looking after elderly relatives. At the same time as all these changes, they are working more than they infer have. They are now about half the work force. In particular, mothers are working and the mothers of very young children are working. That means that the family has changed and that the world of work has changed. Women's role is now vital not only in the family, hut in the world of work.
  The present Tory Government are incapable of a sensible public policy response to this huge change for two reasons. They are divided, first, because the Tory squires—who have not put in an appearance in this debate, but who are out there and who will vote against the motion—think that women should he at home doing the cooking. That view used to be called "hack to basics"
  228
  and it is still a strong belief within the Conservative party. Secondly, the Conservatives are divided because the new right, in which I include the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), thinks that if the labour market wants women it should be able to have them, that it is no business of the Government's to ensure that women at work have proper protection and that everything should be left to the free market. The result is that while women are making a growing contribution to their family budget and to our economy, and are taking the lion's share of responsibilities for children and the elderly, the Government are doing nothing to acknowledge or assist women's growing role.
  We know that women have a passionate commitment to their children. We take responsibility for our children and we would not have it otherwise, but women also want to ensure that their children have a decent standard of living. The family wage defined as a man's wage has all but disappeared. That has given rise to what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) described as the dual worker household.
  For many families, the mother's work is vital to the household income. That is especially the case for single mothers. Circumstances have changed, so motherhood has changed. Women are redefining what it is to be a mother, and motherhood is now about providing for one's children as well as caring for them. Over the past 10 years, the greatest increase in women working has been among women with young children. Some 64 per cent. of mothers with children under 16 are now economically active. The greatest increase in labour market participation has been among women with children under five.
  The Government's response has been simply to deregulate, to remove protection, to abolish the wages councils and to leave everyone else to struggle with the mess that they have created.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way in which opportunities for women at work could be improved would be for creche facilities to be provided by employers, including this place?
  Ms Harman: I welcome my hon. Friend's point about child care. I am sure that we shall find that his involvement in the debate on and pressure for child care shows renewed enthusiasm. I congratulate him and his wife on the birth of their baby on Thursday. We shall have a new recruit to the campaign for child care.
  Women have their responsibilities and they recognise them. Men are playing a growing part in caring for their children, but progress in that respect is still slow. When it comes to looking after the children, it is still mostly down to women. Women have their responsibilities and they recognise them, but Governments also have responsibilities although the present Government refuse to recognise them. They are excellent at pointing out everyone else's responsibilities, but they seem to find it hard to identify their own. We believe that it is clear that the Government have a role in enabling working mothers to fulfil all their responsibilities. One of the Government's responsibilities is to enable working mothers to meet theirs.
  That brings me to the two questions with which I should like to deal: intervention in the labour market and the role of public services. With regard to the labour

  229
  market, the International Labour Organisation concluded in its recent world employment report, which rejected the recent British model of labour market deregulation:
  "The most meaningful debate is not that between deregulation versus regulation"—
  that is a blind alley—
  "but on the sort of regulatory reforms in the labour market that changes in the economic landscape will require."
  It is the role of regulation to hold the ring, especially in the balance between work and family and to prevent exploitation at work.
  Half the work force are women and most of those women are someone's mother. They do not stop being mothers when they go to work, nor should we want them to stop. Many of them bring to their work the skills that they develop when taking care of young children. Most mothers develop a number of skills, such as staying calm in a crisis, sorting out petty squabbles, doing five things at once and thinking about other people and not just themselves. I suggest that those skills would be very useful in the Cabinet at the moment. Those qualities and skills enrich the world of work, but all too often they are totally overlooked and undervalued. They are not recognised in women's pay or in their curricula vitae.
  The ("act of today's working life, understood only too well by women in and out of work, is that the Government make it clear that they certainly do not care and that they do not feel as a Government that they have a role to play. One of the things that Labour Members think is important is bringing fairness to the world of work. That is why we are m favour of a minimum wage.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: At what level?
  Ms Harman: Women are—quite unjustly——more likely than men to be on low wages. The hon. Gentleman asks at what level. The difference between me and the hon. Gentleman is not that he wants a minimum wage at one level and I want it at another. The difference between Labour Members and the Government is that they want a spiralling down of wages and a bottomless pit while we think that there should he a floor under wages.
  Women are quite unjustly more likely than men to be on low wages. Here the argument from the Government is familiar. They say that a minimum wage will cost jobs; yet the Government have admitted that Britain's unemployment growth is the third highest among other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Of those other countries, 11 out of 12 have minimum wage protection. Indeed, Britain's rate of unemployment growth was the third highest among those countries between 1980 and 1990 and the seventh highest from 1990 to 1993. If the minimum wage were a brake on employment and caused unemployment, we could have expected Britain to have the lowest unemployment in the league and the highest employment, which is simply not the case.
  After those figures were revealed in answer to parliamentary questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), the Minister wrote to the Financial Times saying that the United States minimum wage was rubbish and that it did not count because it was only $4.25 per hour and thus extremely low. That figure is the equivalent of £2.70 an hour in Britain and 500,000 women who work part time get less than that extremely low rate. Does the Parliamentary
  230
  Secretary think that it is acceptable that 500,000 women working part time get less than £2.70 an hour? Is she prepared to justify the fact that 75,000 people in this country—most of them women—earn less than £1.50 for an hour's work?
  How low will the Tory Government go? They have abolished the wages councils, which put a floor under wages in many industries and services in which women worked. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said, women pay the price with lower wages. Something which should particularly concern the right wingers and the new right of the Conservative party is that the taxpayer pays the price, too, in more than £2 billion in benefits such as family credit, income support, council tax benefit and housing benefit to top up the low pay of people working for employers who will not pay decent wages.
  We have been here before as far as those arguments are concerned. The arguments against a minimum wage come from exactly the same quarter as the arguments used against the introduction of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and we remember them well. At that time, the Confederation of British Industry said that there would be enormous inflation as a result of that Act. That certainly did not happen. The CBI said that women would be driven out of the labour market and back into the home if employers were forced to pay them the same as men. That also did not happen. The statistics show a completely different story and there are now more women at work than ever before.
  We hear the same scaremongering in relation to the national minimum wage. The next Labour Government will introduce a national minimum wage in a sensible way. We will not pluck figures out of the air in response to interventions from Conservative Members who are against a minimum wage in principle. We will introduce a minimum wage in consultation with employers and trade unions and in the light of economic circumstances. The Government are arguing against a national minimum wage, not because it will cut jobs but because they are in favour of low pay. They always excuse it; they never condemn it.
  I want to refer briefly to trade unions because several Conservative Members said that there arc not enough women general secretaries in the trade union movement. I agree with that. However, I believe that the trade unions have a new and important relevance for women at work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) said, women are now being asked to work on zero hours contracts. How does one organise one's household budget on a zero hours contract'? How does one organise one's child care on a zero hours contract? How does one organise one's family relationships on a zero hours contract when one is at the beck and call of an employer at the end of a telephone? One cannot do those things.
  The Government may say, "The world has changed—who needs trade unions?" We say that the world has changed and the two women working in a dry cleaning shop now need trade unions as much as the 200 men in a large factory need trade unions. Forty-four per cent. of women work part time and 63 per cent. of working mothers work part time. Yet the Government refused to give equal rights to part-time workers. They have been forced to act only by a judgment from the European Court. They have been dragged kicking and screaming to make that change. With a growing number of part-time

  231
  jobs, and a growing number of men who, having lost full-time jobs, cannot find full-time work and have to work part time, part-time work is now a very important issue.
  I want briefly to consider child care. When a mother is at work, someone has to look after her children. In the past, that person was her mother or her mother-in-law. However, as the extended family is becoming rarer, that is becoming less frequent. We must take account of the disappearance of the family wage and, to a large extent, the disappearance of the extended family. With women at work, and less extended family around to help—including mothers and grandmothers—it is very important that the Government should introduce a choice of high-quality, affordable child care.
  That is why Labour is committed to a national child care strategy. We would like to go further. When we are in government, in addition to a national child care strategy building on the work of Labour councils, we will develop a childnet system where women will be able to use the information super-highways and the new technology to find their way through the interlocking maze of benefits, training and job availability and child care to help them get hack to work after they have had their children. A pilot project has already been set up in that respect by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), and I wish her work well.
  It is not only the care of children which must be newly reconciled with the world of work. We must also consider the care of the growing number of elderly people. Women are working, people are living longer, and most people want to take as much responsibility as possible for the older people in their families. In that respect, as with children, most people feel that responsibility lies first and foremost with the family, but it should also rest on the employer and the community as a whole to recognise the number of roles that women are playing.
  An aging mother is a responsibility for her daughter, and the should he for her son, too. It is right also that there should he a framework of rights at work which recognise the need for leave for family reasons. It is right that the local community, through the council and voluntary organisations, should ensure that there is help in the form of respite care or domiciliary services.
  A Social Security Minister put his head above the parapet and appeared to criticise British companies which demand the longest full-time working hours in Europe. He said:
  "Too many companies and businesses demand outrageous time commitments from those who work for them. without thought of the damage to family structure or for the strength their employees would get from a sound family life if they are allowed to foster it"
  I totally agree with those words, but I fear that they will get nowhere, because they contradict the fundamental Tory principle that there is no such thing as society, that the market is always right, and that it is no business of Government to intervene in the labour market or to provide public services.
  The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot at one and the same time tell women to be good daughters, good mothers, good employees and good providers for their children and yet refuse to provide child care and care for the elderly, and deny legal rights for women at work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and
  232
  Highgate (Ms Jackson) said, women can be and are being at one and the same time good mothers, good daughters and good employees, but the Government and employers need to recognise that women are doing all those things and to make the necessary changes to take that into account.
  The Government should understand what women are actually doing, look at how our role has changed, and make sure that public policy, both in employment and in our public services, takes that into account. The evidence is clear: the Government are not agonising about how to improve the conditions of women at work; they are deliberately pushing them down. For example, a minimum wage would benefit women; the Government say no. A right to union representation would benefit women; the Government say no. Proper employment rights for part-time workers would benefit women; the Government say no. Proper child care provision would benefit women; the Government say no. Above all, the Government are saying no to recognising women's changing and growing role and responsibility. In so doing, the Government are denying and abdicating their own proper role and responsibilities to women in this country.
  I urge hon. Members to support our motion.
  9.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): I am delighted to take part in the debate. I shall refer in a moment to contributions that have been made this evening—I have listened to all of them—but I start by mentioning my new appointment as Government co-chairman of the Women's National Commission.
  The Women's National Commission exists to ensure, by all possible means, that the informed views of women are given due weight in the deliberations of Government. It was established in 1969, in line with the request of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to member Governments, to consider setting up national commissions on the status of women.
  The founders of the WNC rightly recognised the huge diversity of women's interests. They are represented today by more than 60 member organisations throughout the country. They include not only a cross-section of political parties, voluntary and religious groups hut a geographical spread across the United Kingdom.
  Over the past 25 years, the WNC has provided a forum for a wide range of women to voice their views. It has produced a number of stimulating and forward-looking reports and guides, and I look forward very much to my involvement with the WNC. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Baroness Denton, who has worked very hard and closely with the WNC. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the enormous amount of work done by the present co-chairman. Maureen Rooney, from the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union. She will shortly he replaced by Liz Bavidge, a former president of the National Council of Women. I very much look forward to working with both in the months to come.
  This has been an interesting debate. We have discussed politics, sex and religion, and it has been quite stimulating. We kicked off with a comment on religion from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), who drew attention—in an unnecessarily disparaging way—to the religious preference of my

  233
  hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment. I was also disappointed that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) found it necessary in her opening remarks to make some personal comment about my progress on veal crates.
  Ms Harman: It was a joke.
  Mrs. Browning: I am sorry. We have not had much humour from Labour Members this evening. When it came, it was rather late and I did not recognise it. Perhaps when I finish with the veal crates, I shall start on pussy cats.
  The debate started off with the usual complaints and whingeing about what the Government were not doing. There was a somewhat negative and disappointing tone in most of the speeches—with one or two exceptions—by Labour Members. They had nothing new to say, and simply criticised the Government. Labour Members were unable to put forward any new policies, and they were certainly unable to address the future role of women. We heard one or two history lessons about the first world war and the state of women at that time, but nobody put forward any ideas on how women had progressed or on the way in which equality for women could be addressed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), who is a member of the Federation of Business and Professional Women—a member of the WNC—made a wide-ranging and interesting speech, and we look forward to her study of family credit disregard operations in her constituency. I agree with my hon. Friend's opposition to quotas for women's representation in the House of Commons. I shall come to that matter later, as it was mentioned this evening by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Female Opposition Members, of course, supported the quota plan, but very few male Opposition Members supported it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen referred to education and the need for women to use their qualifications to access the many opportunities which exist. She also mentioned the glass ceiling in relation to women in management, and that was touched on by other lion. Members. Many people recognise that that ceiling has been raised, but it is still there. Hon. Members pointed out that one of the ways in which women can overcome the ceiling is to take their qualifications and experience and set up their own businesses. There is a very strong sign of an increase in the number of women running their own businesses and in the number of self-employed women. Some 25 per cent. of self-employed people are women.
  It has been interesting to see how women have managed their businesses during the difficult years of the recession. In the main, women have come through rather well, and that shows some of the qualities of women which have been mentioned in the Chamber tonight. Women do tend to cut their cloth accordingly, and they bring into business, political and professional life a range of qualities which many people very often associate with the skills of running a home. Those skills can he very valuable when used in a business or professional situation.
  It is for that reason that a woman running a business in difficult economic circumstances will very often wait until she is making a profit before deciding to buy an expensive car. Occasionally, a man decides that he needs the
  234
  expensive car up front for his image. Women are running their businesses well, and are contributing to the economy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen said that she had set up an old girls' network. I am not a member of that; perhaps I am too old even for the old girls' network. None the less, such networking and interrelationships between women can give them encouragement.
  We have heard tonight how women often lack confidence, and that is why there are now many schemes, often run by training and enterprise councils and local enterprise councils, to help women who have been out of the employment market for a long time to get back into employment. Those women may be out of work, not because they lack the skills or the ability to get a job but because all too often they lack the confidence to decide where they are going, so they are given practical help to get them back into employment.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) mentioned local democracy, and outlined to the House the way in which local authorities could use their money to promote gender equality. However, I must suggest to her that her colleagues on Avon county council might have been better advised to spend their money on the boy scouts, whose budget they have just cut, rather than giving additional funding to a group of lesbians in Avon. That is not the sort of gender discrimination that we would like to see in the Chamber.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: My understanding is that what the Minister says about Avon county council is incorrect, but in any case, is she aware that Avon is 300 miles from my Sheffield constituency?
  Mrs. Browning: If the hon. Lady is saying that, uncharacteristically, Avon county council is putting boy scouts before lesbians, all Conservative Members will welcome that. Of course I do not hold her personally responsible for Avon's decision if she lives 300 miles away, but that decision was typical of the way in which the Labour party prioritises gender and the way in which it uses public money.
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: As a Member who represents a Bristol constituency in the county of Avon, I must tell the Minister that her assertion is entirely wrong. I am sure that she would not want to mislead the House by what she says about the county council, so I hope that she will withdraw her comments until she has checked her facts. Furthermore, Avon county council is a hung authority, so I do not know how even she can blame the Labour party for what happens in such an authority.
  Mrs. Browning: I hope that the hon. Lady is proved right; I shall certainly check the facts. But as someone who does not live 300 miles away from Avon—indeed, as someone who has lived very close to it—I hope that what she says means that the authority is not, as in previous years, spending money on gym mats for lesbians.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) made a considered speech, including a moving appeal on an issue that she has brought to the Chamber more than once—the rights of adoptive mothers. She will be disappointed that I cannot give her a positive response this evening, but I know that her words will have been heard, and I also know how strongly she feels on that subject.

  235
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) also raised an important issue. It was interesting to hear that my hon. Friend will attend the conference in Beijing in September. He has a reputation in the House for taking a great interest in the question of world population and for having a great knowledge of that subject, and his determination to ensure that the agenda in Beijing addresses the issue of choices in childbearing for women was most encouraging.
  The conference is to be held in a place where the human rights record, especially for women and even more so on the difficult issue of choices in childbearing, is likely to make the subject matter sensitive for the host country. I was most encouraged to find that my hon. Friend has been working hard to ensure that the matter is not swept under the table simply because of the venue for the conference.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) mentioned home workers and related her information and concern to days gone by. Of course we are concerned. I am sure that she will be aware that the number of home workers has doubled, but they are not all doing the grindingly difficult jobs for low wages, as she described. However, for those working at home the health and safety legislation still applies. If there are cases in her constituency which give her cause for concern and which should perhaps be brought to the Health and Safety Executive, she is welcome to write to us and we shall take the cases further.
  Ms Harman: The Minister mentioned grindingly low pay. Will she answer the question that I asked in my speech? Does she think it acceptable that at least 75,000 people in this country, most of them women, are working for £1.50 an hour?
  Mrs. Browning: I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government will not shop jobs for women by introducing a minimum wage which, as the deputy leader of the Labour party explained some time ago, would mean a shake-out or loss of jobs, especially jobs for women. I hope the hon. Lady will accept that there is nothing so grindingly impoverishing as having no job at all.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who made an important contribution, especially with reference to crime. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), for Erewash (Mrs. Knight), for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who all made considered contributions, distinguished by the fact that they contained ideas for future policies for women. They gave upbeat messages outlining the way in which equality and opportunities for women could be accessed. Their message was in stark contrast to that of the Labour party.
  The main theme throughout the debate has been the issue of more women Members of Parliament. Those of us who have put ourselves before a party selection committee know that getting here can be a very long-term plan. It took me nine years to get to the House. Very few people get here having decided to try overnight; one has to he dedicated to the idea and hang on in there, even when the chances look slim.
  236
  However, I would still rather follow that route than be the token woman when a selection committee has had to choose between three different women. In those circumstances, one is chosen on the basis not of ability but of gender.
  Ms Short: Does the Minister think that all the men who sit in this place and who were selected from all-men short-lists are token men?
  Mrs. Browning: If men put themselves up for selection against women and other men, I am sure that some of them will find themselves on an all-men short-list. However, it should not be a question of tokenism or bringing women forward artificially. If such women come to the House, they will be pointed out as having got here not on their merit but simply because of how they were born.
  The Labour party believes in tokenism but, during its leadership elections, some women Labour Members wrote to The Guardian to explain that they were backing not the woman candidate—a very able woman—but the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is now deputy leader, because they felt that he represented women better. One has to question the value of that sort of tokenism.
  We have had an interesting and lively debate, but I would say to the House that, if that is the best that the Labour party can do for women, the country will look elsewhere, as it did at the last general election—to the Conservative party.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 294.

  Division No. 96]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Burden, Richard

  Ainger, Nick

  Byers, Stephen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caborn, Richard

  Allen, Graham

  Callaghan, Jim

  Alton, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashton, Joe

  Cann, Jamie

  Austin-Walker, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Chidgey, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Barron, Kevin

  Church, Judith

  Battle, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clelland, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Coffey, Ann

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cohen, Harry

  Benton, Joe

  Connarty, Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbett, Robin

  Berry, Roger

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Betts, Clive

  Corston, Jean

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Blunkett, David

  Cox, Tom

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Boyes, Roland

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bradley, Keith

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dafis, Cynog

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Darling, Alistair

  237

  Davidson, Ian

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Denham, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Lewis, Terry

  Dixon, Don

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dobson, Frank

  Litherland, Robert

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dowd, Jim

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAllion, John

  Eastham, Ken

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Enright, Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Etherington, Bill

  Macdonald, Calum

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McFall, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  McLeish, Henry

  Flynn, Paul

  McMaster, Gordon

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  MacShane, Denis

  Foulkes, George

  McWilliam, John

  Fraser, John

  Madden, Max

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maddock, Diana

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mandelson, Peter

  Galloway, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Gapes, Mike

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Garrett, John

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Martlew, Eric

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Maxton, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Meacher, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Meale, Alan

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michael, Alun

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Milburn, Alan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Miller, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gunnell, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hain, Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hanson, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Henderson, Doug

  Mudie, George

  Heppell, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Murphy, Paul

  Hinchliffe, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Parry, Robert

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pope, Greg

  Hutton, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jamieson, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Janner, Greville

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rogers, Allan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooker, Jeff

  238

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee E)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Touhig, Don

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dennis

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tyler, Paul

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Vaz, Keith

  Short, Clare

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Simpson, Alan

  Wallace, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walley, Joan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

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

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smyth, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watson, Mike

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Snape, Peter

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Spellar, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wise, Audrey

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Wray, Jimmy

  Stott, Roger

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Straw, Jack

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mrs. Barbara Roche and

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Ms Tessa Jowell.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Amess, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ancram, Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Congdon, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Conway, Derek

  Ashby, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Atkins, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Couchman, James

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Cran, James

  Baldry, Tony

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

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bates, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Day, Stephen

  Bellingham, Henry

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bendall, Vivian

  Devlin, Tim

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dicks, Terry

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dover, Den

  Booth, Hartley

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowis, John

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Elletson, Harold

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hstfield)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evennett, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Faber, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Butcher, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Butler, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Butterfill, John

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Forth, Eric

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Cash, William

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  French, Douglas

  239

  Gale, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gallie, Phil

  Maclean, David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  Madel, Sir David

  Gill, Christopher

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mans, Keith

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mates, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Merchant, Piers

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Harris, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Norris, Steve

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hendry, Charles

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Paice, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Horam, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pawsey, James

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

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Richards, Rod

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Riddick, Graham

  Jessel, Toby

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Key, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Shaw,

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

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

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Legg, Barry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  240

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Steen, Anthony

  Walden, George

  Stephen, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stem, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Stewart, Allan

  Ward, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sumberg, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sweeney, Walter

  Watts, John

  Sykes, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Thomason, Roy

  Willetts, David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wilshire, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wood, Timothy

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Yeo, Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tredinnick, David

  Trend, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mr. Sidney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes with approval the progress made in the United Kingdom towards equality and increasing opportunities for women, as described in the United Kingdom National Report for the Fourth United Nations World Conference on Women; and calls on the Government to continue the policies which have made this possible.

  Information Super-highway
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: I welcome the opportunity to raise the subject of the information super-high way—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly, so that we may hear the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. Allen: I hope that I am allowed injury time for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is unfortunate that I have to raise this matter in an Adjournment debate, and sad and typical that the Government have not found time to debate this important issue. The significance that the Government attach to the information super-highway is reflected by the fact that I, as a Back Bencher, have been left to raise the issue.
  Seizing the advantages of the super-highway is possibly the most important issue facing our nation. It could massively change for good the way that we work, live and play. It is a pity that the Government's response has been piecemeal and uninspired. They seem overawed. They appear to be saying, "Let us leave it to the market and hope." As in most things, the market is a good servant but a poor master.
  Labour accepts that the Government have a role to play in exciting the public about the possibilities of the super-highway, giving confidence to potential users and giving confidence to business. The Government have a role in providing leadership and vision. Al Gore has provided that in the United States, and even Newt Gingrich had his say. In this country, Government thinking has been contracted out to the great winner of friends for any project—the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), whom I am delighted to see in his place.
  Who is co-ordinating strategy? Who has the vision for the information super-highway? Why are the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for National Heritage silent? We have drift. when a once-in-a-millennium chance has come along.
  Soon a new Labour Government will take on the task that the present Government have neglected. We must first ensure that the information super-highway is everybody's property. People must understand that it is not merely jargon but can deliver real things for them. I have in mind Susan Smith—an isolated, 16-year-old single mum on a tough estate in my constituency. She has no parental support, and is trapped at home watching a stream of imported soaps. Can she use her television remote control to access information on nursery provision, basic nutrition, parenting skills, health care appointments and even training for work? That is the Susan test. Unless the super-highway works for Susan, it will be little more than a tool for a small elite.
  Few Susans and even fewer politicians will use the technology if it is dry and requires a PhD to operate. It must he easy and fun—not intimidating and technical. That was brought home to me in a personal revelation at the national gallery last week. When I visited the micro
  242
  gallery, I accessed some of the nation's greatest paintings merely by touching the screen. There was not even a mouse or a keyboard to negotiate. Even I could call up a Monet or Rembrandt and read about its history, context and life of the artist. The gallery has taken two of our most daunting cultural features—high art and high technology—and transformed them into something fun and entertaining. I was so busy enjoying myself that I did not realise that I was being educated at the same time.
  The technicians would call the technology a CD-ROM; to me it was understanding for the first time a part of my culture and a part of myself, and it revealed to me that every elector and every child at school in the land can and should own our heritage and walk into the national gallery at will.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the money that has gone into schools for computers and IT equipment has come from grants for education support and training, and that it is a great disappointment to us all that that funding is to be reduced from £270.6 million in last year's Budget to £250.1 million in this year's Budget? That will mean a reduction in computing equipment in schools and certainly no money for training teachers, which is the other important aspect of ensuring that all our children benefit from the great revolution in high technology.
  Mr. Allen: That reminds me of what my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) says about sport—that it is all right for the Government to talk about sport for all, but then they do away with the very playing fields that are necessary in order to teach our youngsters the basics of sport. In exactly the same way, we would hope to seek a partnership between local authorities and education authorities and the new techniques and concepts. It is impossible for the Government to work in partnership with the private sector when, as my hon. Friend pointed out so accurately, they talk about access to the new technologies but then stop schools by the very cuts that they have introduced.
  But back to the national gallery and accessing the immense cultural possibilities of the great artists' exhibition there or understanding for the first time the beauty of Shakespeare without a thicket of scholarship getting in the way and finding one's way around such marvellous things. Perhaps we should have a CD-ROM about the House of Commons and democracy —if I may link those two.
  Equally, single mums and politicians should he able to understand their tax and social security position and how to access local and central Government services. Unless the Government take the lead on the information super-highway, such things will happen more slowly .or, worse still, not at all. That is why we have set up a Labour party policy forum on the information super-highway under the auspices of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). [Interruption.] Rather than make garbled and rambling comments from a sedentary position, as we have come to expect from Conservative Members, they should e-mail their views to me. My number is Lp-mm@geo2.poptel.org.uk. I look forward to Conservative Members sending me their views on Labour's super-highway. Even the Under-Secretary of State may wish to participate in that, as I know that he is not allowed to participate in broader policy making on the information super-highway.

  243
  We could do worse than use Parliament as our first model, symbolically to show that we in this place are committed to the information super-highway. Every Member of Parliament should be provided with access to the Internet, if they so wish, and facilities for sending e-mail just as they now send letters or use the telephone.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will have seen the report last summer of the Select Committee on Information, in which we pointed out that the House is the only Parliament in the whole of Europe, bar that of Turkey, which does not have a fully fledged network. That is extraordinary, especially when many local authorities have gone way ahead of the House. Does not my hon. Friend think that it is time that we drove those technologies through much faster than is happening at present in order to give such a lead to the community outside?
  Mr. Allen: Very much so. I commend the work that has been done by my hon. Friend and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). It should not be done by entrepreneurs, he they Conservative or Opposition Members, but rather it should be organised by the House and encouraged by the Government, not least because it would allow citizens and electors far better access to their Members of Parliament. We should be wary of looking at snap referendums through electronic means, but we should look at the possibility of allowing interaction between a Member of Parliament and his or her constituents, or direct e-mailing on certain occasions. The ingenuity of Members of Parliament could be tested. I am sure that they would come up with some excellent ideas.
  But everybody needs some encouragement, even Members of Parliament, and it is a matter for the Government and the Lord President to kick the system into action in the House of Commons, so that we can start to set an example for our colleagues outside.
  The same is happening in local authorities. Despite the dead hand of centralism that lies heavily on them, authorities from Bristol to Newham—I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) in his place, and to give way to him.
  Mr. Stephen Timms: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for mentioning the Newham initiative. He is aware that that initiative is a partnership between the London borough of Newham, the Metropolitan police, Olivetti and a number of European cities, and is aimed at developing multi-media access to public services. Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the ATTACH project and express the hope that it will secure the funding from the European Union that has been applied for?
  Mr. Allen: I am delighted to say that I have visited the ATTACH project. Despite the fact that Newham is co-ordinating a tremendous project, how much better it would he if London followed the example of Manchester and had a co-ordinated strategic authority, which, instead of having people competing against each other for a limited pot of cash, sought to have a strategy for its capital city, like every other capital in Europe. On the European dimension, I know from my own experience of trying to obtain RECHAR money for former coal mining areas in my constituency, that the Government, because of their
  244
  ideological block, often stand in the way of cities and regions making the best of the European money that is available. We need a Government who will facilitate and encourage the use of European money, not one who get in the way and hand it out piecemeal, as dogs fight over a bone.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will he aware of the Cambridge experiment. There are also experiments in Manchester, Newham, Bristol and elsewhere. Manchester in particular is leading the way with an electronic post office, called Manchester HOST, and several electronic villages, which provide affordable access for small business and the local community to electronic mail, bulletin hoards, on-line databases, access to the global Internet and training in cyber skills. I am afraid that, by comparison, London looks rather sick. London could do far better if it was given the right encouragement and local government structures by an incoming Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury told me the other day of another example of the way in which this is all beginning to work. He told us that, on a recent visit to Los Angeles, within days of the earthquake, 700,000 people were teleworking from home using computer networks. Many still are. Those are just some of the many examples on our doorstep and around the world of how we can use the ability to communicate interactively, which is what the super-highway is all about.
  Unless we encourage those developments, there will be an ever-wider gap between the information poor and the information rich, not only in our own country hut, possibly, internationally. The South African deputy President recently revealed that half the people in the world had never used a telephone and that Manhattan Island has more lines than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa.
  So what are the aims of the next Government? First, we should construct a truly nationwide network. We do not want a network that covers two thirds, or even three quarters, of the country. The beauty of the concept and practice of the super-highway is that, while it must be national, it can equally be very local and, indeed personal. We want to encourage genuinely local services—for example, local television channels—as well as the genuinely national services encompassed by the super-highway. The role of a Labour Government—a role abrogated by the Conservatives—will he to use the opportunities that are opening up to deliver maximum social benefits.
  We want to build on the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), and use the recommendations of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry as the basis for the United Kingdom super-highway. I understand that the House may be given an opportunity to debate a Bill dealing with the subject next week. We shall continue to work intimately with BT and the cable companies, seeking a mutually satisfactory agreement.
  This will not require millions of pounds of Government expenditure. Businesses and the next Government know that the information super-highway will create many lucrative markets. Multi-media applications, CD-ROM and portable and digital equipment are all potential job creators and profit makers. The money is there: those companies are willing to invest huge sums to construct

  245
  a super-highway. Amazingly, however, the Conservative Government have failed to cultivate that co-operation and make use of their combined power and resources.
  The Government's lack of energy and their procrastination cause uncertainty for investors and planners, and deter research and development. All those concerned know that we shall put that right, and build a partnership that works.
  Secondly, we need a network that not only links business to business and provides home entertainment, but ensures the public good of every school, library, GP's surgery and citizens advice bureau that is linked to it. As an incoming Government, we have been working very closely with the cable companies, and I am delighted that the Cable Communications Association has decided that it will automatically provide every school that cable companies pass with a free connection. It has freely committed itself to a public service obligation, which is good business sense as well as good community relations.
  All the companies providing the infrastructure know that schools, libraries and so forth create future users and purchasers, and a source of future markets for their new services. We as a Government will give companies a tremendous opportunity to make money over a long period, and by encouraging them to build infrastructure, we shall ensure their place in the markets of the future. The quid pro quo—the planning gain—is the maximising of social benefits for the community as a whole.
  An example of that principle—a social contract in operation, perhaps—can be seen in the state of New York. It was ensured there that whoever won the highly desirable franchise for Manhattan would also pay into a fund to cable the south Bronx, and as a result of that policy New York is now working towards a state-wide cabling network. What can he done in the United States can he done here, too.
  Our third objective is an open access system. The super-highway builders accept that they should not prevent the suppliers of services having access to their network. They should, of course, be entitled to charge a reasonable rent for the use of infrastructure. Here, sadly, the outgoing Government seem to be stuck in the 1980s. The thinking has now switched from infrastructure to services, from holes and poles to easy-to-use applications; but the Conservatives are rooted to the spot, yearning for the ideological certainties of the 1980s rather than thinking through the challenges of the future. There must be a common carrier purpose for the infrastructure, with services being separately provided.
  We also need to address the difficult question of regulation of content. Existing regulatory frameworks may suffice for services and conventional cabling, but the Internet throws up particular problems. I recently visited the innovative Cyberia café in Whitfield street in London and spoke to some young people who are, in many ways, the most avid users and the pioneers of the Internet. They were desperately keen not to see the unlimited horizons of the Internet closed down by censorship. An incoming Government, particularly a Government committed to reinventing democracy in the United Kingdom, should associate themselves closely with such sentiments. However, crimes such as racial hatred, pornography and defamation can never be tolerated in any section of society. Although existing law should be employed to tackle those problems, if and when they arise on the
  246
  information super-highway, the Government also need to initiate a broad review of the relevant legislation to ensure that there are no loopholes or inconsistencies.
  There is a great deal more to say on the information super-highway. However, I am conscious of the need to leave some time for the Minister to reply. I hope that the Minister has gained something from his experience at the G7 summit last week. I was delighted that he went to the summit. Equally—this is no reflection on him—it was inappropriate that we did not send someone at Secretary of State level or even at Prime Minister level. If the Americans could send Al Gore, the creator of the vision of the super-highway in the United States, it was inappropriate for the Minister alone to have gone to the G7 summit. Labour will have different priorities. We will ensure that the information super-highway works for everybody.
  10.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): We have had an interesting session, for 20 minutes or so, on the super-highway, although the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) did not appear to have picked up any information on his travels along it. For a start, he does not appear to realise, despite the numerous questions that he has tabled and I have answered, that I am co-ordinating Government policy on the information super-highway and the information society. The many initiatives that I have announced to the House are now well advanced and are showing just how active the Government are.
  As the hon. Gentleman kindly mentioned, I was the Government's representative at the G7 talks. It was interesting that the speeches and contributions that I made during that weekend got a great deal of support and approval from the other Ministers round the table. Indeed, they recognised that the British Government's policy of liberalising information technology, privatising the telephone industry, increasing competition and encouraging alternative infrastructures was the basis of policies that we, as the G7, then adopted.
  It was interesting that Vice-President Al Gore dropped in, made a speech and then went on to do other things. Secretary Ron Brown of the United States was especially encouraging of the British position and went out of his way to be very supportive of the policies that we have initiated. I did not feel any sense of embarrassment about being the only British Minister. Indeed, that was an advantage because I understood how Government policy was being co-ordinated. Nor do I feel that Britain was in any sense under-represented, given that the conclusions of the G7 talks exactly underlined the British Government's success over a period.
  The hon. Gentleman should first understand that the super-highway is no single entity. It is not a motorway-building programme which one must try to build to every corner of the country in the same fashion, with the same number of lanes. The super-highways are interconnecting channels—interconnecting networks. They are often unpredictable in the way that they interconnect and they frequently use different technologies. There is a mix, for example, of broad-band cable and co-axial and twisted copper pair. Each has a function on the super-highway and each has applications. There is the use of satellite technology and there is

  247
  increasing use of the radio spectrum. There are already two companies licensed in the United Kingdom to use the radio spectrum for telephone links. I intend to announce details of further programmes, given the success that we are having with the efficient use of the radio spectrum.
  In each of those technologies, there are solutions. For example, the way in which one connects rural areas in the country into the super-highway is not necessarily by digging trenches and putting down cables. It may be much more suitable to link with the radio spectrum and we are looking at that, especially in rural areas. It is also possible to say that as more than 90 per cent. of British people are already connected to the telephone they are already connected to the super-highway. Indeed, one may access Internet without having to have optical broad-band fibre. I fully accept that it is slow, but it is possible. Many surfers of the Internet out there are not connected with broad-band fibre.
  Mr. Miller: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I have only a few minutes, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not accept an intervention. There are only about four minutes left and there are many things to say.
  Mr. Miller: The Minister does not know the answers.
  Mr. Taylor: The trouble is that I have too many answers and too little time in which to give them all.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, North talked about the need to connect to educational institutions, hospitals, and so on, and I fully accept that. I would be the first to encourage the roll-out of the super-highway connections to schools, hospitals and so on, but it is already happening. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Cable Communications Association is committed—as, incidentally, are BT and Mercury as a result of the pressure that we have put on them to connect up. I announced that information to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry well before the hon. Gentleman caught up with it and made a subsequent announcement.
  It is important to recognise that the policies that we have encouraged to liberalise the industry have encouraged massive private investment. The hon. Gentleman must give due credit to the fact that the policies that we have pursued have released exactly the sort of level of investment—the cable industry has invested £10 million this decade and £2 billion this year, BT is investing more than £2 billion this year and several other network providers are also investing money—which means that Britain is now getting the sort of connections that are essential and which are the pre-condition for rolling out into the institutions. One cannot simply envisage connections to institutions unless there is proper commercial use of the whole super-highway.
  The hon. Gentleman then talked about applications. The one purpose that we have had in Government in recent months is to try to bring the industry together in the multi-media industry advisory group, the formation of which I announced in the Command Paper in November.
  248
  That group is now working extremely hard on proper applications, which industry can assist Government in developing. The big point is that many of the companies which are active in the multi-media industry, previously very diverse and which often did not talk to one another, are now looking at ways in which they can co-operate to bring multi-media to users such as schools, hospitals, and so on, as well as to people in their private homes. One of the problems at the moment is that the super-highway is capable of carrying a great deal more capacity than there are current commercial applications for use of it.
  One of the areas in which I think that, as a result of the G7 summit, we have most prospect for encouraging British industry is to use the UK, in its fairly advanced state in the super-highway, to act as a test bed for the development of applications which may be used in the rest of Europe as Europe rolls out its own liberalisation programme. We managed to persuade other nations in the Telecoms Council in November to liberalise infrastructure and voice telephony by 1 January 1998. That provides a terrific opportunity for British industry to compete in those markets.
  The hon. Gentleman clearly lacks a very great deal of information so I invite him to ask me further questions through the Internet or in the House. My e-mail address is taylor © mintech.demon.co.uk. I was the first Minister to be on e-mail and I am delighted so to be. Plenty of my Conservative colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), have pioneered a great deal of Internet use as sitting Members of Parliament and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has done a great job in trying to link up Parliament.
  Things are happening in this country and we ought to give credit to the industry which is doing it. The Government are working very closely with industry to develop this. We have nothing to hide our head in shame about—the very opposite. The proof of the pudding is that the G7 is now adopting British policies, which the hon. Gentleman's party has frequently contested. I have not heard the Labour party consistently supporting liberalisation of telecoms since the early 1980s for a start. Without liberalisation, one cannot simply have the development of the super-highway. A combination of low costs of telephone communications, which is a result of the liberalisation and now accepted by all the rest of the G7 countries and by all the rest of the European Union, with ever-increasing computing power, is how the super-highway has developed.
  We have a proud record and one which I believe the country will benefit from in competition with other countries. British industry will develop competitively and help our export position. There is no doubt that the people of this country, wherever they live, will find that the super-highway is available to them and the applications which will be commercially attractive to them will be available in our schools, hospitals, homes and businesses.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to explain to him how far advanced we are with the information super-highway and I am glad that he is trying to catch up.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HEALTH

  Termination Payments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what termination payments have been made to(a) chairs and (b) non-executive directors of NHS authorities and trusts; and in what circumstances such payments are made.

  Mr. Malone
  No such payments have been made since the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) on 16 February 1993, column 164. Such payments may be made to the chairman of a national health service authority in exceptional circumstances by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. No such provision exists for non-executive members of authorities or for chairmen or non-executive members of NHS trusts.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the procedures adopted in relation to in-contract settlements for former NHS trust chief executives.

  Mr. Malone
  The Department has issued guidance—TEL(94)3—which sets out what is expected of national health service trusts in providing for contractual termination settlements in respect of chief executives and senior managers.

  NHS Treatment of Prisoners
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what different arrangements exist for the billing and funding of the outside treatment of prisoners with(a) mental illness and (b) physical illness;

  (2) what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the purchaser-provider split between health authorities in respect of patients who are imprisoned; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Responsibility for meeting the costs of treatment provided to prisoners in national health service accident and emergency units is met by the district in which the hospital is located. Otherwise responsibility for outside treatment falls to the health authority in the prisoner's usual district of residence, determined by the address at which they were resident immediately before detention. Where that cannot be determined satisfactorily, responsibility falls to the district in which the offence, or alleged offence, in respect of which the prisoner is detained was committed. There is no difference between the arrangements for funding treatment of mental and physical illness.

  Purchasing authorities are required in their strategic and development plans to take account of the health care needs of all those who are normally resident in their
  98
  district. This will include the needs of people who are in prison and who may require care and treatment in the NHS. These arrangements are subject to the normal monitoring process undertaken by the NHS Executive.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision the NHS provides for those prisoners suffering from mental illness too severe to be dealt with in prison but not severe enough to warrant incarceration in a Rampton-level unit.

  Mr. Bowis
  Prisoners who are transferred to national health service hospitals under provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 may be admitted to general psychiatric hospitals, specialist medium-secure units, or one of the three special hospitals. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will name the hospital on a transfer direction following recommendations made to him by two medical practitioners who will have assessed the prisoner and advised on the level of security required.

  Health Care, Burton on Trent
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the improvements to health care provision in Burton on Trent and district since the introduction of the health reforms in 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am aware of the excellent performance by national health service hospitals within the Burton on Trent area and I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will wish to join me in congratulating them on their successes since the reforms were introduced in 1991. These include:
  Burton Hospitals NHS Trust being awarded the charter mark in October 1994 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.12 new consultants employed at Burton Hospital NHS Trust, an increase of over 25 per cent., all funded from internally generated savings.In 1992 Premier Health NHS Trust opened a 10 place day unit for the mentally ill, the Horace Pritchard Home, in a joint project with social services.Burton Fundholding Group set up: fourth wave consortium of 13 practices in nine funds representing 85,000 patients in the Burton area. Total budget £14.5 million.Burton Hospitals NHS Trust continues to reduce waiting list. At the end of January 56 patients were waiting over nine months. This is expected to be nil by March.In April Premier Health NHS Trust are expecting to open the £700,000 Margaret Stanhope Centre on the Burton district hospital site to replace the old Harry Jones in-patient psychiatric unit and Belvedere resource centre.

  AIDS
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the item concerned with fostering a climate of understanding and compassion, discouraging discrimination and safeguarding confidentiality, as set out in section D.14 of "The Health of the Nation", 1992, has been dropped from the review of "The Health of the Nation"—"One Year On", 1993; and what policy changes underlie this change.

  Mr. Sackville
  When the AIDS epidemic began in the United Kingdom, the Government dedicated considerable efforts to combating discrimination, not least through the general anti-discrimination legislation. The UK's record is well respected internationally on this. From the London declaration of 1988 to the Paris summit of 1994, the Government have re-emphasised their continuing commitment to discouraging discrimination on this front.
  99
  That still underlies each element of the strategy which covers prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care, monitoring surveillance and research, and international action.

  Health and Inequality
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation she has made of the report published by the department of social policy at the university of Newcastle on "Health and Inequality: the Northern Region 1981 to 1991".

  Mr. Sackville
  The issues raised in the report are under consideration by the Chief Medical Officer's sub-group looking at variations in health. The group is due to report in spring 1995 on how the Department of Health and the national health service can effectively tackle ethnic, geographical, socio-economic and gender variations in health in the five "Health of the Nation" key areas. Work is progressing in line with that timetable.

  Family Networks
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what non-governmental agencies supporting family networks are funded by the Government; and what initiatives they are undertaking.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government grant-aid the following voluntary organisations who support family networks:

  Barnardos';

  The Childrens Society;

  Contact a Family;

  Exploring Parenthood;

  Family Centre Network;

  Family Rights Group;

  Family Support Network;

  Family Services Units;

  Family Welfare Association;

  Gingerbread;

  Grandparents Federation;

  National Children's Homes Action For Children;

  National Council for One Parent Families;

  Parent Line;

  Parent Link;

  Parent Network;

  Parents At Work;

  Pre-school Learning Alliance

  Save the Children Fund;

  The National Stepfamily Association.

  These organisations support self-help networks of families or parents, networks of family centres providing services to families and networks of research into family support. The Department of Health spends about £5 million annually supporting these and other family organisations which are not explicitly networks.

  "Take Our Daughters to Work"
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support(a) she and (b) the NHS is giving to "Take our Daughters to Work" campaign on 27 April.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is participating in the "Take our Daughters to Work" campaign. She will be accompanied by a schoolgirl from her constituency on 27 April. As the largest employer of women in Europe, with good examples of women working successfully at all levels of the organisation, this initiative offers an opportunity positively to promote 100
  careers in the national health service to potential future employees and a number of NHS authorities and trust have indicated their support for the campaign.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died from solvent and volatile substance abuse in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is shown in the table:

  Years

  Deaths

  1985

  117

  1986

  102

  1987

  115

  1988

  137

  1989

  113

  1990

  151

  1991

  122

  1992

  79

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the categories of illnesses currently exempt from prescription costs.

  Mr. Malone
  People are exempt from national health service prescription charges if they hold a valid exemption certificate issued by a family health services authority on the grounds that they have one or more of the following medical conditions–
  Permanent fistula, including caecostomy, colostomy, laryngostomy, ileostomy or urostomy, requiring continuous surgical dressings or an appliance;Forms of hypoadrenalism, including Addison's disease, for which specific substitution therapy is essential;Diabetes insipidus and other forms of hypopituitarism;Diabetes mellitus except where treatment is by diet alone;Hypoparathyroidism;Myasthenia gravis;Myxoedema, or other conditions where supplemental thyroid hormone is necessary;Epilepsy requiring continuous anti-convulsive therapy;A continuing physical disability which prevents the patient from leaving home except with the help of another person.

  Occupational Asthma
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate her Department has made of the cost to her Department of the treatment of occupational asthma for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The Department's information does not distinguish between types of asthma.

  Basildon and Thurrock NHS Trust
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she received a copy of the letter from the medical director of the Basildon and Thurrock Hospital trust to all general practitioners, dated 7 February 1995, on difficulties experienced by hospitals recruiting doctors of SHO grade to staff accident and emergency departments; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not received a copy of such a letter.
  101
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the establishment of the accident and emergency department at Basildon hospital; and which of these posts are vacant.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Ian MacPherson, chairman of the Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals National Health Service trust, for details.

  Hospital Closures
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what mechanism there is within her Department centrally to collate information regarding the number of hospitals and accident and emergency departments that have been closed;

  (2) how many planned closures of accident and emergency units have been rejected by community health councils since 1991; and if she will list those that have subsequently not been put into effect;

  (3) how many hospital closures in England have taken place following objection to a proposed closure from a community health council since January 1993;

  (4) what information is provided to her Department by district health authorities, trusts, regional health authorities and the national health service executive on accident and emergency department closures;

  (5) how many accident and emergency departments are currently threatened with closure;

  (6) if she will list the hospitals or trusts in respect of which she has been formally consulted about partial or complete closure in the last two years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not routinely collect information on hospital or accident and emergency department closures. Information is available centrally on proposals to close, or change the use of, health service facilities which are referred to Ministers for decision following objections from a community health council. A list of such proposed closures referred to Ministers in the period 1992–94 will be placed in the Library.

  Capital Projects
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the capital projects in the NHS with a works cost of over £1 million that have been completed since 1992 giving a brief description of each project.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information will be placed in the Library recording National Health Service capital building works projects with a works cost of over £1 million which have been completed since 1992.

  Formby Health Authority
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement clarifying the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Dr. McMinn from the chairmanship of Formby health authority.

  Mr. Malone
  The reason given to Sir Donald Wilson, chairman of North West regional health authority, by Dr. Alex McMinn for resigning as chairman of the Southport and Formby National Health Service trust was increased pressure of business commitments.

  Juice Plus
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 497, if either of the two letters promoting Juice Plus were sent by hon. Members; and if any of the correspondence with officials at the Medicines Control Agency came from hon. Members.

  Mr. Sackville
  No.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Members of Parliament
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General if the status of a victim of crime as a Member of Parliament is treated as a public interest consideration in deciding whether to bring a prosecution against the alleged offender.

  The Attorney-General
  Whether the fact that a victim of crime is a Member of Parliament bears upon the public interest in prosecution of the alleged offender in any particular case will depend upon all the circumstances of that case. The Crown Prosecution Service may have in mind among other factors the matters in paragraph 6.4 of the code for Crown prosecutors—namely, whether the offence was committed against a person serving the public, or whether it was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim's political views.

TREASURY

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the change in the real exchange rate measured in terms of relative export unit values for manufacturing against the deutschmark since the lowest day's average in February 1993;

  (2) in what periods since 1975 British manufactures have been less competitive on price against those of the EEC than in the second quarter of 1994.

  Mr. Nelson
  Sterling exchange rates against the currencies of the EU can be found in "Financial Statistics", published monthly by the Central Statistical Office. Unit value export prices of goods for these countries can be found in "International Financial Statistics", published monthly by the International Monetary Fund. Unit value export prices of manufactures for the main manufacturing countries, which excludes some of the EU, can be found in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", published monthly by the Central Statistical Office. Data on unit value export prices of manufactures for all EU countries are not readily available.

  Together, these data can be used to calculate changes over time in relative export prices for goods against Germany and all other EU countries, and relative export prices for manufactures against some EU countries, including Germany.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that the Bank of
  103
  England will not intervene in the foreign exchanges to prevent the pound sterling from falling against the deutschmark.

  Mr. Nelson
  The valuation of the pound is determined by transactions in the foreign exchange market. Movements in the exchange rate are considered as part of the general assessment of monetary conditions in setting monetary policy. The Government recognise the value of a stable exchange rate, but they do not set target rates. For good reasons of market management, the Government do not comment on intervention in foreign exchange markets.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect of the Government's exchange rate policies on the rate of unemployment since 1975.

  Mr. Nelson
  Levels of unemployment are influenced by a wide range of factors and it is not possible to isolate the effects of any single factor. The Government's policies are designed to promote sustained economic growth, secure jobs and rising prosperity, through structural policies to improve the long-term performance of the economy and a stable macroeconomic environment.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the nominal rate of exchange rose against the deutschmark between February 1993 and January 1994; what was the effect on the real exchange rate measured in terms of export unit values for manufactures; and what was the effect on the convergence criteria under Maastricht.

  Mr. Nelson
  The sterling-deutschmark exchange rate is determined by transactions in the foreign exchange markets. Data on the nominal exchange rate can be found in "Financial Statistics" published by the Central Statistical Office. Unit value export prices for the UK and Germany can be found in "International Financial Statistics" published monthly by the International Monetary Fund. Together, these data can be used to calculate the change in the real exchange rate with Germany between January 1993 and February 1994. It is impossible to quantify the effect on the change in the exchange rate on sterling export prices, and hence on to the real exchange rate. Movements in the sterling-deutschmark exchange rate over this period have no direct consequences for the Maastricht convergence criteria.

  Inflation and Growth
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for relaxing his inflation targets to allow a faster rate of growth; and what is his estimate of the growth rate for 1995 and 1996 compatible

  Destination

  Duration

  Cost (£)

  Organisations/groups met

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  1994

  Naples

  8–10 July

  3,316

  G7 Summit. Finance Ministers

  Brussels

  11 July

  1,726

  ECOFIN. EU Finance Ministers

  Brussels

  27 July

  1,844

  ECOFIN. EU Finance Ministers

  Germany

  9–11 September

  2,172

  Informal ECOFIN. EU Finance Ministers

  Malta

  26–28 September

  1,316

  Commonwealth Finance Ministers Mtg.

  Madrid

  28–30 September

  3,087

  Bretton Woods Conference. Ministers and Businessmen

  Madrid

  1–5 October

  2,910

  G7/IMF Meetings with Ministers

  Luxembourg

  10 October

  2,782

  ECOFIN. EU Finance Ministers

  Brussels

  21 October

  985

  ECOFIN. EU Finance Ministers

  104
  with an inflation target of 2.5 per cent. by the end of this Parliament.

  Mr. Nelson
  Permanently low inflation is the best way to ensure healthy growth in the economy. The Government's inflation target is designed to achieve this, and is set out in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96", together with forecasts for output and inflation.

  Retail Depositors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, as a condition of the guarantee given to retail depositors, the Government will require the high street banks and other financial institutions to hive off their retail operators in such a way that they cannot be affected financially by liabilities incurred in other parts of the enterprise as at present constituted as a condition of the guarantee given to retail depositors.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government do not give a guarantee to depositors. The statutory deposit protection scheme, which is financed by the banks themselves, is to compensate depositors in the event of their bank failing. The arrangements governing the supervision of banks are set out elsewhere in the Banking Act 1987.

  Financial Participation Schemes
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to proceed with his proposal to make it obligatory for part-time directors as well as part-time employees to be included in tax-relieved employee financial participation schemes, included approved executive share option schemes.

  Sir George Young
  No. After further consideration, and in the light of representations from institutional investors, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury proposes to introduce amendments at Report stage of the Finance Bill to ensure that the new provisions about the inclusion of part-time workers in tax-relieved employee financial participation schemes will apply only to part-time employees and not to part-time directors.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what overseas visits he or his Ministers have made since 1 July 1994; and what was the duration and cost of such visits and the organisations and groups that were met during the course of such visits.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The overseas visits made since 1 July 1994 by Treasury Ministers, and the duration and cost of such visits and the organisations and groups that were met during the course of such visits, are as follows:
  105

  Destination

  Duration

  cost (£)

  Organisation/groups met

  Brussels

  7 November

  1,475

  ECOFIN.EU Finance Ministers

  Chateaudun

  18 November

  1,325

  Anglo-French Summit

  Brussels

  4–5 December

  1,383

  ECOFIN. EU Finance Ministers

  Essen

  9–10 December

  4,261

  European Council

  Malaysia

  30 December 1994– January 1995

  115,000

  Official Tour. Minister and Businessmen

  1995

  Thailand

  5–10 January

  Official Tour. Ministers and Businessmen

  Vietnam

  10–12 January

  Official Tour. Ministers and Businessmen

  Brussels

  16 January

  —2

  ECOFIN. EU Finance Ministers Winter Economic Forum. Ministers and Businessmen

  Davos

  26–29 January

  Brussels

  24–25 July 1994

  838

  Summer Budget Council Meeting

  Brussels

  15–16 November 1994

  838

  Winter Budget Council Meeting

  Minister of State

  south Africa

  18–23 September 1994

  5,701

  Various Businessmen

  Dubai

  23–25 October 1994

  143

  Various Businessmen

  New Your/Boston

  3–6 January 1995

  4,405

  Various Businessmen

  1 Estimate.

  2 Full details not yet available.

  Balance of Payments Deficit
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to the United Kingdom economy of financing the deficit in the current account of the balance of payments since 1986; and if it is the Government's policy to move the current account back into surplus to enable the debt to be repaid.

  Mr. Nelson
  Figures for the current and capital accounts of the UK's balance of payments are published by the Central Statistical Office annually in the Pink Book, with quarterly data available on the CSO database. Both are available through the Library of the House. Latest figures for the third quarter 1994 show the current account in surplus, with net investment income at record levels and the UK a net creditor. The key to maintaining this good performance is for the Government to deliver permanently low inflation and companies to keep costs under control, thereby ensuring that British industry remains competitive.

TRANSPORT

  Light Dues
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on light dues.

  Mr. Norris
  I am pleased to announce that light dues for 1995–96 will be frozen at the levels set in April 1993 for a second year in succession. I have decided to remove the supplementary roll-on/roll-off charge levied on tonnage in excess of 1,000 tonnes for any vessel whose liability is assessed by an international tonnage convention 1969 certificate. The surcharge will remain for any vessel unable for any reason to offer such a certificate. I have concluded that all other rates should remain unchanged.

  I commend the general lighthouse authorities on their continuing achievement of efficiency savings.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of a rise in fuel duty of 5 per cent. per year above the rate of inflation on car use and congestion.

  Mr. Norris
  The strategy to raise fuel duty by a minimum of 5 per cent. per annum is an important part of the Government's climate change programme to reduce the UK's carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

  The forecast for the growth rate of traffic up to 2000 with these increases is much the same as in the Department's current national road traffic forecasts. This reflects the fact that the real price of fuel assumed in those forecasts is similar to that now expected, as the duty increase is offset to a large degree by a lower forecast for real oil prices.

  The responsiveness of road use to fuel prices is believed to be low. As well as adjusting the mileage that they drive, road users have the choice of buying smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and manufacturers have an incentive to supply them.

  North London Line
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the effect of the postponement of the North London line modernisation project on the introduction, or operation, of passenger and freight trains from France for destinations north of London.

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack advises me that there has been no postponement of work on the North London line which would affect channel tunnel services.

  Railtrack is currently carrying out a study to determine which of several route options through north London will be adopted for channel tunnel services north of London.

  Diesel Train Emissions
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what monitoring has taken place of emissions from diesel trains.
  107
  Mr. Watts
  Under section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it is the duty of district councils and London borough councils to inspect their areas from time to time to detect any statutory nuisances, including emissions from railway engines but excluding steam locomotives.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans he has to curb emissions from railway diesel engines.

  Mr. Watts
  It is a condition of the train operator's licence to produce an environmental policy, taking account of guidance from the rail regulator which I understand is in preparation. British Rail takes active steps to control exhaust emissions in sensitive locations. In some terminal stations and depots, provision of shore-based electrical supplies has greatly reduced the need for engines to idle. For new trains, better fuel consumption control has been incorporated in design specifications, together with automatic engine shut-off after a predetermined period.

  Concessionary Fares (Epileptics)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the local authorities in the United Kingdom which include people with epilepsy who cannot drive for medical reasons within their concessionary fare schemes.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Urban Congestion
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department has given to measures to decrease the current level of use of private motor vehicles in cities and conurbations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Local authorities are already able to introduce a wide range of measures to reduce urban congestion which they can tailor to the particular circumstances of their areas: for example, traffic management schemes, bus priority lanes, park-and-ride schemes and parking controls, all of which are the subject of departmental advice notes.

  Two years ago, we introduced the "package approach" under which local authorities, individually or collectively, can obtain funding for strategic transport plans which encompass all forms of transport. Local authorities are now invited to bid for Government funds on the basis of multi-modal transport packages which take a strategic overview of transport needs and look beyond road-based options.

  Planning policy guidance note No. 13, published jointly by the Departments of the Environment and of Transport, offers advice on the role which transport and land use planning policies can jointly play in reducing the need to travel.

  Radioactive Fallout, Dounreay
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in full the results of the UK Atomic Energy Authority investigation into the radioactive fallout at Dounreay on 11 February; what assessment he has made of the effect of weather conditions on the level of risk; how far away any safety official was when exposed to radioactivity above the safe working level; whether any 108
  person sent to the contamination area wore respirators instead of sealed protective clothing; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: The incident is being investigated urgently. In line with normal practice, I understand that a report on the incident will be published in the Health and Safety Executive's quarterly statement of nuclear incidents at nuclear installations.

  The waste disposal authorisations granted to the Atomic Energy Authority under the Radioactive Substances Acts include limits designed to protect the public no matter what the weather conditions prevailing at the time of a discharge. Inspectors from HM industrial pollution inspectorate have carried out their initial inquiries into the circumstances leading to the incident and I understand that they are satisfied that it did not cause any of the permitted atmospheric emission limits to be exceeded.

  Investigation of workers' exposure issues lies with HM nuclear installations inspectorate. Its investigation will include such issues as whether the radiation exposure of individuals exceeded relevant limits and whether appropriate personnel protection was provided.

  Sponsorship of the UKAEA is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the blow-out of radioactive dust at the Dounreay reprocessing plant in February.

  Mr. Kynoch
  On 11 February 1995, at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Dounreay site, a process plant was shut down and evacuated because of abnormal concentration of radioactivity in working areas within the plant. A formal investigation has been carried out by the UKAEA. The incident is being investigated by the nuclear inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive and HM industrial pollution inspectorate.

  Nuclear Waste, Torness
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost to(a) his Department and (b) Scottish Nuclear of all aspects of the proposal to construct a dry store for waste nuclear fuel at Torness; and if he will give separately the figures for (i) the cost of designing the proposed installation and (ii) the public inquiry into the proposal.

  Mr. Kynoch
  The cost to the Scottish Office of arranging and conducting the public inquiry into the application by Scottish Nuclear Ltd. to construct a dry store at Torness was approximately £28,700. The cost to the company of the dry store project, including participation in the public inquiry, is a commercial matter for Scottish Nuclear.

  Natural Disasters
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1986 is applied in practice in Scotland; what further scope he has to take further action under the section; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kynoch
  Section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 allows the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to give, with Treasury consent, financial assistance to one or more local authorities which
  109
  have incurred expenditure in respect of immediate action to safeguard life or property, or to prevent suffering or severe inconvenience, arising from an emergency or disaster which involves destruction of or danger to life or property.

  The main application of section 155 in Scotland has been the Bellwin scheme, under which grant is payable at the rate of 85 per cent. on current expenditure above a set threshold incurred by local authorities in responding to natural emergencies.

  Nature Reserve Agreement
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reasons the management arrangement with Farquharson of Invercauld concerning Cairn Lochan estate fell into abeyance in 1986.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Negotiations took place between the Nature Conservancy Council and the estate about renewal of the nature reserve agreement which expired in 1986, but renewal could not be agreed. Details of negotiations are a private matter between the two parties involved.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each management arrangement in relation to national nature reserves, the person with whom the arrangement is made, the period of the arrangement and the cost.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Pay Awards
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost to his Department's budget and to local authorities' self-financed expenditure in 1995–96 of implementing in full the recommendations of(a) the School Teachers' Review Body, (b) the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration and (c) the Review Body on Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine, assuming no changes in staff numbers.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: The School Teachers' Review Body is responsible only for teachers in England and Wales. Statutory responsibility for determination of pay and conditions of service for teachers in Scotland lies with the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee. The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Review Bodies on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration and on Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine. The 1995–96 settlement for the NHS in Scotland provides for a cash increase of £143.2 million, or 3.6 per cent. increase. The cost of pay increases will be dependent on the outcome of negotiations at local level.

  Hospital External Audits
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many external audits carried out upon hospitals by the Royal College of Surgeons or a similar body in(a) Renfrewshire, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole in each of the past 10 years have led to disciplinary measures being taken by him; and if he will make a statement;
  110
  (2) how many external audits have been carried out under the auspices of the Royal College of Surgeons or some similar body, upon hospitals in (a) Renfrewshire, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland in the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: The Secretary of State is not aware of any external clinical audits carried out under the auspices of the Royal College of Surgeons or a similar body in hospitals in Renfrewshire, Strathclyde or Scotland in the past 10 years. Clinical audit is an education process and there is quite a separate and distinct machinery for disciplinary procedures which are a matter for employing authorities. The Medical Royal Colleges carry out accreditation inspections of hospitals but these are solely for the purpose of approving training posts.

  School Examinations
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his letter of 27 February to the hon. Member for Linlithgow,(a) what proposals he has to make changes in the system of written work in relation to physical education examinations in schools and (b) what factors led him to reject the explanation put forward in relation to the two pupils accused of cheating from a school named in correspondence with the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: The Scottish Examination Board keeps all its assessment arrangements under review and has decided that revised procedures will be in place for written work in standard grade physical education assignments for 1996 onwards.

  Responsibility for decisions in relation to assessment for awards under the Scottish Certificate of Education rests with the Scottish Examination Board, which carried out a thorough review of the case in question.

  Ayrshire Child Abuse Case
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cumulative cost of all legal aid to date to the families in the Ayrshire child abuse case; what is his estimate of the likely total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: Six legal aid certificates have been granted in respect of this case. Payments to date amount to £538,000. The total costs may be subject to scrutiny by the Auditor of Court and cannot yet be accurately assessed. The Scottish Legal Aid Board has, however, estimated that they may fall in the range £1.5 million to £2 million.

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount of revenue deficit grant he proposes to make available to Caledonian MacBrayne in 1995–96.

  Mr. Lang
  Subject to approval of the estimates, I propose to make available to Caledonian MacBrayne in 1995–96 revenue deficit grant amount to £8.3 million.

  The proposed amount reflects an increased requirement for grant compared with the 1994–95 level and takes into account the effect of the proposed closure of the company's Kyle of Lochalsh-Kyleakin service when the Skye bridge opens later in 1995. the costs associated with

  111
  the introduction, also later in 1995, of a major new vessel on the Ullapool to Stornoway service and the costs of compliance with additional safety requirements on vessels.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March 1995.

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

  Innovation and Technology Transfer
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made with the review announced in the White Paper, "Scotland in Union", of the scope for transferring from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Scottish and Welsh Offices responsibility for measures which encourage industrial innovation and technology transfer in Scotland and Wales.

  The Prime Minister
  The review has been completed. It concluded that responsibility for the Smart and Spur schemes, which provide grants for the development of new products and processes and for design services in Scotland and Wales, should be transferred. In addition, it has now been agreed that responsibility for new measures to support innovation locally will be transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland as soon as the administrative arrangements have been completed.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will instruct the Civil Service Commissioners to advertise for open competition at the previous rate of remuneration the post of any permanent secretary who wishes to take advantage of the recent pay award.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Conference
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will be attending the conference on the future of the non-proliferation treaty to be held in New York in April and May.

  The Prime Minister
  No. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary plans to attend on 18 April.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, columns 580-581, if he will make a statement as to the grounds on which the charges incurred by individual airlines under the Immigration (Carriers'
  112
  Liability) Act 1987 are treated as commercially confidential.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  ; Administration of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act involves the Home Office in sensitive discussions with individual carriers. These are conducted on a commercial in confidence basis. To disclose the nature of the discussions, including the level of charges, would represent a breach of that confidentiality, and could jeopardise both the carriers' commercial operations, and our own debt recovery programme.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what police records still exist in relation to the security of the Pan Am Clipper, Maid of the Seas, at Heathrow airport on 21 December 1988.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: The inquiries conducted by officers of the Metropolitan police concerning the security of the aircraft Maid of the Seas, at Heathrow airport on 21 December 1988 in relation to the Lockerbie case, and the records of those inquiries, form part of the case against the two Libyans who have been accused of this crime. It has been made clear that, as in any other case, it is not appropriate for the investigating or prosecuting authorities to give details of the evidence while criminal proceedings are pending.

  Ethnic Minority Funding
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the section 11(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful bids showing in the case of the approved figure as a percentage of the bid in each case.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 28 February 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 22 February 1995 Official Report, columns 228-32, in which I set out the level of grant sought by each applicant under the recent section 11 bidding round, and to the reply which my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on 28 February 1995, Official Report, columns 541-45, in which he listed the grant budget allocation for 1995-96 for each successful applicant. Table (a) shows, in respect of each successful applicant, the level of budget allocation for 1995-96 expressed as a percentage of grant sought for that year, all on the basis of November 1994 prices which applicants were asked to use in preparing their bids, and subject in some instances to arithmetical adjustments to correct an applicant's original calculations. Table (b) lists those applicants whose bids were unsuccessful.

  (a) Successful applicants

  Local authorities etc

  Grant awarded as percentage of grant sought

  Avon

  96.1

  Barking and Dagenham

  96.2

  Barnet

  74.4

  Berkshire

  51.3

  Bexley

  40.0

  Birmingham

  8.9

  Bolton

  34.8

  Bradford

  96.0

  Brent

  19.9

  Bromley

  63.5

  113

  (a) Successful applicants

  Local authorities etc

  Grant awarded as percentage of grant sought

  Buckinghamshire

  76.8

  Cambridgeshire

  13.5

  Camden

  94.4

  Cardiff

  33.3

  Cleveland

  51.4

  Coventry

  51.6

  Croydon

  100.0

  Derbyshire

  39.8

  Devon

  42.8

  Dorset

  50.0

  Dudley

  94.7

  Ealing

  93.7

  East Sussex

  74.6

  Enfield

  74.6

  Essex

  21.1

  Gateshead

  94.5

  Gloucestershire

  80.7

  Greenwich

  80.2

  Gwent

  100.0

  Hackney

  27.4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  91.0

  Haringey

  79.4

  Harrow

  100.0

  Havering

  100.0

  Hereford and Worcester

  100.0

  Hertfordshire

  100.0

  Hillingdon

  59.0

  Hounslow

  66.5

  Humberside

  13.3

  Hyndburn

  27.9

  Islington

  83.6

  Kent

  100.0

  Kirklees

  87.9

  Lambeth

  96.2

  Lancashire

  47.2

  Leeds

  13.3

  Leicester

  57.6

  Leicestershire

  70.0

  Lewisham

  69.3

  Lincolnshire

  100.0

  Liverpool

  77.1

  London Boroughs Grants Committee

  100.0

  Manchester

  100.0

  Merton

  91.5

  Middlesbrough

  12.2

  Milton Keynes

  46.3

  Newham

  48.2

  Norfolk

  55.4

  Northamptonshire

  38.7

  Nottingham

  70.6

  Nottinghamshire

  57.9

  Oldham

  43.6

  Oxford

  66.6

  Peterborough

  50.0

  Redbridge

  67.0

  Redditch

  100.0

  Rochdale

  27.8

  Rotherham

  80.6

  Salford

  75.8

  Sheffield

  23.4

  Shropshire

  71.3

  Somerset

  83.3

  South Tyneside

  58.3

  South Yorkshire FCDA

  100.0

  Southampton

  18.3

  Southwark

  74.8

  St. Albans

  100.0

  St. Helens

  75.8

  Staffordshire

  59.1

  Suffolk

  27.4

  114

  (a) Successful applicants

  Local authorities etc

  Grant awarded as percentage of grant sought

  Sutton

  56.2

  Tameside

  7.1

  Tower Hamlets

  10.0

  Wakefield

  90.2

  Walsall

  81.1

  Waltham Forest

  7.9

  Warwickshire

  87.3

  West Glamorgan

  100.0

  West Midlands FCDA

  100.0

  West Yorkshire FCDA

  100.0

  Westminster

  65.4

  Wigan

  71.3

  Wolverhampton

  88.6

  Grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges

  Ash Green

  73.7

  Beechview Middle

  50.0

  Bishop Challoner RC

  100.0

  Brentside High

  60.6

  Brushwood Middle

  100.0

  Castle Hall

  83.3

  Castlefield

  71.3

  Claremont

  100.0

  Copland Community

  100.0

  Deacon's

  83.3

  Desborough

  50.0

  Djanogly CTC

  85.7

  Dormers Wells Infants

  62.9

  Dormers Wells Junior

  100.0

  Drayton Manor

  100.0

  Dunraven

  63.8

  Francis Bacon

  100.0

  Graveney

  82.7

  Greenford High

  73.9

  Greenwood Dale

  100.0

  Hall Green

  100.0

  Hamilton Combined

  100.0

  Hendon

  75.8

  Holly Hall

  66.7

  Holy Trinty

  83.9

  John Kelly Girls

  100.0

  London Oratory

  76.7

  Myton

  100.0

  Northampton Boys

  90.9

  Northolt High

  87.5

  Prospect

  79.3

  Queens Park

  94.3

  Radcliffe

  50.0

  Reading Girls

  76.9

  Sacred Heart RC

  100.0

  Small Heath

  98.9

  St. Andrews RC

  50.0

  St. Marks West Essex

  100.0

  Stantonbury Campus

  100.0

  Stopsley High

  100.0

  Stratford

  99.9

  Surrey Square

  100.0

  Wood End Infant

  100.0

  Wood End Junior

  66.7

  Wrenn

  75.8

  Colleges of further education

  Arnold and Carlton

  78.6

  Bexley

  100.0

  Birmingham Consortium

  54.2

  Cambridge Regional

  100.0

  Charles Keene

  62.4

  City and Islington

  58.4

  Clarendon

  54.5

  115

  (a) Successful applicants

  Local authorities etc

  Grant awarded as percentage of grant sought

  Coventry Technical

  37.5

  Crawley

  100.0

  Croydon

  100.0

  Ealing Tertiary

  32.5

  Enfield

  100.0

  Greenhill

  43.9

  Hackney Community

  80.1

  Hendon

  100.0

  Huddersfield Technical

  34.0

  Kingsway

  28.8

  Language and Literacy Unit Southwark

  49.5

  Newham

  35.4

  Oaklands

  44.3

  Park Lane

  63.1

  Sheffield

  47.2

  South Nottingham

  82.4

  Southgate

  67.5

  St. Francis Xavier

  50.0

  Tameside

  100.0

  Thomas Danby

  15.3

  Tile Hill

  100.0

  Tower Hamlets

  38.3

  Uxbridge

  22.7

  West Herts

  65.8

  (b) Unsuccessful applicants

  Local Authority

  Bedfordshire

  Preston

  Burnley

  Reading

  Bury

  Richmond

  Calderdale

  Sandwell

  Clwyd

  Scunthrope

  Crew and Nantwich

  Sefton

  Doncaster

  South Glamorgan

  Gloucester

  Sunderland

  Hampshire

  Surrey

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Trafford

  Kingston

  Wansworth

  Luton

  West Sussex

  Newcastle

  Wiltshire

  North Tyneside

  Wirral

  Oxfordshire

  Working

  Portsmouth

  Grant-maintained schools, City Technology Colleges

  Alperton Common

  Kingsbury High

  Anglo European

  Merrill Community

  Avon Valley

  Montagu

  Beechen Cliff

  Notre Dame

  Billericay

  Oldfield

  Blessed Edward Oldcorne RC

  Raines Foundation

  Broomhill Infant

  Reay Primary

  Chadwell Heath

  Richard Challoner

  Dixons CTC

  St. Bartholomew's

  Durand Primary

  St. Benedict's Catholic High

  Gordon'

  St. Bernadette RC

  Hollingwood 1st

  St. Martin in Field

  Holy Cross Convent

  St. Thomas the Apostle

  Holywell

  The Gilberd

  Hopwood Hall

  Weavers

  Kelsey Park

  Woodnewton Junior

  Colleges of Further Education

  Amersham and Wycombe

  Manchester

  Barnet

  N E London

  Bilborough

  Newcastle

  Bolton

  Newham Sixth Form

  116

  (b) Unsuccessful applicants

  Local Authority

  Calderdale

  North Herts

  City College Manchester

  Northampton

  City of Westminster

  Oldham

  Dewsbury

  People's Tertiary Education

  Doncaster

  Rotherham

  Dudley

  Runshaw

  East Berkshire

  Southwark

  Gateshead

  Stoke on Trent 6th form

  Gateway 6th Form

  Stourbridge

  Gloscat

  Swindon

  Henley

  Tresham

  Huntingdonshire Regional

  Wakefield

  Joseph Chamberlain

  Walsall

  Keighley

  Wansworth Adult

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Woolwich

  Leyton 6th form

  Protection of Animals Legislation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter of 19 January from the hon. Member for Ealing, North regarding Government policy towards the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 2 March.

  Al Fayed Brothers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many items of correspondence were received from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) by Ministers in his Department on issues relating to the interests of the Al Fayeds; on what dates they were received; and how many were replied to.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  It is not the practice to disclose information about communications between hon. Members and Ministers.

EDUCATION

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the total administrative costs of her Department for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Boswell
  Total administrative costs, including capital, for the Department in 1993–94 were £88 million. The comparable forecast outturn figures for 1994–95 is £92 million.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total number of civil servants employed in her Department in 1993–94; and what is the expected figure for 1994–95.

  Mr. Boswell
  The actual outturn figure for 1993–94 was 2,101 full-time equivalent staff. The estimated figure for 1994–95 is 2,097.
  117
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people were employed in the school curriculum branch of her Department in each year since 1992–93; and what were the total operating costs of the branch in each of those years.

  Mr. Boswell
  The school curriculum branch of the Department came into existence on 1 April 1994 as part of a wider reorganisation within the Department. For 1994–95 full-time equivalent staff in post are expected to average 81, with estimated running costs of £2.3 million. Because of the reorganisation, it is not possible to give comparable figures for earlier years.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total staff pay bill for her Department for 1993–94 and what is the expected amount for 1994–95.

  Mr. Boswell
  The total staff pay bill for the Department in 1993–94 was £51 million. The comparable forecast outturn figure for 1994–95 is £52 million.

  Ofsted School Inspections
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average cost of Ofsted inspections for(a) secondary, (b) primary and (c) special schools for each group size of school in 1994–95.

  Mr. Forth
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the independent Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Decommissioning Scheme
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for compensating fishermen who lose their jobs when fishing vessels are decommissioned under his scheme.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 6 March,Official Report, column 34.

  Milk Hygiene
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which division of his Department is responsible for the implementation of milk hygiene inspection.

  Mr. Jack
  ADAS, an executive agency of the Ministry and the Welsh Office, is responsible for hygiene inspections on dairy farms in England and Wales. This work is carried out under the terms of a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry's milk and milk products division and the relevant division in the Welsh Office.

  Fishermen (Retirement)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will support the Commission's proposal for an early retirement scheme for fishermen at the forthcoming council meeting.
  118
  Mr. Jack
  No such proposal has yet been made to the Council.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to implement the two-year extension to the deadline for abattoirs to meet EU structural requirements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  The deadline for abattoirs to meet EU structural requirements remains 31 December 1995. The December Agriculture Council agreed in principle a package of amendments to the fresh meat directive which cannot be formally adopted until the European Parliament's opinion has been delivered and considered. That package would confirm the 31 December 1995 deadline, but would allow member states to extend it in exceptional circumstances where plants which are in the process of upgrading cannot complete the work for reasons outside their control. If these provisions are adopted, the Government will therefore consider exercising a small degree of flexibility only in exceptional circumstances.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the capacities for EU certified slaughterhouses in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 16 January 1995 to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler),Official Report, column 364.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many abattoirs there were in 1993 and 1994; and how many of these met European Community standards.

  Mrs. Browning
  All abattoirs are licensed in accordance with the terms of European Community directives laying down the hygiene, operation supervision and structural conditions of abattoirs, so that they all meet European Community standards.

  At the end of 1993, there were 433 licensed red meat abattoirs in England of which 60 were fully approved to trade throughout the Community; 187 were full throughput premises with temporary derogations; and 186 were low throughput premises. At the end of 1994, there were 424 licensed red meat abattoirs in England of which 78 were fully approved; 154 had temporary derogations; and 192 were low throughput. Low throughput premises and premises with temporary derogations are approved to trade on the national market.

  Quarantine Kennels
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to permitting the independent inspection of quarantine kennels.

  Mrs. Browning
  Licensed quarantine kennels, all of which are privately owned, are already inspected quarterly by MAFF veterinary officers. They may be accompanied by another party authorised by them and assisting them in their duties.

DEFENCE

  Porton Down
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will outline the past and present procedures followed by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down to monitor the continued health of volunteers who have taken part in experiments;

  (2) for what period of time the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down continues to monitor the health of volunteers after the end of experiments in which they were involved.

  Mr. Soames
  These are matters for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 7 March 1995:
  1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if he will outline the past and present procedures followed by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down to monitor the continued health of volunteers who have taken part in experiments and for what period of time Porton Down continues to monitor the health of volunteers after the end of studies in which they were involved, have 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 or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use Service volunteers to:

  a. assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  b. develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel, and

  c. evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  The purpose of the volunteer studies programme is to ensure that any protective measure is acceptable from a military point of view and is safe before it is recommended for introduction into service. Such measures need to be evaluated first in the safety of a laboratory or hospital environment, with full medical and scientific back-up at hand.3. The principles of how volunteer studies are to be conducted are enshrined by international agreement in the Helsinki declaration. Further detailed guidance has been issued by the Royal College of Physicians (London). Volunteer studies at CBDE Porton Down are overseen by an independent panel of experts who form the CBDE Ethics Committee. The role of the Ethics Committee is to ensure the safety of the subjects and to safeguard the scientific staff who carry out the human studies from criticism which may be informed or otherwise. They evaluate each protocol well in advance and only approve a protocol if they are satisfied that there will be no harm to the health of the volunteers. Human studies at CBDE are conducted with volunteers drawn from the three Armed Services, namely from amongst the men and women we seek to protect. The volunteers apply in response to requests officially promulgated months in advance.4. Before any exposure of volunteers to drugs or other substances takes place, it is explicit duty of the Medical Office (MO) assigned to each study to assess risks, and recommend a study design so as to minimise them. This is done by preparing a detailed protocol which is first scrutinised by an in-house Committee, and finally by the independent CBDE Ethics Committee. Exposure of volunteers where side effects last longer than the one or two weeks stay of the volunteer on site are never acceptable.120 5. Service volunteers on arrival at CBDE are first given a medical examination to determine if they are healthy and fit to take part in the study. The study is explained to them in lay terms by a military officer who is not involved in the study and it is made clear to the volunteer that they can withdraw from the study at any stage without any explanation being required. On leaving CBDE on completion of the study the volunteers are given a further medical examination.6. Service volunteers return to their units on completion of the study, where they are, medically, the responsibility of the unit Medical Officer. There is no history of Service doctors in their units seeking advice from CBDE Porton Down on any subsequent illnesses that may have been reported by volunteers who have been exposed to agent during studies at CBDE.7. Some volunteers have volunteered to return repeatedly to CBDE for different studies at irregular intervals. In such cases CBDE invariably refer to the volunteer's previous records. These opportunities, which are spontaneous and sporadic, to examine medically the volunteers have shown no evidence of any change to the health of the volunteers as a result of their earlier participation at CBDE, provides assurance that volunteers have not suffered any harm to their health.8. From time to time after specific studies, those volunteers that participated in them are called back to CBDE for a further set of tests or measurements in order to check on the consistency of the method used in the tests or measurement and to demonstrate its invariance with time. As an example, in one study six volunteers were recalled twice so that the consistency of the method used in a particular study could be checked and in another study seven volunteers were recalled for the same reason. Such recalls can take place as much as one or two years after the original study. In all these cases there was no evidence that the health of the volunteers had changed or been harmed as a result of their participation in the study at CBDE Porton Down.9. Health checks are carried out regularly on Service personnel and the frequency of such checks is determined by the age of the Serviceman or Servicewoman and if any need has arisen for more regular health review such as diagnosis of some pathological condition such as hypertension. Similarly, postings to military duties requiring a very high standard of physical and mental well-being such as tour of duty in the submarine service will necessitate further medical checks for the individual concerned. In addition, the Service medical records of some part volunteers have been scrutinised from time to time, and the conclusion drawn that their health and sickness record is in no way different from a control group.
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many human volunteers have been involved in experiments at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since 1965; if he will give the number of volunteers for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 7 March 1995:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many human volunteers have been involved in experiments at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since 1965; if he will give the number of volunteers for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive for 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 or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use service volunteers to:

  121

  a. assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  b. develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel, and

  c. evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
  3. The number of Service volunteers who have participated in studies during the period 1965–1994 was about 5,400 and the number in each of the last five years for which figures are available were as follows:

  1990: 83

  1991: 50

  1992: 112

  1993: 64

  1994: 104

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline the type of experiments carried out on human volunteers at Porton Down in the last three years for which information is available; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 7 March 1995:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if he will outline the type of experiments carried out on human volunteers at Porton Down in the last three years for which information is available, and if he will make a statement, 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 or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use Service volunteers to:

  a. assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  b. develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel, and

  c. evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.3. The types of studies which have been carried out over the past three years have been to assess the performance of Service personnel whilst wearing individual protective equipment (IPE), the efficacy and effectiveness of experimental IPE using simulants, and the evaluation of possible side effects on military performance from the administration of improved medical countermeasures.
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the rates of payment for volunteers taking part in experiments at Porton Down in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE to write to the hon. Member.
  122
  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr Derek Fatchett, dated 7 March 1995:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if he will give the rates of payment for volunteers taking part in experiments at Porton Down in each year since 1979 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 or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use Service volunteers to:

  a. assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  b. develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel, and

  c. evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.3. Service volunteers receive compensation for the inconvenience associated with individual tests carried out within each study. The number of tests in any study vary between about a minimum of 100 to a maximum of 400 as studies vary between three days to four week in duration.4. The rates of payment per test over the past five years are as follows:

  1990: £1.34

  1991: £1.50

  1992: £1.60

  1993: £1.62

  1994: £1.66

  The current rate of payment per test is £1.70. The total amount of compensation ranges from about £170 to £500 and is subject to tax.5. Our records are not maintained in such a way as to easily provide the rates of payment for volunteers who have taken part in studies at Porton Down in each year since 1979 and to seek this information would involve disproportionate effort and cost.
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many deaths have been recorded as a direct result of experiments carried out on volunteers at Porton Down.

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

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 7 March 1995:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him how many deaths have been recorded as a direct result of experiments carried out on volunteers at Porton Down, 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 or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use Service volunteers to:

  a. assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  b. develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel, and

  c. evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  123 No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.3. Since the start of the Service Volunteer programme in the 1920s, there has been a single fatality in 1953 as reported in the Official Report (9 June 1953, Volume 516, Col 7-8 and 22 June 1953, Volume 516, Col 105) when Leading Aircraftsman Ronald Maddison died from the effects of asphyxia after taking part in a trial at the then Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment at Porton Down. A detailed inquiry was held into the circumstances and following this inquiry which was carried out by eminent independent scientists, new guidelines were laid down to ensure the safety of Service volunteers. In the subsequent 40 years, there has been no fatality nor has there been any evidence that any Service volunteers have suffered any deterioration in their health as a result of participating in studies at Porton Down.
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding people who have suffered ill health subsequent to taking part in experiments at Porton Down in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 7 March 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what representations he has received regarding people who have suffered ill health subsequent to taking part in experiments at Porton Down in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement, 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 United Kingdom Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use Service volunteers to:

  a. assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  b. develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel, and

  c. evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.We have received enquiries from a variety of sources over the past year relating to the studies in which volunteers participated. We have received and responded to 13 Parliamentary Enquiries, 2 enquiries from General Practitioners, 10 from the War Pensions Agency and 9 direct from volunteers.There is no evidence over the past 40 years to suggest that Service volunteers who have participated in studies at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have suffered any harm to their health. Indeed, some volunteers have volunteered to participate in studies at CBDE on more than one occasion and some have also been recalled so that measurements could be checked. volunteers are medically examined on arrival at CBDE Porton Down and are informed that they may leave the study at any stage without giving any explanation. They are also medically examined at the end of their stay at CBDE Porton Down to ensure that they are fit before they return to their units. In addition, there is no history of service doctors in their units seeking advice from CBDE Porton Down on any subsequent illnesses that may have been reported by volunteers who have been exposed to agent. There is therefore no
  124
  reason to suggest that volunteers have suffered any harm to their health.5. The medical records of the Servicemen are provided on request to their General Practitioner as is information from CBDE Porton Down on the studies in which they participated. This information is provided to the medical practitioners as they are best placed to judge if any of the experience throughout the Service career of the individual has any relevance to their current medical conditions.6. It is important to recognise that the human body is remarkably effective in dealing with toxic pollutants to which we are exposed in our daily lives and the participation in a study at CBDE Porton Down involving a short exposure to chemical warfare agent has to be considered in the context of whole life exposures to other toxic pollutants.7. Finally, the Ministry of Defence is very grateful to all Service personnel who have served as volunteers in studies at CBDE Porton Down as their participation has been vital to ensuring that the members of the UK Armed Forces are provided with the most effective protective measures possible against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. Such studies are vital to the defence of the realm and we are very grateful to the Servicemen who have helped achieve the high standards of protection that are available for the members of the UK Armed Forces.
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence how many(a) prisoners of war, (b) physically disabled people, (c) people with learning difficulties and (d)> people with a mental illness have been used in experiments at (i) Porton Down or (ii) other MOD establishments since 1965; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 7 March 1995:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many (a) prisoners of war, (b) physically disabled people, (c) people with learning difficulties, and (d) people with a mental illness have been used in experiments at: (i) Porton Down, or (ii) other MOD establishments since 1965; and if he will make a statement, 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 or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use Service volunteers to:

  (a) assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  (b) develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel, and

  (c) evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.3. Human studies at CBDE are conducted with volunteers drawn from the three Armed Services, namely from amongst the men and women we seek to protect. No prisoners of war, physically disabled volunteers, volunteers with learning difficulties or volunteers with a mental illness has participated in studies by the Ministry of Defence.4. In addition, to ensure that individual Service personnel are both physically and mentally fit before they participate in the human volunteer programme at Porton Down, their Service medical documents are reviewed at CBDE before the volunteers attend for studies. No volunteer is accepted for studies at CBDE with a medical history which indicates a physical disability, a mental illness or a learning difficulty. Finally, all volunteers on arrival at CBDE Porton

  125
  Down are given an initial medical examination to ensure that they are fit before they participate in the study.

  Boarding School Allowance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the cost of private education for children of service men funded by his Ministry for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Soames
  The total cost of boarding school allowance paid by my Department in each year since 1979 is as follows:

  Date

  Amount £

  1979–80

  31,010,000

  1980–81

  47,240,000

  1981–82

  59,960,000

  1982–83

  66,380,000

  1983–84

  72,650,000

  1984–85

  77,870,000

  1985–86

  85,000,000

  1986–87

  93,600,000

  1987–88

  106,580,000

  1988–89

  107,100,000

  1989–90

  104,510,000

  1990–91

  105,610,000

  1991–92

  115,350,000

  1992–93

  116,720,000

  1993–94

  113,610,000

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost limit for each pupil cost per annum in respect of private education of children of servicemen funded by his Ministry.

  Mr. Soames
  Boarding school allowance is paid up to a maximum annual limit, and service parents in receipt are expected to make a contribution of 10 per cent. to the fees. The maximum annual limits admissible for 1994–1995 are as follows:

  Rate

  Per annum £

  Junior

  5,358

  Senior

  6,579

  SENA1

  8,772

  1 Special Educational Needs Allowance

  126
  Where fees are higher than these maximum rates of boarding school allowance, parents are expected to make up any shortfall themselves.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the schools and (b) the number of pupils at each for whom his Department has paid fees for each year since 1990, and if he will give the total number of pupils thus funded in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Soames
  A copy of the most recently complied list of schools which are admissible for parents of service children to claim boarding school allowance was placed in the Library of the House on 16 January 1995. This list includes information on the number of service children attending each school in June 1994. This information is not collected annually, and is therefore not held in this format for each year since 1990. The only additional data available pertains to 1992 and the accuracy of this information can no longer be validated. The total number of pupils for whom boarding school allowance was claimed in each year since 1990 is as follows:

  1990–1991: 17,910

  1991–1992: 16,208

  1992–1993: 15,120

  1993–1994; 12,567

  Abortion
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what grounds for termination of pregnancy were assumed to exist when a service woman was told by the Army that this was one of three options open to her under which her pregnancy need not have required her to be discharged.

  Mr. Soames
  The provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 apply to service women as well as to their civilian counterparts; and grounds for termination of pregnancy must be within those specified under the Act, as certified by two medical practitioners in accordance with the procedures laid down under the Act. Before the services introduced maternity leave, a pregnant service woman would have had three options other than seeking termination of pregnancy. These were(a) choosing to leave the service on pregnancy, without returning in the near future; (b) seeking re-enlistment after giving birth, having made arrangements as a working mother for the care of her child; (c) seeking re-enlistment after giving birth, having had the child adopted.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Career Breaks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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. Dorrell
  The Department of National Heritage was created only in April 1992 and the Royal Parks agency in April 1993. The Historic Royal Palaces agency was created in October 1989. Within these time frames, the latest available figures show that seven staff employed by my Department and its two agencies have applied for career breaks. All of those who applied were women and none have had their employment terminated.

  Tourism
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how he proposes to encourage the extension of tourism to areas of England which have not significantly benefited from it in the past.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The English tourist board will allocate £7 million in this financial year to the regional tourist boards, which are responsible for the promotion of tourism in their areas.

  Tourism projects are also eligible for support from the European regional development fund in selected areas and from the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the average annual rate of growth in expenditure on tourism in each of the member states of the European Union between 1980 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available figures for the average annual growth of international tourism receipts in member states of the European Union between 1980 and 1992 is as follows:

  Percentage

  Austria

  7.2

  Denmark

  9.1

  Finland

  5.3

  France

  9.7

  Germany

  4.4

  Greece

  5.4

  Ireland

  10.8

  Italy

  8.4

  Netherlands

  9.6

  Portugal

  10.3

  Spain

  10.1

  Sweden

  10.2

  United Kingdom

  5.9

  Belgium and Luxembourg

  7.0

  Separate figures for Belgium and Luxembourg are not available.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects the publication of the European Union Green Paper on tourism.
  128
  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department has been informed that the European Commission plans to approve the text of the Green Paper during March. No publication date has yet been set.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the potential of the Internet to promote international awareness of United Kingdom tourism.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department provides funding to the British Tourist Authority which is responsible for promoting international awareness of the United Kingdom as a tourist destination. The BTA undertakes detailed assessments of marketing opportunities abroad. That work has not as yet included an assessment of the potential of Internet.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment his Department has made of the loss to the tourism industry within Great Britain of the withdrawal of all Motorail trains and the loss of sleeping car services between London, Carlisle and Fort William, and between Plymouth and Glasgow.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: My Department has not made such an assessment. However, the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising will take into account representations on the economic benefits of all ScotRail services in his consultations on the passenger service requirement for ScotRail later this year.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he intends to set out the framework for the operation of digital television services; and if he will list those representations that he has received on this matter since 14 July 1994.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We hope to set out later this year the framework that we propose for the operation of digital television services. I have received no representations, but my officials are in touch with the major broadcasters and others who have expressed an interest.

  Independent National Radio Services
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how he plans to ensure quality in independent national radio from 2000 onwards, when the three existing licences will be re-awarded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under the Broadcasting Act 1990, the licensing of independent national radio services is a matter for the Radio Authority, which is required, with respect to the licensing of independent radio services, to facilitate the provision of licensed services, which taken as a whole are of high quality.

  Mr. Roy Tutty
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what salary Mr. Roy Tutty will receive for his secondment to the tourism division of the Department; and what will be the cost to the Exchequer of this appointment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Mr Tutty's salary is a matter for Forte plc and Mr. Tutty to determine. My Department will make a contribution to his salary equivalent to the amount paid to a civil servant in the grade 5 pay range.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total revenue from television licences in 1994 in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Total television licence revenue in the United Kingdom for the financial year 1993–94 was £1,640 million, of which an estimated £144 million was collected in Scotland.

  Children's Play
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for his Department to fund directly the National Voluntary Council for Children's Play.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department currently has no budget for children's play. I understand that the NVCCP has submitted an application to the Sports Council trust company for an extension of its present grant in to 1995–96. In relation to funding for children's play from October 1995, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 2 March 1995,Official Report, column 640.

  Budget Accommodation
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the progress of his study of budget accommodation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department is drawing up plans for a benchmarking initiative, the objective of which is to help accommodation providers to raise both profitability and standards of service. We are working in close co-operation with the Confederation of British Industry on this project. The first step will be to discuss the outline plans with a number of industry representatives, following which I hope to be able to make an early announcement of the full details, including the timetable and methodology.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Grameen Trust
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for funding the Grameen trust training programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are currently considering the Grameen trust's request for funding for its training programme.

  World Bank
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures his Department has taken to ensure that the World bank abides by its own operational guidelines.

  Mr. Baldry
  We expect the World bank to maintain effective control systems—including internal review, internal audit, evaluation and the inspection panel—to ensure adherence to operational policies; and will continue to keep under review the scope for improvements in these systems.
  130
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the review of the World bank's revised disclosure of information policy took place as planned; what further improvements the review indicated were necessary; and what measures he is taking to implement improvements.

  Mr. Baldry
  A report reviewing the World bank's experience in implementing its revised information disclosure policy was completed in January 1995. The report concludes that the bank has made substantial progress, and notes that it is continuing to intensify its efforts in two areas in particular: (i) staff training; and (ii) ensuring that available information is accessible to people in borrowing countries, especially those in project areas. We shall monitor the bank's efforts and make suggestions for improvements as necessary. We welcome the fact that the bank is also drawing on the views of non-governmental organisations to help identify problem areas and possible solutions. The report "Disclosure policy retrospective" is available through the bank's public information centre.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions the Government have withheld funds from any part of the World bank because agreed conditions for disbursal had not been met; if he will give details; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Circumstances have not arisen in which we deemed it necessary to withhold funds on those grounds.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps the World bank is taking to evaluate the effectiveness of its poverty alleviation activities; whether the recommendations of previous evaluations have been implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The World bank prepares an annual report on progress in implementing its poverty reduction strategy. The most recent report—"Poverty reduction and the World Bank: progress in Fiscal 1994", which is available through the bank's public information centre—summarises a wide range of activities designed to help the poor, based on the poverty reduction strategy outlined in the World Development Report 1990. The report notes that lack of effective poverty monitoring remains an issue, and outlines efforts under way to address this. It also acknowledges that slippage in the preparation of country poverty assessments needs to be reduced, without sacrificing quality or ownership by borrowers. We shall he reviewing proposals to strengthen the International Development Association's performance in these areas during the 11th replenishment negotiations.

  International Development Association
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to attach binding conditions for effectiveness in poverty alleviation to any future funding of the International Development Association.

  Mr. Baldry
  We shall be working closely with other donors during discussions on the 11th replenishment of the International Development Association to agree measures which will enhance IDA's effectiveness and strengthen its focus on poverty reduction, sound economic
  131
  management and environmentally sustainable development.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evaluation has been made by his Department of the effectiveness of the conditions attached to(a) the ninth and (b) the 10th replenishment of the International Development Association.

  Mr. Baldry
  The World bank prepared annual reports on progress in implementing IDA-9 objectives. It is doing the same for IDA-10, and the first year's review, "The first year of IDA-10: review of the FY94 programme" is available through the bank's public information centre. We consider these reports present a fair assessment of results achieved. They also note where performance has been mixed, for example, preparation of national environmental action plans and poverty assessments and effective poverty monitoring. We continue to work with other donors for more effective implementation by IDA of its policies.

  Nepal (Hydro Project)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assessment he has made of the World bank's appraisal of the Arun III hydro power project, including the economic analysis and justification; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Before completing our assessment, including reviewing the outcome of the inspection panel's investigation, we need to await a decision by the new Nepalese Government on whether they wish to request International Development Association financing of the project.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will instruct the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank to press for the inspection panel consideration of Arun III to be extended to include proper consideration of alternative schemes.

  Mr. Baldry
  The World bank board has authorised investigation of the three areas recommended by the inspection panel, namely whether the International Development Association policies and procedures have been observed with respect to environmental assessment, indigenous peoples and involuntary resettlement. The panel did not recommend investigation of IDA's compliance with policies for the analysis of alternatives to Arun III. In the circumstances, we see no case for re-opening the board's decision.

  Multilateral Development Banks
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the task force on multilateral development banks was scheduled to start its work; when work started; what has been the ODA's contribution to the work of the task force; what has been achieved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  At its meeting on 26 April 1994, the development committee decided to set up a task force to review the development role being played by the multilateral development banks. These are the World hank, the Asian development bank, the African development bank, the Inter-American development bank and the European hank for reconstruction and 132
  development. Achieving international agreement on the composition and other aspects of the task force took longer than anticipated. The first meeting was held on 6 to 7 December 1994 when a work programme was agreed. The task force will meet a number of times during 1995 and expects to produce its final report about 12 months from now. An interim report will be available to the development committee at its autumn 1995 meeting. The UK representative is a senior ODA official.

  Angola
  Mr. Wilshire
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to provide additional humanitarian aid to the people of Angola.

  Mr. Baldry
  : We have pledged £5 million for humanitarian assistance to Angola in response to the United Nations 1995 appeal.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he is giving to the statement by the second international affairs conference against the embargo on Iraq on 18 and 19 February, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The contents of the statement by the international affairs conference have been noted.

  Our position on sanctions is well known; we believe that there should be no question of lifting sanctions against Iraq until Iraq complies fully with its international obligations under all relevant Security Council resolutions.

  We will continue to press Iraq to put an end to its cynical exploitation of the suffering of its people by accepting UN offers of oil sales to finance the purchase of humanitarian supplies.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he has taken to reinforce the peace process in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  All parties to the conflict in Sri Lanka are well aware of our continued support for a negotiated settlement. We welcome the on-going peace process and stand ready to contribute to the reconstruction of the areas affected by the fighting.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement on forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union.

  Mr. David Davis
  The following meetings are planned:

  March 6–7: Foreign Affairs Council

  March 9: Justice/Interior Council, Environment Council

  March 10: Justice/Interior Council. Research Council

  March 13–14: Transport Council

  133

  March 20: ECOFIN

  March 27: Social Affairs Council

  March 27–28: Agriculture Council

  March 30: Consumer Council

  March 31: Education Council, Youth Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  6–7 March: Foreign Affairs Council

  Provisional agenda:

  Racism and Xenophobia

  Council Report on the Study Group

  Stability Pact

  Former Yugoslavia/Croatia

  Nuclear Non-Proliferation

  Relation with Asia

  Relations with Republic of Korea

  Relations with Russia

  Relations with Slovenia

  Mediterranean policy. State of negotiations with Israel, Morocco, and Tunisia. Preparation for Euro-mediterranean Conference

  Relations with Turkey

  Relations with Malta and Cyprus

  Relations with Lebanon

  Middle East Peace Process

  Trade questions

  Rum

  9–10 March: Justice/Interior Council

  Provisional agenda:

  Adoption of provisional agenda

  Adoption of "A" points

  Fight against terrorism: conclusion of seminar on 17 February 1995, and follow up to the Ministerial debate at Informal council on 26 January 1995.

  EUROPOL

  Presidency oral report on the state of work on the Convention

  Article 2 and annex, remit and objectives

  Article 5, rights of access

  Burden sharing

  Racism and Xenophobia

  Convention on simplified extradition procedures (Presidency hopes it will be adopted)

  Brussels II Convention on enforcement and recognition of judicial decisions in matrimonial matters

  Protection of the financial interests of the communities (fraud) Customs
  Information Systems Convention

  EDU (Europol Drugs Unit)

  Minimum guarantees for Asylum seekers

  Uniform format for visas

  Title VI financing

  9 March: Environment Council

  IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention & Control)

  (common position)

  Directive on ambient air quality

  Revision to Birds Directive (orientation debate)

  Directive on ecological quality of water (orientation debate)

  Revision to Seveso Directive (orientation debate)

  Climate change (draft conclusions)

  Preparation for next meeting of the Commission on Sustainable

  Development (draft conclusions)

  Protection of the Mediterranean (draft conclusions)

  10 March: Research Council

  Research coordination

  Role of Crest

  INTAS

  IMS. Intelligent Manufacturing Systems Agreement Negotiating Mandate

  134

  "A" point. EC/Canada Scientific and Technological Agreement

  13–14 March: Transport Council

  Likely agenda:

  Promotion of rail and combined transport (draft resolution)

  High-speed train interoperability (political agreement)

  Harmonisation of national boatmasters' certificates (common position)

  Working time and training in road transport sector (draft resolution)

  Dangerous goods adviser (common position)

  Carriage of dangerous goods by rail (common position)

  Agreement of mandate for negotiations with Switzerland on road and air transport

  Ro-Ro ferry safety (ISM code) (political agreement)

  Maritime statistics (adoption)

  Maritime policy and external relations (orientation debate)

  Aviation—external relations (orientation debate)

  Aviation—flagging out (draft resolution)

  Trans-European Networks (general debate)

  20 March: ECOFIN

  Provisional agenda:

  Indirect taxation

  Financial services

  Court of Auditors report on 1993 budget

  27 March: Social Affairs Council

  Postal workers directive

  Memorandum on social clauses in trade agreements

  Resolution on implementation of legislation in the social field

  Resolution on the role of women in decision making

  Acquired rights directive (possible)

  27–28 March: Agriculture Council

  Sugar reform

  Price fixing proposals

  Plant Breeders Rights Office

  Set-aside/Agri-environment

  Report on milk quota implementations in Italy and Greece (possible)

  30 March: Consumer Council

  Follow up to Commission's Green Papers on Access to Justice and on Guarantees and After-sales service.

  Discussion of French memorandum on future areas for consumer policy

  Reviews of directives on consumer credit, toys, and cosmetic products
  Labelling of products

  Cross border payments

  Amendments of directives on unit pricing: possible adoption of common position as "A" point

  Distance Selling Directive: common position (likely)

  Precious metals directive

  31 March: Education/Youth Council

  Unconfirmed agenda:

  Decision adopting the European Year of Education and Training

  Resolution on improving and diversifying language learning and teaching within the EU

  Conclusion of Education/training co-operation agreements with the US and Canada

  Recognition of the academic and professional qualifications

  Postgraduate mobility

  Resolution on Youth Information

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will
  135
  make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 6 to 7 February.

  Mr. David Davis
  The Council unanimously agreed the mandate to enable the Commission to open GATT article XXIV.6 negotiations with interested GATT contracting parties on compensation for tariff increases in Austria, Sweden and Finland following their accession to the European Union. No vote was taken. On EU-US relations, M. Juppe reported briefly on his recent visit with Sir Leon Brittan to the US.

  The Presidency and the Commission updated Ministers on preparations for the concluding conference to adopt the stability pact in Paris on 20 to 21 March.

  The Council agreed, without a vote, an EC position on trade policy measures for the mid-term review of the fourth Lomé convention, to present to the African, Caribbean and Pacific side in preparation for the EU-ACP ministerial meeting on 16 to 17 February. The Council also discussed the eighth European development fund, which will finance the second half of the Convention. The Presidency called a special meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 15 February, the eve of the EU-ACP ministerial meeting to discuss the size of the EU offer for EDF VIII.

  The Council discussed current issues in the WTO, and possible new issues for WTO consideration. There was agreement on the importance of ensuring that the WTO was able to function effectively; and that outstanding sectoral negotiations were completed within the timetable agreed at the end of the Uruguay round. The Council asked the article 113 Committee and COREPER to prepare negotiating directives for the outstanding services negotiations for the Council to consider on 6 March. On new issues, the Presidency requested the Commission, in liaison with the Article 113 Committee, to produce discussion documents on the various subjects suggested for WTO consideration at the April 1994 Marrakesh meeting.

  The Council agreed on the need for the early appointment of the WTO Director-General, and decided to make further efforts to promote the candidature of Mr. Ruggiero.

  There was no substantive discussion on rum. The Commission proposals were referred to the working group for further discussion, before returning to the 6 March FAC. Lady Chalker restated UK support for the total abolition of all quotas on ACP and OCT rum by 1 January 1996.

  The Council discussed developments in Chechnya and issued a statement

  The Council discussed the implementation of the G7 action plan on nuclear safety to Ukraine.

  On the Mediterranean, the Commission reported on progress in the negotiations for new agreements with Israel, Morocco and Tunisia.

  The Council discussed the terms for customs union with Turkey and the forthcoming review of the Cypriot application for the EU membership.

  The Council reiterated support for a peaceful resolution of conflict in the former Yugoslavia. They stressed the importance of recognition between the states which emerged from the former Yugoslavia.

  On Croatia, the Council recalled its support for the international conference on the former Yugoslavia's plan for a political solution and called upon the parties to begin
  136
  negotiations. It reaffirmed its support for the presence of UNPROFOR in Croatia.

  The Council reached a political agreement on the data protection directive and accompanying minutes statements. The UK indicated that it would abstain when the directive came as an A point to a future Council.

  On relations with central and eastern Europe, the presidency outlined its plans for implementing the pre-accession strategy for central European associates agreed at the Essen European Council. There were linguistic scrutiny reserves from Finland and Sweden.

  The Council agreed the following unanimously as A points: a partnership agreement with Kyrgyzstan; negotiating positions in the WTO on non-preferential rules of origin; a decision giving continued support to the European Union Administration of the town of Mostar; amendments to the Council's rules of procedure following enlargement; Council regulations on certain imported wines and amendments to regulations on the important of wines, grape juice and grape must.

  Gibraltar Airport
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the British Government's policy as to the future of Gibraltar's airport.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 22 November 1994,Official Report Column 108 by my hon. friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  HIV/AIDS
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the improvement likely to result from the new united secretariat of the WHO global programme on AIDS; and if he will make it his policy to keep the matter under review.

  Mr. Baldry
  The new joint and co-sponsored United Nations programme on HIV/AIDS—due to start in January 1996—will develop common policies and strategies to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic for the six co-sponsoring agencies: World Health Organisation, United Nations Children's Fund, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Population Fund, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, and the World hank. The programme aims to improve co-ordination of UN agency support for HIV/AIDS action at country level, to lead to more effective prevention of HIV infection, and better care for those infected. The progress of the new programme in meeting its objectives will be closely monitored.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring is undertaken of the human rights situation in Nigeria by the British high commission in Lagos; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: Our high commission follows developments in the human rights situation closely. We have regular contacts with a wide

  137
  range of Nigerian human rights organisations and other groups, and have made our concerns clear to the Nigerian Government.

  Zaire (Rwandan Refugees)
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on the UN decision to request units of the army of Zaire to police camps for displaced Rwandese in Zaire; what operational resources the UN has put in place to ensure that the Zairean military authorities comply with international standards, including the protection of the rights of refugees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom has contributed £0.5 million towards the UNHCR's costs for the 50-man international camp security liaison group being set up to monitor the operation and liaise with the Zaire authorities under the agreement on camp security signed between the UNHCR and Zaire.

EMPLOYMENT

  Non-wage Labour Costs
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of high non-wage labour costs on employment prospects.

  Mr. Portillo
  Non-wage labour costs are lower in the United Kingdom than in most countries of the European Union. Higher burdens imposed on employers make it more difficult for them to create jobs.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of two-adult households have(a) two earners or (b) no earners.

  Mr. Oppenehim
  Latest estimates from the summer 1994 labour force survey show that, of two-adult households in which at least one person is of working age, 13 per cent. have neither adult in employment, while 56 per cent. have both adults in employment.

  Child Care
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for improving child care to assist women into employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle).

  Wilton Carpet Workers
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what financial or other assistance he will make available to carpet workers in Wilton who may be offered alternative jobs in Bradford in the wake of the closure of the Wilton royal carpet factory.

  Mr. Paice
  It would be inappropriate for the Government to intervene in an individual's decision to relocate to another part of the country. For those members of staff who decide that they are unable to relocate, the Employment Service and Wiltshire training and enterprise 138
  council have set up a range of initiatives designed to help them secure alternative employment.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment; and what were the equivalent figures in June 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  On the seasonally adjusted basis there were 2,389,700 people claiming unemployment-related benefits in January 1995 compared with 1,067,400 in June 1979.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures he proposes to reduce unemployment in the next two years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government will continue with the policies which created 266,000 new jobs last year, and reduced unemployment by 582,000 since December 1992, and will resist measures which destroy jobs, such as the social chapter, the national minimum wage and a training levy.

  Industrial Relations
  Mr. Reddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is(a) the United Kingdom current strike record and (b) that in Germany; and what were the figures in 1979.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In 1993, the United Kingdom and Germany each lost 600,000 days to labour disputes. In 1979, the United Kingdom lost 29.5 million days, over 50 times West Germany's total of 500,000 million.

  Youth Employment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met his fellow EU Employment Ministers to discuss youth employment.

  Mr. Paice
  Employment matters naturally feature prominently in the discussions my right hon. and hon. Friends have had with their ministerial counterparts. I am pleased to say that, at 14 per cent., youth unemployment in the United Kingdom is much lower than the Community average of 19.6 per cent. This shows the benefits to young people of the Government's policy of promoting flexibility in the labour market.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workplace nurseries are presently in operation.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We do not have the precise figures requested. However, in the 1990 British social attitudes survey, 5 per cent. of employees interviewed said they had an employer's nursery available to them.

  Redundancies, Merseyside
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies have been notified on Merseyside in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  According to the summer 1994 labour force survey, 22,000 people in the north-west had
  139
  been made redundant in the three months prior to interview. Information is not available for Merseyside.

  Single Employment Market
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if there is a single employment market in the European Union.

  Mr. Portillo
  In practice, there is a range of largely separate labour markets within the European Union and its member states.

  Part-time Jobs
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of part-time jobs are taken by women with an earning partner.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Latest estimates from the summer 1994 labour force survey show that 59 per cent. of people whose main job was part time were women with a partner in employment.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the targets proposed for training and enterprise councils in 1995–96.

  Mr. Paice
  Negotiations are currently taking place between the Department and individual training and enterprise councils about contracts for 1995–96. Discussions about targets form part of those negotiations.

  Women
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve the training opportunities available to women.

  Mr. Paice
  Women returners and lone parents may enter training for work without having to be registered as unemployed. They may train on a part-time basis and receive child care support. The Department is also promoting women's training and employment opportunities in England through the fair play initiative.

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the Government's policies for improving women's opportunities in the labour market and beyond.

  Miss Widdecombe
  By promoting a competitive, efficient and flexible labour market, the Government have widened choice and opportunities for everyone, men and women.

  There are 12.1 million women economically active, and women make up 45 per cent. of the work force in employment. Since 1984, there has been a 14 per cent. increase in women working full time and a 19 per cent. increase in women working part time.

  The number of self-employed women has risen by 80 per cent. since 1981. The proportion of women in management and professional jobs increased from 25 per cent. in 1984 to 30 per cent. in 1994.

  The pay gap between men and women continues to narrow and now stands at approximately 20 per cent.—the lowest it has ever been.
  140
  In 1992, the latest year for which data are available, the UK had the second highest female labour market participation rate in the European Union, as then constituted, after Denmark.

  In the EU, only the UK has a lower unemployment rate for women than men.

  To help this process of improvement, the Government have introduced specific policies and programmes. For example, workplace nurseries have been exempted from income tax since 1990.

  The Employment Department is channelling £45 million through training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies to help create up to 50,000 new out-of-school child care places for the over-fives.

  From October 1994, help with child care charges is available to families receiving family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Child care charges of up to £40 are offset against earning when benefit entitlement is calculated. In the longer term, an estimated 150,000 families are expected to benefit from this new measure, including 50,000 families who are expected to take up work as a direct result of this change.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is consulting on ways to achieve my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's target to provide, over time, a pre-school place for all four-year-olds whose parents wish to take it up.

  In addition, "Fair Play for Women"—a joint Government/Equal Opportunities Commission partnership—was launched in April 1994 to tackle the barriers facing women in economic and social life. Regional consortia have been established in each of the 10 Government office regions in England and each consortium is developing and implementing an "Agenda for Action" based on local priorities. Chwarae Teg, set up in south Wales in 1992, now covers the whole of Wales in a programme to expand women's participation in the work force at all levels.

  In December 1994, the Government established a development unit on women in science, engineering and technology—SET—to promote the role of women in SET.

  In other fields, there has also been much progress. The proportion of public appointments held by women increased from 23 per cent. in 1990 to 30 per cent. in September 1994.

  In health, the NHS is now screening over 80 per cent. of eligible women nationally for cervical cancer.

  In 1992, more than two thirds of breast cancer screening programmes exceeded the 70 per cent. screening uptake target.

  On domestic violence, the Government have set up interdepartmental groups at official and ministerial level to co-ordinate Government action to tackle this serious issue. Government-funded publicity campaigns have been mounted in England, Scotland and Wales to increase awareness of domestic violence. In Northern Ireland a publicity campaign, jointly funded by the Northern Ireland Office, the Department of Health and Social

  141
  Services and the Northern Ireland Women's Aid Federation is due to be launched very shortly.

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Government's policies are helping long-term unemployed people to find jobs.

  Mr. Portillo
  I believe that Government policies, to improve the operation of the labour market and to help the unemployed into jobs, have contributed to the fall in the number of long-term unemployed.

  Training
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further discussions he has had with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress about provisions for training.

  Mr. Paice
  My colleagues and I regularly meet the CBI and the TUC to discuss employment and training issues.

  Labour Market Reforms
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the Government's labour market reforms on levels of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Claimant unemployment in the United Kingdom has fallen by 582,000 since its peak in December 1992 and is now well below the EC average. I believe that Government policies to improve the operation of the labour market have been an important factor.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met other EU Employment Ministers to discuss the social chapter; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have not discussed the matter directly in the Social Affairs Council, but the Government have reaffirmed that they will not accept the draft social chapter which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister refused to agree at Maastricht.

  Part-time Study
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the basis and source for the estimate that some 80,000 unemployed people are currently studying under the 21-hour rule; and how he intends to monitor the impact that the reduction to guided learning hours will have after April 1996; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The basis for the estimate that about 80,000 people are currently studying part-time while claiming unemployment benefits is information

  31 March 1990

  31 March 1991

  31 March 1992

  31 March 1993

  31 March 1994

  Remploy

  8,738

  8,630

  8,591

  8,576

  8,654

  Local Authority Workshops

  4,276

  4,132

  3,905

  3,639

  3,544

  Voluntary Workshops

  1,200

  1,177

  1,155

  1,199

  1,164

  Local Authority Placements

  3,010

  3,338

  3,438

  3,502

  3,602

  Voluntary Placements

  3,426

  3,500

  3,548

  3,708

  3,859

  142
  from claims and the labour force survey. The figure includes those studying under the 21-hour rule.

  This is not a reduction. Courses of up to 16 guided learning hours may, of course, be supplemented by private study as long as this does not affect the individual's availability for, or efforts to find work.

  Surveys will continue to be used to monitor the number of people studying part time while looking for work. We do not expect any change in the numbers of claimants helped or in the costs of the scheme.

  South Thames Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money was not drawn by the South Thames training and enterprise council from his Department in respect of activity undertaken before period 9 in the year 1994–95.

  Mr. Paice
  South Thames training and enterprise council was given a budget by the Employment Department for the whole of 1994–95 to cover training and business support programmes. I expect that this budget will be totally drawn down by the end of the financial year.

  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what funds(a) from his Department, and (b) from European sources which were available to South Thames TEC prior to the appointment of receivers, had not been claimed at the time by the TEC.

  Mr. Paice
  South Thames training and enterprise council was given budgets for the whole of 1994–95 to fund Employment Department training and business support programmes and European social fund programmes. I expect that these budgets will be totally drawn down by the end of the financial year.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled people were employed in(a) Remploy, (b) local authority workshops, (c) voluntary run workshops, (d) local authority sheltered placements and (e) voluntary organisation sheltered placements in each of the last five years.

  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. Peter Thurnham, dated 7 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of disabled people who were employed on the Supported (formerly Sheltered) Employment scheme during the last five years. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.The information you requested is shown in the table below. This shows the number employed at 31 March each year in each type of provision. The Remploy numbers shown relate to a yearly average.I hope this is helpful.143
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from employers and business organisations calling for firms employing fewer than 20 people to be exempted from a legislative requirement not to discriminate against disabled people; and if he will place such representations in the Library.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Seventy-two employers or employer associations responded to the Government consultative document "A Consultation on Government Measures to Tackle Discrimination Against Disabled People" on the issue of whether small firms should be excluded from the proposed employment right for disabled people. Of those that expressed a clear preference, six employer associations and one employer were in favour of exempting small firms and three employer associations and 10 employers were against.

  It is not our policy to publish particular responses to the consultation, but a copy of the analysis of responses has been placed in the Library.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people who have a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities would be considered as(a) unsuitable for employment, (b) less suitable for employment than other people and (c) significantly impeded from performing their employment duties.

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of people, (a) by type of disability and (b) by age who have a progressive condition which will lead to them (i) registering as disabled or (ii) having a physical or mental impairment which will have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The labour force survey provides information about people who have a disability or health problem which they expect to last over 12 months and which affects the type of work that they can do. The available information from the summer 1994 LFS is shown in the following table.

  It is not possible to say how many people with a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities would be considered unsuitable for employment, or less suitable for employment than other people. This would depend on the particular circumstances of the individual, and the nature of the employment in question. Nor is it possible to estimate by type of disability and age the number of people who have a progressive condition and age the number of people who have a progressive condition which would lead them to registering as disabled. Registration under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1994 is voluntary and only a minority of disabled people choose to register.

  Statistics are not available on people who have a progressive condition which will lead to them having a physical or mental impairment which will have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
  144

  Numbers of people of working age who have a health problem or disability which limits the king of paid work they can do, and which they expect to last more than 12 months by type of disability and age

  Great Britain—Summer 1994

  Thousands

  All ages

  16-24 year olds

  24-49 year olds

  50—59-64 year olds1

  All

  3,696

  384

  1,610

  1,703

  Arms, legs, hands, feet, back and neck

  2,196

  120

  930

  1,146

  Difficulty in seeing

  155

  32

  69

  55

  Difficulty in hearing

  114

  14

  44

  56

  Skin conditions, allergies

  162

  51

  78

  32

  Chest and breathing problems

  356

  80

  156

  120

  Heart, blood, pressure and circulation

  222

  –2

  67

  151

  Stomach liver, kindey and digestion

  80

  –2

  44

  29

  Diabetes

  75

  14

  34

  27

  Depression and bad nerves

  96

  –2

  59

  30

  Epilepsy

  51

  10

  35

  –2

  Severe or specific learning difficulties

  48

  23

  20

  –2

  Mental illness, phobia and panics

  46

  –2

  28

  13

  Other problems or disabilities

  92

  16

  44

  31

  1 Women aged 50–59 Men aged 50–64

  2 Estimates below 10,000 are not shown.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people registered under section 6 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 are(a) below pension age, (b) pension age to 74, (c) 75 to 84 and (d) 85 years and older, by type of disability and sex.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The register of disabled people established by the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 is kept locally, by the Employment Services's placing assessment and counselling teams. The number of names in the register is counted annually, in April. On 18 April 1994, there were 374,182 registered disabled people: of these, 277,294 were male and 96,888 were female.

  I regret that information is not collected centrally on the numbers of registered disabled people by type of disability, or by age band. There is no upper age limit for registration. Disabled people who intend to remain in the labour market after reaching pension age may continue to be registered as disabled if they meet the eligibility criteria. However, the majority of registered disabled people are likely to be below pension age.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the register of disabled persons maintained under section 6 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 would be considered to he(a) unsuitable for employment, (b) less suitable for employment than other people and (c) significantly impeded from performing their employment duties.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested. The eligibility criteria for registration as disabled under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts include being capable of some form of employment, under either open or supported conditions. However, the register does not classify
  145
  registered disabled people in terms of their relative suitability for employment or the extent to which they may be impeded in performing particular employment duties.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for employment what role will be played by adjudication officers in deciding whether a claimant's application to undertake guided learning in further education complies with clause 7(8) of the proposed jobseeker's agreement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The jobseeker and the employment officer will seek to draw up a jobseeker's agreement. If they are unable to agree, either party can refer the proposed terms and conditions of the jobseeker's agreement to an adjudication officer.

  The adjudication officer will determine if the proposed terms and conditions of the agreement—including any part-time study—would allow the jobseeker, if he complied with them, to meet the conditions of jobseeker's allowance. In making his determination, the adjudication officer will expect to have regard to the legislation and any relevant case law. He will also be assisted by any guidance issued by the chief adjudication officer.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how employment officers will evaluate whether or not private study periods undertaken by claimants within their jobseeker's contract in support of part-time guided learning interferes with attempts to seek employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The jobseeker will be asked to provide the employment officer with evidence that he is available for, and actively seeking, employment. This will normally happen when the jobseeker attends the jobcentre for an interview. If, in the employment officer's opinion, the evidence is insufficient, he will refer the matter to an independent adjudication officer for a determination.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage employment officers to build in literacy training into the jobseeker's contract in cases where it is evident the claimant of benefit has fared poorly in genuine attempts to secure employment due to illiteracy or poor literacy.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The jobseeker's agreement will record the steps that a jobseeker will take to get back to work. It is not a contract. If the employment officer and the jobseeker identify that a jobseeker's jobsearch would benefit from help with his reading or writing, this can be noted on the agreement and appropriate action taken. Help can be provided, if appropriate, through supportive job clubs, special restart courses and training for work.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for employment, pursuant to his letter of 16 February to all hon. Members, what evaluations were made using what database and what projections, in coming to the conclusion that there would be no reduction in the number of benefit claimants entitled to benefit under the new proposals for people enroling on part-time courses while claiming jobseeker's allowance.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Calculations were based largely on the results of a survey carried out by the Further Education Funding Council in 1993–94. This provided separate details of the distribution of student's guided learning hours for students on courses classified as full time and part time. Currently, students pursuing full-time 146
  courses cannot qualify for social security benefits, while those studying part time may do so, subject to meeting the other benefit conditions.

  From these data, it is possible to deduce the number of students on courses classified as full time whose weekly guided learning hours were up to 16, relative to the number formerly classified as part time whose weekly hours were more than 16. The new threshold, based on this information, is designed to allow the same number of people to study while receiving benefit as do so currently.

  "Breathe Freely" Campaign
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans his Department has to evaluate the effectiveness of the Health and Safety Executive "Breathe Freely" awareness campaign of occupational asthma; what consideration he has given to extending it beyond April 1995; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In May 1995, the Health and Safety Executive will be launching a major new three to four-year campaign to help improve employers' management of health risks. The first year will include a major emphasis on respiratory sensitisers. This campaign will therefore build on work of the "Breathe Freely" campaign.

  During the autumn, the HSE intends to commission an independent evaluation of the impact of the "Breathe Freely" campaign. In the longer term, the HSE will continue to monitor the incidence of occupational asthma to determine the effectiveness of the campaigns.

  Occupational Asthma
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate his Department has made of the total cost to industry of occupational asthma.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In 1992, the Health and Safety Executive estimated that occupational asthma accounted for £53 million annually in lost output.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers have been prosecuted for failing to protect workers from exposure to hazardous substances that include respiratory sensitisers under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None. The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 came only into force on 16 January 1995. Under the COSHH Regulations 1988, from October 1989 until December 1994 there were a total of 282 prosecutions of which 103 were under regulation 7 of COSHH, which specifically requires employers to prevent or control exposure to substances hazardous to health.

  Coal Mine Accidents
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many accidents have occurred in coal mines(a) in each month of 1994 and (b) since the beginning of 1995; and how many of them in each period have resulted in serious injury or death.
  147
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is not yet available for the whole period.

  However, information is available for the period January to March 1994 and is shown in the following table.

  Total accidents

  Fatalities

  Major injuries

  January

  75

  0

  24

  February

  61

  0

  19

  March

  57

  0

  8

  Figures for the year April 1994 to March 1995 have not been validated and will not be confirmed until the Health and Safety Commission's annual report is published in November 1995.

  The statistics will be available by month from that date.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Defence Exports
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what special facilities are available from the Export Credits Guarantee Department to British exporters of defence equipment over and above the support granted to British exporters of other goods and services.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Coal Subsidies
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the subsidy outlined in the White Paper "Prospects for Coal", Cm 2235, will end; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Page
  Since the coal subsidy was announced in March 1993, 10 offers have been made. To date, £9,053,711 has been paid in respect of almost 800,000 tonnes of coal delivered since April 1993. The majority of offers have been to the private sector, most helping to sustain new production from pits where British Coal had ceased operations.

  It was envisaged at the time of the White Paper that the subsidy would only be temporary. The Government indicated then that the scheme would finish at about the time of privatisation. The "Guidelines for Applicants" explain that the subsidy is available only for the period up to the end of March 1995. Only deliveries made before then could be eligible for subsidy. Any applications which remain outstanding should be submitted to my Department no later than 31 March 1995.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will identify the key issues arising out of the G7 conference on the information society; and what steps his Department will be taking to address them.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 2 March 1995,Official Report, columns 715–16. The main area of follow-up to arise from the G7 conference will be the implementation of the 1 1 collaborative pilot projects
  148
  which were launched by the G7 Ministers to demonstrate the potential of the information society. The UK will be playing an active role in the implementation of these projects. I shall be asking the multi-media industry advisory group—which I established to advise me on multi-media and information highways—to advise on how best to take this work forward. I am also in contact with other Government Departments.

  The DTI will be looking in more detail at standards, interconnection and intellectual property issues raised at the conference.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the aggregate payments made to the Ministry of Defence, Defence Export Services Organisation or IMS Ltd. in each year since 1979 in respect of claims arising from contracts with ECGD support.

  Mr. Needham
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose information about the commercial relations between the ECGD and individual third parties unless the relevant parities have agreed to this. I can, however, inform the hon. Member that the ECGD has made no payments to the Ministry of Defence, of which DESO forms a part, in respect of claims on ECGD-supported contracts.

  Konver
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the spending to date on Konver I funding within the United Kingdom with particular reference to the possibility of reallocating unspent funding to other UK regions.

  Mr. Eggar
  Konver I projects are, generally, progressing well. Some underspends have been identified, as is normal with such programmes, and where possible recommitment of grant will be made. The Konver monitoring committee will consider the position at its next meeting.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in respect of the information about European regional development fund and European social fund contained in the Official Report, 19 January, columns 593–94, if he will break down the figures for each local authority in the United Kingdom.

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

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the change in the volume of United Kingdom exports of manufactures(a) to third countries and (b) to the EEC in each year between 1989 and 1992 when the deutschmark appreciated against non-ERM currencies.
  149
  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows.

  Change in volume of United Kingdom exports of manufactures

  Year

  (a)to countries outside the EU Per cent.

  (b)to EU countries Per cent.

  1989

  +5

  +11

  1990

  +2

  +12

  1991

  -6

  +9

  1992

  +1

  +2

  Source:

  Tables A 17 and A 18 of "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", Central Statistical Office.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the value, volume and unit value of imports and exports of manufacturers in each of the main manufacturing countries.

  Mr. Needham
  The information on the main manufacturing countries' value of trade in manufactures is given in the table. Information on the volume of imports and exports of manufactures for the UK, Germany, Sweden, and Japan is regularly published in "OECD Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Corresponding information for the other main manufacturing countries is not readily available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. Unit value indices for exports of manufactures for the main manufacturing countries are regularly published by the Central Statistical Office in "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Corresponding information on import unit values of manufactures is not readily available, and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Main manufacturing countries' trade in manufactures1 1993

  US $ millions

  Country

  Imports

  Exports

  United Kingdom

  162,087

  146,670

  Belgium-Luxembourg2

  88,597

  97,029

  France

  160,960

  170,705

  Germany

  249,097

  329,165

  Italy

  102,449

  159,473

  Netherlands

  92,859

  88,754

  Sweden

  36,846

  46,817

  Switzerland

  53,204

  61,270

  United States

  475,052

  341,238

  Canada

  109,601

  90,638

  Japan3

  125,150

  354,804

  Notes:

  1 Manufactures are defined as sections 5 to 8 of the standard international trade classification.

  2

  3 Includes Section 9.

  Source:

  OECD series A, OECD series C, UN series D, CSO.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department gives to 150
  businesses developing closed circuit television and other kinds of support for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The normal range of industry support schemes is available to firms developing products for this market. The Department does not keep statistics in a form which would indicate the numbers of firms which may have benefited from assistance with projects involving products for the disabled.

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the report of the Director of Fair Trading on the brewing industry.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade expects to receive the report when the inquiry has been completed to the satisfaction of the Director General of Fair Trading. When announcing the inquiry on 7 February, the Office of Fair Trading indicated that it expected it to last three months, although this is dependent on receiving the full co-operation of the industry.

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the consultants retained by his Department in connection with the sale of British Coal giving in each case the fees paid.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 21 July 1994,Official Report, columns 522–23.

WALES

  Career Breaks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. Redwood
  Eighty-five women and no men in my Department—including Cadw—have applied for career breaks in the last five years. None of these has had her employment terminated.

  Community Areas and Councils
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each county and district council area in Wales and for Wales as a whole the number of(a) community areas, (b) community and town councils and (c) community or town councils which have (i) ceased to exist or (ii) been established during each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 February 1995, c.763–64.]: Unfortunately, some district councils have provided inaccurate information. The correct figures are set out in the following table:
  151

  Numbers of community areas and town/community councils in Wales

  County councils

  District/borough councils

  Number of community areas

  Number of town/community councils

  Clwyd

  127

  122

  Alyn and Deeside

  13

  13

  Colwyn

  19

  16

  Delyn

  21

  21

  Glyndwr

  35

  35

  Rhuddlan

  10

  8

  Wrexham Maelor

  29

  29

  Dyfed

  202

  202

  Carmarthen

  41

  41

  Ceredigion

  51

  51

  Dinefwr

  23

  23

  Llanelli

  9

  9

  Preseli

  Pembrokeshire

  52

  52

  South Pembrokeshire

  26

  26

  Gwent

  98

  67

  Blaenau Gwent

  9

  5

  Islwyn

  12

  0

  Monmouth

  32

  32

  Newport

  29

  14

  Torfaen

  16

  16

  Gwynedd

  122

  122

  Aberconwy

  18

  18

  Arfon

  17

  17

  Dwyfor

  17

  17

  Meirionnydd

  30

  30

  Ynys Mon

  40

  40

  Mid Glamorgan

  85

  50

  Cynon Valley

  11

  3

  Merthyr Tydfil

  12

  1

  Ogwr

  22

  22

  Rhondda

  16

  0

  Rhymney Valley

  14

  14

  Taff Ely

  10

  10

  Powys

  108

  108

  Brecknock

  36

  36

  Montgomeryshire

  45

  45

  Radnorshire

  27

  27

  South Glamorgan

  54

  28

  Cardiff

  30

  5

  Vale of Glamorgan

  24

  23

  West Glamorgan

  69

  43

  Port Talbot

  12

  0

  Llim Valley

  15

  15

  Neath

  14

  14

  Swansea

  28

  14

  Total for Wales

  865

  742

  Industrial Output
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the estimate total output of production industries in Wales at(a) factor cost and (b) current prices for (i) 1993, (ii) 1990 and (iii) 1987; and if he will make a statement.
  152
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Total output of production industries in Wales at factor cost and current prices if estimated by the Central Statistical Office to have been (i) £7,111 million in 1993, (ii) £6,702 million in 1990 and (iii) £5,420 million 1987.

  Minority Languages Charter
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects Her Majesty's Government to signify their approval of the Council for Europe charter of minority languages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Government Departments with an interest in the European charter for regional or minority languages are still considering its implication for the United Kingdom. The decision on whether to sign the charter must take into account the situation of each of the indigenous minority languages spoken within the United Kingdom.

  Llanrwst Bypass
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which figures are being used by his Department for the cost-benefit analysis for the proposed Llanrwst bypass; if he will recalculate the cost-benefit analysis using the current figures submitted by a local group to his Department on 8 December 1994, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The cost-benefit analysis displayed at the 1993 public consultation on the proposed A470 Llanrwst bypass was based on a 1988 traffic survey. A further traffic survey is to be undertaken shortly and the results of that survey will be used in any recalculation of the analysis. The traffic information supplied by the local group is not statistically robust enough to be used in that way.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations have taken place with local authorities in Wales on their opinion on the proposals contained in paragraph 128 and 129 of the Government consultation paper on radioactive waste policy.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  These proposals were included in the Government's recent consultation document "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy—Preliminary Conclusions". It was sent to all local authorities in Wales and representations were received from South Glamorgan and Gwynedd county councils and Ynys Môn borough council.

  NHS Administrative Costs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the administrative costs of the NHS in Wales for each year since 1979 in(a) cash prices and (b) current prices.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is not available in cash terms. The following table shows the reported costs in
  153
  column 1 and those amounts converted to 1993–94 prices in column 2.

  Administrative costs of the NHS in Wales

  (1) £000

  (2) £000

  1991–92

  67,495

  72,330

  1992–93

  68,298

  70,388

  1993–94

  65,579

  65,579

  Source:

  Annual accounts of district health authorities, Welsh Health Common Services Authority, Family health services authorities, NHS trusts and Health Promotion Wales.

  Notes:

  1. The figure for the cost of administration is taken to be that covering authority administration and purchasing expenses. This represents the total revenue expenditure on the pay and accommodation costs of staff of all disciplines and their support staff employed at headquarters levels together with the costs of the purchaser function. They exclude administration support in hospital departments and at other local levels which is regarded as operational expenditure.

  2. 1993–94 figures are provisional and the latest available. It is not possible to provide information on a consistent basis for the years prior to 1991–92 because of changes to the format of accounts as a consequence of the NHS reforms.

  Local Environment Charter
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the response he has received from county and district councils to the model charter, "Your Council and the Environment", issued on 25 November 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales sent copies of the local environment charter to all the county and district councils in Wales at the end of November 1993. Feedback received suggests that the document was generally well received; and many councils in Wales have developed their own environmental charters.

  Training for Work
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what is the expected outturn for each training and enterprise council in Wales for training for work with respect to training weeks used by those training after finding work.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is provided in the following table:

  Number of employed status training weeks expected to be delivered in 1994–95

  Number

  Gwent

  10,285

  Mid-Glamorgan

  11,435

  North-East Wales

  11,058

  Powys

  2,882

  South Glamorgan

  3,505

  Targed

  1,451

  West Wales

  6,262

  Wales

  46,878

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rateable Values
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to carry out a general revaluation of rateable values in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The current valuation list was published on 31 December 1975 and came into effect on 1 April 1976. Since that time, major shifts in rental patterns have taken place in Northern Ireland and these are not reflected in the net annual values appearing in the list. The relative antiquity of the present list has given rise to many anomalies between different areas and between different classes of property, particularly in the non-domestic sector. A revaluation of the whole of the non-domestic sector will, therefore, be undertaken by the Valuation and Lands Agency and work on this will commence immediately. The domestic sector is not being reviewed at this time but the situation will be kept under review.

  The new valuation list will be published on or before 31 December 1996 and will come into effect on 1 April 1997. Any ratepayer who is aggrieved by his or her valuation will have a statutory right of appeal.

  Turf Lodge Area, Belfast
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many people in the Turf Lodge area of west Belfast are currently receiving social security benefits of any kind;

  (2) how many people in the Turf Lodge area applied for (a) disability living allowance and (b) attendance allowance in each of the last three years up to the end of 1994.

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

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in the Turf Lodge area have been unemployed for longer than three years.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is not available. However, the Turf Lodge area falls within the boundaries of the Upper Springfield ward and at January 1995, the latest date for which information is available, 355 people in this ward had been unemployed for longer than three years.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in the Turf Lodge area are currently in receipt of(a) disability living allowance, (b) attendance allowance and (c) housing benefit.

  Mr. Moss
  Statistics on social security benefits administered by the Social Security Agency cannot he broken down into small geographic areas without incurring disproportionate costs.

  The number of people in the rented sector in the Turf Lodge area who are currently in receipt of housing benefit is 586. The number of owner-occupiers in the area in receipt of housing benefit cannot be provided as this information is only kept at district council level.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people from the Turf Lodge area are currently employed on action for community employment schemes.
  155
  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Dr. Joe Hendron, dated 3 March 1995:
  Your recent parliamentary question to the Secretary of State regarding the number of people from the Turf Lodge area currently employed under ACE has been passed to me for reply.In the absence of statistical information specifically relating to the Turf Lodge area, this response is based on ACE participants resident in the BT11 postal code area which, as your know, encompasses Turf Lodge. On 1st March 1995, 433 persons from the BT11 area were employed by 46 separate ACE Sponsors. Of course ACE Sponsors are not restricted to geographical areas from which they may recruit and it is therefore difficult to provide data which relates strictly to Turf Lodge.You will be interested to know also that one of the organisations funded by the Agency under ACE is Turf Lodge Enterprise Scheme Ltd which primarily serves the Turf Lodge area. Although its employees are not recruited exclusively from the Turf Lodge area, the company currently receives funding to employ 70 people and can attract annual funding of more than £376,000.I hope you find this information helpful.

  Career Breaks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Sir John Wheeler
  In the last five years, 338 males and 773 females in the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office have applied for career breaks. Eleven of those individuals have had their employment terminated.

  Framework Document
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is yet in a position to announce the result of his Department's inquiry into who was responsible for leaking parts of the framework document to The Times; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  A senior member of the Northern Ireland Office who has had no previous involvement in the work of the joint framework document is conducting an inquiry into the source of the leak. A confidential report will be sent to the permanent under-secretary at the Northern Ireland Office upon completion of the inquiry and further action will be taken as necessary.

  Punishment Beatings
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many punishment beatings have been recorded since the announcements of the ceasefires in 1994.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Since 31 August 1994 to 26 February 1995 there have been 88 punishment beatings recorded.

  Prior Options Studies
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for a further programme of prior options studies to be undertaken by Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office.
  156
  Sir John Wheeler
  I have decided, following an examination of the remaining executive activities being undertaken within the Northern Ireland civil service and the Northern Ireland Office, that prior options studies would be appropriate for each of the areas listed. These studies will determine for each area whether agency status or other options would be appropriate. Comments from interested parties will be welcome when commencement of the prior options studies is announced.

  Area

  Study completion date

  DANI

  Forestry Service

  December 1995

  DANI

  Agricultural Colleges

  June 1996

  DANI

  Agricultural Development Service

  June 1996

  DANI

  Veterinary Service

  December 1996

  DFP

  Government Purchasing Service

  May 1995

  DFP

  Recruitment

  June 1995

  In addition, the study previously announced of possible agency status for the superannuation branches of the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Health and Social Services will now be extended to embrace the teachers' superannuation branch of the Department of Education of Northern Ireland. The proposed completion date for this enlarged study is June 1995. A prior options study of the urban affairs area in the Department of the Environment was completed in December and is under consideration, and a prior options study of the Department of Economic Development's companies registry has been similarly completed. These two studies are in addition to those included in the announcement made on 18 January 1994, Official Report, columns 521–22.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each site of special scientific interest for which development permission has been given(a) by a local authority and (b) by his Department

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department maintains no central record of planning permissions in sites of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times development permission on a site of special scientific interest has been refused by(a) local authorities and (b) his Department, for each year since 1979.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department maintains no central record of planning permissions refused in sites of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many development plans on sites of special scientific interest have been refused by local authorities and consequently given permission on appeal to his Department, for each year since 1979.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department maintains no central record of planning permissions given on appeal in sites of special scientific interest.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list in rank order the metropolitan councils outside London showing the totals held in reserves at the latest available date;

  (2) if he will list in rank order the London boroughs showing the totals held in reserves at the latest available date.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The latest available estimates of the level of reserves as at 1 April 1994 are given below. The authorities are ranked by order of reserves excluding those held by schools, non-LMS; schools' reserves are shown separately, LMS. The first column, "Non-LMS reserves", includes funds, which may be substantial, held for specified purposes which may not be available to the council for general use—for example, funds to finance capital projects to which the authority is committed; and insurance funds where the authority is bearing its own insurance risk. These estimates are subject to amendment as authorities finalise their accounts. Compatible data on the use of balances in 1994–95 which would be needed to derive an estimate of the level of reserves at 1 April 1995 are not yet available.

  Estimated level of reserves at 1 April 1994

  Non-LMS £000

  LMS £000

  London boroughs

  Islington

  –5,773

  2,548

  Brent

  –214

  4,545

  Lewisham

  1,278

  7,993

  Hounslow

  2,576

  4,884

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,694

  1,803

  Merton

  2,717

  2,441

  Lambeth

  3,050

  450

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,948

  2,390

  Richmond upon Thames

  4,205

  2,116

  Camden

  4,690

  4,757

  Waltham Forest

  5,284

  5,330

  Sutton

  7,643

  1,808

  Bexley

  7,704

  4,699

  Hillingdon

  10,117

  2,675

  Greenwich

  10,950

  5,729

  Tower Hamlets

  11,911

  4,200

  Hackney

  12,521

  2,179

  Havering

  13,734

  3,676

  Haringey

  14,332

  4,312

  Barnet

  14,744

  4,508

  Southwark

  15,152

  2,723

  Redbridge

  15,417

  3,385

  Newham

  18,505

  4,695

  Westminster

  18,659

  3,722

  Harrow

  22,191

  2,699

  Enfield

  23,742

  5,527

  Kensington and Chelsea

  24,231

  1,382

  Croydon

  28,307

  5,606

  Ealing

  40,891

  2,791

  Barking and Dagenham

  41,766

  3,136

  Wandsworth

  54,547

  2,811

  Bromley

  74,093

  3,154

  City of London

  204,706

  73

  Metropolitan districts

  Bradford

  –2,139

  12,287

  Sefton

  3,034

  5,610

  Wirral

  3,992

  3,687

  Walsall

  4,262

  4,033

  Tameside

  4,977

  1,303

  North Tyneside

  5,269

  373

  Knowsley

  6,066

  1,817

  158

  Estimated level of reserves at 1 April 1994

  Non-LMS £000

  LMS £000

  Manchester

  7,253

  2,912

  Sheffield

  7,326

  5,014

  St. Helens

  7,932

  4,262

  Bury

  8,000

  2,225

  Liverpool

  8,337

  9,486

  South Tyneside

  8,593

  1,859

  Doncaster

  9,373

  7,197

  Wigan

  9,774

  4,197

  Calderdale

  10,045

  2,311

  Rochdale

  10,582

  211

  Bolton

  10,850

  2,291

  Stockport

  11,183

  2,613

  Coventry

  11,194

  4,305

  Wakefield

  13,614

  3,686

  Rotherham

  14,342

  3,128

  Salford

  15,919

  2,476

  Gateshead

  16,636

  1,625

  Wolverhampton

  17,299

  4,301

  Solihull

  19,218

  4,581

  Barnsley

  19,412

  3,081

  Kirklees

  21,833

  4,214

  Sandwell

  23,093

  5,756

  Trafford

  26,964

  2,169

  Dudley

  27,066

  1,493

  Sunderland

  29,592

  2,053

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  31,659

  4,271

  Oldham

  33,508

  2,381

  Leeds

  41,207

  4,728

  Birmingham

  89,526

  16,696

  Source:

  Level of reserves (outturn) at 1/4/93 + / - appropriations to/withdrawals from reserves 1993–94 (RS return for 1993–94).

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to relax constraints on spending for local authorities and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Secretary of State announced his provisional capping criteria for local authorities on 1 February. He will announce his final criteria once authorities have set their budget requirements for 1995–96.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the value of reserves for the core cities of Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield, Manchester and Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) to my hon. Friend, the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) earlier today. This provided data on the level of reserves held by each metropolitan district.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra finance would be available to local authorities in 1995–96 if the capping level for all local authorities was set at 3.2 per cent. above their 1994–95 budgets.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  If the capping limits for 1995–96 were set at 3.2 per cent. above local authorities' 1994–95 budgets—net of a local precepts and adjusted for various changes of function, boundary and financing—they would claw a little under £600 million of additional public expenditure compared to the cap limits implied by the current provisional capping criteria.

  Government Cars (Palace of Westminster)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to stop Government drivers within the Government car pool parking their vehicles with their engines running within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Government car service drivers are under clear instructions while parked within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster to keep their vehicles engines to a minimum consistent with passenger and security requirements. That instruction has been re-inforced recently by GCS management.

  Coalfields Communities Campaign
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration was given to the attendance of his Ministers at the launch by the Coalfields Communities Campaign of its campaign on pollution of rivers by water from abandoned mine workings.

  Mr. Atkins
  The invitation to attend was given the usual careful consideration. We were aware of the views of the Coalfields Communities Campaign in its response to the consultation paper "Paying for our Past" and in subsequent correspondence.

  Council House Sales, Westminster
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses were sold in each of the wards within the borough of Westminster in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Tables showing the available information on total council house sales for each English local authority for every financial year since 1979–80 and a cumulative total to March 1994 are in the Library.

  Information about disposals at ward level is not collected by the Department.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he had made to the district auditor's interim report on Westminster city council's designated sales policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  No response has been made. This is a matter for the local authority and its appointed auditor.

  Ferro-Alloys Chimney (Emissions)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the results of the monitoring that has been carried out by his Department of the emissions from the Ferro-Alloys chimney in Glossop, Derbyshire for the last 12 months for which figures are available, giving the average and maximum levels for each month.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has not carried out any monitoring itself. However, the company has supplied information about sulphur dioxide releases over the 12-month period to the end of February 1995. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is writing to the company to seek its consent to release this information, and I will be writing to the hon. Member.

  Single-tier Local Authorities
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many single-tier local authorities have 160
  formally merged their housing and social services departments.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the single regeneration budget has a designated fund for promoting the development of electronic village halls and cyber skills by local councils.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Ms Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the ratio of the single regeneration budget to the housing association-approved development programme in(a) the west Midlands and (b) London; and what considerations underlie the variation between (a) and (b).

  Mr. Curry
  Planned single regeneration budget expenditure for 1994–95 is some £175 million in the west midlands and £374 million in London. Allocations made at the start of 1994–95 from the Housing Corporation's approved development programme were some £126 million and £465 million respectively.

  The ratios sought are thus (a) 1.4: 1 and (b) 0.8:1. As the two programmes have different objectives, outputs and areas of operation there is no reason why there should be any relationship between these ratios.

  Non-hazardous Waste
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) for what reason the planned European Commission timetable for the development of the proposed draft directive on the incineration of non-hazardous waste has been delayed beyond that originally proposed by Directorate General XI;

  (2) what is the current status of the proposed draft EU directive on the incineration of non-hazardous waste; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations have been made by his Department regarding the lack of cost-benefit analysis contained in the draft EU proposal for a directive on the incineration of non-hazardous waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Commission tabled a first draft of this proposed directive in April 1994 and a second draft in August 1994. Three meetings of Government experts have been held, two of which included representatives of trade associations and environmental bodies, and there has also been a meeting of a technical sub-group. I believe that the Commission is currently considering the proposal in the light of the adoption last December of the hazardous waste incineration directive—94/67/EC—and the proposal for a directive on integrated pollution prevention and control.

  My Department has made a number of written and verbal representations concerning the importance of assessing both costs and benefits in coming forward with proposals for new standards for non-hazardous waste incineration.

  Housing Stock Transfers
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 132–36, if he will publish a list

  161
  showing the date on which each local authority conducted a ballot on proposed large-scale voluntary transfer of their housing stock.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The 64 local authorities which have balloted tenants on proposed large-scale voluntary transfers are listed below, together with the month and the year in which each ballot took place.

  Successful ballot results

  Local authority

  Date of ballot

  Chiltern

  September 1988

  Sevenoaks

  December 1988

  Newbury

  April 1989

  South Wight

  June 1989

  Medina

  July 1989

  Richester

  July 1989

  Swale

  October 1989

  North Bedfordshire

  October 1989

  Mid Sussex

  December 1989

  Broadland

  January 1990

  East Dorset

  January 1990

  South Buckinghamshire

  July 1990

  Tonbridge and Malling

  July 1990

  Ryedale

  August 1990

  Suffolk Coastal

  November 1990

  Christchurch

  November 1990

  Tunbridge Wells1

  April 1991

  June 1991

  Bromley

  October 1991

  East Cambridgeshire

  April 1992

  Surrey Heath

  June 1992

  Breckland

  August 1992

  West Dorset

  October 1992

  Hambleton

  December 1992

  Epson and Ewell

  June 1993

  Havant

  June 1993

  Hart

  July 1993

  Leominster

  September 1993

  South Ribble

  October 1993

  Hertsmere

  October 1993

  Penwith

  October 1993

  South Shropshire

  November 1993

  North Dorset

  November 1993

  Thanet

  November 1993

  Wychavon

  November 1993

  Mid Bedfordshire2

  December 1993

  Basingstoke and Deane2

  April 1994

  Windsor and Maidenhead2

  June 1994

  Vale of White Horse

  June 1994

  Maldon

  July 1994

  Malvern Hills

  August 1994

  Kennet

  November 1994

  Rushmoor

  December 1994

  1 Held two consecutive ballots.

  2 Proposed split transfer to two housing associations. Two ballots held.

  Unsuccessful ballot results

  Local authority

  Date of ballot

  Torbay

  october 1988

  Rochford

  November 1988

  Salisbury

  December 1988

  Arun

  January 1989

  Three Rivers

  March 1989

  Canterbury

  November 1989

  Brentwood

  November 1989

  Redbridge

  December 1989

  Bournemouth

  January 1990

  Wokingham

  April 1990

  South Holland

  July 1990

  North Kesteven

  December 1990

  Hillingdon

  July 1992

  162

  Unsuccessful ballot results

  Local authority

  Date of ballot

  Kingston

  August 1992

  Woodspring

  August 1992

  Mendip

  July 1993

  Rother

  October 1993

  Westminster

  October 1993

  Maidstone1

  November 1993

  Poole1

  November 1993

  Thanet1

  November 1993

  Mid Bedfordshire1

  December 1993

  Cherwell1

  April 1994

  Castle Point

  September 1994

  1 Proposed split transfer to two housing associations. Two ballots held.

  Government Environmental Policy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what role the meetings of all Green Ministers play in the integration of environmental considerations into all aspects of Government policy.

  Mr. Atkins
  Meetings of Green Ministers provide a valuable opportunity to discuss collectively aspects of environmental integration of common interest, such as energy conservation, environmental management and the forthcoming Environment White Paper. The meetings do not replace the individual responsibility of each Green Minister to ensure that environmental considerations are integrated into the strategies and policies of his or her Department.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response was received to the consultation paper on arrangements for local taxation appeals and disputes in the event of a structural or boundary change in respect of any local government area in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The list of responses received has been placed in the Library of the House; copies of individual responses may be obtained through the Library. Regulations will he introduced shortly to give effect to the following measures to be applied in respect of all local taxation appeals and disputes in the event of a structural or boundary change:
  if an authority has been abolished, and the corresponding listing officer, valuation officer or valuation tribunal ceases to exist, the case is to be handled by the successor bodies;if the case has been listed for hearing by a valuation tribunal, and notice of the hearing has been served, or it has been agreed that it should be disposed of on the basis of written representations and notice thereof has been served, there is to be no change in arrangements;in all other circumstances, the acquiring authority, listing officer, valuation officer and valuation tribunal, as the case may be, is to assume responsibility for the case; and if the case relates in part to the period before the structural or boundary change, the relinquishing billing authority (if it elects to do so), listing officer and valuation officer should be a party to the proceedings.

  Bathing Water Monitoring
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of recent incidents at Oxwich hay, Wales; and what plans he has
  163
  to increase the monitoring of viruses in bathing water as a result.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: An investigation, carried out by the West Glamorgan health authority, and published 28 February, concluded that there was no evidence of a link between illnesses and bathing or visiting Oxwich bay. I have no present plans to require increased monitoring of viruses in bathing waters.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what monitoring of viruses in Britain's bathing water is currently carried out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: Monitoring for viruses in United Kingdom bathing waters is carried out in accordance with the EC bathing water directive. UK monitoring is the most extensive of any member state.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect of viruses in sewage and chemical discharges on(a) human health and (b) bathing water quality.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: In January 1994, I announced and placed in the Library the results of a four-year study, funded by the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health, the Welsh Office and the National Rivers Authority, into health and bathing water quality. A detailed summary of the results of UK bathing water quality monitoring is placed in the Library each year. The results for 1994 were placed on 20 January 1995.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in how many instances water-borne viruses have been thought to be the cause of illness contracted by bathers in British waters in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: I understand from the Department of Health that there is no conclusive evidence that any serious illness has been contracted by bathers in UK bathing waters during this period. The four-year study to assess the health risks of sea bathing published last year suggested that there is only a minimal risk of illness from British bathing waters.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest figure for reported benefit savings accrued by the Child Support Agency, giving in each case(a) the amount represented by pre-existing maintenance arrangements carried over by the Child Support Agency, (b) the amount represented by cases in which benefit ceased following action by the agency, (c) the amount represented by cases in which maintenance exceeds the amount of benefit payable and (d) the amount represented by consequential savings in council tax benefit and housing benefit.
  164
  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 6 March 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the benefit savings scored by the Child Support Agency.

  Benefit savings by category

  £ million

  1994–95

  Existing maintenance agreements before CSA assessments

  Paid direct by absent parent to parent with care—existing

  101.65

  Paid through pre-Agency collection service—existing

  6.96

  Sub total

  108.61

  New maintenance as a result of CSA assessments

  Paid direct by absent parent to parent with care—new

  10.48

  Paid through Agency collection service to Secretary of State—new

  32.45

  Absent parent—Income Support deductions

  1.55

  Sub total

  44.48

  Benefit ceases following action by the Agency

  Non-maintenance cessations

  165.95

  Maintenance cessations

  20.43

  Sub total

  186.38

  Total

  339.48

  Savings arising from maintenance paid in Family Credit/DWA cases. and the consequential savings arising in Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit from cases where benefit has ceased are scored retrospectively after the end of the financial year, and figures are not currently available.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents with care at each Child Support Agency reporting centre have ceased to receive income support after receiving payments of child maintenance; and how many have ceased to receive income support and are receiving family credit after receiving child maintenance.

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

  Letter front Ann Chant to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 7 March 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of parents with care (PWCs) who have ceased to claim income support (IS); or who have ceased to claim IS, but are receiving family credit (FC) after receiving child maintenance.

  Agency centre

  1 2PWCs no longer receiving is

  Belfast

  1,688

  Birkenhead

  490

  Dudley

  1,176

  Falkirk

  1,186

  Hastings

  1,182

  Plymouth

  1,317

  1 Year to date from April 1994 to January 1995.

  2 Child maintenance may not have been the only income received. Information is not available on the number of clients who have ceased to claim IS, but are receiving FC.

  165
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently employed by the Child Support Agency; and what was the figure in April 1993.

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 7 March 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of staff employed by the Child Support Agency.In April 1993, there were 2,937 established staff in the Agency. In addition there were 160 Northern Ireland civil servants based at the Child Support Agency Centre in Belfast who were engaged in work relating to parents with care who live in Great Britain.In January 1995 there were 5,799 established staff in the Agency, and 645 Northern Ireland civil servants engaged in work relating to parents with care who live in Great Britain.This increase in staffing reflects both the anticipated build up in staff, and the additional staff deployed as part of the recovery plan.
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the basis for his estimate of the cost of taking account of travel-to-work costs in the child support formula.

  Mr. Burt
  The costs of the proposed allowance were estimated using data from the 1991 census about the distribution of distances travelled to work.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will he the cost of each of the proposed changes to the Child Support Agency referred to in his oral statement of 23 January 1995,Official Report, columns 19–21.

  Mr. Burt
  The cost, in terms of reduction in anticipated savings in benefit expenditure, of each of the proposed changes is estimated as follows:

  1995–96 £ million

  1996–97 £ million

  1997–98 £ million

  Formula changes

  Property/capital settlements

  5

  10

  10

  Travel to work costs

  10

  15

  20

  Provision for full housing costs

  5

  10

  10

  Deferral of liability by eight weeks

  10

  10

  10

  30 per cent. cap on payments

  10

  10

  10

  Changes requiring primary legislation

  Departure orders

  —

  10

  10

  Maintenance credit

  —

  —

  15

  Totals

  40

  65

  85

  Note:

  All figures in £ million, rounded to nearest £5 million.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the Child Support Agency to deal with all cases involving child maintenance; and if he will set out the Government's revised programme for the phased take-on of cases.

  Mr. Burt
  It was never the intention that the Child Support Agency would deal with all cases of child maintenance. Where there is a maintenance order in force with which both parents are content, and no benefit is 166
  being paid to the parent with care, the agency will not become involved.

  Where such an order is currently in force, but one party is dissatisfied, the courts will continue to exercise jurisdiction until such time as the Child Support Agency takes over jurisdiction. This was intended to be in 1996, but the Government have announced plans to defer this date until the agency is in a position to take on the cases efficiently and to a high standard.

  The agency expects to resume the take-on of those cases deferred as a result of the measures announced on 20 December 1994 by the end of 1995.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the Government's policy on encouraging all lone parents into employment and on providing incentives to that end; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  It is our policy to encourage lone parents to take up and stay in work. Improving work incentives is the most effective way of ensuring that lone parents leave benefit dependency; this offers the best long-term prospects for the families involved and produces savings for the public purse. Research indicates that most lone parents want to work. We have been very successful in encouraging lone parents to move from dependency on income support to work supplemented by family credit. In 1988, there was one working lone parent on family credit for every 10 on income support; by 1994, the proportion was almost one for every four.

  In April 1992, we changed the qualifying hours of work for family credit from 24 hours to 16 hours a week. Currently, 120,000 lone parents work between 16 and 24 hours a week and receive family credit; many of these had previously been dependent on income support. Last October, we introduced the child care disregard to remove a stumbling block preventing some parents returning to work. This is worth up to £28 a week extra in family credit. In the long term, we expect that 150,000 families, mostly lone parents, will benefit from this change. The work incentives package announced last November includes measures to help people returning to work, such as the four-week extension of housing benefit, the national insurance contribution holiday for employers, and the hack to work bonus. All of these will apply to lone parents and unemployed people. In January 1995, the child support White Paper announced a new scheme giving a credit for maintenance received by parents with care on income support. This scheme—the child maintenance bonus—will provide further help on returning to work through a lump sum of up to £1,000.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone mothers receive means-tested benefits; and what proportion of these are(a) tuner married, (b) separated wives, (c) divorced women and (d) widows and wives of pensioners.
  167
  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the tables:

  Table 1: Numbers of lone mothers in receipt of family credit, disability working allowance or income support in May 1993

  Numbers in receipt of

  Total

  Family credit

  200,000

  Disability working allowance

  —

  Income support with no family credit or disability working allowance

  987,000

  Table 2: Numbers of lone parents in receipt of housing benefit/council tax benefit but not in receipt of family credit, disability working allowance or income support, in May 1993

  Numbers in receipt of

  Total

  Housing benefit

  46,000

  Council tax benefit

  44,000

  Sources:

  Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry May 1993.

  Family Credit Statistical System. This is a 5 per cent. sample of awards made.

  Disability Working Allowance Statistical System.

  Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit MIS annual 1 per cent. sample.

  Notes:

  1. The figures refer to Great Britain and have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. There will be considerable overlap in table 2 as many cases receive both HB and CTB, but due to the collection procedure these cannot he identified.

  3. For HB and CTB it is not possible to distinguish lone mothers horn lone fathers. This information refers to lone parent rather than lone mother.

  The marital status breakdown is only available for the income support data and is shown in the following table:

  Table 3:

  Marital status

  Total

  (a) never married

  463,000

  (b) separated

  313,000

  (c) divorced

  192,000

  (d) widowed

  16,000

  Source:

  Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry May 1993.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), of 19 December 1994 Official Report,column 930, if he will consider making some assessment of the ethnic origin of claimants who have failed the habitual residence test to check whether particular ethnic groups are disproportionately affected by the test.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have no plans to do so.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary 01 State for Social Security if a claimant can appeal against a Benefits Agency medical services doctor's failure to provide (i) a certificate under regulation 10(2)(e) and (ii) an opinion under regulation 27 of the Social Security (Incapacity For Work) (General) Regulations 1995.
  168
  Mr. Hague
  A claimant cannot appeal against a Benefits Agency medical services doctor's failure to provide a certificate or opinion. He can appeal against an adjudication officer's decision on capacity for work. That decision will take into account whether the claimant is certified as being in an exempt category under regulation 10(2)(e), whether he has satisfied the all work test and whether any of the prescribed exceptional circumstances apply under regulation 27.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what intervals and on what basis a claimant of incapacity benefit will be re-tested after April 1995.

  Mr. Hague
  After the initial application of the all work test, a Benefits Agency medical services doctor will provide advice to the adjudication officer as to whether and, if so, at what interval, the question of the claimant's capacity should be reviewed. The interval will depend on the individual circumstances of each case.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates will sign on as available for work pending an appeal against a decision that they are capable of work; and how many will claim income support.

  Mr. Hague
  No estimate has been made of the number of people who will choose to make themselves available for work pending an appeal. Estimated numbers expected to claim income support are not broken down between those appealing against a decision and those not making an appeal.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of people who will move from incapacity benefit and sign on as unemployed in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97; (iii) 1997–98.

  Mr. Hague
  The estimated number of people who will move from incapacity benefit, including new claimants after April 1995, and sign on as unemployed earlier than would otherwise have been the case, as a result of the new medical test, is as follows: 160,000 in 1995–96, 120,000 in 1996–97 and 60,000 in 1997–98. It is estimated that the average increase in the unemployment count as a result of the reform of incapacity benefit provision will he 90,000 in 1995–96, 195,000 in 1996–97 and 200,000 in 1997–98. These figures include people joining the unemployment count who will previously have been receiving income support with disability premium as well as those who will have been receiving incapacity benefit.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people who are expected to leave incapacity benefit in 1995–96 to sign on as unemployed he estimates will he aged(a) under 45 years, (b) between 45 and 54 years old, (c) 55 years or over; and how many in each category are estimated to receive an occupational or private pension amounting to (i) less than £35 per week, (ii) between £35 and £50 per week and (iii) between £50 and £75 per week;

  (2) how many people who are expected to leave incapacity benefit in 1996–97 to sign on as unemployed he estimates will he aged (a) under 45 years, (b) between 45 and 54 years and, (c) 55 years or over; and how many in each category are estimated to receive an occupational or private pension amounting to (i) less than £35 per week, (ii) between £35 and £50 per week and (iii) between £50 and £75 per week.
  169
  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of new claimants of both(a) incapacity benefit and (b) severe disablement allowance who will (i) be found capable of work under the all work test and (ii) how many and what proportion he expects will lodge an appeal against this decision.

  Mr. Hague
  It is estimated that in 1995–96, approximately 45,000 and in subsequent years 55,000 new incapacity benefit claimants will be found capable of work earlier than would otherwise have been the case, as a result of the new medical test. It is estimated that 60 per cent. of these claimants will appeal against the decision of capacity for work. No estimates have been made of the number of new severe disablement allowance claimants expected to he found capable of work.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the number and proportion of appeals against a decision of capacity for work which are frivolous.

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he consulted (i) the Independent Tribunal Service, (ii) the Council on Tribunals and (iii) the Social Security Advisory Committee about the benefit reduction for people appealing against a decision that they are capable of work.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Secretary of State referred the proposed income support regulations to the Social Security Advisory Committee under section 172(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 on 3 and 16 February 1995. The Social Security Advisory Committee agreed on 16 February 1995, under section 173(1)(b) of the same Act, that the regulations need not be formally referred to it.

  There is no statutory requirement in these circumstances to consult either the Independent Tribunal Service or the Council on Tribunals.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on 30 January 1995 Official Report, column 520, if the normal control dates based on form MF213 will be the basis for reviewing the estimated 220,000 people who will fail the new incapacity test.

  Mr. Hague
  Under the existing invalidity benefit system, when a claim is considered by the Benefits Agency medical services—the doctor gives advice on if and when the case should be reviewed. In cases with a review date, the new all-work test will he applied for the purpose of the first planned review after 13 April this year. We expect that all such cases will be reviewed in the first two years of the new benefit. The remaining cases will then also be reviewed under the new test.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average number of weeks between the date an appeal was lodged against a decision that a person is capable of work to the date of the hearing.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the average clearance time for 170
  all invalidity benefit appeals in the quarter ending June 1994 was 26.6 weeks.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of housing benefit claimants are currently in receipt of additional help with rent under regulation 11(3) of the Housing Benefit General Regulations.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not held centrally.

  National Insurance Credits
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if people claiming income support pending an appeal against a decision that they are capable of work will be credited for national insurance purposes for the period between lodging an appeal and the hearing.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ensure that credits are available for the period pending an appeal against a decision that a person is capable of work, he should register as available for employment. If he fails to do this, incapacity credits will be awarded only for the period if his appeal succeeds.

  Registering as available for employment will not prejudice the outcome of his appeal.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (i) what assessment his Department has made of the implications for income support claimants of the changes to income support mortgage interest to he implemented in October 1995;

  (2) what assessment the Government have made of the impact on the rate of repossession of the changes to income support for mortgage interest to be implemented in October 1995;

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of (a) monthly and (b) annual repossessions that will arise from October 1995 as a result of the Government's reduction in help for unemployed home owners.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We believe that our proposals will result in the development of comprehensive quality insurance and will provide better protection for all home owners, not just those who currently get help from income support mortgage interest.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated additional housing costs(a) to local authorities in England and Wales and (b) to housing associations in England and Wales of the changes to income support for mortgage interest to he implemented in October 1995.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There should not he any additional housing costs of this nature.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants in receipt of income support for mortgage interest payments had their homes repossessed in(a) 1993–94 and (b) each of the five preceding years.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the percentage of private rented
  171
  sector tenants who are currently in receipt of housing benefit in each local authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available. It is estimated that the proportion of tenants of 172
  private landlords who receive housing benefit in England is 49 per cent. and 61 per cent. in Wales.

  Source: Housing Benefit Management Information Statistics February 1994 and Housing and Construction Statistics September 1994.

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

Breast Cancer: Specialist Care
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will develop a national strategy to provide uniform specialist care for women with breast cancer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege):Yes, my Lords. We have a national strategy which we are developing further.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply; but I find it slightly disappointing. I had hoped that in this week of International Women's Day she might have taken the opportunity to express broader support for a wide initiative to reduce our appalling rate of mortality from breast cancer which, as I am sure noble Lords know, is the worst in the world. Does the noble Baroness intend that the Government will support the all-party Bill recently introduced in another place to develop a formal national strategy?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am not sure how the noble Baroness can say that our rates are the worst in the world. International comparisons are misleading. Only the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands have comprehensive cancer registry systems. With regard to the Bill—wait and see.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this is an extremely serious issue for women, and that the Government have taken a great many steps to improve the situation? Can she confirm whether it is the case that breast cancer is far more prevalent in countries in northern Europe than in southern Europe, and in northern parts of the United States than in southern states? If that is the case, are we undertaking research into that aspect? That should reveal factors which we clearly do not understand at present.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is right. We are doing more research into cancer, and particularly breast cancer. We spend £100 million a year on research and development work.
We do not have comprehensive cancer registry systems across the world; and in the USA only 8 per cent. of the population is covered. Therefore it is a difficult area in which to research. My noble friend is right in that we are taking a number of initiatives, and recently we undertook consultation with the publication of the document entitled, A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services. The results of that
112
consultation are now in and officials are considering the 300 replies that we received. The results will be submitted to Ministers very shortly.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the problems is that in this country we suffer from a great shortage of clinical oncologists? I am informed that we have 272 clinical oncologists, all of whom see about 560 new patients a year (whereas the recommended maximum is 350 new patients a year) and in the United States the figure is only 200. Does the noble Baroness agree that if we doubled the number of clinical oncologists, we could save thousands of lives a year?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is one of the issues that has been addressed in the consultation document to which I referred, The noble Baroness is right; we need more oncologists. Indeed, the Government have encouraged health authorities to expand the manpower rate of 2 per cent. a year.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House and the public that they will make sure that the Royal Marsden Hospital is safe from any depredations of this Government? The Royal Marsden is a world-renowned hospital for teaching and training; and if there is any reduction in the work of that hospital, among others (I do not say it is the only one), it will be very difficult to staff the new breast cancer units which we, the Government and everybody want.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. The Royal Marsden has a very fine reputation, as do other hospitals in the country, including the Christie Hospital in Manchester. The noble Baroness will remember that when we looked at the reorganisation of clinical services in London, we agreed that the Royal Marsden should stay as a trust and should offer its services in the same way as other hospitals.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend say to what extent breast cancer has so far been found to be hereditary?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we believe that it is one of the factors, but we cannot pinpoint exactly how strong it is in relation to others such as diet and lifestyle. That is part of the research which is being carried out.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the great value of the noble Baroness's Question is that it has the support of the Minister and members of all parties in this House? Intensified research is now called for so that we in this House can ensure that women who suffer from breast cancer know that their case is understood and that tremendous research will now be undertaken.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Indeed, as I have said, we spend £100 million a year on research; and £400 million is spent by the cancer

113
charities. Pharmaceutical companies spend a further £300 million. Therefore investment in research into this cancer is incredibly large.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the European Union third action plan on cancer now proposes that women who have a "suspect image"—those are not my words but the words of the Commission in Brussels—should be screened in addition to those who are in the 50 to 69 year age group? The plan also emphasises that proper quality assurance controls should be put in place in all the processes involved with breast cancer. Does the Minister therefore believe that our own programme on screening should be expanded so that it includes those people with a symptomatic background? I shall not use the Commission's words but those that the Minister has used before. Will she therefore ask the British Standards Institution whether it will draw up an interpretation of ISO 9000 which will provide sufficient quality assurance control, for the profession to use?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to my noble friend who has worked tirelessly for the organisation, RAGE, which concentrates on breast cancer. I know that he feels strongly about quality assurance standards. However, we believe that to have a single quality assurance standard would be difficult because different cancers require a whole range of different treatment machines. It depends on the site, the stage, the size and the kind of cancer as well as the age and general health of the patient. However, my noble friend will know of the work that we have been doing in Manchester and Bristol and of the two reports that were issued in July 1991.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that enough money is being poured into this problem? Does she know that 520 different charities are raising money for this project, and indeed for the whole of the cancer problem?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am convinced that, as in other fields, the National Health Service could always spend more money, albeit that every year we increase its budget. However, in this specific field, the cancer charities are remarkable. They raise an enormous amount of money. They do some very interesting and worthwhile work. But I also should like to remind your Lordships that ours was the first country to introduce a full screening programme for breast cancer. Indeed, we put a huge amount of investment into that.

Buckingham Palace: Traffic Delays
2.47 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the operation of the new traffic arrangements at the Queen Victoria Memorial opposite Buckingham Palace.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, yes.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. However, he must be one of the few people who are so satisfied. He should try asking one or two London taxi drivers for their opinion. Will my noble friend confirm that the experiment is to be reviewed after a six-month period? Why, then, does the work look so permanent? Can the Minister assure me that, if the scheme is as unpopular in six months' time as it now is, it will be scrapped and matters will return to normal?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the new traffic arrangements have been in place for six weeks and are generally working well. There should be an improvement once the construction works are complete. That is scheduled for early April. At present road widths are reduced, temporary traffic lights are in operation, and construction vehicles are on site. However, when those are cleared away, we believe that traffic should move easily through the area. My noble friend is absolutely right. The approval which Westminster City Council gave included a condition requiring a traffic survey to be carried out within six months of completion of the scheme. We intend to do that and review the arrangements after six months.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is reputed that Her Majesty herself has expressed concern about the new traffic arrangements. Will the noble Viscount tell me whether Westminster City Council undertook its proper statutory duty of consulting the Queen as a resident of that area?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am happy to tell the noble Lord that Her Majesty the Queen was consulted about the plans to pedestrianise the area in front of Buckingham Palace. We have recently been monitoring the traffic at each of the junctions. We have no evidence of lengthy delays occurring. The maximum waiting time for one change of lights is 65 seconds. Even if a motorist has to wait for two or three changes of lights—that is not generally the norm even during the rush hour—the delay would be just over three minutes. I realise that some noble Lords may have had to wait slightly longer. However, the worst build up of traffic has generally occurred when guard changes are taking place and the horse guards pass through the area. But that was the case previously, before the recent arrangements.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that when the six months have elapsed, due consideration is given to all those who in exasperation have written or telephoned concerning the difficulty they have experienced in reaching your Lordships' House via the Palace?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we shall obviously take account of all views. However, there are supporters for the changes which, I remind your Lordships, follow a recommendation by the Royal Parks Review Group, chaired by Dame Jennifer Jenkins, in May 1993. The alterations are part of a scheme to provide better

115
segregation of traffic and pedestrians and safe crossing facilities for pedestrians at each junction. There have been over 60 accidents to individuals over the past three years near the Queen Victoria Memorial. We must ensure that this important area of London is not an accident black spot.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his original Answer indicates that he never travels along that route? Is he further aware that those of us who have to do so regularly consider that there has been a great deterioration in traffic conditions since the changes were introduced?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I travel by that route every morning on the way to work. I must point out that the arrangements arc not finalised; they are temporary. The roadway is narrower than it will be when finished. We must wait for the full work to be completed and then consider how it is working.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance to the House that the next time his driver takes him around the area he puts his newspaper down and looks at what is happening? Will he convey to his right honourable friend that on all sides of the House there is great anxiety about the matter? Simply to say that the arrangements are generally working well is completely contrary to the opinions of the overwhelming majority, not just of those in this House but of all users of the area. The sooner it gets back to what it was the better.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the scheme was drawn up following wide-ranging consultations with bodies which included English Heritage, Westminster City Council, the traffic director for London, the police and the Army. Planning approval was given by the council. I appreciate your Lordships' anxieties and merely point out that the works are not yet completed. It is a site; it is not the final plan. I reiterate that we shall review the traffic arrangements within six months of the work being completed. I can give that assurance to your Lordships' House.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the mess he cleared away by 17th June, when the Trooping the Colour takes place?
Viscount Astor: Yes, my Lords, the work will be completed by April.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the pedestrianisation of the area immediately outside Buckingham Palace is not part of a secret agenda on the part of the Royal Parks Agency for the whole of the St. James's Park area to become pedestrianised? That would in effect create a theme park in which tourists would reign supreme.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I can confirm that there is no secret agenda. Indeed, there have been wide-ranging consultations. There have been a number of serious accidents in the area and it is important that we get the
116
pedestrian crossings right so that tourists who come to this country are not mown down, least of all by some noble Lords on their way to your Lordships' House!
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can the Minister give the estimated total cost of the undertaking?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the estimated costs are £2.4 million, including fees and VAT. In addition to the new pedestrian area in front of the palace, the scheme involves replacing crash barriers with bollards and railings, repairs to the balustrade wall, reinstatement of the terraced walk, re-landscaping of the memorial gardens, and new permanent flagpoles.

EU Accounts Proposal: Cost
2.54 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the proposal of the European Commission on the establishment of a European system of national and regional accounts (COM(94)593 Final of January 19th 1995); and what is their estimate of (a) the annual cost to the Exchequer and (b) the annual compliance cost, on the assumption that the proposal is adopted.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the proposed regulation will lead to the availability of harmonised national accounts statistics for all member states. The implications for UK contributions to the Community budget will depend on the final form of the regulation. The costs of statistical developments will be met from within running cost limits for the departments involved. Any increase in compliance costs on business is expected to be small.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that the regulation to which I referred is no fewer than 543 pages long? That is roughly 50 times the length of the average Council regulation, decision or directive. Is the Minister aware that there must be some cost to the Exchequer on rendering, in accordance with Community rules, the statistics set out in Appendix B to the regulation? Will he particularise in a little more detail as to the cost beyond the vague generalities to which he has so far treated the House?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, on compliance costs, I have nothing to add to the point I made that the cost to business is expected to be small. Many of the statistics are already collected by the British Government. The point at issue is that statistics collected around the Community should be gathered on the same basis so that harmonisation will lead to an ability to compare GNP statistics and other statistics between member states on a fair and equitable basis.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how deeply embarrassed I am in saying how much I agree with everything he has just said? Does he accept that it is obvious that this is exactly the kind of area where the

117
Community has a valuable role to play, in terms not merely of national accounts but also of the excellent harmonised employment statistics that it gathers as well as, in due course, inflation and other statistics? Does the Minister agree that that is precisely what the Community ought to do at Community level? In many ways it ought to divert itself from its sillier activities to this most excellent activity.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord in both those sentiments. He rightly points to the advantage of harmonised statistics—an advantage accepted by the Court of Auditors' report in 1993. The report said that:
"In spite of the measures already taken by the Commission, the degree of comparability, exhaustiveness and reliability of the data in respect of the Member States' national accounts should be improved and considerable progress may still be made so as to obtain a genuinely harmonized system".
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that standards of accounting practice throughout the 12 member' states vary considerably? Although accounting standards in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany may measure up to those that we normally expect in the United Kingdom, the professional standards in preparing accounts throughout the rest of the Community are—I put the word in quotation marks—"dodgy". Is the noble Lord aware that the task of assembling the total results of the accounts, which are dealt with in the first part of the regulation, and of translating them into national figures for central assimilation must involve hours, weeks or even years of work? In view of that, will the Minister reconsider his vague estimate as to the cost? I ask that irrespective of the view of my noble friend on the Front Bench that the whole exercise may be well worth while.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is true that the Commission puts the cost over the period 1995–97 at about 9 million ecus. One million of that will be for the central collection work; the other 8 million will be for those countries identified rightly by the noble Lord as having poorly developed collection systems. I am sure that the noble Lord will be glad to hear that the process has already led to countries with less developed statistical systems significantly increasing the value of the GNP base on which their fourth resources contributions are calculated. So we are already seeing some progress from those countries with systems which are not so well developed improving to the level of the best.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that most of us, while supporting the generality of the desirability of some standardised figures and some standardised way of going about it, may look at the cost and hope for a wing and a prayer?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I must say that the noble Lord seldom flies on a wing and a prayer on the subject of Europe. I simply re-emphasise one of the points that he continually makes, that some countries are not very good at looking after their money or that of other people. I should have thought that better statistical information would help that.

Mobile Telephones: Use While Driving
3 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Govemment:Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Govemment:
Whether they will bring forward legislation to make it a specific offence for the driver of a moving vehicle to use a mobile telephone or car phone.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, we have no plans to introduce specific legislation on the use of telephones while driving. We believe that the offences of "failure to exercise proper control of a vehicle" and "careless driving" provide sufficient powers of prosecution.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I find his Answer rather disappointing? Has he been on a motorway (I am sure that he has) and seen a driver who is quite obviously concentrating on the telephone rather than the driving tearing past at over 80 miles an hour with just one hand on the wheel and the other holding a telephone? Has the Minister seen cars whose drivers are using the telephone come up so close behind him that he almost has a heart attack? Does he agree that people cannot be mentally and physically in charge of their cars while they are concentrating on talking to other people on the telephone? Does he agree that the only way forcibly to make people aware of the danger is to create a specific offence? I hope that he will do so.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord has already listed a specific offence which in his example had been; namely, that of speeding. That committee illustrates that having a specific offence is not necessarily the catch-all. The Association of Chief Police Officers agrees with the Government's view that under the offences that I listed there are sufficient powers to prosecute. If the police feel that a motorist is driving dangerously, or is abusing a situation and is not able to control his vehicle properly, they will prosecute him.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that paragraph 43 of The Highway Code states:
"You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. Do not use a hand-held telephone or microphone while you are driving"?
Does that not provide for prosecution on grounds of unsafe driving—rendered, I would have thought, more effective if it were done anywhere near the Victoria Memorial?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right about the provisions that we have included in The Highway Code. However, as regards prosecution, the two offences that I have listed are the means that the police can use if they feel it necessary.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: A phoney argument!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this could apply only to hand-held telephones, which are not specifically mentioned in the Question but

119
which are, I assume, within the contemplation of my noble friend? While he says that there are ample grounds for prosecution if the offences to which he referred have taken place, does he agree that perhaps there is some lack of comprehension on the part of many drivers that they are acting in breach of an instruction in The Highway Code which in any event does not constitute a specific offence, and that there might be some deterrent value in having a specific offence? This could excite in the minds of the people involved the fact that they are involved in doing something that is very specifically illegal. Does the Minister accept that there would be some advantage in that?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there are any other statements in The Highway Code that are put forward as advice but for which there are not specific offences. There are many other things that can be done in a car with one hand which do not come under the category of specific offences—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Goschen: —such as perhaps operating a tape-recorder or indeed taking a drink. These are not specific offences. We certainly condemn the practice of using a hand-held telephone. I agree with the noble Lord that using a hands-free set is preferable, although indeed that too can be distracting.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister suggesting that there might be pending another ministerial resignation?
A Noble Lord: Not worthy!
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I think noble Lords would have to read a great deal into my remarks to reach that conclusion.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many prosecutions have taken place, if any?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, I am not able to give that figure. We should have to go back through all the court records to determine that information. That would not logically be possible or indeed practical. The important point is that the Association of Chief Police Officers believes that the current law gives sufficient powers to act where it is thought necessary.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I asked the driver of the cab that brought me here this morning what he thought about this question, and whether or not the matter should be pressed? To my surprise, he was very strongly in favour of it. In view of this unusual support coming from a taxi-driver, will the Minister perhaps reconsider his lukewarm attitude?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord has consulted on this issue—and indeed with an expert. We do not want to have an over-specific, over-regulatory system. The police have powers; they can, and do, act where they believe it to be necessary.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in spite of what the Association of Chief Police Officers might say,
120
it is not always right. As a matter of fact, it is very often wrong. Does the Minister agree that the use of in-car telephones is growing at a very fast rate, and therefore the problem will become worse as time goes on? Does he accept that the only thing that will prevent people from using them—this is my view, and I hope that he will agree—is to make such use a specific offence resulting in quite a high fine for those who break the law? Will the Minister ask his colleagues to reconsider this matter?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords. The police are in a particularly good position to judge. They are the ones who would have to enforce any such law, as they enforce the current law. They have powers to act and they use them. We do not believe that there is any specific need for a specific power. However, I agree with the noble Lord that in-car mobile telephones are increasingly being used.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can the Minister say whether advice has been taken from Australia. where this is an offence?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have not personally taken advice from Australia on this matter. We have our own laws in this country, which are geared to the problems that are prevalent. The police do not support the idea of a specific offence in relation to this problem. They believe that the powers that exist cater for it adequately.

Business of the House: Debate, 8th March
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead set down for tomorrow shall be limited to 6 hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.) On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
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 the Lord Burnham be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

121
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy: moved Amendment No. 125:
Before Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Planning permission for ironstone extraction
. After section 22 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 there shall be inserted—
"Ironstone extraction.
22A.—(1) Any person with planning permission to win or work ironstone or to deposit waste from such working but who no longer intends to win or work ironstone shall, within 5 years of the date of coming into force of section (Planning permission for ironstone extraction) of the Environment Act 1995, apply to the relevant planning authority for approval of the environmental conditions to which the permission is subject.
(2) The planning permission shall cease to have effect—

(a) if no application is made under this section, on the day following the last day on which such an application may be made; or

(b) if the application is refused, on the day following that on which the application is finally determined.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I spoke to an amendment covering a range of minerals. My particular concern was, and remains, one substance; namely, ironstone. I have now tabled a separate amendment, the one under discussion, because ironstone is a special case. Its extraction ceased 15 years ago. It is no longer wanted.
It may be asked: why then are some of the ironstone permission sites still being worked? The answer is that there are other substances to be extracted. Limestone and clay lie above the ironstone. It was permissible at the time of ironstone operations to extract also the limestone and clay in order to get at the ironstone. Those permissions are enabling work to continue for a quite different purpose to the one intended.
Ironstone was essential for our steel industry after World War Two. Decisions to grant the permissions were taken by central government, not by local authorities, because they were of national importance. A condition was attached that the ironstone should be transported by rail. The last ironstone was extracted in 1979 and the associated railway system no longer exists. As a result, heavy lorries now cart limestone around rural roads and through small villages, thereby causing disturbance, especially to the environment.
Permissions are due to last until the year 2042, which is nearly 50 years ahead. To conclude them now would not, in my opinion, be contractually incorrect because the permissions are no longer being used for the purpose for which they were applied for and ironstone is no longer wanted. In that context, perhaps I may quote from a letter dated only five days ago which I received from the British Aggregate Construction Materials Industries. It states:
"Mineral planning permissions by their very nature are temporary. Once the mineral is exhausted the site is restored to some other use".
I was delighted to receive that letter. It is very reassuring when the permissions are to last for 40 years or more. However, ironstone extraction can be regarded as being over. It ceased to be needed 15 years ago. However, extraction of other minerals, not the subject of the permissions, continued. They were incidental to the operations for which permission was sought.
A year ago the Government issued a consultation paper. It proposed revocation of the ironstone permissions without compensation. Primary legislation would be necessary. That could be done in this Environment Bill. My amendment carries out the intention declared by the Government in their consultation paper a year ago.
My amendment also provides time for the operators to apply to extract other minerals at the sites if they so wish. Up-to-date conditions to protect the environment could then be attached to the new permissions. The amendment is not expertly drafted; nor does it cover every point to be considered. It is aimed at illustrating clearly the action that I believe is required. I hope that a government amendment at a later stage, using this Bill as primary legislation, will be moved.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Ullswater envisaged that he would make a statement at this stage—Report stage. I recognise that he may wish to make a general statement about minerals which would come after our next debate on Amendments Nos. 126 and 127. My amendment is a special case because it relates only to ironstone. That is why I move it separately. No doubt the Government will take into account the progress of the discussions which have been taking place involving the local authorities concerned, the industrial operators and landowners. I understand that the gap which existed in reaching agreement has been much narrowed during discussions,
I would prefer a solution agreed outside Parliament, if possible, among all those concerned. If that is not possible, legislation will be necessary, for the reasons I have given. I am sure that the Government would also prefer agreement outside Parliament, if possible. That is my reason for moving the amendment after speaking on the issue in Committee. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am aware of the sites covered by my noble friend's amendment. I share with him the wish that they should be remedied as soon as possible. There is a very real need for that to be done for environmental reasons.
I must correct my noble friend on one small point. He referred to limestone having been extracted in order to get at the ironstone. Limestone and ironstone were an essential part of steelmaking. Presumably, limestone is now required for a whole range of purposes, including agriculture. That does not in any way weaken my wish to see the areas remedied and environmentally restored as closely as possible to a respectable state of affairs.
I have one worry about the amendment. It involves withdrawing existing permissions without any compensation being paid. I believe that that would create a very unfortunate precedent. I would hope—my

123
noble friend said that it was his hope also—that agreement could be reached with the ironstone companies, the landowners and the county council to enable this matter to be resolved on terms acceptable to all. I hope that that may still be possible. Perhaps my noble friend will have some comments to make. Any withdrawal of permissions without compensation, which involved having to pay for additional planning permission for subsequent use of the site, would create a precedent I could not support.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for his eloquent presentation of the issue of old ironstone consents. The Government have considered that issue extremely carefully. We have had useful and detailed meetings with the ironstone operators, the landowners and Northamptonshire County Council, among others. I have been much encouraged by the very real efforts made by all sides to try to find a local, negotiated solution to the problem.
However, I have to say clearly that, notwithstanding the analysis of the problem by my noble friend, with which I very much agree, the Government have decided that it is wrong in principle to revoke the old consents without compensation. That was a point that troubled my noble friend Lord Boardman. Therefore, I do not intend to proceed with the consultation paper proposal. That does not mean that the existing position can be allowed to remain as it is.
I understand that at the great majority of ironstone sites the quality and quantity of limestone available is not commercially viable and therefore is unlikely to be worked. Where that is the case, the sensible way forward is for the planning authority to bring forward prohibition orders. My noble friend is right. I intend to announce proposals dealing with the issue of old mineral consents on the next group of amendments. Those proposals will do much to lead to a speedy resolution of the major problems posed by old ironstone permissions. In the light of those remarks, perhaps my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boardman, who is an expert on this subject, for supporting the amendment and for pointing out that limestone was needed for the steel industry in earlier days. Of course, the permission sought was for extracting ironstone. Limestone is still very much needed but it should be the subject of a separate application. I hope that as a result of the discussions and the Government's further considerations ultimately that will happen.
I am also grateful to the Minister for what he has said. A year ago the Government proposed that the ironstone permissions should be revoked without any compensation at all. Naturally, my amendment followed that line. I appreciate that, as a result of the discussions that have taken place, even in the case of the ironstone sites compensation may he appropriate, and certainly ought to be considered. I understand that change in the Government's view. I will listen carefully to what the
124
Minister says in his statement at the end of our next debate, which involves a number of other minerals, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 126:Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 126:
Before Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Old mineral planning permissions
. After section 22 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 there shall be inserted—
"Old Mineral Planning Permissions.
22A.—(1) For the purposes of this Act "old mineral planning permission" means any planning permission for development—

(a) consisting of the winning and working of minerals; or

(b) involving the depositing of mineral waste,

which was deemed to have been authorised after 1st July 1948 and before 22nd February 1982.
(2) Any person with an old mineral planning permission to win or work minerals or to deposit waste shall, within 5 years of the date of coming into force of section (Old mineral planning permissions) of the Environment Act 1995, apply to the relevant mineral planning authority for approval of the environmental conditions to which the permission is subject.
(3) Where the mineral planning authority refuses an application under subsection 2 above, or in granting such an application determines conditions that differ in any respect from the conditions set out in the application, the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(4) An old mineral planning permission shall—

(a) if no application for the registration of the permission is made under this section, cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which such an application may be made; and

(b) if such an application is refused, cease to have effect on the day following the date on which the application is finally determined.".").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should like to return to the issue of old mineral planning permissions which I raised in Committee. The issue is addressed by Amendments Nos. 126 and 127, They tackle the environmental problems of old mineral permissions granted between 1948 and 1981. They were widely welcomed both within and outside the House when they were discussed during Committee.
In previous debates I highlighted the particular environmental problems caused by old mining permissions. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves just how serious the problem is. These permissions often lack proper working conditions, such as noise limits, and frequently contain no requirement for the restoration of sites. By operating to lower standards than those applied to other mineral planning permissions, they also introduce distortions in the market.
In addition to the large number of active quarries currently operating with outdated working and restoration conditions, there are about 1,600 old mineral permissions which are dormant. They can be reactivated at any time, and many are in environmentally sensitive areas. I believe that this is an issue that requires urgent action if we are to avoid serious environmental consequences. I am aware of a number of shocking examples of environmental harm that has been caused by old mineral permissions. A particularly disturbing case can be seen at Druridge Bay on the Northumberland coastline. Here, a planning permission

125
for sand extraction was granted in the 1960s on the condition that only a small mechanical digger should be used. This digger now scoops 2 tonnes in its bucket and erodes the beach and dunes by the extraction of 40,000 tonnes of sand a year. Similar damage occurs in the national parks. Eldon Hill quarry in the Peak District was granted permission in the 1950s and is now called the best known eyesore in the Peak. Currently, it is the subject of a further planning application to extend the workings.
There is general agreement both within the minerals industry and more widely that these old mineral planning permissions are in need of review. The Government have consulted widely on review options, and I believe that my amendments reflect the outcome of those consultations. The amendments offer a real opportunity to get things moving. I was delighted by the positive response of the Minister at Committee stage and in discussions since then.
I should like to explain the exact purpose of my amendments to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. Amendment No. 126 would introduce a statutory time limit of five years for mineral operators to register their old mineral planning permissions with the mineral planning authority for the approval of modern working conditions. Since Committee I have modified the amendment to include a right of appeal for mineral operators, as it is important that the system is as fair as possible to all parties. This issue was tackled originally in the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 which placed a statutory duty on mineral planning authorities to review mineral sites in their areas. The measures set out in that Act, however, have failed as they establish no time limit on the duty. Consequently, very little progress has been made in reviewing permissions that cause damage. This is a real problem, especially in designated areas like national parks. In my view, these areas should be given priority when updating old permissions. By requiring mineral operators to register their old permissions with the mineral planning authority for review within five years, the first amendment would ensure that real progress could be achieved. I hope that my noble friend will be supportive of my amendment.
The second amendment tackles the problem that old mineral planning permissions remain valid for much longer than any other type of planning permission. Consequently, working and restoration conditions fall below current environmental standards. At the moment, mineral permissions granted before 1982 are valid until 2042. It is widely acknowledged and accepted by the Government that that is too long a period. The purpose of the second amendment is to shorten the period to 2012. I believe that this approach brings significant environmental benefits without causing problems for the mineral industry. Under current legislation a mineral planning permission granted in the 1950s could remain valid for nearly 100 years. During that time the importance attached to the environment and the attitudes and needs of society would be likely to alter greatly.
Obviously, the review of old permissions is crucial to bringing their operating standards up to date, but it will not address the fundamental question of whether or not the workings should carry on at all. In some cases, for example in SSSIs, there may be a real argument that workings should cease. At the moment, those workings can continue until 2042. My amendment will bring the end date forward to 2012. At that point mineral operators would be free to reapply for planning permission to carry on. If no environmental damage is being caused by the mineral extractions they should have little to fear from the procedure.
I believe that the amendment strikes the right balance between reducing the time during which old permissions that cause damage may remain valid and allowing ample time for mineral operators to secure a return on any investment. I believe that it is a reasonable approach to this difficult issue and will greatly help to reduce the lurking environmental threat posed by old mineral permissions. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, we on these Benches support both amendments moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. He has dealt with them comprehensively. I merely add that this is a consequence of the early years of planning after 1948. Many planning permissions were granted at a time when there was less understanding than now of the effects of mineral workings on the environment, those who lived near them and the roads that served them. The permissions granted in those early years were not made subject to the kind of conditions which would be imposed if granted today. Modern working practices are much less environmentally destructive than those of 50 years ago.
The 1981 Act was intended to equip mineral planning authorities with power to review old permissions and impose new ones where necessary. However, it contained compensation provisions which in practice were so broad as to make it prohibitively costly for authorities to make extensive use of that power. Mineral planning authorities are concerned about the local economy, local environment and the overall well-being of local people. They have to balance those different considerations. They fully understand the importance of the minerals industry as a provider of jobs and essential raw materials. However, county councils, London boroughs and metropolitan authorities believe that the noble Viscount's new clause will establish a proper framework for an orderly staged review of old permissions, balancing all of the relevant considerations.
Moreover, in relation to Amendment No. 127 there is a general perception that the date 2042 is too far in the future and that a reduction in the end date will afford an opportunity to reconsider sites which may now be considered to be in the wrong place: for example, national parks and SSSIs. A reduction of the end date to, say, 2022 will give the industry ample time to amortise its assets and yet also emphasise that the very long permission periods are inconsistent with the current need to protect the environment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I should like the support of these Benches for the two amendments that

127
have been moved. They seem to us to be very well balanced, I hope that the House will take the opportunity that this Bill offers to rectify a matter that I know has been of widespread concern.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, my name is attached to these amendments and I therefore wish to speak in support of them. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has clearly outlined the purposes of the amendments but I should like to illustrate the problems involved by giving two examples. Many of your Lordships will realise that, because of the magnificent limestone formations in the Yorkshire Dales, which is the area I know best, the dales have suffered in recent years through the quarrying of the limestone. That has made a great impact on the environment of the dales, both the living environment and the landscape.
The amendments would not stop the quarrying of limestone. Recent planning permissions have been given in the Yorkshire Dales for further quarrying. However, the conditions that have been attached to those planning permissions are far more stringent than those attached to the permissions that were given in the early 1950s. If the old planning permissions are to remain, it is important that they should be subjected to the same stringent environmental considerations as the newer planning permissions. The effect of the amendments would be to ensure that that was done.
One of the areas in the Yorkshire Dales is an example of a dormant planning permission which could be reactivated at any time up to the year 2042. The area is at Ribblehead in the centre of the Three Peaks which arc well known to fell walkers. They are also well known to railway travellers as they are on the scenic railway route from Settle to Carlisle. Planning permission for quarrying there goes hack to 1952 and 1956. The quarries have not been worked since the 1970s but they could be reactivated at any time, and reactivated on conditions which are far less stringent than the conditions that would be imposed today. If they were brought into line with new planning permissions, any reactivation of work in the quarries would mean that it was being done on a level playing field.
A further example is an area for which, again, planning permission was given in the early 1950s. It is for the removal of limestone from a limestone pavement known as Winskill Stones, just north of Settle. The planning permission gave unlimited scope for the removal of that limestone paving and I understand that around 1,000 tonnes of limestone are cut from the pavement each year, the main reason being to provide stones for rockery gardens. This is an irreplaceable heritage which is gradually being eroded and destroyed at a time when limestone pavements are being given priority status under European legislation.
Limestone is a finite resource and its use should be limited strictly to those processes where its qualities are essential. It should not be used as just another aggregate or as a garden ornament and decoration. In the quarrying process the unique limestone formations which have led to the designation of these areas as national parks in the first place should be carefully preserved.
128
The amendments seek to provide the proper framework in which planning permissions could be given for work within the national parks as well as in other areas. We should respect the purposes behind the amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept them.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, about a fortnight ago I was in Wharfedale. I am sure that there can be few finer places to walk. There I saw some old scars on the hillside which had obviously been made many years before and had been left as eyesores. It is interesting to compare those scars with the results of more modem quarrying. Very often the replaced quarry looks better than the original site.
What is required to achieve good environmental standards without threatening the quarry industry, which is so important, with what amounts to retrospective compensation? I am sure that there is a way but I do not think it is the way set out in the proposed new clause. My noble friend Lord Ullswater referred today and in Committee to the steps taken by the industry to improve its performance. That should be recognised. Some of us have had material from the British Aggregate Construction Materials Industries and it is clear that their environmental code, strongly supported by the member companies, is already having a beneficial effect. That should be encouraged. There is no reason why in essence that could not be incorporated into legislation. It would be wrong to attack the underlying assets and economic operation of companies' sites while formalising the continuous uprating of the environmental performance of the industry.
The line proposed in the new clause is quite unique in planning law. How many other industries would be threatened in this way? The key issues that go right to the heart of the economic operation of aggregates sites are those of the area, depth, rate and hours of working and the total quantity to be extracted. Surely those rights should not be forcibly removed or diminished without full compensation. However, we know that this policy area has been the subject of consultation and subsequent discussion for nearly a year. The industry has come forward with positive proposals that, subject to the safeguards I have just covered, would allow regular updating of all sites to the benefit of the environment but without unreasonably prejudicing the economics of the operation. I support that approach.
This is not an abstract issue. We are debating the future of an important industry. It is one vital to the construction industry and to the economy, particularly rural areas and the rural economy, where often it is one of the rare sources of jobs. We want the quarry industry to be good neighbours. That is what the industry says it wants too. A better and fairer framework than the new clause proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, could help to get the right result.
I should like to add a special comment on what are called dormant sites—those with full planning permission but which have not been worked for some time. I have some sympathy for those near such a site that suddenly opens up after perhaps decades. I understand that dormant sites can still be important

129
assets and part of companies' and local authorities' land banks, but some carefully considered special regime might not be unreasonable. Those which have been dormant since before 1982 should not reopen without completely updated conditions being attached.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount and supported by my noble friends. An asset which exists now is only worth what its future net income will be. What we face right now is a planning permission which was given long ago when environmental benefits were underpriced or not priced at all. Therefore, by not paying the proper cost for the environmental costs imposed, extra profits were made. We are not asking the industry to give back those extra profits. I should like to see that, but neither I nor the noble Viscount is proposing that. We are saying that from here on an appropriate price should be paid for making good the environmental damage done. That is not recontracting. It is basically reflecting an uncertainty that any investor faces when prices change. If prices change we have to pay the changed prices. Therefore, under those conditions, no extra compensation should be paid but we should say that the people who operate the planning permissions should pay the appropriate price for making good the damage done.
Perhaps I may say something about compensation. That arose regarding the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. In that case, I believe that there is perfect justification for saying that no compensation should be paid. The mineral extraction for which planning permission was given is no longer applicable because the mineral is no longer being extracted. That planning permission has no future income. It may have alternative incomes because everything has such alternative incomes. The permission was for extracting ironstone and if that is not being extracted, the position changes. Therefore, in such cases no compensation is necessary because future income as regards extracting ironstone as a result of granting the permission is zero. One can add together any number of zeros, and the result is zero. Therefore, there is no compensation to be paid, and that particular asset has no value whatsoever in economic terms.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as with all excavation, quarrying and mineral extraction, the crux of the matter is that the licence or planning permission should ensure that conditions are attached for restoration of the site. It is that restoration to which we have to apply our minds in particular. I am not sure of the technicalities of this matter. We have heard various views expressed. I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Ullswater has to say.
I am quite sure that the Government should bear in mind—as was done with the opencast coalmining sites—that most of them had very stringent conditions attached. In most cases, there has been exceedingly good restoration work which has fitted in well with the countryside. That is what we need to go for. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say whether the
130
amendment of my noble friend Lord Addison achieves that objective or whether something slightly technically different is needed.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right to stress the importance of restoration. But the problem is that many of the old planning permissions had no conditions attached to ensure restoration. That is one of the biggest problems being faced. They also did not have proper environmental conditions attached such as restriction on noise limits, hours of working, depth limits and so forth.
I support the proposed amendments. I was encouraged by what the Minister said at Committee stage. I look forward very much to hearing what he has to say about the government review which they have been carrying out. They have had consultations, but it has been a very slow process. It is important that the matter should be speeded up.
One of the problems about old planning permissions is that as they were granted on much less stringent conditions than would be given today, and very often for areas where one would never obtain planning permission today, such as in national parks, SSSIs and areas of outstanding natural beauty, there is a distortion in the market between people operating on the old and lax permissions and those who are operating with today's rightly much more stringent conditions.
I am also very worried about dormant permissions. I believe that there may be as many as 1,600 of them. In some areas they are a kind of time bomb ticking away with no restrictions at all at the moment on when those permissions will expire. That is a source of great worry. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to go some way to meet the arguments put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I have considerable difficulty with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Addison. I must declare an interest in that for five or so years I have worked for Hanson PLC which owns ARC, a company heavily involved in the aggregates business throughout the United Kingdom. During the five years I have been involved with it I have become familiar with many different aspects of the industry and the issues which it faces.
While I recognise the sentiments which lie behind my noble friend's amendment, I have to ask him whether he has really considered the damaging effects of what he proposes. The effect of economic loss was very much glossed over by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. The loss of asset value cannot be ignored to those companies which are engaged in winning minerals and it is, as my noble friend Lord Gisborough said, considerably greater than anything which exists if other types of planning permission are taken away. To that extent, what my noble friend proposes will result in a measure which is not only retrospective, but to a very large extent confiscatory. I very much echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Boardman.

131
When my noble friend Lord Ullswater replies, I hope that he will bear in mind two important matters. Although I am aware that there may be bad examples up and down the country, I hope he is aware that in general the quarrying industry has proved itself to be much more adaptable, responsive and responsible than perhaps my noble friend Lord Addison gave credit for.
I believe that the industry has demonstrated a readiness to accept proper constraints which contemporary environmental awareness necessitates. I believe that my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will find plenty of examples of really first-class restoration of works which returned what was perhaps a large hole in the ground to its original state, but also enhanced in a way which people never imagined before, environmental amenity and other aspects which the work gave scope for.
There are numerous examples throughout the country of the industry accepting restrictions on the sensory aspects of quarrying such as noise, control of vehicles, blasting and visual amenity. I have no doubt that more can be done where the cost of so doing would not be excessive, But there is a major difference between those sorts of conditions and those limiting, for example, depth, area, quantity and rate at which minerals can be extracted. To that extent, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, seemed to connect the sensory factors with those later examples which I have given.
It is very much that second point which I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to bear in mind. Those later conditions limiting depth, area, and so on, represent the asset value of the operation which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, seems to believe does not really exist, Imposing revised and restrictive conditions without compensation is wholly unacceptable. During the passage of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, the then Minister, the right honourable Sir George Young, made a statement, in relation to interim development orders, advising that a distinction should be drawn between conditions which deal with the environmental and amenity aspects of working a site which would not affect asset value, and conditions that would fundamentally affect the economic structure of the operation. Conditions that would significantly affect the asset value would be more appropriate for reviews under the provisions introduced by the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981. The difficulty was that that matter was merely addressed as a statement of intent and was not enshrined in legislation.
Since 1948 much enhanced legislation, notably the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act, has been introduced. Consents granted for mineral extraction since then have been given with a much greater degree of control. I believe that everyone is prepared to acknowledge that, but I urge my noble friend to make plain on the face of the Bill under what conditions compensation will be payable. If the principle of Sir George Young's statement is worth the paper on which it is written, putting that in the Bill cannot make much difference to the Government, but it would certainly make a difference to its acceptability to the industry,
132
particularly since it has been demonstrated that mineral planning guidance has subsequently weakened the intention of that statement.
If my noble friend can go that far, he will find that the industry is responsive to him. However, if what he is going to say does not recognise the fact that mineral planning permissions are integral to the stability of the industry and thus form a key part of the asset base (and hence the balance sheets of companies) with all that that entails for employees, shareholders and the industry's contribution to the economy, and that, if removed, the rights that were granted under the planning system will not be compensated in law, I am afraid that the scope for a meeting of minds on that issue is very much diminished. I very much hope that my noble friend will see the force of those arguments and produce a statement from which all concerned can derive confidence.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I apologise for my late arrival. Unfortunately, I missed the opening speech of this debate and will consequently speak extremely briefly. I hope that my few remarks will be construed as supporting entirely every word that has just been spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, including his comments on the asset base, a matter on which I disagreed with my noble friend Lord Desai in Committee.
I cannot support the amendment for the following reasons. Whereas planning authorities would be unable to withdraw planning permissions instantly, they could however apply new conditions without any hindrance with the sole protection of an appeal to the Secretary of State. That would be without compensation. I agree with British Aggregate Construction Materials Industries that that would be a complete negation of natural justice. It would put the Secretary of State in a position of being able to confiscate the rights of mineral operators in a wholly arbitrary way. I should add, however, that I do not expect the noble Viscount to act in such a way. There is no parallel for that approach in any other form of land use planning. There can be no justification for introducing a more severe restriction here than is normal in other aspects of land use planning.
Having said that, and having arrived late, I shall say no more except to repeat that I strongly support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn and, if it is not withdrawn. that it will be defeated.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I rise to support the sentiments that have been expressed by my noble friend Lord Addison in moving the amendment. We know that the wording is not likely to form part of the legislation and we eagerly await what my noble friend Lord Ullswater will say that the Government have in mind.
The essence of the discussion is that things have changed from the time when many of the permissions were granted. Higher standards are demanded now. I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Renton said about the reinstatement of mineral workings being of great importance, but I do not think that that is everything. Perhaps I may give just two examples which

133
show how the practice of the time when the permission was originally granted might be regarded as unacceptable today.
The first is an example relating to minerals, but from the United States. As your Lordships know, it was in 1848 that John Sutter discovered gold in California—a most exciting and romantic event. Subsequently, in the early days after the war, huge machines were introduced into northern California which used mega-sized jets of water to mine the gold. The result was huge pollution affecting the Sacramento River. Some 20 years ago the United States abandoned that process because it was no longer acceptable. Your Lordships can now spend a happy weekend with your frying pans, panning for gold. I am told that we are more likely to find a good nugget than to win the National Lottery, but the mega-sized jets of water can no longer be used. The United States believes very much in free and private enterprise, but that is an example of how things change and of the fact that what was originally regarded as acceptable is no longer so regarded.
Perhaps I may take another humble example. I refer to bridleways. They were made for the traffic of the day, and I suggest that it is not acceptable for four-wheel drive vehicles to career over the Ridgeway, for example. All that we are really saying is that in this important area of mineral workings, it is important to bring the law up to date with what is acceptable today.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which my noble friend Lord Addison moved his amendment and for the many contributions that have been made to the debate. My noble friend indicated some of the problems that need to be addressed. In supporting the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, made it clear that a responsible attitude to the economics of local communities and to the industry should he adopted.
The industry is of considerable importance for the economy and our standard of living, and it is to he commended on the steps it has taken in recent years to improve environmental standards. My noble friend Lord Gisborough mentioned the BACMI environmental code. I agree with my noble friend Lord Glenarthur that that was a very responsible move. However, not all operators work to the same high standards, and it is in the long-term interests of the industry as a whole for the problems created by old permissions to be resolved at the earliest date,
The principle that mineral permissions should be updated and that the industry should bear some of the costs was recognised in the procedures introduced by the 1981 Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act, but these have not worked well, as the noble Baroness. Lady Hilton, indicated. We have consulted extensively on proposals to ensure the updating of old mineral permissions and the elements of a decision are now in place.
The Government therefore intend to bring forward amendments in another place to deal with those problems. We intend that the amendments will provide for the following. First, they will require the initial
134
updating of planning permissions where the predominant planning permission was granted before 22nd February 1982. We intend to make a distinction between "dormant" sites—that is, sites where no development has taken place to any substantial extent for a number of years—and "active" sites—that is, sites which are currently operating or where working has been only temporarily suspended in recent years.
To spread the workload, we intend that active sites should be reviewed in two consecutive phases, dealing with the oldest sites first. Phase I, to be completed within three years, would deal with sites where the predominant permission was granted before 1st April 1969. Phase II, to be completed in the following three years, would deal with sites where the predominant permission was granted after 31st March 1969 but before 22nd February 1982. To deal with the particular problem of sites wholly or partly within national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest, I propose that all these should be reviewed in the first phase. I hope that that will reassure my noble friend Lord Addison.
Mineral planning authorities would be required to compile lists of sites, specifying in which phase active sites would be reviewed and the date by which the owner or operator must submit a scheme of updated planning conditions for the Authority's approval. If no scheme was submitted the permission would fall. Dormant sites would not be allowed to recommence working until a new scheme of conditions had been approved.
This broadly follows the approach we adopted for interim development orders. This approach is working well and real improvements are being achieved. I therefore intend to follow the approach set out by Sir George Young, which is that there should be no compensation for any new environmental, amenity and restoration conditions imposed on sites—I hope that that will reassure my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Marlesford and the noble Lord, Lord Moran—whether active or dormant, but there would be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
Guidance would make clear that for "active" sites a distinction should be drawn between conditions that deal with the environmental and amenity aspects of working the site, which would not affect the asset value, and conditions that would fundamentally affect the economic structure of the operation. Conditions that would significantly affect the asset value, or fundamentally affect the economic structure of the operation, should be imposed only by agreement with the operator or by the use of revocation, modification or discontinuance orders which would attract compensation. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur today, and the industry, have suggested to me that this approach should be enshrined in statute. I am giving careful consideration to that proposition.
I recognise the concerns that some sites are simply in the wrong place and their permissions should be revoked. The Government do not believe in the revocation of planning permissions without

135
compensation. However, for dormant sites, full modern conditions will be appropriate before reactivation. These would be imposed without compensation.
I wish to encourage greater use of prohibition orders to remove the problem of long dormant sites where there is no real intention to work them. In considering whether or not to confirm such orders, the Secretary of State will wish to satisfy himself that the land or mineral owner can demonstrate a real and genuine intention to work the site and that the site is capable of being worked to full modern conditions. A vague indication that the site might be worked sometime in the future will be insufficient. I believe the proposals for full modern conditions and the policy I have set out for prohibition orders will go a long way to resolving the problem of dormant sites.
The amendments will also provide for periodic reviews of all mineral sites every 15 years. This is important to ensure that the conditions attached to permissions keep pace with the standards of the day—a point made by my noble friend Lord Marlesford—and that we do not re-create the problem we now have. Mineral planning authorities would have to notify operators when a review was due and the date by which a scheme of conditions should be submitted for approval. If no scheme was submitted the permission would fall. There would be a right of appeal against the imposition of unreasonable conditions and a clear entitlement to compensation.
I turn now to the issue of the end date for permissions granted prior to 1982. I have given careful consideration to whether the date of 2042 should be brought forward. The primary task is to get the permissions updated to modern standards. The measures I have outlined will ensure that active permissions have to be reviewed within six years and that dormant sites cannot be reactivated until full modern conditions have been imposed. This, combined with increased use of prohibition orders to deal with sites that are unlikely to be worked in the future, will ensure that any problems caused by the current end date will be minimised. I therefore propose to leave the end date unchanged.
I return briefly to the subject of old ironstone consents. I indicated earlier that our proposals would do much to resolve the main issues posed by these permissions. Active ironstone sites must be reviewed and upgraded within the first phase. Dormant sites will not be able to reactivate until full modern conditions are approved, including provision for proper access and transport which are of particular importance for the sites. Taken as a whole, together with the increased use of prohibition orders, this approach will lead to substantial improvements on the ground without the need for revocation of consents.
I shall briefly mention the position on peat. As noble Lords may know, much peat extraction takes place from within old permissions which are now also SSSIs. I have had constructive discussions with the industry, which has agreed that all old peat permissions should be reviewed in the first phase of the initial reviews. The industry will also have regard to the safeguarding of adjacent areas which are of nature conservation value, the phasing of remaining extraction, and proposals for
136
rehabilitation, wherever practicable, to provide future areas for nature conservation. The industry has voluntarily agreed to surrender substantial working rights to achieve this approach.
The package we propose follows broadly the proposals we consulted on last year, refined in the light of consultees' comments. It will ensure that old permissions are brought up to acceptable standards; that dormant sites cannot be reactivated without warning or proper conditions; and that all mineral permissions will be regularly reviewed in future. I believe it represents a significant step forward while maintaining an equitable balance between the rights of those who hold longstanding, valid planning permissions and the proper protection of the environment and amenity.
In the light of what I have said, and the undertakings I have given, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for all he said in his very long reply to my two amendments. I would like to study more fully what he said in Hansard tomorrow. In view of all that he said and the helpful way he put the message across, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No.]27 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, in Clause 54, Amendment No. 128—standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kintore—and Amendment No. 128A appear to be alternatives. If either of the amendments is agreed to, I would not be able to call Amendments Nos. 128B to 128E inclusive because of pre-emption.
Clause 54 [Contaminated Land]:
The Earl of Kintore The Earl of Kintore moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 45, leave out lines 9 to 15 and insert:
("()"Contaminated land" is any land or interest in land, whether comprising of the surface or of any substratum, mine, mineral or underground space, which appears to the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in or on the land, that—

(a) significant harm, or

(b) pollution of controlled waters,

is being or is likely to be caused.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I welcome the attempt that is being made by Clause 54 to clarify and improve the law on contaminated land. I fear, however, that there are serious flaws which, if not corrected, will result in significant prejudice to innocent owners and occupiers.
The amendment seeks, first, to provide that any harm emanating from substances in the land must be significant for the definition of "contaminated land" to be met. There are many situations where substances in the ground—such as normal levels of agricultural pesticides—cause harm to certain organisms, even where the overall effect of the substance in question may be beneficial.
Secondly, the definition of "contaminated land" must be tight enough to ensure that where contamination is in an underground seam or mine which does not belong to the surface owner, the surface owner will not be held

137
liable. The wording of the Bill, which refers to substances under the land, places full liability on owners and occupiers of the surface—even tenant farmers—for contamination in underground mineral seams or mines which belong to someone else. This would place an immediate liability on surface owners for polluted water in disused coalmines. It may be that that is an unintentional effect of the Bill, but it would be highly unsatisfactory and unfair.
The conveyancing theory in both Scottish and English law is that ownership of land has no vertical limits unless these are specified in the title. There is therefore no need to refer to substances under the land because the surface owner is assumed to own everything below ground unless the title says otherwise. There are, however, many exceptions where mines and minerals belong to a third party. In the terms of the Coal Act 1938, all coal mines were vested in the coal commissioners, subsequently the National Coal Board, and now the Coal Authority.
In moving the amendment—which is grouped with others, including government ones—I hope that the Minister will take an early opportunity to give the Government's views. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I were to address the amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List. By doing so, I hope to be able to explain the Government's intentions. I hope that the House will allow the debate to continue and then, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may wind up at the end.
I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 128C, 128F, 129F, 129G. 135A, 141A, 144D and the others in my name grouped with those amendments. I am pleased to have been able to table the amendments before today's debate. They all relate to the overall definition of "contaminated land" and the process by which it is determined whether individual sites qualify as such. I must of course apologise for their relatively late arrival, and, while I would not normally wish to table amendments so close to the day on which they are to be debated, I felt that it would be better for them to be tabled and debated as soon as they were ready, rather than to leave them until the Bill is debated in another place.
Amendment No. 128C is the most important in this package of amendments, as it adds the qualification that harm must be significant into the definition of "contaminated land". That reflects the Government's original intentions, and our overall "suitable for use" approach. It will also, I believe, meet many of the concerns as to the scope of these provisions raised by noble Lords in our debate on this clause in Committee.
That notion of "significant" harm includes the consideration together of the extent of any harm and of the nature of what might be affected—what is called in the technical jargon, the "target". For some potential targets—human health, for example,—quite small amounts of harm might be unacceptable. But when considering damage to property, as another example, the test might be less stringent.
138
Moving beyond that, some targets will be disregarded altogether. It is not the Government's intention, for example, to introduce through these provisions new requirements for the protection of habitats and ecological systems over and above those already in place under existing wildlife and habitat legislation.
The second major element of Amendment No. 128C is the new test relating to the "significant possibility" of harm being caused. In deciding whether remediation might be required on any site, a balance needs to be struck between the probability of any harm arising, and the consequences if it does. For example, the chances of methane gas on a site actually resulting in an explosion at any given time may not be all that high, but the consequences of an explosion to people living nearby would be so great as to require action to be taken to reduce even that slight possibility.
The amendment deliberately leaves unchanged the existing test in respect of pollution of controlled waters. That reflects the existing test under water legislation, in particular Section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991, which can also be used to deal with land which is likely to pollute waters. The Government's intention in including water pollution within the definition of "contaminated land" for the purposes of these provisions was to try to ensure that individual sites did not face dual regulation, and so that a single process could address all of the problems associated with contaminants in the land. That purpose would be frustrated if this legislation sought to impose a different test from that which applies under the water legislation.
The process of determining whether there is, in fact, a significant possibility of significant harm arising on any individual site requires a detailed risk assessment on that site. Amendments Nos. 128F and 135A provide for local authorities to act in accordance with guidance from the Secretary of State with respect to the manner in which they both seek to identify contaminated land and determine whether the land is contaminated. That will ensure that the local authorities act in a technically sound way, reflecting best scientific practice in this area.
Amendment No. 129F provides for guidance to set the parameters within which the questions can be determined as to whether any harm is significant; whether the chances of its occurrence are significant; and whether pollution of controlled waters is likely to be caused. This provides for the guidance to be able to ascribe different degrees of importance to different types of target and different categories of harm. Specifically, it allows for particular descriptions of these to be disregarded, where that is appropriate. We believe that that overcomes the problems of vires identified with the guidance in the original provisions, by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in particular.
There is understandable concern that that important material should be in guidance, rather than on the face of the Bill or set out in regulations. I believe, however, that our approach is the best in the circumstances. The decisions on each individual site will be based on detailed technical judgments, relying on the consideration of a wide range of factors in each case. It would quite simply not be possible to prescribe for all possible circumstances what answers those technical

139
judgments should arrive at. The best that can be achieved is for the parameters of the necessary technical judgments to be set through guidance in accordance with which local authorities must act, and which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. That guidance would, in any case, carry strong evidential weight in the courts if any remediation requirements were to be challenged on the grounds that the guidance had not been followed.
A further benefit from the production of that guidance will be to improve certainty in the property market. At present, local authorities are able to use their powers under the statutory nuisance powers in Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with very little by way of guidance. The guidance under this part, with its strong status, will provide a guide to anyone interested in knowing what might be required of them by way of remediation. That will enable them to plan their property in vestments accordingly.
But aside from those benefits, the guidance will obviously have a central impact on the effect of these powers as a whole. That is why we feel that it is appropriate that it should come from the Secretary of State, and should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the negative resolution procedure. That is the effect of Amendment No. 165A.
That amendment also introduces two further requirements with respect to any guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State under this part. First, before it is issued he will have a duty to consult the appropriate agency, and such other bodies and persons as he considers appropriate. And I am happy to confirm that that consultation will be detailed and involve a wide range of interests. Secondly, the amendment states explicitly that any such guidance will be published.
I wish to commend this package to your Lordships. I believe that it provides a technically robust, and legally secure, basis for delivering the "suitable for use" approach which gained widespread support in the responses to our consultation paper Paying for our Past.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, the late arrival of the amendments on Friday evening makes it difficult to comment upon them in detail. I shall therefore address my remarks largely to the crucial amendment (Amendment No. 128C) which introduces the concept of significant harm.
The Bill as originally drafted had a wide definition of harm to any living organism. That might have caused great difficulty in relation, for example, to the application of pesticides to land, which could have resulted in it being automatically designated as contaminated. However, we are left with the words "significant harm", and their definition will be dependent upon guidance. So, in a sense, although we are slightly further forward, we are not entirely clear about what is intended by that definition of "contaminated land".
Amendment No. 128C appears to be inherently contradictory. The Minister said that it created a balance, but on one side it makes more stringent the definition of "harm", while on the other it introduces the
140
possibility of harm, which widens the provision to the extent that it no longer provides a clear definition of what is contaminated land. One goes from a narrow definition at one end to what might be interpreted as a very broad definition at the other end.
The fact that we do not have the guidance before us makes real comment on the amendments difficult at this stage. I hope that we can obtain an assurance from the Minister that at least the draft guidance will be available when the Bill appears in another place.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 128A, 129A and 133A, which stand in my name. They reflect the anxiety of the Law Society that the Bill's definition of "contaminated land" is inadequate. That was recognised by my noble friend in Committee in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
The Law Society's principal criticism of the definition was that it was too wide, requiring action where there was no real risk justifying expenditure. What was the point, for example, of requiring remediation where soil isolated from human contact or from groundwater was toxic to micro-organisms or invertebrates? The amendments in my name operate principally, first, by redefining harm by reference to harm to human health and property; and, secondly, by tempering the protection afforded to micro-organisms and the like by providing that land may be contaminated if it is in such a condition that serious harm to nature conservation interests is being or is likely to be caused.
My Amendment No. 133A would amend the definition of "pollution of controlled waters" so that the definition does not catch the entry into water of solid waste matter or poisonous, noxious or polluting matter in insufficient quantities to have harmful effect.
The amendments in the name of the noble, Lord Northbourne, and other noble Lords—which stand in danger of being partially pre-empted if an amendment is passed before they are called—take a less radical approach to the definition. They provide that proscribed harm must be serious and that harm to malign micro-organisms is permitted. These amendments would still leave an unnecessary and troublesome general protection in place for all other micro-organisms.
I have not been advised by the Law Society as to its views on these eleventh-hour amendments tabled by the Minister. I know that he is on record as considering that "serious harm" is a test that is too restrictive. My immediate thought is that his "significant harm" test is inadequate for reasons of certainty and clarity. It may be that this very lack of clarity has commended itself to the Government as allowing the infiltration of the Bill by further guidance provisions.
The Law Society is anxious about the time that must elapse before all the guidance in respect of contaminated land is promulgated. The timescale will not be bridged in any way when new Section 78R is added to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The question of contaminated land, in particular where contamination arises in the land of various owners and it is necessary to apportion liability for remediation, is very complex and deserves a parliamentary Bill of its own. A

141
considerable planning blight is already affecting the market and that will not be improved by the inadequacy of this clause as primary legislation so clearly reflected in the perceived need to regulate so much by guidance. I had hoped that the definition of "contaminated land" at least would be on the face of the legislation and not left to guidance.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, will my noble friend reply to a specific question? If an area is in a nitrate sensitive zone, can it also be contaminated land?
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to my Amendments Nos. 128D, 128E, 128G, 129B to 129E, 142A and 144F. They cover the same issues as the amendments tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. I wish to speak separately in turn to Amendment No. 144G, which addresses a slightly different issue.
I welcome the Minister's amendments. They do much to address the anxieties of the House on the definitions of "contaminated land" and "harm", which I raised in Committee. The outstanding problem is that we do not know what the guidelines will state. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will recognise the point made by the CBI? It stated:
"British industry and the current owners of industrial land have the legacy of roughly 200 years of industrial activity since the start of the Industrial Revolution. The total cost of remediation far exceeds the capacity of one generation to provide the requisite resources. Inevitably, this raises questions of priority. In some cases, the contamination may represent a significant risk calling for urgent action. But in many cases the contamination is contained and presents little risk".
I am not too happy about the Minister's comments on the pollution of controlled waters. If one refers to serious harm but the word "serious" is not used in defining polluted waters, it may mean that the pollution of waters must be taken as an absolute issue. "Pollution of controlled waters" is defined at the top of page 48 of the Bill. It refers to:
"any poisons ... or any solid waste matter",
which may be going into the water. That is a tough definition and I ask the Minister to reconsider whether a modification of the definition of "pollution of controlled waters" should he built into the Bill.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I too congratulate my noble friend on the amendments that he has brought forward. However, I have a question about the guidance. When will the draft guidance be published? The timing appears to be out. One has the framework of the Bill; but the guidance, which will be at the nub of the issues, is to follow. Contaminated land is a critical issue and I hope that my noble friend will he able to give a timescale for the publication of the guidance.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I feel like a dowager at the edge of a ballroom, having many years ago sat in my noble friend's office and long since finished dancing the minuets that he is forced to dance before Parliament. However, I wish to reassure my noble friend on one matter. On Friday, he had a difficult decision to make;
142
whether to table the amendments and suffer your Lordships' indignation because they had insufficient time to digest them or not to table the amendments and suffer your Lordships' indignation because they would not be discussed in this House before going to another place. I believe that he took the difficult but correct decision. Third Reading is scarcely the opportunity for a technical debate; but, in any case, I cannot conduct an exchange with seated Members of your Lordships' House.
I repeat that I believe that my noble friend made the right decision. He appears to have met a large majority of the anxieties that were expressed at an earlier stage. Any residual anxieties can be discussed later, and I hope that your Lordships will accept the amendments.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I too believe that, notwithstanding the conventions, the Minister made the right decision in tabling the amendments. They have gone a long way towards allaying some of the fears expressed about the way in which the Bill will operate in practice. I welcome the amendments because they represent a clear sign that some of the anxieties have been heard. Certainly they deal with many of my own anxieties about the Bill.
I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the need to know what will be in the guidelines. It is necessary for the House to have a reasonably full explanation of them so that, before the Bill goes to another place, we can reach a considered opinion on its impact. That is not in any way to seek to pre-empt the necessary discussions in which the Government must engage with others about how the matter is to be implemented. Otherwise, it seems to me that we are firing blind. That is extremely unsatisfactory bearing in mind the overriding need, as pointed out in the quotation from the CBI given by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to remedy a long legacy of contamination. We need to get it right, and we need to know what the guidance will contain.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, despite a certain amount of reservation from the Benches opposite, I am pleased to be able to introduce the amendments. I believe that they move us more than slightly further forward, which was the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton.
The main effect of Amendment No. 128 would be to specify that contaminated land includes any land or interest in land so that it covers specifically sub-strata and mines. It would also introduce the test of significant harm being, or likely to be, caused.
Amendments Nos. 128A and I 29A proposed by my noble friend Lord Coleraine seek to amend the definition of contaminated land so that different tests would apply to different categories of target which may be affected by the harm arising from the contamination. That is broadly in line with the Government's intentions, as I indicated in my earlier comments.

143
I understand that my noble friend has not had sufficient time to take proper advice from his advisers because of the lateness of the tabling of the amendments. I hope that when he has had the opportunity to study them, he will see that they go a long way towards allaying his anxieties.
The formulation adopted in the amendments of my noble friend reflects in particular the widespread anxiety about how the existing definitions in the Bill address damage to habitats and ecological systems. While it was not the Government's intention to introduce new protections in those areas which do not exist under other legislation, it was argued that that would be the effect of existing provisions. We have sought to remove those problems through government amendments which I shall move.
However, I suggest that the amendments of my noble friend Lord Coleraine and the noble Earl would not achieve the goals set for them. First, they would leave an essentially subjective test of serious harm to nature conservation interests. That is probably still too broad in many respects .as it fails to distinguish between those aspects of nature conservation which need to be protected under those powers and those which do not.
Conversely, the test of any harm to nature conservation interests having to be serious is potentially too narrow and restrictive where particular habitats and organisms need protecting. In some cases, that test of serious harm would not enable us to meet our European obligations, in particular in respect of those sites we are required to protect under the habitats directive.
Amendment No. 133A seeks to amend the definition of pollution of controlled waters. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked whether the test for polluting controlled waters is made more stringent by the Bill. Sites would still be open to regulatory action under Section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991, which includes the test as currently included in those contaminated land provisions. Therefore, there is no change.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull and other noble Lords indicated that they wish to see the guidance and asked when it will he available. The Government intend to publish an outline of the guidance on the question of significant harm before the Bill reaches Committee stage in another place. I agree with my noble friend Lord Elton that it would not be suitable to discuss that in detail on Third Reading. It will have to be draft guidance because apart from saying that we shall publish it we have said that we shall consult widely on it.
My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley asked a direct question about nitrate sensitive areas. I shall need to take further advice to be specific about that but I stress that this relates to pollution of controlled waters. Our intention is not to increase existing liabilities under the legislation. We are considering whether our present provisions achieve that particular state. Therefore, having had the opportunity to reply to noble Lords in relation to amendments which have been moved and spoken to, I ask the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I thank him also for tabling the
144
government amendments which I shall study carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128A not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 128B:
Page 45, line 9, at beginning insert:
("Subject to subsection (2A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 128H, 170 and 174. I shall speak to those other amendments because they form part of a package, as I propose to explain.
There is a general problem of pollution from abandoned mines. That is recognised and I do not wish to go into detail or repeat the arguments which have taken place in your Lordships' House both during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill and also in Committee on this Bill. The severity of the problem has been illustrated by several bodies and studies, not least the review of November last year by the Department of the Environment.
Of course, the problem is not confined to abandoned coal mines. Metalliferous mines are affected also. They have the same toxic effects and are liable to pollute waters. As the Minister said in Committee, there is a somewhat anomalous legal position about who should or might be responsible for pollution caused by water from abandoned mines.
The Coal Authority, I understand, deals with abandoned coal mines, although the remit of the authority is not entirely clear. There are also abandoned metal mines. It is not clear from the regulations who is meant to deal with the pollution which arises or may arise from them. There are various categories of abandoned mine which have been dealt with by different bodies as and if problems arise. I do not wish to deal with the Coal Authority; it is the subject of a later amendment to he moved by my noble friend Lady Hilton. I wish to deal specifically with the amendments which I have placed before your Lordships.
In my view, there are two categories of abandoned mine. There is the category of existing abandoned mines, if I may use that expression; that is, mines which have already been abandoned and which constitute a threat. Those may be coal mines—many of which have been closed down over the past few years—or they may be metal mines of one kind or another.
The second category is mines which may be abandoned after the Bill becomes an Act. That is a slightly different category. I propose to deal with the two categories in that order.
So far as concerns existing abandoned mines, my amendments would ensure that any mine abandoned during the period between the date of Royal Assent of the legislation and the date from which the defence provided by Section 89(3) of the Water Resources Act 1991 ceases to apply should be treated as contaminated land. As we know, there are several procedures for the mediation of contaminated land which will apply even if the

145
amendments that the Government are about to move—and which I imagine your Lordships will accept —are put into the Bill.
There is no intention in our proposal that the definition of "contaminated land" would normally apply to land under which abandoned mines are situated; indeed, it is not intended that any such question should be raised. All that matters is that the definition would refer to such land during the period specified irrespective of whether it did so otherwise. In other words, during that very limited period —and I shall say later just how limited that should be—the abandoned mine or mines would be treated as contaminated land.
I recognise that that proposal is a short-term solution. However, it is designed simply to ensure that there is no hole through which anyone can escape. In a way, it is a half-way house. It is so for two reasons. First, it is designed to give the Government time to determine what the role and, indeed, the funding of the Coal Authority should be; in other words, what should be the long-term solution for existing abandoned coal mines. We have heard many ministerial statements in that respect, but there is substantial doubt about the role and funding of the Coal Authority. Secondly, it would allow the Government to decide what to do about existing abandoned metal mines for which, at present, there appears to be no solution.
I turn now to the second category. So far as concerns any mines abandoned between Royal Assent and the date from which the defence against polluting controlled waters ceases to apply, they would be treated as contaminated land. But, again, I recognise that that is not an ideal solution. It is another holding situation. It is a holding situation which leads to the conclusion—and, because it is so, it should not last too long—that the date upon which the defence ceases to apply should be brought back and that it should not be a five year business. We believe that it should be put back to 1st January 1996. That is the object of Amendments Nos. 170 and 174.
At that point—if our proposal is adopted—the situation would become quite clear both for coal mines and for metal mines which are subsequently abandoned. Therefore, the amendments which I am putting before the House all hang together. They provide, first, an intermediate holding situation to what I acknowledge to be a difficult problem. They would allow space for the Government to come out into the open, if I may put it that way, on the Coal Authority's funding, and on its responsibilities, and on their proposals to deal with existing abandoned mines of other minerals. The Government could use that period to declare their hand.
The amendments also allow a new structure of responsibility to start operating from the date at which it should and not five years hence. As such, the amendments form a package which I hope will commend itself to the House. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment Nos. 170 and 174. I believe that the Government must now be aware of the dismay that
146
met their proposal in the coal legislation that effective legal responsibility on mine waters from abandoned mines would not come into force until 1999. The amendments seek the immediate abolition of the defence available to the owner of an abandoned mine and would not allow the defence to continue for another five years.
When the Bill was introduced to the House, noble Lords will remember that there was, in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, a special passage marked "Abandoned mines" which said:
"Since these proposals are coming forward in parallel with the privatisation of the coal industry, there could be some adverse effect on proceeds to the Government. Accordingly, the removal of the statutory protections is being timed to reduce any possible effect".
In my opinion, that is the Government blatantly admitting that the reason for the delay in abolishing the defence is to reduce the possibility of an adverse effect on the proceeds of privatisation of the coal industry. Therefore, they have given a five-year safeguard. I find that quite incredible. It is a total disregard for the environment and for the likely pollution problems emanating from the cessation of pumping at abandoned mines.
Local authorities and National Rivers Authority regional officers in the coalfields are aghast. They fear the pollution of rivers and lakes allied with no responsibility being placed on the owner of an abandoned mine. The all-party Coalfield Community Campaign has expressed its concern that the Government's intention has been to maximise the proceeds from the sale of the coal industry and not the need to protect the environment of mining areas. That is a charge which should be answered.
The Government must be aware of the NRA report, Abandoned Mines and the Water Environment, which was published in March last year. It stated that in England and Wales alone 200 kilometres of rivers, streams and brooks are already affected by varying degrees of pollution from abandoned coal mines. In the Scottish coalfield alone, the report states that there are 134 kilometres of surface waters polluted from 110 discharges in the Clyde and Forth catchment areas alone.
If existing pumping by the Coal Authority were to stop before 31st December 1999, the length of polluted rivers would extend greatly and threaten some of our rivers of national importance. It also seems relevant that the Coal Authority, which is at present continuing to pump in areas such as Durham, South Wales and Yorkshire (where mines have already been abandoned), might become criminally liable if it stopped pumping, whereas it might not if, as proposed, there is a five year delay in abolishing the defence.
The Secretary of State for the Environment described the latter as "unique statutory exemptions". Well, of course, they are: they are favouring the potential polluters. The Government have given a commitment that the responsibilities of British Coal and the historical legacy of mining would be taken on by the new Coal Authority. Therefore, is it not unfair and unjust that the authority may be able to shelter behind that exemption in favour of abandoned mines? So far as concerns water pollution or even potential water pollution, there can be

147
no doubt: the Government should not be content to rest on the present effect of the exemptions. If the existing rules remain, particularly on minewater pollution, private mine owners would have few environmental liabilities. The public sector would be placed in the position of having to clean up the pollution caused by privately operated mines. Moreover, what of the principle that the "polluter pays"? In those cases, the public would pay.
The Bill also fails to address the problems of long-time abandoned mines where pollution is already occurring. That is a problem, and a most worrying one, which faces mining communities. It concerns us that the legal loophole is to be removed only for coal mines abandoned up to the end of 1999.
There are approximately 23 former British Coal mines left, but scores of pits have been closed in recent years, with all the worries about cessation of funding. The Bill does not demand that, on abandonment, mine operators contribute to environmental protection costs or take account of the environment when they abandon a mine.
The Minister said:
"we have taken the view that it would be right to allow those involved a period until the end of 1999 in which to adjust to the proposed changes in the existing regulatory regime because of the obvious practical and financial implications".—[Official Report, 31/1/95; col. 1484.)
Again it is a question of financial implications. So the Government remove a potential environmental liability and aid the sell off, irrespective of the pollution problems that might flow from cessation of pumping from an abandoned mine.
The truth is a disgraceful disregard of the looming environmental problems likely to hit our coalfield communities on top of the environmental degradation that we have suffered over the years from burning muckstacks, opencast coal mining, tipping sites and general industrial pollution. All of that is on top of the heartless mass closures of our coal mines, the massive rise in unemployment and wholesale misery in our mining villages. It is just not on.
I say therefore, on the environmental plane alone, that our people are worthy of a better, cleaner way of life. Mine water pollution of our rivers and reservoirs from abandoned mines will certainly affect the quality of life. Yet there is no sanction on private owners; they have no liability until after 1999. I believe that they should come under a legal statutory sanction immediately.
Also, the Coal Authority must not shelve its responsibility for its working mines by hiding behind this five-year exemption. It must be aware of its responsibilities for the countless numbers of abandoned mines in all our coalfields and the increasing dangers of pollution outbreaks from these old mines. There is a fear of a series of major pollution incidents from mine water discharges. The National Rivers Authority report identifies many significant water quality problems, including serious discharges from abandoned mines: 15 in Northumbria, 24 in the North West, four in Severn Trent, 21 in Wales and 36 in Yorkshire. There are over 10,000 abandoned mines, many containing pollution time bombs. We have already had a series of frightening
148
reminders and there are likely to be many more. The Coal Authority, in alliance with the NRA, must start tackling those outbreaks.
Finally, the Coal Authority, now the owner of and responsible for all abandoned mines, should be required by statute to prevent, control and treat pollution from its abandoned mines regardless of when they were abandoned. Money should be afforded to the authority from the £1,000 million from coal mine sales and the moneys, estimated at £500 million, that will be made from the forthcoming land sales.
There is always a price to pay to protect the environment and to avoid environmental damage. The Government should now recognise their responsibilities in this regard and abolish the five-year defence for all mines and provide the moneys to the Coal Authority to help it protect our coalfield communities from these environmental dangers.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mason, speaks with vast authority on these matters. The House will understand why we miss his formidable contribution to the affairs of the NRA.
I do not need to add much to what the noble Lord said about the five-year gap before the removal of the defence afforded by Section 89 of the Water Resources Act 1991. He quoted the comments of my noble friend Lord Ullswater on 31st January. He did not quote an introductory remark by my noble friend, when he said that the decision:
"to remove the defence and exemption was taken in the knowledge that that would be a step of great significance not just as a means of improving the quality of discharges from mines abandoned in the future, but with the practical and financial implications for the current owners and operators of mines".—[Official Report. 31/1/95; col. 1484.]
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, spoke of the impact and the financial implications and whether that was a good reason for acting. However, we are faced with a dilemma. While there are clearly financial implications, if this measure is of great significance as a means of improving the quality of discharges, then one needs a good reason for delaying its introduction. The delay causes me concern.
There are other matters which also worry me. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde, speaking as long ago as 26th April 1994, made it clear that the Coal Authority will be the owner of abandoned mines throughout Great Britain irrespective of when they may have been worked. There comes a point when the Coal Authority takes over responsibility. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, reminded us, there are not only coal mines to worry about, there are also metalliferous mines. He said that metalliferous mines could be just as polluting as coal mines. In reality they may well cause greater pollution. Our experience, certainly for example with the Wheal Jane tin mine, is that the "nasties" that they release may be a great deal nastier than those normally experienced with coal mines.
There is a serious anxiety to be addressed here. If the Coal Authority is to pick up the responsibility for coal mines it is by no means clear where responsibility for metalliferous mines is to lie or from where the resources for dealing with the problem are to come.

149
While it may be important that the removal of the defence is postponed for five years, there is a longer-term problem which also needs to be addressed. The Bill does not give the agency any new powers to require action to be taken to deal with already abandoned mines or mines that may be abandoned up to the year 2000. Essentially, the agency will have to continue to rely on the existing legislation and on non-statutory memorandums of understanding.
We need an answer to the question as to what route the Government think should be taken to deal with old, orphaned metalliferous mines. I do not pretend that it is an easy problem. The costs can be very great, as we discovered with Wheal Jane. It would at least be helpful if we had some indication from the Government as to how they think the problem might be tackled.
There is also one further issue which concerns me. It is the relationship of the legislation we are proposing to put in place with the directives of the European Union. Perhaps I would test my noble friend a little severely if I asked him to give me an immediate answer, but I should be grateful if at some stage he could say what is the legal position with regard to the dangerous substances and ground water directives. It is by no means clear to me whether coal or metalliferous mines are exempted from those directives. If they are not, how is it that the Government can allow the exemptions from the Water Resources Act to continue until the end of the century? It seems possible at least that the Government are opening themselves to the risk of challenge in the European Court. It is therefore not just a question of a gap. There is the real possibility of a conflict between our own and the European legislative position.
These are difficult issues. We have to face the fact that the costs of dealing with the problems can he great. I would be the first to argue that we have to choose our priorities, and to choose them with care. I do not for one moment argue that the new agency, or the Government, should be expected to rush in to deal with the discharge from every closed mine. There are mines which have been discharging discolouring water, often for centuries, without causing serious damage. Indeed, there are red rivers all around this country and the world. There are great companies—I refer to Rio-Tinto Zinc—named for that very reason. However, specific rivers which are affected by coal mine closure, and other metalliferous rivers, involve a very real threat and danger. We need some indication from the Government on how they intend to address the problems.
I conclude by reminding the House that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, took us a considerable step forward in giving the commitments that he gave at an earlier stage about the role of the coal authority and the role that the Government envisage for the coal authority in tackling mines that have been abandoned.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I wish to muse for a small moment of time on the contrast between exemptions given to disused mines and the absolute offence of the pollution of a river by a private person or
150
a private company, however good the defence is. It seems to me that a difference in values is being applied here.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in supporting the group of amendments, I make one comment. The Government took a welcome step forward on the last day of the Report stage when dealing with environmental costs and benefits. They accepted that in that context costs include costs to the environment and not only the cash costs to individuals. It would be helpful and welcome if that principle could be applied to this serious issue. The Government's thinking having moved forward, I hope that the particular as well as the general provision will illustrate that.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I have no idea what my noble friend will say in reply to the debate. However, I hope that the words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, will receive particular attention. Those who live in the mining areas have strong feelings. Whatever difficulties the Government may have, or however the Government may feel, those who live in the mining areas feel that they have been treated shabbily and that their interests have not been taken into account. If I may say so, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, put the point with great restraint and effectively. I very much hope that his words will be carefully weighed.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we have leapt from an amendment on the definition of contaminated land, which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, moved to redefine abandoned coal mines as contaminated land, into abandoned mine provisions which are the subject of Clause 55. Although I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, and to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, it would probably he as well not to go into too much detail because we shall go over the issue substantially on the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, on abandoned mines.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. However, if the House proposes to accept the amendment, we shall not move those amendments. I regard the group as a package.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell indicated from my remarks at Committee stage that the provisions in Clause 57 represented a significant step. Coal owners have had the exemption now enshrined in the Water Resources Act 1991 since 1875. Therefore to end an exemption is quite a significant step. People have relied on that exemption for 120 years. That is one of the reasons why the amount of time is considered to be important: that we should not make such change right away but allow a certain amount of time for the industry to get used to the change in values.
The amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would affect the potential overlap between these contaminated land provisions and the separate legislation concerning water pollution from abandoned mines.

151
As noble Lords may be aware, Clause 57 removes, for mines abandoned after 31st December 1999, the defence against prosecution and the exemption from recovery of costs by the agency in cases where polluting water is permitted to flow from an abandoned mine.
It was no part of the Government's intention that the current clause, establishing the contaminated land powers, would have the effect of removing the existing defence and exemption which apply in the circumstances. However, that appears to have been the inadvertent result of the existing provisions in the Bill, and the Government will be bringing forward an amendment at a later date to rectify this.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. would point in the opposite direction, however. Not only would they remove outright the existing defence and exemption, they would also provide that any abandoned mine would be treated as contaminated land as a matter of definition, no matter when it was abandoned. This would apply regardless of whether the mine was actually causing, or likely to cause, significant harm or the pollution of controlled waters. However, it would still place local authorities under a duty to serve remediation notices in respect of those mines.
This somewhat strange provision would then just as strangely lapse at the end of 1999, when the existing defence and exemption concerning permitting water from abandoned mines to enter controlled waters ceases to have effect for any mines abandoned after that date.
Instead of removing the statutory protections from 31st December 1999 in cases where water is permitted to flow from an abandoned mine, Amendments Nos. 170 and 174 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, would instead remove them for mines abandoned after 1st January 1996.
We consider that removal of the defence and the exemption will contribute towards the control of pollution from mines which are abandoned in the future. It is, however, a significant change which may create new potential liabilities and also has practical implications for existing owners and operators of mines. It is also possible that some land values will have taken account of the existence of the statutory protections. For those reasons we have allowed a period for adjustment in setting the date for their removal.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, commented on the impact of Clause 57 on the proceeds from the privatisation of the coal industry. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity to correct the impression that has been gained from the financial memorandum. It is obvious—I do not for a moment attempt to deny it—that proposing new legal liabilities affecting mine owners and operators in particular could have an adverse effect on privatisation and proceeds. Equally, it is obvious that the impact is likely to be larger if the industry is given less time to adapt to those new legal provisions.
However, the memorandum should not be read as meaning that this was the only or even the principal reason for choosing 31st December 1999 as the date after which the amended regime would take effect. But to lay to rest any suggestion that the Government have
152
put privatisation proceeds above the proper protection of the environment, I point out that the arrangements under which British Coal's mines were privatised incorporate important safeguards in respect of any future abandonment. Under those arrangements, the mine operator has to give the Coal Authority six months' notice of any proposed abandonment and a report on the consequences, except in the case of real emergency.
As regards the consequences for the water environment, the report is to be based on consultation with the appropriate regulator, the agencies or the present bodies. The operator then has to take all steps necessary to ensure that the mine can be returned to the authority in a satisfactory condition; that is, a condition which does not expose the authority to future liability. If necessary, the operator would have to make an appropriate payment to the authority for any continuing cost before he could relinquish the lease. Any fair-minded person will agree that those measures, which are the basis on which the mines were privatised, anticipate to a large degree the new responsibilities which will be introduced with more general effect through the Government's proposals in the Bill. Consequently, any remaining impact on privatisation must be small.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, said that he believed that the pollution from coal mines affected a considerable mileage of controlled waters. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell would confirm that the latest NRA survey shows that pollution from abandoned mines currently affects only 1.5 per cent. of river length in England and Wales, and that only 0.5 per cent. is polluted by abandoned coal mines. So my noble friend's supposition is right. Pollution from other metalliferous mines is more damaging than from coal mines, at least on a percentage basis of the waters.
I understand the anxiety put forward by my noble friend Lord Peyton that these are important matters. We would not wish to minimise the problems. However, I have indicated that the steps we propose to take are significant and I suspect that we shall discuss them later this evening. We need to consider what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said about the EC directives on dangerous substances and groundwater. We need to ensure that we do not fall foul of directives. However, I indicated that I do not wish to accept the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, because of the difficulties it poses. I therefore ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his exposition of the reason why he does not feel that the amendments are appropriate. First, I emphasise that they form a package. I have said that three times and I say it again. I do not wish to convey the impression to noble Lords that a provision designating abandoned mines as contaminated land would last five years. I regard that as an intermediate solution, except for metalliferous mines, to which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, drew our attention. I agree with him that at the moment there is no provision for dealing with metalliferous mines which have already been abandoned. We shall not oppose the government amendments about guidance on dealing with

153
contaminated land. Dealing with metalliferous mines might well be included in that framework, perhaps in the form of guidance to local authorities or something similar.
I said at the outset that I believe that there is a real and immediate problem. I have heard many reasons for the Government wishing to postpone action for five years and I accept the noble Viscount's assurance that privatisation proceeds are not the only matter. We had the reason that the Government wanted to allow mine owners time to adapt to change. Another reason was the wish to allow land values to adjust. We now have the explanation that the exemption has existed for a long time and that we must give it time to run out so that everyone can accept that it no longer exists.
I do not believe that any of the explanations address the problems set out with great effect and sincerity by my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley. There is a real threat and danger. The coal mining communities and the metal mining communities have suffered and will continue to suffer. I do not believe that the Government have taken matters as seriously as they should. This is the time to introduce a package and for noble Lords to take the matter in hand and say to the Government, "This is what we want". We wish to ensure that the future of areas where pollution has been caused by industrial and mining activities is protected and the effects mediated soon. For that reason, I wish to ask the opinion of the House. I commend the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 128B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 175.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L

Fisher of Rednal,

Addington, L

Freyberg, L

Airedale, L

Gallacher, L

Archer of Sandwell, L

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gladwyn, L

Barnett, L

Glasgow, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Glenamara, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Bottomley, L

Graham of Edmonton, L[Teller.]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Bruce of Donington, L

Gregson, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L

Grey, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Halsbury, E

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hams of Greenwich, L

Cocks of Hamliffe, L.

Haskel, L.

Crook, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hollick, L.

David, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L

Desai, L

Hooson, L.

Diamond, L.

Howie of Troon, L

Donoughue, L.

Hughes, L

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Elis-Thomas, L

Jeger, B.

EnnaIs, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L

Falkender, B.

Judd, L.

Falkland, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton B.

Kintore, E.

154

Lester of Home Hill, L

Rochester, L

Lockwood, B.

Seear, B.

Longford, E.

Sefton of Garston, L

Lovell-Davis, L

Serota, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Shaughnessy, L

Mar and Kellie, E

Sheffield, Bp.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shepherd, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stedman, B.

McNair, L

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Merlyn-Rees, L

Strabolgi, L

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L

Molloy, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L

Monksweli, L

Tope, L

Morris of Castle Mortis, L

Tordoff, L

Mulley, L.

Varley, L.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L

Ogmore, L

Walpole, L

Parry, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L

Pesten, L

Whaddon, L

Prys-Davies,

L White, B.

Rea, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Redesdale, L.

Williams of Elva L

Richard, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L

Elles, B.

Abinger, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L

Addison, V.

Elton, L

Ailsa, M.

Erne, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Faithfull, B.

Ampthill, L

Flather, B.

Annaly, L

Fraser of Carmyllie, L

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Gage, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Birdwood, L

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Blaker, L

Gisborough, L

Blatch, B.

Goschen, V.

Blyth, L

Gray of Contin, L.

Boardman, L

Grimston of Westbury, L

Borthwick, L

Hampden, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L

Hardinge of Penshurst, L

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L

Harrowby, E.

Bruntisfield, L

Hayhoe, L

Burnham, L.

Henley, L.

Burton, L

Hertford, M.

Butterworth, L.

Hesketh, L

Cadman, L.

Hogg, B.

Caithness, E.

Holderness, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

HolmPatrick, L

Camegy of Lour, B.

Howe, E.

Carnock, L

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L

Inchcape, E

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Inchyra, L

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller]

Chelmsford, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Chesham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L

Clanwilliam, E.

Killearn, L.

Clinton, L

Kimball, L

Coleraine, L

King of Wartnaby, L.

Courtovm, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cox, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seat]

Knutsford, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Lindsay, E

Cross, V.

Long, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Davidson, V.

Lucas, L

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lyell, L.

Denham, L

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Dundee, E.

Dunrossil, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Elibank, L

Mancroft, L

Ellenborough, L.

Manton, L.

155

Marlesford, L

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L

McColl of Dulwich, L

Renton, L.

McConnell, L

Renwick, L.

Melville, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Mersey, V.

Romney, E

Miller of Hendon, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Milverton, L

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Sandford, L

Monk Bretton, L.

Savile, L.

Monson, L.

Seccombe, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Sharpies, B.

Morris, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L

Mottistone, L

Shrewsbury, E.

Mountevans, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Moyne, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Munster, E.

Stewartby, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathcarron, L

Newall, L.

Strathclyde, L [Teller]

Norfolk, D.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Nome, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Northbourne, L

Sudeley, L.

Northesk, E

Swinfen, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L

Orkney, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Tugendhat, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ullswater, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L

Vinson, L

Pender, L

Wade of Charlton, L

Peyton of Yeovil, L

Wharton, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L

Prior, L

Wise, L

Quinton, L.

Wolfson, L.

Rankeillour, L

Wynford,

Rawlings, B.

Young, B.

Reay, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.26 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 128C:
Page 45, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert:

("(a) significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused; or

(b) pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be, caused;").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, spoke to his Amendment No. 128. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. I28D and 128E not moved.]
iscount UllswaterV iscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 128F:
Page 45, line 15, at end insert:
("and, in determining whether any land appears to be such land, a local authority shall, subject to subsection (8A) below, act in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 78R below with respect to the manner in which that determination is to be made.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment together with Amendment No. 128C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 128G and 128H not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 128J:
Page 45, leave out lines 16 to 18
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I also spoke to this amendment with a previous one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 128K not moved.]
Lord Crickhowell Lord Crickhowell moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 46, line 6, leave out ("a closed landfill site") and insert ("contaminated land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now return to a group of amendments which were moved by my noble friend Lord Mills at an earlier stage. They are in exactly the same form as that in which they were debated in Committee. My noble friend and I are continuing to ensure that highly contaminated sites, which may well not be closed landfills, may be open to designation as special sites, and thus fall within the remit of the agency, which should have the expertise and the resource to deal with sites of this kind.
Replying to a number of amendments put down at the earlier stage, including one by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, my noble friend the Minister indicated that the Government felt that they were justified in paying particular attention to closed landfills because they presented:
"a particular range of technical and engineering problems on which staff in the agency are likely to be well qualified by virtue of their responsibilities for the regulation of operational landfills".
I quote from my noble friend's response in Committee on 31st January.
My noble friend also made it quite clear that the Government were willing to consider the question of expanding the range of sites that could potentially be designated as special sites. But he wanted to have a clear idea:
"of why the agency would be better qualified to regulate those other sites than would the local authorities".—[Official Report, 31/1/95; col. 1437.]
He indicated that he did not believe that the case had been adequately made.
Without making the case by way of examples, it seems almost on grounds of principle that there is a fairly strong argument. It is very hard to see why sites such as a closed steelworks or gasworks—to take two obvious examples—which may have been closed for decades or even longer, are likely to create less of a problem than the closed landfill sites. It is clear that such sites may well require the kind of skills possessed by the agency.
I could produce a long list of examples but I do not want to detain the House for too long. Certainly I could let my noble friend have a longer list than I shall give the House tonight. Let me give just two examples. One is a former chemical works. It is a property that had been a chemical factory since the 1960s and used for the production of pesticides and other products. The chemicals had been stored on site in drums and packages, many of which had been buried. The NRA, and possibly its predecessors, and the local waste regulation authority had been chasing the company for some considerable time to do something about the storage of those chemicals.
Then, in 1993 the site caught fire. Some of the water used to extinguish the fire inevitably soaked into the ground. Subsequent investigation by the NRA revealed ground water contamination which had spread at least one kilometre from the site. Much of that contamination is considered to be long term, and the problems of dealing with it have been hampered by the fact that there is no one authority with responsibility for the whole site; and the local authority has neither the resources nor the expertise to deal with the problems which have been encountered there. Under the provisions of the Bill as they currently stand, that site would be designated as contaminated land only and in the absence of an owner to pay for any remediation, the cost would ultimately reside with the local authority, which has already proved unable to deal with the issue.
Let me give another example with which I am familiar. I visited the site very soon after the NRA was set up. It is waste ground in the West Midlands. There is highly acidic water, which carries copper and nickel in strong concentrations, welling up on the site. It can be watched, highly coloured, going into the river. It is probably one of the principal sources of sulphuric acid, flowing eventually into the Trent and adding to the concentrations that emerge into the North Sea. It is a particularly difficult site because the land is in the ownership of various parties and development is unlikely. One attempt to establish light industrial use did not get very far because of the pollution problem. The pollution source probably originates from historical waste disposal into disused mineworkings from a nearby copper refinery. But proof would be difficult and extremely costly to obtain. We are in a situation in which all the industrial activity which is going on nearby meets modern pollution control requirements.
In that case, the site owners are neither responsible for the cause of pollution nor, individually, do they possess the resources to do anything about it. Indeed, the NRA has not been able to tackle the problem either, because it has not been able to find an adequate source of funding for it. It is very unlikely that pressure on the site owners or prosecution would resolve the issues. The local authority is not concerned to initiate action since the only impact is on water. The land is not close to housing and the contamination does not pose any obvious, immediate threat to human health. So that is a case in which, in my view, there is an urgent need for action, not least because I suspect that it is one of the major sources adding to the very considerable volume of dangerous or listed substances that eventually emerge by way of the estuary and cause problems in the North Sea with our neighbours in Europe. It seems to me that that is the kind of case in which we ought to put the agency in a position to act.
I can give examples of other sites; a retail site, a detergent factory and other examples are in front of me. I ask my noble friend to accept that there are many seriously polluted sites where we need the extension of the Bill in the way that I argue. I am glad that at an earlier stage he indicated that he was perfectly prepared to consider the proposition, if he could be given adequate supporting evidence. I hope he will accept that
158
the strongly held view of the National Rivers Authority that there is a case will be taken as fairly good grounds for believing that some kind of action is required. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I should like to come to the support of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and provide my noble friend on the Front Bench with a little more of the evidence that he was looking for when my noble friend Lord Mills moved an amendment at Committee stage. The Government said that they would want a clear idea of why the agency would be better qualified than the local authorities to regulate such sites.
I had some experience of this issue—not dealing primarily with the matter of pollution but with very large derelict sites which had been abandoned—when I found myself with that difficult title "the Minister for Merseyside", a title given by the press and not by No. 10 Downing Street. I found myself with a number of extremely difficult sites which had been abandoned by their previous owners. In particular, there was the site of the old Burmah Oil refinery at Ellesmere Port, which I toured with representatives of the local authority of Ellesmere Port and Neston. I was overwhelmed by the sense that that relatively small and not particularly well-off local authority had been left with the appalling problem of an oil refinery which had been there for many years and from which the company had simply walked away, One can remember the financial problems of the Burmah Oil company at that time and it would have been quite ridiculous to have required it at that stage to do anything about it, even if one had had any power to do so, which one did not. There was a sense that the local authority had to grapple with something which was a great deal bigger than itself. The difficulties that it faced were beyond its capacity, however well-meaning it was. I must say that I greatly admired the officers of that local authority, but this was something outwith their experience and beyond the scale of their normal operations.
Looking at the whole subject, I find that industry itself feels that it would be better if the monitoring of some of the very large sites were the responsibility of the agency and not of the local authorities. Some of the arguments advanced are quite persuasive. One needs consistency of approach across the country. The agency is inherently more likely to be able to provide that than a large number of different local authorities, which have different experience and very different resources for dealing with such major contaminated areas. To deal with these sites often requires lengthy and very expensive investigation which may well be accompanied by complex issues of risks and their acceptability. Parallels have been drawn with the risks from manufacturing covered by the major hazard regulations. These are rightly placed under the control of the Health and Safety Executive, not the local authority. That is one reason. Another reason that I put to my noble friend is the experience overseas. A number of companies which face problems here also have overseas experience. In particular, I draw to the attention of my noble friend the Environmental Protection Agency in the

159
United States. There, experience has shown that the development and application of new remediation technology to these types of sites is best carried out in conjunction with a single, central expert authority. Currently, remediation technology is evolving rapidly. I am quite certain that this country will be able to benefit enormously from the kind of environment that the agency can provide. It is much more likely to be able to keep up with, and perhaps keep ahead of, evolving technology abroad than a large number of local authorities.
I turn finally to the issue of prioritisation, to which I may wish to return in a later amendment. To place major remediation under the control of a central authority will greatly assist the decisions on where priorities should lie. That is very important for large manufacturing organisations whose sites are likely to be located in many different local authority areas. I urge my noble friend to look very seriously at the amendment that has been moved by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. There are solid and substantial arguments in its favour, and I hope that those may be thought to tip the balance.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I put my name to this series of amendments in the name of my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Mills. I felt that they better expressed the concerns that lay behind my amendments, which replicated those that I had put down at an earlier stage. I agree with all that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has said. I also agree with what my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has said against his background and experience.
I refer to the letter that the Minister wrote to me on 1st March. He said that the Government were trying to achieve regulation of the sites which would benefit from experience and skills available in the environment agency. He went on to say:
"We are currently considering whether we can find a means of removing from the Bill the elements of the proposed regime which you feel might stigmatise landfills, whilst protecting our objective of ensuring appropriate agency involvement".
I believe that these amendments offer a workable solution. For example, if one can remove one arm of the current definition of closed landfill it will more adequately address the significance of contamination, which is what we are concerned about, rather than the source of such contamination. At the same time, I believe that it avoids the necessity to add to the list of sites that might be designated special at some future time and, at that future time, will require the amendment of primary legislation—that is, the legislation that we are currently considering. That is another good reason for simplifying what in part lies behind this series of amendments.
My particular concern is that we will then be reliant on the guidance under the new Section 78B(6) to set out the criteria by which potentially special sites are to be assessed. I hope that my suggestions and those of my two noble friends will add to the message that the Minister invited us to put before him when he spoke on the last occasion.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I believe that my noble friends Lord Crickhowell, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Lucas of Chilworth have put forward a number of
160
convincing examples of where contaminated land sites other than closed landfill sites can and should be designated as special sites. I believe that this series of amendments offers greater flexibility in the legislation to allow sites other than closed landfill sites to be designated as special sites; greater flexibility to utilise the staff with the necessary skills and experience, the bulk of whom will be employed by the new agency; and greater flexibility for local authorities which, as I understand it, will be those who recommend to the Secretary of State the designation of special site status. This will provide special site status for a wider range of contaminated land. I hope that my noble friend will now find it possible to accept these amendments.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we on these Benches often urge that matters should be devolved to local authorities. However, that is part of an approach which says that matters should be dealt with at exactly the right level. It seems to me that overwhelmingly the case made out by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, among others, is that in this case the right level is the agency. I hope that the Government will find some way of meeting this particular point.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, rightly considers that the determination of the right level is the task that is before the Government at the moment. It is one that in many instances we share very much with the movers of this amendment. Amendments Nos. 129, 135, 137 and 138, moved by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, address a more particular question in respect of closed landfills and will change the definition of a special site such that it need not necessarily be a landfill. I know that that is a matter about which my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth feels strongly. His amendments at Committee and those that he has not moved today but has spoken to indicate his concern.
As I said during the debate in Committee on the Bill in response to similar amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, the intention behind the creation of the category of special sites which the agency is to deal with is to enable the particular skills and expertise of the agency to be brought to bear on a kind of site—closed landfills—where the skills associated with the agency's waste regulatory functions are most directly relevant and applicable. I also said at that time that we would be willing to consider whether there were any other types of site where similar complementary skills might exist. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Boding that local authorities face such problems. From his experience, he spoke of the problems faced by some small local authorities and also authorities overseas. But we do not wish all kinds of sites to be taken from local authorities and passed to the agency for regulation solely on the grounds that serious harm or water pollution is possible, regardless of whether the agency has more appropriate skills and expertise available to deal with them than the local authorities. In our view the question of the seriousness

161
of the problems caused by a site is not sufficient on its own to suggest that it must automatically be the agency which should be in the lead.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell was also interested in water pollution and special sites. Where water pollution is a factor on any site the agency will be able to take appropriate action under its own powers under Section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991. In many cases that would be the appropriate power to use where there is water pollution in isolation.
Although we would consider this issue still to be open for further discussion—I have heard very much what noble Lords have said this afternoon—we would not ish to accept these amendments, as we believe they fail to address the question of who has the most relevant expertise to deal with the particular types of site. I indicated that we are still carefully considering this matter. Having said that, I hope—
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down,'I do not want to get into a position, if I can avoid it, where I have to take this matter into the Lobbies. If my noble friend would undertake to come forward with some suitable amendment to cover the point that he has perfectly reasonably made, that would be fine. But I am bound to say that it does not seem to me that he has given a very cogent argument, or indeed has even approached giving a cogent argument, against the almost overwhelming case that has been put from both sides of your Lordships' House and by some of his noble friends who have very considerable experience of dealing with these matters. Before he sits down I hope that he will be able to go rather further in undertaking to come back to the House at a later stage.
Baroness White: My Lords, is the Minister taking into account the changes in local government? Does he not think that the situation might well arise when it would be impossible for the local authority concerned to take suitable action and it would have to turn to the agency?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thought I had indicated to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that I was still carefully considering the possibility of bringing forward an amendment. I should like to reaffirm the Government's undertaking that we would want to bring forward an amendment. Having said that, I cannot say to my noble friend that I want to bring forward this amendment because I still believe that the fundamental difficulty with it is that it fails to address who has the most relevant expertise to deal with the particular type of sites. I completely accept that there may be special sites which are not closed landfill sites and which need the expertise of the agency to deal with them. At the moment I do not believe that the amendment addresses that point. We shall need to look at the matter very carefully.
I also hear what the noble Baroness, Lady White, says about the reorganisation of local government. I believe that local authorities will continue to have the expertise
162
even when they have been reorganised and when the operations will be perhaps more locally based. This should not be a problem for them in the future.
Baroness White: My Lords, has the noble Viscount considered the Welsh situation? Perhaps what is happening with local authorities them will make him hesitate.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend had to say. I have never pressed my own amendments in almost any situation, but then I am well aware of the drafting resources available to government. However, as my noble friend used the words "we would want to bring forward an amendment", I take that as a pretty firm indication that he will bring forward a suitable amendment at a later stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 129A to 129E not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 129F:
Page 46, line 16, at end insert:
("(8A) The questions—

(a) what harm is to be regarded as "significant",

(b) whether the possibility of significant harm being caused is "significant",

(c) whether pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be caused,

shall be determined in accordance with guidance issued for the purpose by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 78R below.
(8B) Without prejudice to the guidance that may be issued under subsection (8A) above, guidance under paragraph (a) of that subsection may make provision for different degrees of importance to be assigned to, or for the disregard of,—

(a) different descriptions of living organisms or ecological systems;

(b) different descriptions of places; or

(c) different descriptions of harm to health or property, or other interference;

and guidance under paragraph (b) of that subsection may make provision for different degrees of possibility to be regarded as "significant" (or as not being "significant") in relation to different descriptions of significant harm.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 129F and 129G with Amendment No. 128C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 129G:
Page 46, line 28, leave out from ("any") to end of line 31 and insert ("significant harm, or any pollution of controlled waters, by reason of which the contaminated land is such land; or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12911 not moved.]
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 129J:
Page 47, leave out lines 34 to 48 and insert:
(""owner", in relation to any land in England and Wales, means a person who is entitled to receive the rack rent of the land, or, where the land is not let at a rack rent, would be so entitled if it were so let, but does not include a mortgagee not in physical possession of the land or one who is in possession of the land for the purpose of

163
preserving, protecting, repairing, securing or investigating the condition of it, or otherwise protecting a security interest pertaining to it, and otherwise performs no operational function in respect of it; nor does it include a trustee who has no beneficial interest in the land; nor a beneficiary who is not entitled to ask for the trust property to be vested in him;
"owner", in relation to any land in Scotland, means the person for the time being who is entitled to receive, or who would, if the land were let, be entitled to receive the rents of the land, and includes a factor, guardian or curator and in the case of public or municipal land, includes the persons to whom the management of the land is entrusted, but does not include a person who holds a security over the land (whether heritable or otherwise) not in physical possession or who exercises his rights as security holder for the purpose of preserving, protecting, repairing, securing or investigating the condition of it, or otherwise protecting a security interest pertaining to it, and otherwise performs no operational function in respect of it; nor does it include a bare trustee; nor a beneficiary who is not entitled to ask for the trust property to be vested in him;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to this issue, which we discussed in Committee on 31st January, about the extent to which lenders should become subject to the various powers and regulations in the Bill affecting contaminated land. In response to the amendment which I moved on that occasion, my noble friend said two things which have gladdened the hearts of the banks and building societies. He said:
"The Government are committed to the view that banks and others should not be treated as 'deep pockets' to pay for the restoration of environmental damage for which they bear no real responsibility. The Government accept that any attempt to treat financial institutions in that way would serve only to threaten the supply of normal financial services to many sectors of the economy".
In the next column he went on to say—and this was even more welcome:
"The Government are willing to consider this question further, and to examine whether changes to the definition of 'owner' are justified to deal with the possibility of mortgagees finding themselves involuntarily in possession of land".—(Official Report, 31/1/95; cols. 1448–1449.)
No amendments were tabled, whether late on Friday or at any other time, by my noble friend on this matter. We are left with the very unsatisfactory position that the definition of "owner" as it stands in the Bill will make these lenders liable if their property has been abandoned, the keys have been returned and they simply go in to make the place secure and perhaps take certain immediate remedial actions to minimise or even abolish the possibility that there might be contamination. As I said in Committee, one is dealing with properties such as petrol stations, dry cleaning establishments and other small establishments of that kind which handle potentially contaminating materials. I do not want to go over the arguments again because the Government have accepted the substance of the case: lenders should not be liable in these circumstances and they want to do something about it.
Without an amendment to the Bill action could be taken by the courts to make the lender a mortgagee in possession and thus liable as owner to clean up the site. If that position is left, lenders will simply walk away from a site. They will not make it secure. They will not take the steps perhaps to seal off and close valves and
164
do other things which they might do to minimise the damage. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want.
It is important to deal, as I do in this amendment, with the point concerning trustees. As the Bill is drafted, trustees, including those who hold only bare legal title to the land—they have no beneficial interest in the trust assets—are presently caught by the definition of "owner" and personally held liable. That is the point. Trustees may be liable in certain circumstances, but why should they be personally liable in circumstances such as these?
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Williams of Elvel, because their amendment seeks to bring the Scottish provisions into line with those of England. However, it is fair to point out—my amendment covers the Scottish position as well as my advisers can draft it—that, while it is important that there is an exemption for "a heritable creditor" as well as for a mortgagee in possession, the overall position for lenders in relation to the definition of "owner" remains unsatisfactory.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to go a little further than he did at Committee stage and give us an assurance that there will be an amendment to deal with this problem which he says he does not want to arise in the circumstances that we have been considering. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I support my noble friend. There is no doubt that, unless the Bill is amended on the lines he suggests, it will become almost impossible for any owner of a site which has a high risk of being contaminated—such as near a petrol station or the like—to get a loan because the lender will be so conscious of the risk to which he is exposed that he will refuse to lend money. That would exclude from borrowing a very large band of people who are rather important to the economy. In so far as a loan was obtained, I am quite sure that the lender who is prepared to take the risk would insert terms requiring periodic inspections of sites to make sure that they are being looked after, at the borrower's cost. I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to accept an amendment, if not in the words put forward by my noble friend Lord Jenkin, then in terms which will carry out the intent of these amendments.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 130 and 133 which are grouped with Amendment No. 129J. The purpose of these amendments, which clarify the definition of "owner", is to ensure that a surface owner who does not own the underground mineral seams or mines, cannot be held responsible for contamination in those mineral seams or mines. It may be bad enough for unlimited responsibility to be placed on innocent owners and occupiers of contaminated land, but it must be quite contrary to what anyone can consider just or reasonable for a person to be held strictly liable for property which he has not polluted; from which he has not received any benefit; which he does not own and does not occupy. The clause

165
in the Bill provides just such a liability. It is hoped that the Government will agree to these amendments which remove this very serious potential for injustice.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 1291 moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding seeks to make particular changes to the definition of "owner" so as to protect the position of mortgagees who have taken possession of land only in order to secure and protect it, to protect the value of their security interests.
Following our discussion on a similar amendment moved by my noble friend at Committee stage, I undertook to consider whether any changes were needed to these provisions to deal with the situation where a secured lender found himself involuntarily in possession of land which might be contaminated.
On balance, I have concluded that no changes are justified to the definition of "owner" to deal with this question. Banks already have developed procedures to ensure that, wherever possible, they do not find themselves in possession of a mortgaged property. This reflects the general position in property law that where they are in possession, they are potentially liable to pay the outgoings of the property and also they are liable under various other statutory provisions such as the highways Acts, public health Acts and the building Acts. I can see no real case why we should depart from normal property law in a case of this particular kind of potential liability. Of course, banks will still retain the right not to go into possession of land over which they hold security if they believe that the land could have a negative net value.
This amendment would seek to go further, by specifically allowing the mortgagee to secure the property and take possession without being held to be the owner for the purposes of receiving a remediation notice. I do not believe that this would be justified, as it could prevent suitably prompt action to deal with contamination on a site. We have yet to reach a view as to whether trustees with no beneficial interest in the land should be exempt from any liabilities, as would also be suggested by this amendment. The problem of exemption for trustees is that it would open up an avenue through which people could seek unfairly, we believe, to evade liabilities by transferring their land into trust companies.
The noble Earl, Lord Kintore, spoke to Amendments Nos. 130 and 133 which seek to amend the definition of "owner" for both England and Wales and Scotland to specify that where contaminated land comprises substrata the "owner" would he the person who had the right to receive the full commercial rent in that substrata. This would have the practical effect of making the owner of the mineral rights or of a mine the "owner" for the purposes of the provisions where they comprised contaminated land and where ownership of such mine or mineral rights was distinct from that of the surface.
It is certainly the Government's intention that this should generally be the case and that it should be the owner of the mine or of the mineral rights in these cases who should potentially be liable if he is not already liable as a polluter.
166
We believe this is already the position under the existing provisions in that the definition of "land" in the Interpretation Act 1978 includes any,
"estate, interest, easement, servitude or right in or over land"
so that the owner of mineral rights would already be identified as an owner of land. This would mean that where the only contaminated land was the mine itself, the person who would be potentially liable as owner would be the owner of the mine or of the mineral rights and not the owner of the surface. On that basis I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment and that the noble Earl will not seek to press his.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, we shall want to study very carefully what my noble friend has said. At first hearing I am left somewhat puzzled over reconciling what he said about the position of lenders under this legislation with what he said at Committee about not wanting to regard lenders simply as having deep pockets who could be made to clean up the land, for the pollution of which they are in no sense responsible. It may be that we shall want to return to this matter, having taken advice on the short but complex argument which my noble friend has advanced. At the moment I remain unconvinced. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 47, line 46, after ("guardian") insert (", lessee, any person holding title in respect of land,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, without in any way desiring to reflect on the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on his amendment covering the Scottish position, which the Minister did not accept in the way which the noble Lord would have liked, my amendments, which have been put forward by legal people in Scotland, would extend the definition of "owner" to make it quite clear in the Scottish sense what that is. I am advised that the definition of "owner" should be expanded to include those holding title, the various types of lessee, including ground tenants, and should specifically exclude heritable creditors not in possession.
I confess that the law is difficult enough, but land law is even more complicated and more difficult as we have heard during the last two or three debates. I am reliably informed by people who are very knowledgeable about land matters in Scotland, that this amendment covers the point very adequately and, if true, rather elegantly. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, seek to make changes to the Scottish definition of "owner", specifically to include lessees and to clarify the position on heritable creditors who are not in possession.
As my noble friend Lord Ullswater has already said, we have been considering the need for further changes to the definitions of "owner". In particular, we have

167
been aware of the need to make sure that the definitions applying in England, Wales and Scotland are as nearly equivalent as possible, given the differences in land law between the two jurisdictions.
As part of the consideration of the position of mortgagees we undertook after the debate at Committee stage, we also addressed particular questions in respect of the Scottish definition of "owner". Following this, we will be bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading to clarify the position of heritable creditors who are not in possession, to bring it better into line with the definition which applies in England and Wales. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like to echo the proviso that was given by the noble Lord, Lord jenkin of Roding, that we shall be able to decide whether the Government's amendment is appropriate when we see it. However, as the noble Earl's explanation has satisfied me that he has every intention of accepting the spirit of my provisions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 132 to 1338 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 48, line 28, after second ("time") insert ("and in any event at no more than five yearly intervals").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another short amendment. It seeks to ensure that local authorities are required to inspect their areas at least every five years for the purpose of identifying contaminated land. The provisions of what will be new Section 78B(1) (a) would allow a local authority to inspect its land on an unstructured basis. The amendment merely seeks to include an ultimate time limit of five years to ensure that an authority inspects its area regularly and locates any contaminated land. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 134, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, seeks to change the basis of the inspection duty of local authorities to be at no more than five-yearly intervals rather than "from time to time", as is currently provided.
As I mentioned during the debate on a similar amendment in Committee, I firmly believe that a rigid approach to the timing of the duty to inspect for contaminated land would be inappropriate.
The wording as it stands will enable local authorities to discharge their duty of inspection in a sensible way and carry out more frequent inspections of sites where this is needed to monitor the potential harm or water pollution which might arise. If a site is causing particular concern, the inspections are likely to be at intervals of much less than five years. However, to require a local authority to carry out quinquennial inspections of its whole area would place an unnecessary burden on its financial resources particularly. Authorities should concentrate their resources on those areas where they believe that new problems may have arisen.
168
The operation of the inspection duty will obviously be central to the success of local authorities in using these powers to deal with the legacy of past contamination in an orderly and prioritised manner. This lies behind my amendment, Amendment No. I35A, which provides for specific guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State on the manner in which local authorities will carry out this duty. As part of the overall set of guidance documents relating to the definition of contaminated land and the process of its identification, this guidance on the inspection duty will receive parliamentary scrutiny through the negative resolution procedure. On that basis, I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord that his amendment is not necessary, and that he will therefore withdraw it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister has tried to convince me that the land will be inspected as required, but I did not quite follow him when he said that examining the land at five-yearly intervals would involve the local authority in a great deal more expense when the land might not require such inspections. I should have thought that there might be some form of rolling inspection of the land. Different categories of land might not need to be inspected except at five-yearly intervals, while other categories might need to be inspected much more frequently, particularly if a crisis arose.
Therefore, although I do not find the Minister's answer convincing, if he will allow me to read it carefully and to have it examined by those who are advising us on this matter, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 134A and 135 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 135A:
Page 48, line 32, at end insert:
("(I A) In performing its functions under subsection (I) above a local authority shall act in accordance with any guidance issued for the purpose by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 78R below.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 128C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 136 to 138 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 49, line 14, after ("any") insert ("written").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister said that the Secretary of State will be issuing instructions. My question is: will they be in writing? It seems as though they should be in writing but I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify that, having had an opportunity to examine both the amendments and the guidance. I hope that that will he the case. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 139 would require that the guidance from the Secretary of State on the criteria describing special sites should be in writing. That is, in any case, the effect of my

169
amendment which I discussed earlier when considering the overall definition of "contaminated land". All guidance from the Secretary of State is published. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 49, line 23, leave out ("and").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 140, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 141, 144 and 276.
Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 provide for the Secretary of State to notify the occupier of any land which he has designated as a "special site". That appears entirely reasonable, as in some circumstances the designation could affect his interests, even if only to the extent of who might be seeking access to the site for the purposes of securing its remediation.
Amendment No. 144 removes the potential overlap between the agency's general cost-benefit duties and the provision stating that any remediation requirements must be reasonable in the light of the costs and the seriousness of the harm or the water pollution involved. It is an unnecessary duplication and an incorrect reference in the light of the fact that Clause 37 relates to the exercise by the agency of its powers and Section 78D relates to a duty. I should like to assure the House that the amendment leaves in place the requirement that an enforcing authority must have regard to the costs of what is required and the seriousness of the harm or pollution of controlled waters when specifying steps to be taken in a remediation notice.
Amendment No. 276 is consequential to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and accepted by the Government at Committee stage, introducing the requirement for an affirmative resolution for any order to increase fines for non-compliance with remediation notices. It would prevent any such order having to pass through both the negative and affirmative resolution procedures. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 49, line 24, at end insert ("and
(d) to any person who appears to the Secretary of State to be in occupation of the special site.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 141A:
Page 49, leave out lines 29 to 31 and insert:

("(a) serious harm is being, or might be, caused, or

(b) serious pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be, caused.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 128C. I beg to move
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 141B not moved.]
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 141C:
Page 49, line 43, at end insert ("shall, to the extent that it appears practicable to it to do so, consult the owner and occupier of the site and every person who appears to that authority to be, or who in its opinion might be considered to be, an "appropriate person" in relation to the site within the meaning of section 78E below, and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 141C, it might be for the convenience of the House if we were to discuss also Amendment No. 141D, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Coleraine, and Amendment No. 144E which stands in my name.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Northboume, moved an amendment in very similar terms to this, but which would have made the consultation optional. The Minister confirmed that he saw it as good practice that the enforcing authority should consult those concemed with the sites in the course of drawing up a remediation statement or a remediation notice.
From the point of view of those who might have to carry out the work, and the occupiers of the site—the use of which will undoubtedly be affected—such consultation is not just a matter of good practice but is essential, and it should appear on the face of the Bill. My amendment provides for such consultation.
Amendment No. 14IC relates to the drawing up of remediation statements. It makes it obligatory for the authority to consult all the parties who, in its estimation, are likely to be involved. The same applies to Amendment No. 144E, which deals with the remediation notice.
In each case, the duty is qualified by a reference to practicability. Of course it might not be possible to trace all the parties who should be notified or consulted in these cases—and it may be that the urgency of a situation would require the authority to act without much delay—but, nevertheless, where it can be done it should be done. I feel that the obligation should appear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 141D, which is in my name, and which broadly supplements the amendments to which my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has spoken.
My amendment would go a stage further and provide that, except in emergencies, the enforcing authority should supply a draft of the remediation statement to the appropriate person so that that person can comment before the statement is made final. This is important because, apart from the reasons that my noble friend has given, the making of a remediation statement will be a matter which appears on the public register, and may have serious implications as to the value of the relevant land.
I certainly support all that my noble friend has said, and hope that his amendment will find favour with my noble friend the Minister.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I too support the amendment. It strikes me that if a notice is served on the wrong person, enormous damage could be done, as my noble friend has said, and it would seem against

171
justice that that should happen. I am sure that the appropriate authority would not wish that to happen. The Bill should contain a duty to that effect.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, dealing with my noble friend Lord Kinnoull's concern about whether the wrong person could be involved, there is an opportunity for that person to appeal to the Secretary of State under the meaning of "the appropriate person", which can be found in new Section 78E.
Amendments Nos. 141C and 144E, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, and Amendment No. 141D, in the name of my noble friend Lord Coleraine, all seek to introduce statutory requirements for consultation with interested parties before any regulatory action can be taken by enforcing authorities under these powers.
Consultation with those potentially affected by regulatory requirements should, at the very least, be a matter of professional good practice. I think similar words were quoted by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Boding from my remarks at Committee stage. This would be true if for no other reason than that it is much more likely that any particular remediation requirements set by the enforcing authority will be accepted as "reasonable" if consultation has taken place.
But these amendments raise two particular questions. The first relates to the role of the "remediation statement"—required only for closed landfill sites—in the overall process set out in these provisions. This statement does not, of itself, require anyone to do anything by way of remediation. That is the role of the remediation notice. The statement is intended to act as a form of management statement, setting out in a published form what the enforcing authority sees as needing to be done on a particular site. It is not intended that the statement should go into great detail, but it could also cover questions of longer-term monitoring and control which might not be able to be specifically required in a remediation notice. The statement is intended to form a part of the process of arriving at the terms of the remediation notice, in particular providing a vehicle for consultation between local authorities and the agency. In the light of those considerations, I suggest that it is at the remediation notice stage that any consultation should take place.
The second question concerns who should be consulted. My noble friend's amendment would set a very broad net, in that it would include anyone who might be considered to be an "appropriate person". That would seem far too wide, and would impose a considerable bureaucratic burden on enforcing authorities, particularly as most of the people who would have to be consulted would not, in the end, be involved with the remediation process.
I do not believe that anything would really be gained by introducing statutory requirements for consultation. They would serve largely to add to the bureaucracy, expense and time involved in securing the remediation of any contaminated land.
172
Having said that, I hope that my noble friend will consider that statutory consultation is not required and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the evident care that he gave to considering my amendment. The last thing I want to do is add to the time, cost and bureaucracy of what is an already complex procedure. I hope that when he is giving guidance to the agency, he will consider that one of the paragraphs might deal with the desirability, as a matter of good practice, of consulting the people who will obviously be involved. If he can do that, that would meet the case, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 141D not moved.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 50, line 4, after ("any") insert ("land as likely to be").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is intended to assist in relation to land which may be contaminated. The intention is to break out of the difficulty of not being able to identify land which is contaminated without the considerable expense of sinking bore holes, and so on.
Local authorities are required by the Bill to inspect their areas from time to time, to identify contaminated land—the closed landfill sites—and other areas which are candidates for designation as special sites. If they do so identify contaminated land, they then must serve a remediation notice which can specify the works needed to mitigate the effects of the contamination or to restore the land to its former condition.
However, as stated in Committee, the procedure for the service of remediation notices makes the assumption that the local authority knows in advance that the land is contaminated. It does not allow for the case where, quite clearly, the business that has been carried on at a particular site is inherently polluting or contaminating—for instance, where certain types of car breaking business or other historical uses by industry make it almost certain that land is contaminated. The amendment would obviate the need for the local authority to conduct tests or to sink bore holes, and so on, and would enable it to serve a remediation notice without first establishing absolutely that the land was contaminated.
The Minister, in reply in Committee, said that if an authority were to serve a remediation notice on scant or little evidence that the land was contaminated, then the notice could be subject to review. But the implication of what was said was that local authorities could in fact serve such a notice where it was likely that the land was contaminated. Therefore, the amendment is intended to provide statutory cover for such service of a remediation notice, so that appropriate remediation can be carried out where it is likely that the land is contaminated. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I moved an amendment at an earlier stage which was intended to require that contaminated land should be improved so as to be suitable for the intended use. My noble friend was not satisfied with that amendment. So I have now put down a new version which I hope he will find more acceptable. My point is that it is obviously desirable that there should be a demand and use for land which has been contaminated, and that a measure of improvement, making it suitable for the intended use, is better than no improvement at all. So I am rather hopeful that my noble friend will accept this version. If he does not, perhaps he will undertake to do better than I have been able to do.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, two of the amendments which I have tabled have been grouped with Amendment No. 142. Perhaps I may say a few words about each of them. It is obviously sensible that we should discuss the detail of remediation notices in one group, although they raise a number of different points. The point made by my noble friend Lord Peyton has a great deal of merit, if he will allow me to say so.
I shall deal first with Amendment No. 143B. The Bill defines "Remediation" (Section 78A(9)) as including the whole process from assessing the condition of land, through actual clean-up or containment operations, to subsequent checks that the remediation has been effective. Section 78D places the enforcing authority under a duty to serve "a" remediation notice but it is not clear what that should contain.
In practice, the following would be the likely steps: first, there would be the assessment of the probable and actual contamination of the site, partly through detailed investigations of its history, and partly through site investigations. That having been done, there would have to be an assessment of the seriousness and urgency of the problem in terms of the actual risk posed to human health and the environment. Thirdly, the enforcing authority would need to decide what measures are appropriate to deal with it (taking into account technical feasibility, effectiveness, cost and the degree of hazard or risk), and how long the work is likely to take. Subsequently it would carry out the work, and later monitor its effectiveness.
That means that the requirements for "remediation" (as defined in the Bill) will need to be laid down in a stepwise approach; normally, there will be at least two remediation notices. The first will demand the detailed investigations needed to assess the problem and the risks. Only then can the authority (or the operator) be in a position to weigh the seriousness and costs (as required by subsection (2)), and issue a further notice requiring the appropriate work to be carried out. In some cases the assessment may establish that, provided the condition of the site is monitored appropriately, there is no immediate need to proceed with remediation work.
Paragraph (a) of the proposed amendment is intended to clarify and allow for those requirements.
My noble friend will recognise that the provisions for remediation notices are modelled on the long-standing provisions for serving abatement notices under statutory
174
nuisance. I am advised that established case law insists that an abatement notice which requires the recipient to carry out building or engineering works to achieve compliance must state very clearly what works are needed. It is not sufficient simply to require him to achieve a particular end result. In many cases with contaminated land, it will be inappropriate for the remediation notice to require a particular technical solution. Until the work gets under way there will often be a high degree of technical uncertainty, and what seemed right in the early stages may turn out to be quite the wrong solution as the work proceeds.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the amendment seek to ensure, first, that the remediation notice can specify an end result rather than particular works, and that the notice can be modified or replaced should subsequent findings show that to be appropriate. In other words, one is there seeking to spell out what will be likely to happen in any particular case.
I turn now to Amendment No. I44C. My noble friend will remember that in the Framework for Contaminated Land the Government rightly pointed out—this was referred to earlier—that:
"it would be neither feasible nor sensible to try to deal with all land contaminated by past activities at once".
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and others referred to the centuries of industrial activity which have given rise to a great inherited legacy of contaminated land. The document went on to point out that the "urgent and real problems" should be dealt with:
"in an orderly and controlled fashion with which the economy at large and individual business and landowners can cope".
Those sensible words and that practical way of approaching the matter does not seem to be reflected in the Bill, which makes no allowance for that. As currently worded, it requires all land which is "contaminated", however slightly, to be subjected to apparently immediate clean-up. That is just not practical. In Committee, the Government accepted (Col. 1428) that that was not their intention and undertook to bring forward amendments to exclude sites not posing "unacceptable risks". But that still implies an approach which divides sites simply into those requiring and those not requiring clean-up, with no suggestion of an "orderly and controlled fashion" for prioritising the approach.
I have tabled the amendment, advised by my industrial experts in the field, as being a way of trying to reflect in the Bill what the Government originally put in their policy document—Framework for Contaminated Land. It may well he that we do not have it right, but there needs to be some provision indicating the need for prioritisation. That is what the amendment seeks to do.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 142 would enable a local authority to use the remediation notice procedure as a method of establishing whether contamination is present on a site.
That appears to the Government to be unreasonable. It would, in effect, burden business, landowners and even homeowners with the costs of proving that their land was or was not contaminated. We believe that the

175
enforcing authority should have to be able to demonstrate that actual contamination existed on any site, and then that there was sufficient contamination for the site to qualify as contaminated land, before it could require any remediation work, including further assessment.
As I explained in Committee, the provisions for further assessment to be included within a remediation notice were included in order to transfer to the "appropriate person" the costs of assessing the full extent of the contamination on any site. In practice, the process of carrying out that full assessment would be linked inextricably with the means chosen by the appropriate person to deal with the contamination itself.
Amendment No. 143B, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, seeks to expand on the nature of any possible remediation notice, by specifying that it could provide for assessment, remedial works and monitoring in separate phases, either through separate notices or through variations to one notice. It would also make explicit that remediation notices could be framed so as to set overall objectives to be achieved, rather than describe particular engineering solutions to be implemented.
The Government understand the intention behind the amendment, which broadly reflects the iterative nature of the process of actual remediation on any site, with each stage enabling a better understanding to be reached of how further progress should be shaped.
The possibility of notices being served, which included only one, or two, of the three phases of remediation, is already implied in the current provisions. There is also nothing which might preclude the service of subsequent notices for whatever additional purposes might be reasonable in the light of the possibility of significant harm occurring.
I am happy to clarify that it is the Government's intention that wherever practicable and reasonable, remediation notices should be framed in terms of objectives, as suggested by my noble friend. However, just as with the question of subsequent notices, I do not believe that this needs to be spelt out in detail on the face of the Bill, particularly as the provisions allow regulations to he made prescribing the form and content of remediation notices.
Amendment No. 144B, in the name of my noble friend Lord Peyton, seeks to introduce specific references to the use of the land into the considerations governing what might be required by way of remediation. Here again, I am happy to confirm that the Government's intention is that remediation should be required only to the extent that it is needed to ensure that land no longer qualifies as "contaminated land". But, with respect, neither of these amendments would actually achieve that, even with the narrowed scope of the definition of contaminated land.
As my noble friend's comments suggest, we have already been through one round of amendments seeking to put explicit references to site use on to the face of the Bill. On that occasion, I raised the difficulty of possible effects on the water environment which were not dependent on the use of the site. Both these amendments have sought to address that problem, but others still
176
remain. We would want the definition of contaminated land to be triggered, for example, where damage was being caused to a site of special scientific interest. The difficulty then is that being an SSSI is not really a use of land. Similar considerations might apply if the condition of the land was adversely affecting the health of an endangered species.
The second major difficulty with both these amendments is that they are, in fact, too broad in their scope. Both refer to the uses to which land is likely to be put. The Government, however, do not intend that this regulatory regime should make that budgment. It should be restricted to the consideration of what are currently environmental problems. It is the role of the planning authorities, acting under the terms of the guidance note PPG23, Planning and Pollution Contrgl, for example, and the building control authorities, to ensure that the condition of land is suitable for proposed new uses and developments and that appropriate conditions are set to make sure that it is made so.
But even tying remediation requirements to current site uses would impose greater burdens than the Government would intend. In some circumstances, the only really cost-effective way of removing the possibility of significant harm on a site may, in the short term at least, be to change the pattern of use of the land to one that is less sensitive. For example, if a site used for public open space is contaminated to the extent that it presents health risks to those using the open space, the best way of removing those health risks may be to restrict public access to the site. Obviously, that is not going to be a universal or even long-term solution, but tying remediation requirements to an existing use would prevent it in all circumstances.
Amendment No. 144C, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, would seek to introduce various additional tests into the timing requirements for both the service of a remediation notice and the period within which remediation could be achieved. I do feel, however, that there are already sufficient protections against a person being required to do something in an unreasonable timescale, in that an enforcing authority must specify only things which are reasonable subject to the terms of Section 78D(2). This requires specifically consideration of the seriousness of the harm and the likely costs which would be involved. It is also intended that an unreasonable requirement would be a potential ground for appeal against the service of a remediation notice.
However, although I can understand the concerns that one company or individual may face if they receive a number of remediation notices in respect of different sites, I do not feel that this need necessarily be a consideration requiring the granting of extra time within which to comply with remediation requirements. If that company or individual is facing a number of remediation notices, that can only reflect the fact that it or he is responsible for contamination on a number of sites, whether as polluter or as owner. In such circumstances, it would appear reasonable that people should ensure that they are able to meet all their obligations; otherwise it will be public health or the environment which suffers. It could also result in those

177
who have polluted many sites being dealt with more leniently than someone who is responsible for only one site. That could not be equitable.
I hope that, with that explanation as regards the assembled amendments, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her Amendment No. 142.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I find the Minister's answer disappointing on two grounds. The first is the implication that local authorities will act unreasonably in serving remediation orders. The implication that they will go around scattering them like confetti represented a deeply disappointing attitude toward local authorities. I am sure that they will act responsibly and will not issue such orders without appropriate evidence that a site is likely to be contaminated.,
The second reason why the answer was disappointing is that now the costs of assessing whether a site is contaminated will fall upon local authorities. As we know, they are very much strapped for cash and it means that contaminated sites will not be cleaned up. It will not be possible for local authorities to serve remediation notices when it is appropriate that they should do so because it is likely that a site is contaminated.
I find the Government's response disappointing but I shall read what the Minister has said. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 142A not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 50, line 12, at end insert:
("() In any case where it appears to the local or enforcing authority that land has become contaminated by reason of the deposit of controlled waste in contravention of section 33(1) and that the owner or occupier of the land neither deposited nor knowingly caused nor knowingly permitted its deposit, the authority shall not serve a remediation notice upon the owner or occupier of that land.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 143A. I note that Amendment No. 145 is grouped with this amendment, but I prefer to speak to it separately.
In Committee, I raised the irritating problem of fly-tipping. Having read Hansard of 31st January (cols. 1426 to 1429), I am far from happy. The purpose of the amendment is twofold. The first is to discourage the totally irresponsible practice of fly-tipping. The second is to protect the innocent occupier from prosecution. If your Lordships accept the amendment, it will achieve those two objectives in the following way. When contaminated waste is fly-tipped on land the local authority may serve a remediation notice on the owner or occupier of that land. If the occupier did not give permission for that waste to be tipped on his land, it will be up to him to prove that. That is spelt out in the second paragraph of my amendment. It will then be up to the
178
local authority to use its best endeavours to try to find the fly-tipper. It may then serve a remediation notice on that person.
Nowadays, with the help of forensic science, it is much easier to discover where the contaminated waste originated. Moreover, fly-tippers usually use nearby sites. If your Lordships suggest that I am trying to allow an occupier to opt out of his responsibilities, I say that I am not. My amendment puts more responsibility on him than Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, having listened to my noble friend's reply to my question about nitrate sensitive zones—he said that the Government's intention is not to increase existing liabilities under the Bill—I am tempted to take out that extra liability.
The problem of fly-tipping is likely to increase because of the landfill tax. That is all the more reason why the innocent bystander or occupier should be protected. As the Bill stands, he is not protected. Therefore, I ask my noble friend to accept the amendment or to tell your Lordships why the Government believe that the innocent should be made liable. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I support the amendment. I live in an area near which there is a great deal of industry. Fly-tipping is continually done on my land. On no occasion could I possibly prove that I had not permitted it. I caught one person tipping a lot of stuff and I told him that he must come with me to the police station. He was a policeman. Therefore, I made him pick up twice as much as he had tipped and left it at that. But I could not possibly have proved to anyone else that I had not given him permission to do that in the first place.
It is totally unfair that somebody should have to tolerate fly-tipping on his land and then must also meet the cost of removing it. Moreover, he perhaps runs the risk of being prosecuted.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too support the amendment. We should not lose sight of the fact that Clause 54 contains 14 pages of new legislation to be added to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The climax of those 14 pages is to be found at page 54, where we find that failure to comply with one of those notices is a crime which attracts enormous penalties—£20,000 on summary conviction. In accordance with our normal standards of British justice, we owe it to owners and occupiers not to place them in a position in which, through no fault of their own, their land is contaminated without their knowledge.
Even if a person has only a few acres, it may take him some time to discover that, for example, drums of poisonous material which may contaminate his land have been dumped on it. He would not know who dumped them there. If somebody owns a large estate in a remote part of the country where contamination has taken place in an obscure way—perhaps in a thicket at the side of the road—it may take him several weeks to find out.
We should not place the owners in an unfair position. I hope that your Lordships will not think it ridiculous if I say that that is analogous to the case of somebody

179
being in possession of stolen goods and not knowing that they were stolen. The fact that he is in possession of stolen goods enables the prosecuting authority—the police—to find out why he had them. He merely has to prove that he did not know that those goods were stolen. He does not have to go further and say that he knows who stole them or anything like that.
Here, we have the position of somebody whose land has been contaminated, which is a criminal offence. Although the liability will not arise until a contamination notice has been served and there has been failure to comply with it, nevertheless, that potential criminal liability exists. We must ensure that justice is done.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I support the intention behind Amendment No. 143A in particular. It seems fair that the owner of land on which fly-tipping has occurred should have a defence where he can prove that the offence was committed without his knowledge. I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, but we must guard against the fact that there may be landowners who would allow the tipping to take place and then say that they had not allowed it. Therefore, I am afraid that the burden of proof must be on the landowner.
The power would remain for the local authority to serve a remediation notice when the landowner's defence could not be substantiated. This amendment may help to avoid injustice without impairing the power of the local authority to deal with real offenders. I hope that the Government will find that acceptable.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I warmly support the amendment. Like other noble Lords, on occasions I suffer from the attentions of fly-tippers so I have had first-hand experience of dealing with the stuff, including clearing it with my own fork and bucket.
There is a problem in that as the Bill stands, it clearly goes significantly further than the Environmental Protection Act 1990. On previous occasions the Minister has said that it is not the Government's intention to extend further liabilities. However, I believe that the Bill does exactly that. That is the first point.
The second point relates to what may be described as the wider moral issue. I accept entirely that we want to get at polluters. The polluter pays principle is at the heart of that. But it is not acceptable to have as a line of default that somebody who is not the polluter pays. Never mind whether the polluter should not pay twice but should pay once. It is not good enough for an innocent party to be paying at all. Therefore, I have considerable reservations about the onus of proof being placed on somebody who is ostensibly an innocent party. That onus of proof involves cost and risk, and the outcome is uncertain. For what? It is because some not very public-spirited person has taken the easy way out on his way home or on his way to his place of work and has decided to unload his van with that stuff in the back. I have no doubt that he has been paid something for his time and trouble.
It seems to me that there is a clear imperative to catch those people. I accept that the person who is most likely to have the resources and the local information may well
180
be the owner or occupier of the land. But that cannot always be the case. Therefore, to make a general role along those lines must be regarded as offensive to common sense. I support Amendment No. 143A but I enter that caveat.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, my noble friend's amendment contains the phrase "knowingly permitted". The House will remember that in Committee I raised the anxieties which are felt in some quarters in relation to what that actually means.
My noble friend said quite correctly, as I expected him to do, that there is no evidence that the case law in relation to the phrase "knowingly permitted", which is taken from previous environmental legislation, such as the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Environment Protection Act 1990, has led to the kind of interpretation which my noble friend sought to put on it. The House will remember that it was suggested that an interpretation of the words may be that one needed to know that it was there and that, therefore, one had knowingly permitted it.
There are still some commentators who have said that the words can bear that interpretation and that it may be only a matter of time before a judge decides that that is what they mean. I understand my noble friend's reluctance to deal with the matter on the face of the Bill. However, perhaps he will deal with the matter by making it clear in the guidance to the agency and to local authorities which he intends to publish, that the words "knowingly permitted" imply a degree of mens rea; namely, that the person has to know that something has been done and has acquiesced to it—for example, fly-tipping or depositing scheduled goods on the land. Given the state of the law, it is possible that it is neither necessary nor easy to put such a phrase into the Bill. However, there are still anxieties in that respect. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to go some way towards relieving them.
7 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should just like to add my voice to the general plea and say that I should really be rather shocked if my noble friend the Minister found himself unable to help. I do not believe that that august building at No. 2 Marsham Street has ever been the subject of fly-tipping. Therefore, the collegiate experience of those within it as regards the nuisance of fly-tipping is probably rather limited. If my noble friend is unable to assist in the matter, I must say that I should be most tempted, one convenient evening, to assemble a suitable load of garbage and tip it on the steps of that awful building.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley seeks to provide a reasonable measure of protection for an owner against fly-tipping. I should like to speak to Amendment No. 154B, which is tabled in my name and which has been placed in this group of amendments. It is designed to provide a similar reasonable measure of protection to the producer or transporter of controlled waste who

181
places it on a licensed disposal site. The position in the Bill at present, under Section 78E(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, provides that,
"the appropriate person is the person, or any of the persons, who caused or knowingly committed the substances, or any of the substances, by reason of which the contaminated land in question is such land to be in, on or under that land".
I believe that that makes it quite clear that every time someone delivers controlled waste to a licensed disposal site he is bringing himself within the wording of that subsection. I do not think that that would really be considered reasonable.
Therefore, my amendment seeks to provide that the waste producer or the transporter shall not be,
"the appropriate person by virtue only of his having imported, produced, can-ied, kept, treated or disposed of that controlled waste".
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 152 and 153, which are tabled in my name and which have been placed in this grouping. The amendments seek to provide a defence against enforcement action for an owner or occupier of proving that he could not reasonably have known, at the time when he acquired that land, of the existence of the substances which are causing contamination. That would be a very limited defence but, if the amendment were accepted, it would remove some of the worst possibilities of owners and occupiers being held responsible for contamination in situations where they could not reasonably have been aware of any problem.
A housing development was recently built in Livingston, in Scotland, on land which had been contaminated by heavy metals more than 80 years ago. It is understood that the contaminated soil is now being removed by Livingston Development Corporation at a cost of several million pounds. Under the terms of the Bill, the owners of the individual houses would have been liable for that remediation work if the Bill had been in force. A survey for house purchase or, in most cases, purchase of a farm, could not possibly be expected to disclose such problems unless some very comprehensive land use history were readily available from local authorities.
Contamination is very different from other latent defects in land such as potential for subsidence, as it is virtually impossible to obtain insurance against environmental liability. The Bill makes some provision for hardship to be taken into account by a local authority in deciding whether to enforce the costs of remediation notice, but that is really not a satisfactory solution as the decision is a subjective one by the local authority. There should instead be a fair, and clearly established, principle applying to all owners and occupiers.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 143A concerns the position of landowners whose land may have been contaminated by fly-tipping. At present, the waste regulation authorities have powers under Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to ensure that fly-tipped or any other illegal deposits of waste, are removed. As my noble friend stated, the "innocent" landowner has a ground for appeal against any attempt to make him remove the waste or be
182
responsible for the costs of removing the waste where he can prove that he did not deposit or knowingly cause or knowingly permit the deposit.
However, the landowner could, in some cases, still be held responsible under the statutory nuisance provisions in Section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act and under the "amenity" provisions of Section 215 of the Planning Act 1990. In practice, the latter powers are not normally used in those cases so that the landowner subjected to fly-tipping will not have to bear the financial consequences of its clearance. That is the right policy and the one that we should like to see under the Bill.
However, as the Bill currently stands, I accept that that position is not fully achieved. Through paragraph 64 of Schedule 18, we have disapplied Section 59 in those circumstances where the land also comes within the definition of "contaminated land". Therefore, instead of there being two parallel powers as is the case at present, only the contaminated land provisions would apply. We see the need to change that position. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for raising such an important issue.
In making the necessary changes, we consider that the best way of meeting my noble friend's concerns is to disapply the contaminated land provisions in those cases where Section 59 would apply. In that way, all fly-tipping cases would he for the agency to deal with under its Section 59 powers. Indeed, that goes further than the former position in providing a guarantee that the grounds for appeal available to innocent landowners under Section 59 would always be available in cases of land subject to fly-tipping.
I tum now to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. Under Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act, an occupier is potentially liable if he knew about the situation and did not prevent it when it was within his power to do so. Therefore, the noble Baroness's concerns are reflected within the provisions of Section 59.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding returned to the problem as to whether the phrase "knowingly permit" is well understood. That phrase has been a basis for liability in environmental legislation for over a century. It was used in the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act 1876 and more recently was the basis for liability in relation to the deposit of waste in the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and in Part II of the EPA 1990; and, indeed, it was used for liability in respect of water pollution under the Water Act 1989 and the Water Resources Act 1991.
Over that long period, no substantial problems have arisen in relation to the courts' interpretation of the words "knowingly permit". Indeed, case law already provides that the test of "knowlingly permit" requires both knowledge of the contaminating substances and that it must be within a person's power to do something to prevent the pollution occurring. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend can accept that they are the proper words to use in the statute.
Having said that, we shall bring our own amendments to restore the scope of Section 59 so that it applies to any illegally deposited waste, and to disable the

183
contamination of land provisions where Section 59 powers would be available. That would also restore the ground for appeal currently available to the victims of fly-tipping. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 145B, which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Coleraine. It seeks to specify that a person who consigns waste to a landfill, for example, could not be held responsible for any subsequent contamination so long as the deposit made was legal, he was not the holder of a waste management or disposal licence, and he had no duties, or had complied with any relevant duties, under the waste management duty of care requirements.
As a statement of policy, the Government fully support the intention behind the amendment. We do not intend that the words
"caused or knowingly permitted ... substances … to be in, on or under … land".
should be construed as including persons merely on the grounds that they had consigned materials to an authorised waste .stream. However, we believe that that is already the effect of the existing provision. As a result, we should be reluctant to introduce an amendment into this legislation along these lines, lest by inference it cast doubt on the interpretation of similar tests of responsibility in other legislation.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that, as a result of a House of Lords judgment, the meaning of the word "cause" has been tightened up so that it means something different from what it originally meant?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, indeed I am aware of that. That has been a helpful interpretation of the word "cause". Every future judgment must be made with that knowledge.
Amendments Nos. 152 and 153, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, would enable an owner or occupier to appeal against a remediation notice on the grounds that at the time he acquired ownership or occupation of the land he could not have known of the presence of contamination in the land. During the debate in Committee on this Bill I stated that the Government will, at a later date, be setting out what we believe should be available as grounds for appeal against a remediation notice. We do not believe that the inclusion of grounds for appeal based on a state of knowledge in the past would be justified. It would have the undesirable effect of leaving real environmental problems unresolved, not as a result of consideration of their current seriousness but as a consequence of the time or manner in which they were originally created.
In cases where the original polluter cannot be found, it is reasonable for anyone who benefits from the ownership of the land to take responsibility for any adverse consequences of its condition and for any works needed to deal with the harmful effects of contamination. That is not a new concept. It has been the position under the statutory nuisance provisions now in Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which were in turn based on public health Acts dating from 1875 onwards. It also reflects principles in the
184
common law, namely caveat emptor in property law and the fact that in the tort of nuisance a person can adopt a nuisance by acquiring a site, becoming aware of the nuisance and failing to do anything about it. In that situation the new purchaser can become liable for the nuisance at common law.
I hope that I have put Lord Stanley of Alderley's mind at rest in relation to fly-tipping and that my answers to other noble Lords allow them not to press their amendments.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his reply. I trust that he will table the necessary amendment at Third Reading. If he cannot do so, I may be forced to table an amendment on lines that will satisfy my noble friends who supported the amendment.
I was grateful for the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. She too felt that it was necessary to place some onus on the landowner, although I believe that that is a minor point having listened to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Jenkin. I was a little chicken hearted including that particular part in the amendment. I did that to curry favour with the Department of the Environment. Perhaps I shall have to reconsider that aspect.
I gained the impression that there was considerable support for the amendment. I believe that my noble friend on the Front Bench also got that message. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 143A and 143E not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 50, line 13, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 15.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 144 with Amendment No. 140. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 144A to 144C not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 144D:
Page 50. line 26, after ("the") insert ("significant").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 144D with Amendment No. I28C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 144E and 144F not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 144G:
Page 50, line 48, at end insert:
("() When an enforcing authority has served a remediation notice in accordance with this section, it shall be the duty of the authority to take appropriate steps to satisfy itself that the requirements of that notice have been complied with, and, if they have been, to issue and serve on the persons on whom that remediation was served a certificate of compliance with that notice.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it seems only reasonable that, if a local authority serves a notice requiring remediation of a particular site up to a certain standard, when that remediation has been carried out the local authority should acknowledge the fact. Indeed, as

185
I understand it, the notice is recorded on a register. As the Act stands at present there appears to be no provision for striking that notice off the register or making any entry in the register to show that the work has been carried out.
Surely the local authority will have to satisfy itself that the work has been carried out. Otherwise landowners will simply get away with not doing the work. If the local authority has satisfied itself that the work has been done, then, in justice, it should acknowledge the fact in some form, either by making a note on the register or by providing a certificate of compliance. That must be extremely important in terms of the title to the land when future transactions take place. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to tell the House that this issue is already covered somewhere in the Bill. However, I am reminded of a similar situation in relation to a listed building. When a local authority seìves a notice of repair I am certain that, at the end of the repair work, a certificate is issued. Otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, there would remain a stain on the title of the property that would make it virtually unsaleable. Therefore, in view of the importance of the matter, I hope that my noble friend has some encouraging news.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I support the amendment warmly. It seems to me that there needs to be some comfort that an acceptable standard of remediation for a particular use has been achieved. That comfort applies on both sides, both to the local authority as the enforcing body and to the owner or occupier of the land on whom the remediation notice is served.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide some form of certification process to indicate that that has been achieved. That does not prevent a further remediation notice being served in the future. But it will mean that the present owner of the land can have some comfort that for the present or proposed use inherent in a particular scheme the land has been successfully remediated as regards contamination and the door is not left open to further demands for yet more action to clean up the land. That is entirely consistent with policy statements made in the past in terms of the need to lead the clean-up process from the front, if necessary, through the development process.
If there is uncertainty, risk is created where there is no need for risk. In certain circumstances it would be impossible to obtain funding for a scheme which relied in some part on a remediation approach. If that happens, important sites will be hostages to fortune as everybody tries to avoid liability in respect of those sites. Many of those sites are difficult enough to bring forward for development without adding to their problems. If such an amendment is not acceptable, I ask the Minister what will prevent a local authority enticing a developer to accept a clean-up programme as part of the development process and then progressively imposing more conditions? I hesitate to say that any significant number of local authorities would seek to do that but it might
186
be a convenient way to circumvent the principles of cost benefits. The whole issue would become a moveable feast. I have some concerns about that.
I do not believe it right that new conditions should be added. I hope that the Bill does not provide for a rolling programme of additional encumbrances. I am sure that that is not the intention. However, the amendment seems an important safeguard in that respect.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 144G, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, imposes a specific duty on enforcing authorities to satisfy themselves that the requirements of remediation notices have been fully met and to issue a certificate of compliance accordingly. Quite apart from the additional workload associated with the duty to check that the requirements had been met and the extra bureaucracy implied by the service of another document, I do not believe that such a process would be appropriate. I shall explain why.
First, it would not readily address the problem of how to account for long-term remediation requirements, in particular, for example, where active venting or monitoring might be required to deal with landfill gas. In those cases the site would be in the process of complying with a remediation notice for a considerable period of time.
Secondly, a certificate of compliance might bring an unjustified implication that the site in question would be permanently exempt from further regulatory action. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is concerned about that. But such a total assurance could never be given, even if the chances of further regulatory action can be greatly diminished. The circumstances on the site could change over time in a number of ways. New gas generation could start, containment measures could fail or a new and more sensitive used of the land could be introduced. Any one of those could lead to the land returning within the definition of contaminated land. If there were any sense that responsibility for further remediation would pass to the enforcing authorities, those authorities would display a marked reluctance ever to sign off a site as completely clear.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull gave the comparison of a listed building. I do not believe that a listed building raises the same problems that we face with contaminated land. I hope that I have identified some of the problems which the amendment would pose for the regulatory authority. In view of that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I may seek clarification. Is he saying that once a notice has been issued that certain land requires remediation up to a certain standard, that notice will always be on the record and can never be expunged?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the whole point of the record is that it indicates what has been done to certain land which at the time was designated as contaminated. In the future it may be useful to indicate what has been done. We would consider the idea of adding other information to that register so that whatever has been done could form part of that valuable information.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say this. I think that I understood him correctly. What he said appears to preclude any identification of "suitable for use". One would never know what the term "suitable" meant. One could never attach the term to a use with the smallest degree of certainty. Perhaps the noble Viscount can explain that point further.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that I compromised the idea of "suitable for use". What I said was that if a contaminated land site needed further remediation over a period of years, then it would not be right for the agent), to assume that remediation by being able to sign off the previous owners as having stated they had complied with the remediation notice. Further remediation may be required in due course. The site may change and different and further remediation might be required.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may say this. While I accept that the listed building may not be a reasonable, practical example, there surely must be a division between contaminated land which can be cured—I refer to heavy metals, for instance—and contaminated land which might have problems of methane gas, or whatever, present for many years. When one considers the damage to the value of the land once it has received such a notice, it seems woefully wrong that the notice will never disappear off the record. There must be occasions when the contaminated land is completely cured. I hope that my noble friend will consider that point.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that of course I shall look at all the points made. However, I believe that it is right that the register should record what remediation has been done. There are circumstances when further remediation might be required, and I do not believe it right that the agency should assume those liabilities by signing off a previous owner with some certificate. As I indicated, the danger would be that the enforcing authority would show marked reluctance ever to sign off a site even if it had the power to do so.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I have just heard something very surprising. The noble Viscount said that he thought it right that the register should record what had been done. That is exactly what we ask for. Therefore, on that basis, I may well not have to bring hack the amendment. However, I should like to reserve the right to do so when I have read Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 144H:
Page 51, line 10, leave out ("be in, on") and insert ("come into, onto
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 144H refers to new Section 78E(2) which is beginning to get near the real crux of the problem that I and my noble friends have with the part of the Bill regarding who is the appropriate person. New Section 78E(2) states:
"Subject to the following provisions of this section, the appropriate person is the person, or any of the persons, who caused or knowingly permitted the substances, or any of the substances, by reason of which the contaminated land in question is such land to be in, on or under that land".
One can read that subsection in this way: that the appropriate person includes anyone who knowingly permitted the substance to be in or on the land. It could be, for example, a neighbour who knew that the polluting substance was on the land but took no action to remove it. I suggest that the wording of the new section does not state what is intended. Subsection (2) is intended to define the polluter. It defines the polluter but also someone who might be an innocent bystander who knowingly permitted the substance to be there. I believe that my amendment makes the clause state what is intended. It defines the polluter. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I wish briefly to address Amendment No. 144J which stands in my name. It is a probing amendment. The amendment adds to new Section 78E the provision:
"A person shall not be treated as having knowingly permitted substances to be in, on or under land until such time as he becomes aware that the relevant land is contaminated land and fails, within a reasonable time of becoming aware, to take what appear to the enforcing authority to be satisfactory measures for remediation".
I have no doubt that it would not be the intention that an enforcing authority could draw to the attention of an owner or occupier previously unknown or unsuspected contamination and immediately serve notice on him for knowingly permitting the contamination to remain. There must, I am sure, be a reasonable period for response which should be given before formal action is taken. I am confident that that would be my noble friend's intention with regard to the Bill, but I should be grateful if he would make the position clear.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I support the amendment and ask the Minister to confirm, in the light of what he said about "knowingly permit", that it is understood that the provision will not attach a liability to an owner or occupier of the land for the time being who just happens to discover that a contaminant is on his land. We go back to the common-sense approach of ensuring that the polluter pays and that the innocent party is not unnecessarily affected.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 144H seeks to amend the basic test of liability so that it would refer to persons who caused or knowingly permitted substances to come into, onto or under land rather than to be in, on or under land. To an extent, the amendment is driven by the same concerns as Amendment No. 144J, spoken to by my noble friend

189
Lord Coleraine, which seeks to clarify the meaning of the term "knowingly permit". However, it would cause a number of different problems itself.
It would ignore completely the responsibility which ought to attach to those who genuinely and actively permit the continued presence of contaminating substances in land, for example, as a result of a redevelopment of a site. This would become more of an issue where it was in fact the actions of that later person, rather than the original polluter, who set in train the circumstances by which significant harm became possible, for example, through breaching containment on the site and causing the migration of contaminants elsewhere, or by introducing a more sensitive site use.
The wording of the amendment could arguably broaden the net of potential liabilities as well. It could, for example, be taken to include anyone bringing materials onto the site, such as tanker drivers or those consigning waste to a landfill. The formulation of causing or knowingly permitting substances to be in, on or under the land provides a much narrower focus on those directly responsible for the particular location and circumstances of the contaminating substances. For those reasons, I could not support the amendment.
Amendment No. 144J, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, seeks effectively to qualify the meaning of the phrase "knowingly permit" so that a person would not be "knowingly permitting" substances to be in, on or under land until they knew the land was contaminated and failed within a reasonable time to take satisfactory measures for remediation. I argue that the qualification is unnecessary. I indicated to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding that "knowingly permit" has been a basis for liability in environmental legislation for over a century. It is therefore a well-known phrase. I do not believe that I could accept the amendment.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked me to go much further than that, but I do not believe that I can confirm that what he suggested is the current state of the law.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says and I am impressed with the inadequacy of the wording of the amendment. I wish to take it away and reconsider it. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No, 144J not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nigeria: Human Rights
7.35 p.m.
Viscount Torrington Viscount Torrington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to encourage the restoration of democracy and greater respect for human rights in Nigeria.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on 15th February the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, introduced a fascinating debate on South Africa in which I should very much like to have taken part. Unfortunately, I had another appointment which in the end finished early. Had I been able to speak, I might have been able to establish my credentials as yet another Peer in whose veins the blood of the 1820 settlers and the voortrekkers flowed.
Anyway, having been unable to speak on South Africa, I am glad to be able to introduce a short debate on another important part of Africa. I am sorry that the time allowed for the debate will be short, particularly since speakers include the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, whose knowledge as a former High Commissioner to Nigeria will be invaluable. The list of speakers also includes the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who only last week sped off to Nigeria and who will no doubt bring first-hand knowledge to our debate.
Some people fall in love with Africa because, like me, they were born to it. Others catch the thrall of Africa, sometimes in a single short visit. Either way, it is a disease like malaria; it can never quite be purged from the system. For those who love Africa—I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench is one—and who feel pain at Africa's failures and elation at her successes, the last few years have been dramatic. South Africa has progressed from white supremacist apartheid to democratic government. It has done so at some considerable cost in lives but without a true civil war and without destruction to its infrastructure.
In Mozambique, a vicious civil war has been brought to an end. I know incidentally that my noble friend the Minister has done a lot to encourage Mozambique to achieve that desirable state of affairs. There now seems to be genuine movement towards ending the civil war in Angola, but it will be a slow process and the country will need a great deal of help to recover. The ghastly tribal warfare in Rwanda seems, at least for the present, more or less to have subsided and, turning to West Africa, the civil war in Liberia seems to have ground to a halt.
Compared with the catalogue of recent horrors in Africa, it may seem churlish to put Nigeria under the bright light of censure. However, Nigeria is a big country with a population of nearly 90 million people. And if we believe that people are more important than goods and chattels, Nigeria is in that sense three times as significant as South Africa. It is an important country, no small economic force in its region, and a major oil producer. It is vital that Nigeria should set, and be seen to set, an example of peace, stability and democracy.
Since independence in 1960, Nigeria has had one short, sharp civil war, the Biafran war. That finished 25 years ago. More significant is Nigeria's record in terms of democracy and civil rights. At independence Nigeria inherited a Westminster-style democratic system. That lasted only six years. In the 34 years of its existence as an independent state, Nigeria has had only 10 years of elected civilian government. Most of us cannot even remember the civilian rulers. The names of Nigerian leaders that spring to mind are Gowon, Ironsi, Obasanjo, Buhari, Babangida and now Abacha. Shagari and

191
Tafawa Balewa are almost forgotten memories. And more importantly and sadly, Chief Abiola, the president who never was, is a fading image.
I do not personally know and have no interest to declare beyond the fact that I share a solicitor with Chief Abiola. I cannot beat my breast and say that Abiola is a saint beyond reproach, but there are honourable men who know him and speak well of him. In terms of some of Nigeria's recent leaders, it would be fair to say that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man could be king—or perhaps more appropriately, president.
In June 1993, Chief Abiola won an election which I believe was pronounced broadly free and fair by an irreproachable team of international observers. The election was promptly annulled by the government, which presumably found the result unpalatable. After an uneasy year in which Babangida handed over power to Ernest Shonekan's unelected civilian puppet government, which in turn handed over to General Abacha, a frustrated Abiola, perhaps a little unwisely, declared himself to hold the office to which he had been elected. He was promptly arrested and locked up and has remained so in spite of being granted bail.
Since his arrest, he has been detained, I am told, in various places around the country, at least for some of the time, I am led to believe, without access to legal assistance, writing materials, newspapers or even visits from his family. The aim seems to have been to break his spirit. However, by all accounts, it is only his health which so far shows signs of breaking.
Surprisingly, I am told that human rights were not considered a major problem under previous Nigerian administrations, including that of Babangida. But the treatment of Abiola under General Abacha's government has apparently been mirrored at other levels in a growing disregard for the judiciary and the due processes of law.
Since the oil workers' strike in support of Abiola, there have apparently been numerous cases of detention of trades unionists, journalists and politicians without trial. Leaders of the Nigerian Labour Congress and the oil workers union were arrested or dismissed from their posts, and a government decree made it impossible for them to challenge their dismissal. In addition, a number of other decrees have retrospectively legalised otherwise illegal restrictions placed on the rights of citizens.
Three newspaper groups were closed down, including one owned by Abiola. The closure was subsequently challenged in the courts and damages were awarded against both the government and the police. In spite of this, the government promptly promulgated an order legalising the closure.
In September, General Abacha dismissed the attorney-general after the latter apparently publicly stated his opposition to decrees passed without his being consulted but which he believed effectively swept away many Nigerian civil liberties.
In order to pay, some might say, lip service to the principles of democracy, the government convened a constitutional conference, due to report last October, whose findings regarding a return to civilian rule they promised to implement. Due to its composition, the
192
conference was regarded as something of a sham, but it is interesting that the government used the excuse of Ramadan to send the delegates home, possibly to delay the conclusions of the conference, which might not have been to General Abacha's liking. Possibly his poodle was about to bite its master's ankle.
To give credit where it is due, Abacha's government recently brought in a number of desirable economic reforms, including the effective ending of exchange controls, perhaps to convince people that a government which has sensible economic policies cannot be all bad. Come home, General Pinochet, all is forgiven!
I shall believe it when I see it, but the government are also said to be close to releasing Abiola on health grounds. He is not a fit man, but perhaps—just perhaps—the government are beginning to heed the pressures building up both within Nigeria and within the international community. I hope that Nigeria can, at the eleventh hour, pull back from the edge of the authoritarian abyss and find its way back to the highroad of democracy.
As I said before, I know that, like me, my noble friend on the Front Bench is a lover of Africa. Yesterday, in this context, The Times paid her the somewhat backhanded compliment of being a Tory Minister whom everyone likes. Well, I also know that when one day she ceases to hold her present office and ends her tireless round of African capitals she will be greatly missed by people of all walks of life on that continent. I know that, like me, she feels the pain of Africa's failures. I know that she is dedicated to doing what she can to right the wrongs.
I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate. I look forward particularly to hearing from my noble friend the Government's views on what they can do to encourage the restoration of democracy and human rights in Nigeria.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Viscount for asking this Question and for giving us an opportunity to discuss the affairs of Nigeria at what may very well be a critical time. The noble Viscount catalogued some of the concerns that have worried many of your Lordships. I preface my remarks with the obvious statement that we all speak basically from the same position. We value our long, traditional friendship and close associations with Nigeria. We have close friendships with Nigerians. We long for the day when this great country can resume its rightful position to help in leading the rest of Africa with stability into prosperity.
But of course we are troubled by what the noble Viscount referred to in relation to recent matters of human rights. Here, I urge that we are measured in our comment. Perhaps we tend to apply to Nigeria a higher standard than we are inclined to apply elsewhere in other continents and to other countries. Successive military governments have, in terms of human rights, had commendable records. We hope very much that

193
President Abacha will feel able to make gestures to mollify the concerns in this country and elsewhere about recent events.
I speak with feeling about the need for moderation in criticism. When I had the privilege of serving in Nigeria, one of my greatest difficulties was in mending the fences between Nigeria and a new British Government after unmeasured criticism from Opposition Benches on the celebrated Enahoro extradition case. It was unmeasured criticism in the heat of political battle which nearly brought the Government down. Some of what was said was without factual basis. It caused the greatest offence. When the Opposition came to office, it was very difficult to induce the Nigerian Government to have any positive relationship with them at all. So criticism has to be careful and well-informed.
The Question concerns, first, the reintroduction of democracy. I must say that I have wondered about the timing of implementation of the recommendations of the constitutional conference when they are made. We hope that these are not far off. We believe, from what we are told, that they will contain much that is helpful and useful, and that they may lay a sound foundation for a new, accountable, democratic regime. It would be entirely unfair if the new democratic government, when it is introduced, should inherit an economic and social situation which makes it necessary only to take unpopular steps of belt-tightening to get matters straight. Therefore this seems to me to impose a very heavy obligation indeed on the military government to get on quickly with the further restructuring that is necessary to enable confidence at home and abroad to be restored, to enable investment to flow, and to enable the international community to do what it is straining to do; namely, to support the economic and financial fabric of Nigeria in recovering from its extremely difficult predicament.
I turn to human rights. The head of state has assured us—we welcome it—that (these are his own words) there is no going back on the commitment to restore democracy. That implies all that we respect in terms of human rights and freedoms. We all endorse the concerns of the noble Viscount, but we ask the present Nigerian Government to make early gestures to satisfy our concerns, so that the international community can once again do what it so much wishes to do; namely, to get hack into a positive relationship of support for the restoration of democracy and freedom.
7.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, I speak in the debate with some hesitation. Unlike other noble Lords who have spoken, I entirely lack that personal knowledge of Nigeria and Africa which marks their contributions. However, I am glad to have the opportunity to let your Lordships know of the courageous part played by Church leaders in Nigeria in this distressing period in the life of their country.
I found particularly moving the communiqué issued by the Catholic bishops after their conference last September. Unfortunately, time forbids me to read it all. But I can bring your Lordships two paragraphs that
194
speak of the yearning for good democratic government and of the government's response to that yearning; and a paragraph that points to the future.
The bishops say:
"Among the people of Nigeria the yearning for freedom and democracy and the loss of confidence in military rule and all those associated with it have been expressed in incessant strikes, demonstrations and at times violent protests. Nigerians have said it loudly and clearly and through the events of the last few months they have demonstrated that they no longer wish to subject themselves to bad government or military rule, however benevolent. After ten years of continuous military presence in power, Nigerians are convinced now more than ever before that the military has no monopoly of political wisdom, nor is patriotism a virtue to be found only in the rank and file of the armed forces. Under military regimes, evidences abound of ethnic and religious bigotry, corruption, greed and graft. Yet these are the ills the military purportedly came to correct. Therefore any attempt to prolong military rule under any guise whatsoever is a direct violation of the people's express will".
Speaking of the government response:
"The present military government has always spoken of dialogue, but it is disheartening to note that faced with the crisis of credibility and legitimacy, it has often resorted to one panic measure after another, and besieged Nigerians with a barrage of oppressive decrees, rather than appreciate fully and respond honestly to the people's anger and anguish. The consequence is a vicious circle of widespread protests, repressive ecrees, and further protests. The cumulative effect of this vicious circle is the loss of confidence in government and in public institutions, and a collapse of the moral, social and economic order in present-day Nigeria".
But the bishops look positively to the future:
"We salute our countrymen and women who, in the face of this dire situation, have been promoting and defending human rights and freedom. Some of them have been subjected to untold hardship, including indefinite detention without trial. May their suffering not be in vain. Nigeria is a nation of free people. We want to remind our beloved countrymen and women that we are a free people. We may be vulnerable but not helpless under the present circumstances. We must not allow anyone to reduce us to slaves through repressive decrees. We must continue to resist the violation of our fundamental human rights, including the right to free expression, and the right to choose our own leaders. We must continue to resist dictatorship by all peaceful but effective means".
A very similar message has been given by the Christian Association of Nigeria, which represents the Anglican, Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches. It says:
"Nigeria belongs to all Nigerians and not to any special group of Nigerian citizens, of particular religious persuasion or political ideology who believe they are predestined to hold tight eternally to sovereign rule, while poverty and squalor fast reduce the other citizens to wretched and miserable serfs".
The Church leaders say that they:
"find it impossible to look on and say nothing, while our nation continues to slide down a destructive precipice ... As one moves around, one discerns, boldly written on the faces of most Nigerians, sorrow, depression, anguish, frustration, hopelessness and helplessness".
Surely, this situation is a matter of great concern to all who are within the Commonwealth. The rulers of Nigeria, it would seem, are not impervious to what the world outside Nigeria thinks. Might this be an area where the Commonwealth secretary-general could help to achieve progress?
7.57 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Torrington for his impressive and clear exposition of the sorry situation in

195
Nigeria today. It is a situation which has caused widespread international concern, particularly in Britain, where, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said, we greatly value our close, long-standing relationship with the state and the people of Nigeria.
So far, not much has been said about Nigeria's economy. It is tragic that that major oil-producing African nation, with its high level of educated people which promised such great potential on independence 34 years ago, is today in per capita terms among the world's poorest countries. One can think of many contributory factors that have led to that unhappy situation, but the main fault is the way in which Nigeria has been governed in recent years and in particular today.
My noble friend Lord Torrington said that over the 34 years since independence there have been military governments in Nigeria for 24 years. When General Abacha took over as head of state in November 1993, his was the eighth successful military coup. He dissolved democratic institutions and proscribed all political parties and organisations. Also, as we heard, there have been numerous arrests and detentions without trial, several newspapers have been closed, decrees limiting the jurisdiction of the courts have been issued and habeas corpus has been withdrawn. That is how Nigeria is governed today. Noble Lords may think it not surprising that unrest and resentment are widespread.
One must try to understand the problems and difficulties in governing Nigeria. It is the most populous African country and is divided into three regions. It has many ethnic and religious divisions. The proponents of military rule in Nigeria maintain that it is necessary in order to preserve national unity, but in the 24 years of military role it has clearly failed to produce that unity. Military government is now seen clearly as an anachronism. Nigeria, along with Gambia and Sierra Leone, is isolated in the Commonwealth. Its potential as an African leader in international fora is diminished. There is deep concern about where General Abacha's government is heading and about its lack of political direction.
The salvation of Nigeria lies in effecting change. There is an urgent need to put the country back on the path towards accountable civilian government. General Sanni Abacha has convened a national constitutional conference. That conference has recommended a handover to civilian government in January 1996. General Abacha should be very strongly advised to honour that recommendation. If he were to make the position clear, a great change might well take place. We all want a strong, united and prosperous Nigeria. It can be achieved if there is an early return to civilian democratic rule.
8.3 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, in recognising the importance of this debate, I requested and was facilitated by the Government of Nigeria to visit the country for four days. I returned last week. The current political issues surround the elected, and in part appointed, constitutional conference commission comprised of 19 committees. The core objectives are: to
196
establish a system of government reflecting the general consensus of Nigerians; a guarantee of good governance; accountability; and probity in public affairs.
I draw your Lordships' attention to accountability, which is crucial. A three-tier system of local government, state and federal legislatures is proposed, with devolved administration to the states. There is also a call for unbiased central government to ensure the equitable distribution of resources. There are many proposals of merit, not least the call for a rotational presidency. That addresses the difficult pluralistic relationship between ethnic groups in the northern and southern areas of the country.
The date January 1st 1996 for a return to democracy would, in my view, be difficult to achieve. Even if the military elected to hand over control today, the country would not be ready. If democracy is to stand the test of time it is essential to have a sufficient period to allow for the process to be nurtured from grass roots level. On this point I pressed General Abacha, head of state, to whom I expressed appreciation for face-to-face discussions. He would confirm only that a realistic timetable would be set after the constitutional conference—which reconvened on Monday, following Ramadan—had submitted its report to government for study and deliberation. However, it would be helpful to his country to have an early announcement of such a timetable. One point emphasised by Chief Shonokan, a past president, Justice Karibi-Whyte, chairman of the constitutional conference, and Mr. Dozie, governor of the central bank, was that only a viable economy could sustain democracy. I mention their names to reinforce the point.
The democratic process will be jeopardised without economic stability. Political distractions must not be allowed to divert attention from the restructuring of Nigeria's economy. The recent budget has moved the economy away from regulation, as evidenced by the repeal of the Exchange Control Act and the Nigerian Enterprise Promotion Decree. This has been welcomed by the business community, who want to do their part to ensure that the initiative is not derailed. The Economic Summit Group in Lagos has discussed with the head of state the changes necessary to develop Nigeria's economic potential and has been active in urging him not to head the advice of the exponents of regulation. This group is to meet the Finance Minister in Abuja tomorrow to labour the point.
Nigeria is an important country to the United Kingdom and is a fellow Commonwealth member. She is, however, a country with a multitude of problems. Although 90 per cent. of her export earnings are derived from oil, Shell, who, as operator of the consortium, account for 50 per cent. of output, have not been paid by their Nigerian joint venture partners and so have been unable to pay contractors for four months.
Nigeria should be a prosperous nation but is one of the poorest in the world. The average Nigerian seeks only a roof over his head, food to eat, education for his children and good governance. Illiteracy—the bane of Africa—affects approximately 70 per cent. of the population. A horrifying 30 per cent. of GNP is needed for the payment of debt.

197
Commonwealth sentiment is illustrated by Chief Anyaoku's remarks at the parliamentary conference in Banff last October:
"Military intervention in politics is a political aberration and a derogation from the democratic development of a country. I believe that as we progressively pursue the objectives of the Harare Declaration, the day will not he far away when representatives of military regimes will find no welcome in the councils of the Commonwealth".
To ostracise a country is an extreme position. It is vital to have continual dialogue for the resolution of differences. However, there are senior sceptical political observers. I want to see their fears allayed. I believe that any differences with Nigeria will be resolved but the question is when. Nigeria feels that it has a relationship with the United Kingdom that transcends the usual diplomatic and trade ties. She feels that the United Kingdom is the driving force behind tomorrow's proposed human rights resolution in Geneva. I encourage the Minister to comment on that point in her remarks.
The key concerns of Nigerians are: the leadership crisis, the lack of political structure and the need for socio-economic development. I appealed to the head of state that he has it in his power to become the architect of a new Nigerian republic. I asked him to consider carefully the recommendations of the impartial constitutional conference. I trust that he will do this in a timetable that is acceptable to fellow Nigerians, thereby gaining the approbation of the world community, without which no country can prosper.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I believe that Nigeria stands on the edge of a precipice, with the polarisation between rich and poor, the economy a disaster, the Naira devalued four-fold last week, inflation running at 60 per cent. last year and climbing, unemployment spiralling, interest on foreign debt more than 7 billion dollars in arrears, and an estimated $12.2 billion of government revenue siphoned off by the kleptocracy in the years 1988–94. Nigeria has the third worst credit rating in the world. There is tension between north and south, between Moslem and Christian and between ethnic groups, all fostered by the narrow military clique that now holds power.
I know that the Government are concerned and have done their best to persuade the military regime to hand over to a democratic civilian administration as soon as possible. They have perhaps placed too much faith in the constitutional conference, as other noble Lords have done, and too little on the need to foster and encourage democratic institutions in Nigeria. But they have at least been ready to listen to the ideas of the Campaign for Democracy, NADECO and the CLO and to consider means of bringing pressure to bear on the regime.
I have a suggestion to make to the Minister. We could consult with the Americans, and any others who want to join in, to create a steering committee to plan our joint aid to democratic NGOs in Nigeria and thereby avoid overlap and make sure that we are delivering the most effective possible help to them.
198
We and our EU partners have stopped all new supplies of arms and ammunition to Nigeria, all training of military personnel, all ministerial contacts and some other high level visits. Other suggestions have been made, such as a total embargo on Nigerian oil exports and the freezing of Nigerian assets in Britain. Those suggestions have been rejected. Under international law we could not take measures of that kind without the authority of the UN, and the Security Council would be unlikely to approve them. But to do nothing since 2nd December 1993, when the EU package was approved, would be to confess our impotence in the face of the serious worsening of the situation. The international community has to persuade the Nigerian regime to accept constructive advice on the restoration of human rights and the return to democracy. An extension of the anus ban might be one possibility. I was dismayed to note that only two weeks ago we were still delivering tanks to Nigeria against orders placed some time ago.
The international community, for its part, has to be specific about what it expects from Aso Rock. There have to be solid assurances that the regime means what it says about the transition, and that requires strict adherence to the timetable. I was sorry to hear that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, did not receive any assurances on that point. Secondly, those who want to participate in the return to democracy have to be allowed to do so. That means that Chief Abiola must be freed, as President Clinton's special envoy, Ambassador McHenry, requested when he was in Abuja three weeks ago. Mr. McHenry suggested a speedy retum to democracy in which Abiola would play a key role, and in response, according to reports, General Abacha said that he planned to leave office at the end of 1997 but that he would allow party activity, including activity by Mr. Abiola himself, to resume on 12th June. Meanwhile, I should like to ask the Government whether they will urge the regime to allow Chief Abiola to receive the medical treatment that he urgently needs. He has to go abroad for an operation for a laminectomy, which means that he is suffering from an extremely painful complaint.
The arbitrary detention of people like Ken Saro-Wiwa, Beko Ransome-Kuti, Gani Fawehinmi, Femi Falana and Ayo Opadukun, the Secretary of NADECO, who has now disappeared, must cease, and the decrees allowing imprisonment without trial must be repealed. The trumped up charges against six senators, whose cases are now before the Inter-Parliamentary Union, must be withdrawn.
Since the weekend it is reported that up to 200 officers, mostly retired or dismissed, have been arrested on charges of making statements that could cause disaffection in the armed forces. They were alleged to have criticised Abacha for his failure to appoint new ministers since he sacked the whole of the cabinet on 8th February, but really it was suspected that they were plotting a coup. All these arrests, and the suppression of newspapers and trade unions, are a measure of the strength of the opposition. The apparent quiescence of the moment should not deceive the outside world into believing that Nigerians accept the regime's existing policies. Just because there are no large scale violence, no big strikes and no demonstrations, does not mean

199
that the democracy movement has been crushed. A wise observer from Oyo said that the situation was like a fire smouldering under a carpet: by the time it bursts out, it may set the whole house ablaze.
The international community cannot sit back and wait for the conflagration, which would be a huge disaster for the people of Nigeria, the west African region and Africa as a whole. The danger is so acute that the OAU, the Commonwealth, the US and the EU should act together, all conveying the same message to Aso Rock. The longer freedoms are withheld, and the greater the number of people who are arrested or forced into exile, the more difficult it will be to heal the divisions among the Nigerian people. If after all these delays they do get the chance to express their democratic will, the odds are shortening on their being offered choices based on ideological rather than religious, geographical or ethnic differences. Nigeria can only survive as a state if those differences can be accommodated in a framework of tolerance, non-discrimination, equality and reconciliation. Those qualities have not been the hallmark of recent Nigerian political life, and the year 1995 may be the last chance for them to be demonstrated.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the noble Viscount's Question is rightly warmly welcomed on all sides of the House and, indeed, way beyond it among the wide range of humanitarian agencies, including those with which I work. This frustratingly timed debate for such a vital issue has clearly demonstrated that civil and human rights have little meaning for General Abacha's regime. A story of all too numerous political prisoners and their conditions and of the acute anxiety of their friends and families is disturbing. In the words of Jesse Jackson, following his visit last year, if the instability were to lead to war in Nigeria, we could suffer a disaster,
"50 tones worse than that of Rwanda",
and Rwanda was a case of massive genocide. The numbers of refugees and displaced people might well reach unprecedented levels. We surely cannot forget that in the Biafran war between 1967 and 1970 approximately 1 million Nigerian men, women and children perished.
Nigeria is potentially one of the richest nations in Africa but according to the United Nations Development Programme nearly half of Nigeria's inhabitants live in absolute poverty—46 million people. Per capita income, which stood at 1,000 dollars in 1980, had plummeted to 250 dollars by 1993. Since then things have gone from bad to worse. Recent world history grimly demonstrates that civil war often occurs when a critical mass of destabilising factors, including tyrannical and incompetent government, combine to exacerbate simmering regional religious and ethnic tensions. We could be precious near that point in Nigeria.
Nigeria could be the strongest and most influential nation in West Africa. It could act as a force for regional stability. At a time when the British Government are calling for the strengthening of regional institutions, such as the OAU, it is therefore logical that everything possible should be done to speed civilian rule in Nigeria
200
as the basis for its critically needed leadership role. At the same time it would be strange to overlook the potential of Nigeria as an economic power. Nigeria has the capacity to produce 2 million barrels of oil a day, and it has proven reserves of 25 billion barrels. The potential loss in trade should the conditions in Nigeria still further deteriorate is substantial. It is significant to note that when the strikes took place in August last year Shell lost an estimated 400,000 barrels per day.
What should be done? First, the European Union moratorium on aid to the Nigerian military regime is to be welcomed. But why then have the British Government been so intent on honouring all the arms contracts signed before December 1993, including the supply of 80 main battle tanks? By contrast, what plans do the Government have for increasing and targeting humanitarian aid to those in need through non-governmental channels? The Nigerian Government still enjoy dialogue with western governments and international institutions. Our diplomatic representatives are still based in Nigeria, and Nigerian representatives are still based here. While I certainly recognise the force of the argument made both by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, with all his great experience, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in his interesting speech delivered so soon after his recent meeting with leaders in Lagos, I wonder whether the continuation of full-blooded arrangements does not serve to legitimise the current dictatorship. While keeping channels for dialogue open, is there not a case for the international community to denounce the military regime for what it is and to distance itself by appropriate political and diplomatic measures?
I understand the Abacha regime was supposed to reconvene a constitutional conference yesterday. Can the Minister enlighten us about whether that happened and whether any progress was made? Is there indeed any hope of civilian rule by January 1996, as—the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, reminded us of this point—some of those involved in the constitutional conference have been demanding?
We on this side of the House welcome the Government's support in principle for the conference; but that must surely go beyond the offer of books and documents. Are there no economic carrots and sticks which the Minister and her colleagues are prepared to bring to bear? As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has indicated, some key players in Nigeria are calling for an embargo on Nigerian oil as a means of pressuring the military regime into initiating new elections. Where do the British Government stand on that?
Nigeria is still a member of the Commonwealth and clearly values the political influence associated with that. Is there not therefore a proactive role for the Commonwealth? There has been some talk of a Commonwealth "good offices" mission to persuade the military regime to stand down. Would the British Government support that? Indeed, might there not well be a case for insisting that a positive feedback on such a visit should be a prerequisite for Nigeria's attendance at the December Commonwealth Summit?

201
If we aspire to remain a permanent member of the Security Council, we must demonstrate the resolve that entitles us to such a position. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said, we cannot stand idly by. The Government will therefore have our full support in firm action. If all the words of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary about the importance of pre-emptive diplomacy in Africa are to prove more than empty rhetoric, now is the time to act.
In Rwanda, together with our Security Council partners, the United Kingdom failed to take the action which we should have taken. Nobody suggests that all the genocide could have been prevented; but many of those in the front line are convinced that with more determined action, there would have been many more thousands of people still alive today. Such events must not be allowed to happen in Nigeria.
8.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend Lord Torrington on his timely Question and all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I am particularly keen to heed the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, to be measured in all our words. Those of us who rightly love Africa, although not born there, know how quickly words misapplied can be not only misunderstood, but blown up into quite remarkable stories and rumours. Much as I love Nigeria, and I always shall, I have been misquoted many times before in Nigeria when saying relatively innocuous things. I believe that if one is to help Nigeria, then one must be honest. But sometimes some of that honesty has to take place in private otherwise it will be misinterpreted.
The speeches tonight underline the importance of Britain's long-term interests in Nigeria and the close attention that we pay, day by day and week by week, to each and every development there. Britain's interests in Nigeria are many and varied. They include trade, investment, Nigeria's political importance as the most populous state in Africa, the leading role Nigeria has played in international peacekeeping and efforts to promote peace in regional conflicts; the important human and educational exchanges between Britain and Nigeria, and our shared history and culture. Let us never forget those important things. In sum, Britain strongly desires to see a united, prosperous Nigeria, capable of playing a strong role in Africa and in the larger world.
Her Majesty's Government remain intensely interested in events in Nigeria, but deeply concerned about the lack of progress towards democracy, and about the lack of respect for human rights. There is no loss of goodwill. Britain is a friend of Nigeria. But, sadly, Nigeria is not fulfilling her potential. Nigeria should be leading the search for solutions to Africa's problems, not adding to them. Nigeria is in danger of being left behind, as one of the few Commonwealth countries still ruled by a military government in the 1990s.
202
There is an urgent need to set the country back on the path towards accountable civilian government. We have continued to make this clear to the Nigerian Government at the highest level, since the disruption of the democratic process in June 1993. Only a few hours after the removal of the civilian Interim National Government, in November 1993, we made clear that we regard the return of military government to Nigeria as a step backwards. That remains our firm view, and that of all our partners. We have read press reports here and in Nigeria about arrests of army officers. That emphasises the urgent need for a peaceful transition to democratic civilian rule.
Since the 1993 political crisis, we have been very careful not to be prescriptive in our approach to Nigeria. We have not pressed for the adoption of the Westminster, or any other democratic model, nor have we offered to devise or broker political solutions to Nigeria's problems. Nigeria must decide its own future. But accountable, democratic government is essential for political, economic and social progress in Nigeria, as so many of your Lordships have said. That is our main objective.
We seek therefore signs of movement towards an agreed timetable for an early transition to civilian rule. I was encouraged by the declaration in December by the National Constitutional Conference that the military should hand over to civilian rule on 1st January 1996. This declaration did not have the status of a final conference recommendation, and nor are its recommendations binding on the Nigerian administration. I note that the conference itself resumed yesterday. I believe that that answers the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We hope that it will conclude its work soon. We strongly urge the Nigerian Government to respond positively to the work of the National Constitutional Conference and, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said, we hope that implementation of the recommendations is not far off. We want to see work for a transfer to civilian rule in the shortest time practicable. I noted what the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, but I hope that all speed will be made because the Nigerian people are waiting most anxiously.
My noble friend Lord Torrington described the depressing situation over human rights. Her Majesty's Government and the European Union deplore the repressive decrees promulgated in 1994. They proscribed press freedoms, strengthened powers to detain without trial, and withdrew habeas corpus.
We have urged the release or fair trial of all those arbitrarily detained. We have appealed for travel restrictions to be lifted on those whose passports have been seized. Such repressive acts contradict the Nigerian Government's declared commitment to make early progress towards democratic civilian government, and damage the reputation of what was formerly one of Africa's proudest bastions of judicial independence and integrity.
All members of the European Union have consistently made their views on human rights known to the Nigerian Government. Nigeria is failing to live up to its human rights obligations. Nigeria has aspirations to the highest standards and is party to many international

203
human rights instruments. We deplore all human rights abuses and shall continue to raise specific cases with the Nigerian Government.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, asked about the debates in Geneva. It is the European Union that has tabled a resolution at the UN Commission on Human Rights which will be debated tomorrow. It is an expression of concern by all members of the European Union about human rights in Nigeria. We look to the Nigerian Government to commit themselves to specific improvements on human rights. We hope that that will happen.
My noble friend Lord Torrington and others spoke of the plight of Chief Abiola. We note the appeals for direct support for his claim to the presidency. But, with partners, we have condemned his arrest last June. The solution is for Nigerians to determine. Our EU role is to support the process of a return to democratic civilian rule. We hope that the talks going on between the Nigerian Government and Chief Abiola's supporters will lead to an early solution.
However, we deeply regret the long detention endured by Chief Abiola. We were encouraged by the decision in November of the Kaduna Appeal Court to grant him bail, but dismayed that he was not immediately released. We are concerned at reports that he has been ill-treated, and has been unwell. Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, we appeal to the Nigerian authorities to ensure that Chief Abiola has continuing access to proper medical attention. The detention of Chief Abiola cannot help to heal the political divisions in Nigeria, or aid progress towards a return to democratic civilian rule. We hope that Nigeria's leaders will have the courage and vision to release him soon, as my noble friend Lord Torrington said.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir talked about the prospects for the Nigerian economy. Nigerian inflation is around 100 per cent. It has high unemployment, a budget deficit of 10 per cent. of GDP last year, and high external debt. But this January's budget signalled a positive change of direction. We welcomed the positive reforms it contained, particularly on the exchange rate, as many noble Lords have said. We hope that the deregulatory approach signalled by the budget is put into effect. As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said, the economy supports the fabric of Nigeria in its recovery. That is vital. It is essential that investor and manufacturing confidence is restored because, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, only a viable economy can stabilise Nigeria.
We welcome the declaration in the January budget that Nigeria would seek to restart an economic dialogue with the international financial institutions. We hope that Nigeria will be able to reach agreement on a medium-term economic programme this year. We continue to support Nigeria's case for debt relief in principle on the most concessionary terms available. But we, and Nigeria's other creditors in the Paris Club, will look first to see an agreement with the IMF, and a much improved payment of arrears, before debt relief can be considered. That may be the sort of carrot for which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is looking.
204
Trade with, and investment in, Nigeria is vital. Indeed, all our commercial relations are vital, and Nigeria remains Britain's second largest export market in Africa by far, with exports worth around £480 million in 1994. British companies hold investments in Nigeria worth over £500 million. We have key economic interests there, and a thriving two-way trade is the best way to help Nigeria to prosper. But that will take off again only when there is civilian democratic rule.
The noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Avebury, both asked about aid. Perhaps I may advise them briefly that, although we had to stop aid to Nigeria, we have managed to maintain (through the deployment of NG0s) new and relevant aid programmes. We have certainly responded with programmes in health, water, education and the natural resources sectors. I look forward to the day when we can normalise our aid relations, but I cannot do so until Nigeria has demonstrated a commitment to the restoration of democracy.
The European Union measures against Nigeria were in response to the annulment of the 1993 election, and the later return to power of military government. We suspended military co-operation and high-level visits; restricted visas for members of the military and their dependants; reviewed all new export licence applications for defence equipment with the presumption of denial, and reviewed all new aid projects on a case-by-case basis. It was the European Union which agreed that all measures should remain in force, They will be reviewed only in the light of clear progress towards a return to civilian rule.
I am sometimes asked to consider the imposition of additional measures or sanctions. We do not rule it out. To date we have resisted appeals for wider sanctions on the grounds that we have no wish to harm the interests or the livelihoods of the ordinary people of Nigeria. They would be the first to suffer from an oil embargo or trade sanctions. By contrast, our current measures remind the Nigerian military that it is responsible for the disruption to the democratic process. I hope that we shall soon see progress towards democracy and a resumption of co-operation in every sphere.
The Commonwealth is trying to help in Nigeria and I hope that long before the next Heads of Government meeting, in Auckland in November, General Abacha will have announced a firm timetable for the military's return to barracks.
In conclusion, Her Majesty's Government are deeply engaged over Nigeria. We owe it to the forces of democracy in Nigeria to keep up the pressure. Despite the suspension of high-level ministerial visits, we continue to talk and I have consulted a wide range of political and traditional rulers, as they visit London.
The vitality, spirit and intelligence of the Nigerian people will not be suppressed. I have confidence that Nigeria will find a way forward, but it is essential that that happens soon. I think that one of the lessons of this era in history is that nations cannot stand still. To do so is to invite competitors to attract the investment, the trade and the political interest. Nigeria cannot afford another wasted year. But there is no loss of goodwill.

205
Britain is a friend of Nigeria. Nigeria's friends know that she needs accountable government as soon as possible—and certainly in 1996.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
8.36 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 54.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 144K:
Page 51, leave out lines 12 and 13.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 144L and 144M. The amendments get to the heart of the problem. They relate to the questions: who is the appropriate person upon whom the notice should be served and who should be required to put the matter right? The subject divides itself into three sections: the polluter; the question of the transfer of liabilities; and the residual liability of the landowner or occupier. The point about the polluter is covered by what will be new Section 78E(2). These are probing amendments on the basis of which I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions. I accept that he may not have the answer in every case tonight, but I hope that we can at least discuss them between now and Third Reading.
My first question is: which polluter? Subsection (2) talks about finding the person who, "knowingly permitted the substances"to be on the land. There may be several such persons. Is the polluter the largest polluter or the most guilty? Is the polluter the person who is the easiest to find or the one with the deepest pocket? If none of those descriptions applies, what other criteria will be used for the selection of the polluter?
My next question is: how hard must the authority try to find the polluter? We have to remember—we shall come to this later—that if the authorities fail to find the polluter, the landowner may he liable. We may be talking about many millions of pounds. The question of how hard the authority has to try to find the polluter is therefore significant.
Should not the authority be responsible for allocating the responsibility as between the polluters? And what happens if the polluter is found but cannot pay the whole cost—or even any of it? More specifically, what happens if the polluter is a company and that company has gone into liquidation? If the polluter can get off the hook by going into liquidation, that will become standard practice. As soon as any chemical works or any other polluting activity closes down, the structure of the company responsible will be changed so that it goes into liquidation. Those are my questions in relation to the polluter.
Subsection (3) of new Section 78E relates to the transfer of liabilities. What does the Bill really intend by the words,
"the liability … has been transferred directly or indirectly"
to the landowner? That seems desperately vague. For example, does the phrase include or exclude the termination of a lease or licence by the effluxion of time, the termination of a lease or licence by its surrender, or
206
the transfer of the freehold for a price which does not make allowance for the liability of pollution? How can the landlord prevent the implied transfer of the liability?
In this context, perhaps I can quote the case of Tilmanstone colliery in Kent. When I was a boy it was owned by Pearson, Dorman, Long. Foul water was pumped out from that deep pit. I remember that it was hot. It was pumped into channels which ran across a field; it steamed. The pollution sank into the ground and affected one of the aquifers being used by the South East Kent water company. The aquifer has never been purified. After the war, the water company installed a pumping station and a seven-mile pipeline to the sea. It pumped and pumped for about three years but simply could not reduce the pollution. In the end the project was abandoned.
Who is responsible for that pollution? Is it Pearson, Dorman, Long? Was responsibility effectively transferred to the National Coal Board? If so, did the National Coal Board successfully transfer the liability to British Coal? If so, has British Coal successfully transferred the liability to the agency, and so on down the line? That is a very important question. I shall come back to it.
The landowner has residual responsibility. I, my colleagues whose names are attached to the amendment, the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union and the CBI, are in agreement that the landowner or occupier should accept his share of the responsibility for pollution where he had knowledge that pollution was taking place and consented to it, or where he benefited financially from the activity which caused the pollution. New Section 78E goes far beyond that. What about the landowner or occupier who is not to blame and who has not benefited? Your Lordships may say, "How can this be'?" I shall give examples; I have divided them into three categories. There is the landowner who could not have known. This reverts to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, on fly-tipping. A landowner cannot necessarily know when material is being illegally dumped on his land.
What about the landowner who has a mine driving a gallery 1,800 feet below his property? How can he know? What about the aquifer I was describing in connection with Tilmanstone pit? How can a landowner know that 10 miles away an aquifer is being polluted and that that pollution is drifting under his land? There is also, of course, the question of airborne pollution.
The second category is the landowner who could not prevent the pollution taking place—for example, a landowner who is subject to a compulsory purchase order or who has mining licences granted in respect of the ground under his land. There is also the question of the movement of contamination from neighbouring land.
Finally—an important and desperately difficult issue—what about the situation where the goalposts have been moved? I give an agricultural example because I am a farmer. When I trained in agriculture and for many years thereafter the great guru of British agriculture was Sir George Stapleton. His recommendation was "lay farming" The good guys in agriculture were those who practised lay farming. They

207
grew grass and every three or four years ploughed it in, putting fertility and humus back into the soil and thereby producing good crops.
About five years ago we were suddenly told that ploughing grassland was wicked because it was a major contributor to nitrates in the groundwater. All those years I had been doing what I was told to do, what ADAS told me to do and what, I think, I was given subsidies to do. Suddenly, the goalposts were moved. Am Ito be punished for having acted as I did? That is only one example. There are many, and there will be many more. When new forms of pollution are discovered, technology will unearth new problems relating to human health. For example, I am told that the European Union is considering designating coal as a contaminant. That completely changes the ball game as far as abandoned colliery sites are concerned. Who will be responsible for that? It is a real question. Why should the landowner be liable?
On Second Reading the Minister said that the provision in the Bill does not alter the present position under statute and common law as regards the responsibilities of the landowner. I am sure that the Minister has been incorrectly advised. The Bill would, I am advised, greatly extend the existing liability of landowners and occupiers under statute and common law. Furthermore, it removes the defences which presently exist. My Amendment No. 150A reinstates those defences.
In my view, the objective of those drafting the Bill has been to find a scapegoat who could be made to pay if the guilty party could not be found. I am sorry that so few noble Lords are in their places because this is a very important issue. If the House wishes to connive at such injustice I shall seek an opportunity to vote on the issue at Third Reading. In the meantime, I hope that the Government will see the justice of making some change, that they will take away these amendments, consider them, and come back with some help. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I support the amendment, to which my name is attached, and confirm my belief that there is a very substantial point of principle as to how liabilities for contamination can be transferred. Many types of contamination are new phenomena which were unknown a generation ago. Some types of chemicals that we understand now to be contaminants were marketed freely. So it is not surprising that types of land use and refuse disposal techniques involving putting materials into land which may now be regarded as potentially contaminated have produced, in some instances, significant environmental harm. I do not wish to understate that but at the time it was not realised.
Now we have the situation, so eloquently underlined by my noble friend Lord Northbourne, where practices once thought harmless are being called into question. I wrote recently to the Minister with regard to how the principles of caveat emptor and strict liability were to be reconciled. I understand clearly, that the polluter pays—a principle which I support—but I had in mind the desirability of avoiding liability falling on the innocent, which, to my mind, is an equally undesirable aspect.
208
I was grateful to the Minister for what I describe as a most revealing reply. It was a genuine attempt to be helpful. Perhaps I may paraphrase what I understood it to say. First, it said that the polluter should not pay twice—I accept that—and that where there had been a valid transfer of land, reflecting the pollution presence, that transaction should be respected. Of course, I understand and accept that too. Then, something more than reliance on caveat emptor might be required where there was a known polluter. Of course, I can accept that principle as well, but there is a grey area where liability may arise out of a normal transfer under what are known as the standard conditions of sale, but where the polluter cannot be identified.
I have difficulty with the phrase "cannot be found". That may be capable of being interpreted in a number of ways: to include those who were in existence once, but are no longer; on the other hand, it may not be concerned with identity alone. This group of amendments seeks to obtain some guidance on those points. For if the polluter should not pay twice how much more important morally is it that the wholly innocent owner or occupier for the time being should be shielded from liability.
By "owner", I do not mean the well-heeled large estate owner so much as the householder, the smallholder, the small businessman, the small farmer. Those are the people who need protection. I wonder whether it is the intention of the Bill that the shirt should be taken off those people's backs for liabilities as regards which, patently, they may be innocent. As the Bill stands, some polluters may get away scot free while innocent parties struggle through the courts to try to clear their names. Worse still, for many of those people who happen to be owners or occupiers it will be pure chance. That cannot be allowed to stand, and I hope that the Minister will he able to give some further guidance on that point.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having tabled them. I find some of the concepts contained in the paragraph difficult. English law does not normally recognise the transfer of a liability. It is something the Americans go in for, but the English by and large do not. I accept that this is not the same as attempting to transfer a liability under a contract, for instance, but, nevertheless, there is a culture which has affected the development of the law in this country.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the national conditions of sale. It might be appropriate to allow the customs of sale and purchase of land to take account of the new legislation, and for the provisions to come into effect from a specified date after the Act comes into force so that the provision would not be retrospective, something with which the practitioners would have little way of dealing as a matter of normal course.
Finally, if the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, brings the matter back on Third Reading, he may like to think not retrospectively but prospectively of some type of long-stop —some long period of time after which some of these provisions may not bite.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, this is an important amendment. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister the same question as did the noble

209
Lord, Lord Northbourne: what happens if the polluter is a man of straw? Does the liability then rest with the occupier? Then—this is similar to my previous amendment—can it really be right for an innocent occupier to be responsible in such cases, or in any case? Further—this is my overriding feeling about the whole Bill—it is the cavalier attitude shown towards the innocent bystander (occupier, or whatever he or she is) throughout the Bill that I find most unattractive.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendments Nos. I44K, 144L and I44M seek to change the potential liabilities of owners and occupiers.
First, they would remove the liability which would fall under the existing provisions to the current owner or occupier where the original polluter could not be found. That would be a clear departure from the existing position under the statutory nuisance provisions in Section 80 of Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and under the caveat emptor rule at common law. It would therefore introduce a new exemption from liability for those groups.
My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley should refresh his memory as to what Section 80 of Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides, because if he did so he would understand that there is an existing liability on owners.
As I have already said in my response to my noble friend Lord Stanley's amendment on liabilities arising from fly-tipping, we are going to restore the existing exemption that the innocent victims of fly-tipping enjoy currently. But the effect of the present amendment in practice would be either that there would be no means of dealing with significant harm in some instances, or it would require the public purse—the taxpayer—to pay to improve the condition of land not currently suitable for the use to which owners are putting it. That would give those owners significant, uncovenanted gains. I do not believe that that would be justified. It is a long-established principle that owners are responsible for the condition of their land, and I believe that that should continue.
My noble friend Lord Stanley and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked me about the position where the polluter cannot afford to pay. That would not imply that any responsibility would pass to the owner. That would happen only where the polluter could not be found. That might include the case of a company having gone into liquidation. We are considering possible anti-avoidance measures to prevent that route being taken deliberately to avoid liabilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, cited also a coal mine in Kent. I am afraid that I do not know the details of the ownership of that coal mine, but where liability as a polluter lay with British Coal, if it did, it would pass to the latter's successors in tale; that is, from British Coal to any successor body, which would normally assume its liabilities with its functions. It was not the Government's intention to create new categories of potential liabilities. However, one area in which that may have been breached is in the case of liabilities arising under these provisions solely as a result of water
210
pollution, especially where the contaminating substances may have escaped from one site to another without the knowledge of the owner of the site now affected. The Government are considering that issue. We expect to bring forward an amendment to deal with it at a later stage.
The second aspect of Amendment No. 144K seeks to change the way in which responsibility might transfer from the original polluter to the current owner or occupier. In our debate in Committee, I suggested that that was an area which the Government wished to consider in more detail before bringing forward their own amendments. I can now set out in some more detail the position which the Government believe ought to be reached.
There must, we feel, be some manner of proof that a transfer of responsibilities has taken place. There should be something more than just an assumption that that has happened, relying solely on the principle of caveat emptor. But that leaves the difficult question of whether such a transfer needs to have been provided for expressly in a sale contract. This would, of course, be the effect of these amendments. This is particularly an issue with respect to sales of land which have already taken place. We would expect that, as a matter of good legal practice, future contracts would address this question directly where it is likely to be an issue.
On balance, we believe that there should not be a need for "express" provisions if this is interpreted as an "express" reference to liability for contaminated land rather than as a reference to liabilities arising from the ownership of land. If the terms of an individual contract can be construed as bringing about a transfer of all burdens and responsibilities there does not appear to be any reason why responsibilities associated with contamination need be assumed to have been excluded. Owners are only too happy to accept benefits associated with their land which they had not anticipated at the time of their purchase. We can see no real reason why responsibilities should be treated any differently. On this basis, I would not wish to accept these amendments.
Amendment No. 150A, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, seeks to introduce three specific grounds of appeal against the receipt of a remediation notice, The first of these grounds of appeal would be on the grounds that the "best practicable means" had been used to prevent or counteract the effects of the contamination. Despite a superficial reasonableness, a defence along these lines would run clearly against the polluter pays principle. The Government see no reason to depart from this general principle, which is widely accepted both nationally and internationally, and to pass the costs of remediation on to the taxpayers, who had no chance at all of preventing the contamination occurring.
In practice, the existence of a provision of this kind would tic up almost any attempt to secure remediation in detailed litigation on what precisely had been the supposed best practicable means available at some time in the past. This would be particularly difficult to ascertain where there had been consecutive contaminating activities on a site.

211
The issue of this ground of appeal and defence to prosecution may be clouded somewhat by comparison with the defence available under the statutory nuisance provisions. In that regime, "best practicable means" is available in some cases as a defence against prosecution for non-compliance, or partial compliance, with the requirements of an abatement notice. It would not preclude the service of such a notice in the first place, as would be suggested by the current amendment. The spirit of the statutory nuisance defence is already implied in the structure of remediation notices under the contaminated land provisions. The requirements of a notice have to be "reasonable", and we also intend that there should be a ground of appeal on the basis that a requirement is unreasonable.
The second suggested ground of appeal is that of having neither caused nor knowingly permitted the contaminating substances to be in, on or under the land. That would totally disable the provisions passing responsibility to site owners or occupiers where the polluters cannot be found or where responsibilities have been transferred. For the reasons discussed earlier in the debate, the Government would not see that as justified.
The third suggested ground of appeal is that the person could not have reasonably foreseen that the land would become contaminated land. That raises all the difficulties present in the best practicable means defence, in terms of allowing polluters to evade responsibility for their actions and opening up the possibility of excessive litigation. For these reasons, the Government would not accept it. It would also be unworkable as it would be extremely difficult to ascertain whether any particular "harm" arising was reasonably foreseeable and at what point in time the test should be applied where there were a number of contaminants deposited at different times on the site.
That suggested ground of appeal raises difficult questions of comparison with the common law, where the "reasonable foreseeability" test must be satisfied in relation to damage suffered for certain tortious actions. However, the comparison is not apt. Common law actions seek to provide compensation to private parties for specific damage which has occurred. The test of "reasonable foreseeability" relates directly to the question of whether that specific damage was foreseeable. The statutory regulatory regime that we are discussing today is not seeking to provide compensation to individuals, nor is it necessarily tied to specific damage which has occurred. Instead, it is aimed at ensuring that harm to health and the environment can be prevented. For these reasons, the Government believe that them is no necessity for the same manner of provisions to be available.
I hope that, with that long explanation of why the Government are unable to accept the amendments, the noble Lord will withdraw them.
9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in a throwaway manner, almost as an aside, the Minister has said that he is studying the possibility of a company which is
212
going into liquidation being prevented from avoiding liability. How precisely can one do that without rewriting all the company and insolvency Acts?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have to say, obviously, with great difficulty. The noble Lord knows only too well of the difficulties of limited companies. This is a considerable issue and that is why we are studying it most carefully.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am very disappointed by the Minister's reply. He did not address the fact that this Bill enlarges and extends the liability of landowners under common law and statute as it stands at present. We must be absolutely clear about the matter. By Third Reading I shall have chapter and verse about the way in which that is happening. I do not mind whether it is difficult to investigate the problem. The courts are doing so at the moment in respect of statute and common law. Why suddenly can they not do so in respect of this Bill? I understand that it is not true to say that this Bill does not significantly enlarge the liability of landowners. If that is what the House wishes, so be it. I believe that the House may well see the injustice of the proposals. I intend to return to the matter at a later stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 144L and 144M not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 51, line 20, at end insert:
("() Subsection (3) above shall not apply where compulsory powers existed to compel the owner or occupier to grant any Interest in the land related to the activity or activities which gave rise to the contamination of the land, whether or not such powers were used.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is inappropriate for the Government to impose a liability for contaminated land where compulsory powers exist. There is no provision to protect an owner from the consequences of a remediation notice where he has been obliged to grant rights on his land for coal extraction, a pipeline or other purposes because compulsory powers have been used or, more importantly, threatened. The existence of compulsory powers is an under-rated weapon in the hands of the acquirer. Their mere existence is sufficient to secure rights by the Government with what they believe is agreement but it is not really agreement.
It is surely wrong that a person should be put at risk to the extent that he is liable for all the costs of remediation if the acquiring company or body no longer exists or cannot be found. That is more probable now, given the activities of the private sector companies with the benefit of compulsory powers. Moreover, what happens if the company which is responsible has gone bust?
I was fascinated by my noble friend's remarks in regard to those problems on the last amendments, as was, I gather, the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I shall be interested to see how the Government intend to deal with that problem because it affects us all.
I suppose that the problem revolves around compulsory rights orders. Somehow or other I feel that my noble friend would prefer not to discuss such orders. They received a rather rough reception in your Lordships' House. Perhaps he would prefer to accept the amendment in lieu. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 145 seeks to exempt owners where land has been contaminated as a result of activities for which compulsory powers existed to compel owners or occupiers to grant interests in their land.
Essentially, we are considering here the issue of compulsory rights orders, as my noble friend indicated. Your Lordships debated the subject at some length in the last Session when considering the Coal Industry Bill. The anxiety underlying the amendment is that landowners may find themselves facing liabilities for contamination caused by activities which they never wanted on their land and which took place only as a result of the exercise of compulsory powers. While I understand that anxiety, I do not feel that it is justified not that an exemption from liability is needed or warranted. In particular, I do not believe that an exemption would be justified merely on the ground that compulsory powers existed, regardless of whether or not they had been used in an individual case.
The existing procedures for the granting of CROs already provide two particular safeguards for the position of landowners and occupiers. First, the planning authority will require appropriate restoration and aftercare as conditions of its planning consent. Those will be enforced by the planning authority in the normal way. Secondly, compensation arrangements include provision for the landowner to recover his reasonable expenses for any works necessary to bring the land back to its previous condition.
Taken together, those measures should ensure that any liabilities in respect of contaminated land which might result would fall to the operator and not to the landowner. The requirement on the planning authorities and relevant licensing authorities to satisfy themselves as to the financial capacity of the licence applicants to meet the restoration conditions should provide further safeguards. Having given my noble friend that reassurance, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I will withdraw it, but we return to the same question, and I see that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is smiling. What happens if the operator has gone walkabout or bust and is no longer there? In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 145A:
Page 51, line 33, at end insert ("in accordance with section 78R below").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to this amendment when he moved Amendment No. 128C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 145E and 145C not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 145D:
Page 51, line 33, at end insert:
("() In the case referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) above, the guidance shall include provision to ensure that liability is shared between the persons in proportion to their responsibility for the contamination.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, has asked me to speak also to his amendment, as mine is roughly the same as his amendment. The object is to avoid an extremely unfortunate situation which will undoubtedly arise if such an amendment is not accepted; namely, that there will be a cat fight between the various parties responsible for pollution.
In discussing an earlier amendment I asked the noble Viscount which body the local authority will go for as a matter of choice from among a selection of potential polluters. If the answer is that the local authority can go for whichever it likes, and then that body has to take all the others involved through the courts to achieve an equitable solution, it will be nothing but a feast for the lawyers. It seems to me that the responsibility should be with the local authority to allocate responsibility for pollution in proportion to the contribution which was made to the pollution by each of the polluters. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendment. It seems to me that equity demands that there should be a proper apportionment and that we should not follow what is commonly described as the American pattern under the "superfund" where vast sums of money seem to have been spent in pursuing various people who, in turn, then pursue others. The purpose of the Bill is surely to ensure that maximum resources are applied to cleaning up the environment for the benefit of the present and future generations. I believe that the amendment merits careful consideration.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 145C and, for that matter, Amendment No. 145D moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, both seek to insert onto the face of the Bill the requirement that, where two or more persons have caused or knowingly permitted contamination to occur, liability for remediation should be apportioned between them in accordance with their share of responsibility for the contamination.
As I stated in our debate at Committee stage, that principle is fine in so far as it goes. In the situation where different persons have separately contributed to the creation of an overall problem with contamination, it is entirely the right principle to follow. The Government would wish to reject totally any suggestion that liability in those circumstances should be joint and several. However, that principle cannot properly address the question of how to allocate responsibility where different people have had effective control over the same contamination, and its possible effects, in sequence. One person may have "caused" the substances

215
to be present, but another person, in "knowingly permitting" them to remain, may have brought about the circumstances under which they came to result in significant harm. In such cases, it may he entirely appropriate for the whole responsibility for remediation to rest on the person with the most recent involvement with the contamination.
However, the amendments before us would not allow a judgment of that kind to be made. On that basis, I would not wish to accept them. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northbourne: Yes, my Lords, I will do so. I can foresee considerable difficulties in deciding who will pay and also enormous legal costs being involved. I accept what the Minister said. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 145E:
Page 51, leave out lines 34 to 48.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to the above amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 128C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 52, line 1, leave out ("appears to have") and insert ("has").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 147, 148, 149 and 150. The effect of these technical amendments is to make sure that the basic test of liability for a polluter—someone who has caused or knowingly permitted contaminants to be present—is the same in new Section 78F as it is elsewhere in this part of the Bill. The question should be one of fact, and not of appearance. Following an amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I undertook to bring forward the amendments. I am happy to be able to do so now. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 147 to 150:
Page 52, line 16, leave out ("appears not to have") and insert ("has not").
Page 52, line 23, leave out ("harm, or") and insert ("significant harm is being caused, or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused, or that").
Page 52, line 28, leave out ("appears not to have") and insert ("has not").
Page 52, line 36, leave out ("harm, or") and insert ("significant harm is being caused, or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused, or that").
Page 52, line 40, leave out ("appears to have") and insert ("has").
Page 53, line 3, leave out ("it appears that").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 150A not moved.]
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 53, line 14, at beginning insert:
("Any aggrieved person, or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments also relates to the transference from the traditional statutory nuisance regime into the new regime proposed in the Bill. The amendments concern particularly the rights of citizens to achieve an abatement of a nuisance by applying to the magistrates' court to ask for that nuisance to be abated. Of course, that right is abolished by the Bill in that contaminated land is taken out of the statutory nuisance regime, as we have already debated, and is not to be replaced by a similar right for citizens in the new system proposed under the Bill.
The intention of Amendment No. 151 is to provide an equivalent citizens' right within the new clean-up regime. In my view, it would mean that the UK Government would in fact honour commitments in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration. Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 similarly give an "aggrieved person" the ability to complain to a magistrates' court to require an enforcing authority to act to clean up land in accordance with a remediation notice where the person upon whom it was served has been convicted for not complying with it. Again, in that case, the transference from the previous legislative structure to the present one means that there will be no circumstance in which a local authority can be required to clean up contaminated land. It is my view that there should continue to be a local authority public sector involvement in this activity.
Under the present structure, if an aggrieved citizen applies to the magistrates' court for the abatement of a statutory nuisance from contaminated land the magistrates may order the local authority to abate the nuisance if a person against whom an order was originally made is convicted of failing to comply with a clean-up order. The intention of the amendments is to restore that right.
I believe that as we move into a new structure of environmental protection and of reduction of pollution it is important that we should not destroy existing rights which have worked well, but should increase the rights of citizens to take action to protect the environment. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 151 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would permit an aggrieved person to appeal against a remediation notice served on someone else. The intention is to allow the aggrieved person to ask the court to substitute alternative, possibly more stringent, remediation requirements than were contained in the original notice.
Not only would that be a totally novel approach to appeals; it would also, in our opinion, be entirely unjustified. The proper route by which individuals and companies can seek remedies for harm or nuisance caused to them by other individuals is through private actions at common law.
Enforcing authorities will have regard to statutory guidance in deciding what steps by way of remediation they are to require in any individual case. This will address the task of preventing the occurrence of the harm or water pollution which led to the land being identified as contaminated land, and it will do so in a

217
technically robust way. There should therefore be nothing for the supposedly aggrieved person to be worried about, unless he wished to attempt to substitute his judgment of the remediation standards required on the site, replacing the requirements developed by the professional staff in the enforcing authority and the technical approach set out in the statutory guidance. In the unlikely case where an enforcing authority acted unreasonably or ultra vires, an aggrieved person would have the usual remedy of seeking judicial review of the decision taken.
Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 are somewhat different, in that, as the noble Lord indicated, there is a precedent contained in the statutory nuisance provisions in Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for an aggrieved person having the right to ask a court to order a local authority to act to abate a nuisance. The amendments seek to produce an equivalent effect in these contaminated land powers.
However, despite the apparent precedent in other legislation, the Government do not believe that it would be justified to follow it now. It may be instructive to note that the Department of the Environment is unaware of any cases where this supposed right of individual action has been used to deal with contaminated land.
The Government's intention in bringing forward these provisions and in developing the statutory guidance which will support it is to set up a modem, structured regulatory regime run by technically competent public authorities. This will enable the environmental priorities to be addressed in a systematic and ordered way. Much of this will take place in the way in which local authorities go about inspecting their areas to identify contaminated land, concentrating on the more vulnerable areas. But there will also be a need to allocate resources in terms of money and key staff in a structured way to deal with those sites where the appropriate person is either unwilling or unable to pay for the costs of remediation himself. Allowing what would essentially be freelance regulators to step in to the process and overturn those priorities would serve only to divert the available resources away from the more urgent and serious cases.
With that explanation I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his detailed response. I can assure him that it was not the intention of the amendments to set up freelance regulators. On the basis that he intends to set up a modern, structured, regulatory regime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 151A to 154 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 54, line 26, leave out first ("of") and insert ("not exceeding").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendment No. 156. Both amendments are designed to give the judiciary some opportunity to
218
modify the daily fine. In the Bill as drafted, the daily fine is mandatory. In the light of the difficulties that we have encountered in previous debates on remediation notices, it would seem that the judge should be given some opportunity to modify the fine if he deemed it appropriate. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 155, moved by the noble Lord, and Amendment No. 156 to which he spoke, seek to introduce flexibility into the level of fine applicable for each day on which non-compliance with a remediation notice continues after conviction for the offence. That would depart from similar provisions in Section 80(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and to maintain consistency we would need to move consequential amendments to a very large number of similar provisions. We would not wish to do that without very good reason. Having said that, I take note of what the noble Lord said. However, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I hear what the noble Viscount says: "It is here because it is here because it is here, because it is in other enactments and we do not wish to change those other enactments"
. I am not sure that it would not be wise to consider all the other enactments. The position seems slightly absurd. However, I see that we shall not get far. However, I hope that the noble Viscount will consider the issue, and perhaps when the Bill reaches another place, it might consider the matter seriously. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 156 to 158 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 158A:
Page 55, line 12, at end insert ("and whether having regard to all the circumstances it is reasonable to recover the costs from the person.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 158A, I also speak to Amendment No. 158B. Although they are on slightly different points, the amendments are intended to be helpful suggestions of ways in which the Minister might be able to help a little on the question of liabilities of landowners.
Amendment No. 158A applies the test of reasonableness regarding whether a local authority which undertook work because it was not undertaken by the person on whom the notice was served should then seek to recover the cost. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able either to accept the amendment or to give me an assurance that the test of reasonableness is already implicit in the wording of the Bill.
Amendment No. 158B is an important suggestion. There is a very real danger that the cost of remediation in cases of contamination will impose liabilities upon the person responsible far in excess of the value of the land. That may be appropriate where that person has recklessly allowed pollution to take place. However, let us take the example of someone who inherits a piece of land. Let us consider the classic widow or orphan who has a reasonable competence and a reasonable level of income. Auntie Joanna leaves her a piece of property which subsequently turns out to be contaminated. That

219
person might suddenly find herself wiped out, liable for millions of pounds of rehabilitation. She might have her whole assets removed, and be left destitute.
That clearly is not the intention of the Act. I believe that such a situation should be provided for. If we are talking about the innocent landowner, it seems reasonable that the amount of liability for remediation should be limited at least to the amount that he or she can recover from the sale of the land after remediation has been carried out and the liability should not impinge on such other assets as he or she has. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I support the amendment, and perhaps I may add a little to the example of the widow or orphan. How would the Minister see the situation if, on inspection, the legacy were found to be contaminated land and the prospective beneficiary repudiated the legacy? What would happen then? Would the executor be responsible? What is the extent of the executor's liability? Is it the extent of the assets or how is it measured? That important point should be covered, otherwise the situation becomes like the National Lottery in reverse: the first prize for getting all the numbers in a row is complete financial ruin. I do not believe that it should he allowed.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, both these amendments would change the provisions relating to the recovery of costs by an enforcing authority where it has acted on the default of the recipient of a remediation notice. Amendment No. 158A would require an enforcing authority to have regard to whether, in the circumstances, it was "reasonable" to seek to recover its costs.
It is not at all clear on the face of the amendment in what circumstances it might be held to be unreasonable to recover costs, except where questions of hardship were involved. That would potentially leave the question open to considerable doubt and legal argument on individual cases. This would itself be undesirable, but it might also open up the opportunity for the legitimate recipients of remediation notices to attempt to argue that they should not really have been held responsible and should not have received the notice. The Government could not accept the creation of such a back-door attempt to undermine the basic liability regime set out in these provisions.
I would point out that, in any case, the power to recover costs given to enforcing authorities is discretionary, and the Government would expect them to act reasonably in this respect, within the wider sense of the term. I would also point out that in preparing a remediation notice in the first place the enforcing authority can only specify things which are reasonable, having regard to the cost which is likely to be involved and the pollution in question.
Amendment No. 158B would seek to limit, to the value of the remediated land, the potential liability of any owner or occupier who was deemed to be the appropriate person to receive a remediation notice on account of his ownership or occupation. While
220
calculations of that kind might he relevant in cases of potential hardship among home owners, they would not necessarily be appropriate in all cases.
The first effect of a provision of this kind would be to give such persons a potentially major incentive not to comply with the original remediation notice, because their exposure to any recovery of costs incurred by the enforcing authority would be limited. That would be perverse.
The second effect of the amendment would be to shield owners from the potentially negative net value of heavily contaminated land. The Government do not believe that this could be justified as a general principle. Even without having to meet the costs of regulatory requirements, owners in those circumstances would not be able to sell their land, as any purchaser would have to pay the costs of the necessary remedial action before he could seek to redevelop the site, for example. That could create another perverse incentive for owners to seek to be served with remediation notices, so that they could benefit from the limited liabilities they would then face. They would simply fail to comply with the notice and the public purse would then effectively bear the balance of the cost of any works in excess of the value of the site. The Government do not believe that the amendments would provide workable formulae for the recovery of costs, and would not wish to accept them.
To address the point put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, if a beneficiary repudiates a legacy, then I believe the legacy would pass to the next beneficiary named in the will, and maybe eventually to a residual beneficiary. But we are taking matters quite far in this context. Having explained where the Government stand on these amendments, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw them.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, the noble Viscount has rejected my efforts to produce some helpful suggestions. I am afraid that I have to accept that the problem is the injustice of the basic liability regime to which he referred; and I am afraid it is on that issue that we shall have to continue to attack. The injustice to the innocent landowner is, in my estimation, monstrous. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 158B not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 56, line 29, at end insert:
("() An enforcing authority shall, for the purpose of enforcing in Scotland a charge under this section, have all the same powers and remedies under the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 as if it were a heritable creditor in possession.").
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. 160.
This amendment was suggested to us by the Law Society of Scotland. It would allow a local authority to create a charging order in order to obtain a security to recover costs incurred by the authority in carrying out the requirements of the remediation notice. It is clear to us that charging powers for Scottish local authorities require to be on all fours with their English counterparts. The amendment achieves this aim by enabling Scottish

221
authorities to create a security for the purposes of recovering those expenses. I hope very much that the Government will see the merit of this argument. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, at present the Bill makes provision in new Section 78J for a local authority in England and Wales to serve a charging notice on any person who fails to comply with any of the requirements of a remediation notice, and where the authority has incurred expenditure in carrying out work which that person should have done. Amendments Nos. 159 and 160, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would seek to introduce a similar system in Scotland.
I understand that the existing conveyancing practices in Scotland do not include the use of charging notices of this kind, and that the introduction of such a system would require fundamental changes to be made to the conveyancing system. I see no advantage in pursuing such changes and believe that the existing mechanisms under Scots law for recovering sums due are indeed adequate. I am therefore content that the Scottish local authorities should seek recovery through the courts of expenditure incurred under this section. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. His opinion obviously differs from that of the Law Society of Scotland. All I can do in my ignorance is to report what he said to the Law Society of Scotland and take the society's view. I hope that on his side he will check what he said with the lawyers in the Scottish Office and make sure that he is right. We shall possibly have to fight the matter out at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 160 not moved.]
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 160A:
Page 57, line 24: at end insert:
(" (e) any information provided by the appropriate person or by the owner or occupier of land for the time being of action taken or information obtained pursuant to a remediation statement or remediation notice.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, new Section 78L will provide that,
"Every enforcing authority shall maintain a register containing prescribed particulars of or relating to",
such matters as remediation statements and remediation notices. My noble friend has already replied in relation to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that it is not possible to require authorities to give certificates of compliance with remediation notices. Presumably one could not expect them to put anything on the register to say that an appropriate person had complied. On the other hand, the bare facts on the register will tend to make land unmarketable. This amendment is intended to alleviate that situation by providing that the appropriate person or the landowner may give details of how he has complied with a remediation notice and that those details will be entered on the register. It seems to me that that goes some way to meeting the points so reasonably made by the noble
222
Lord, Lord Northbourne, earlier this evening. I hope that my noble friend can be encouraging on this occasion. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 160A, moved by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, is close to the Government's desired solution for further information which might be included on the register. This is a point to which, as my noble friend indicated, I replied in a positive way when replying to an amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. It would enable the recipient of a remediation notice, or the owner or occupier of the land where that is different, to have an opportunity to add his own information to the register of regulatory actions describing what has been done in pursuance of a remediation notice. Indeed, but for some minor concerns with the precise wording of the amendment, I should have been minded to accept it. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will forbear and await a government amendment on this matter. Having said that, I hope that he will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am very glad to learn that I correctly sensed the way that the wind was blowing when my noble friend replied to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 57, line 29, at end insert:
("() It shall be the duty of each enforcing authority—

(a) 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; and

(b) to afford to members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of entries, on payment of reasonable charges;

and, for the purposes of this subsection, places may be prescribed by the Secretary of State at which any such registers or facilities as are mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above are to be available or afforded to the public in pursuance of the paragraph in question.
() Registers under this section may he kept in any form.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, during the debate in Committee on this Bill, in response to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, I confirmed that the registers of regulatory action to be kept under Section 78L were intended to be open to public inspection. The amendment appeared in the Marshalled List. I am not sure whether the noble Lord moved it, but I certainly took note of it.
Amendment No. 161 seeks to make that point explicit by requiring that the registers maintained by the various enforcing authorities should be available for public inspection free of charge and that facilities should be provided for the public to make copies of entries on payment of reasonable charges. The provisions are in common form with equivalent provisions relating to regulatory registers elsewhere in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Given that both the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, moved similarly worded amendments, I hope that your Lordships will feel able to accept the wording of my amendment.
However, my amendment goes somewhat further, in that it also provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe places at which the registers and facilities should be available to the public and permits the registers to be kept in any form. That is in common form with amendments to the other register provisions in EPA 1990 which are being made in Schedule 18 to the Bill. I hope that these will be equally acceptable.
Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to produce the amendment that I promised on the inclusion of further information on the registers relating to actions undertaken by the appropriate person to comply with the terms of a remediation notice. However, I can confirm that it is still our intention to do that at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I am grateful to him. I remember moving the amendment and gave the example of the registry house in Edinburgh, where one can go and obtain copies. I am glad that the Minister has come just about as far as we expected. I thank him for that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 163 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 163A not moved.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 58, line t7, at end insert:
("Power of enforcing authority to vest land in itself.

.—(1) Where no appropriate person can be found after diligent enquiry the enforcing authority may execute a declaration vesting the land in itself.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the form and content of the notices announcing the intentions of the enforcing authority to make such declaration, to be exhibited publicly in such places and at such minimum period as he prescribes prior to the execution of a declaration under subsection (1) above.

(3) The enforcing authority may thereupon carry out any act by way of remediation, and may make such provision for the use of the land as it determines to be in the public interest, and may for that purpose enter into such arrangements with any other person as it deems necessary.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we come again to amendments which we did not move at Committee stage owing to the lateness of the hour. Since then, I have exchanged letters with the Minister and I am grateful to him for his detailed response to the points I put to him on this matter.
This is an attempt to provide local authorities with the necessary power and means to develop town centres. It is in line with government policy, as most recently expressed in the document dealing with out of town shopping centres, which said that the Government desired to revitalise town centres. There are many areas of our towns and cities which continue to lie derelict and are wastelands because of old industrial processes that have been carried out there. Amendment No. 164 attempts to deal with what are called orphan sites, where the owners can no longer be traced. It will give local authorities a simple means to adopt them. At present
224
there are complicated processes to enable local authorities to carry this out, but this will provide a simple statutory means to enable local authorities to take charge of such sites, include them in their structure plans and develop them.
Amendment No. 167 gives local authorities the means whereby they can develop such sites in consortia with business, central government and so on. As the Minister has said, the Government provide some funds to develop city centres under the urban regeneration agency, English Partnerships and various forms of city regeneration. But such measures are patchy and some are dependent upon competitions. That always seems to be a very strange way to ensure that we develop our cities. For example, City Challenge has dealt with some of the problems that are open to more entrepreneurial solutions but may not have dealt with those areas that are so derelict and depressed that they cannot put in a decent bid. Competition may work against cities which are in most need.
We are concerned that it is much easier for developers to adopt greenfield sites, where they do not have to clear away historic pollution and where access is easier. There are all sorts of reasons why they prefer to adopt greenfield sites rather than what are called brownfield sites. This amendment is an attempt to provide a framework and means whereby local authorities can regenerate cities and towns and relieve some of the pressure on the countryside, which is part of what any environment Bill should attempt to address. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is unfortunate that we come to this so late. I merely add my voice to what has been said by the noble Baroness. Public expectations have turned around quite remarkably over the past few years. There is much greater understanding of the need to develop city centres and the jeopardy in which the non-development of city centres puts greenfield sites. Clearly, the Government recognise this, though, sadly, in the case of out of town retail centres, for example, perhaps too many applications have flowed under the bridge. We shall see. However, the aspirations and the means are still a long way apart. I support the amendment as an attempt to bring them closer together.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 164, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, would give a local authority power to vest contaminated land in itself where there was no person upon whom a remediation notice could be served. Although the total number of sites where that circumstance would occur is probably very small, the Government accept that without some available procedure a local authority will otherwise be unable to exercise its duties to secure the remediation of those sites. However, land may be acquired compulsorily by local authorities for many different purposes under a range of powers. If there is no specific compulsory purchase power, local authorities may also acquire land compulsorily under Section 121 of the Local

225
Government Act 1972 for the purposes of many of their statutory functions which involve the holding or provision of land.
When an authority has been authorised to use compulsory purchase powers but the owners are unknown or untraceable, the authority may serve the relevant statutory notices by leaving them at the site. It may also pay compensation into court and vest land in itself by executing a general vesting declaration. Alternatively, it may pay compensation into court and execute a deed poll, after which the land vests in the authority.
Amendment No. 167 would give a local authority an enabling power to draw up plans for contaminated land in its area for the purposes of securing its return into effective use. The Government are certainly keen to see contaminated land brought back into effective use. In support of that objective, we have made available considerable sums of public money—in the order of £250 million a year—to support regeneration through dealing with land.contamination. This has been provided both to local authorities through, as the noble Baroness said, derelict land grant, and also through city grant and the work of the urban development corporations, Scottish Enterprise and the Welsh Development Agency. Since the start of the current financial year, English Partnerships has also been in full operation, and it recently announced details of its new investment fund which will replace the city grant and derelict land grant programmes.
Local authorities already have statutory powers to consult and to make plans for regeneration purposes, particularly as part of their development and planning control powers. In London and the metropolitan areas, councils produce unitary development plans setting out their policies, including those aimed at the improvement of the physical environment. Outside those areas, the district councils prepare local plans within the framework of county level structure plans; authorities are under a duty to include policies in respect of the improvement of the physical environment in their structure plans.
Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG12, Development Plans and Regional Planning Guidance, explicitly refers in this context to policies aimed at reclaiming contaminated and derelict land so that it can be brought back into use. Further guidance for local planning authorities on framing development plan policies and on controlling the development of contaminated land is set out in PPG23, Planning and Pollution Control. The Government do not therefore believe that the amendment is necessary. Having said that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, it is disappointing that we have not had a more favourable response to the amendments. The local authorities feel, as I do, that there are insufficient powers and means for dealing with contaminated sites in town centres. We are therefore disappointed by the Government's response. However, I do not intend to press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 164A to 164D:
Page 58, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("Part") in line 24 and insert:

("(a) significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused, or

(b) pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be, caused, this").

Page 58, line 27, leave out ("harm or") and insert ("significant harm is being caused, or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused, or that").
Page 58, line 32, leave out ("harm, or") and insert ("significant harm is being caused, or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused, or that").
Page 58, line 47, after ("(a)") insert ("significant").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 128C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 59, line 9, at end insert:
(""Application to the Isles of Scilly.

78Q.—(1) Subject to the provisions of any order under this section, this Part shall not apply in relation to the Isles of Scilly.

(2) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Council of the Isles of Scilly, by order provide for the application of any provisions of this Part to the Isles of Scilly; and any such order may provide for the application of those provisions to those Isles with such modifications as may be specified in the order.

(3) An order under this section may—

(a) make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances or localities; and

(b) contain such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, including provision saving provision repealed by or under any enactment.".").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to ensure that we would be able to provide for the contaminated land provisions to be applied to the Isles of Scilly after consultation with the Council of the Isles of Scilly. If we did not have this power, it could result in there being no legislation in force covering contaminated land applicable in the isles and in there not being appropriate powers to make any necessary modifications. I think noble Lords will agree that to proceed on this basis to reflect the particular institutional arrangements in place on the islands is the right thing. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 165A:
Page 59, line 9, at end insert:
("Supplementary provisions with respect to guidance by the
Secretary of State.

78R.—(1) Any power of the Secretary of State to issue guidance under this Part shall only be exercisable after consultation with the appropriate Agency and such other bodies or persons as he may consider it appropriate to consult in relation to the guidance in question.

(2) A draft of any guidance proposed to be issued under section 78A(2) or (8A), 78B(1A) or 78E(4) above shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall not be issued until

227
after the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft was so laid or, if the draft is laid on different days, the later of the two days.

(3) If, within the period mentioned in subsection (2) above, either House resolves that the guidance, the draft of which was laid before it, should not be issued, the Secretary of State shall not issue that guidance.

(4) In reckoning any period of 40 days for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3) above, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

(5) The Secretary of State shall arrange for any guidance issued by him under this Part to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate.".").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 128C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Crickhowell Lord Crickhowell moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 59, line 9, at end insert:
(""Default by local authority.

.— (1) If the, Secretary of State is satisfied that a local authority has failed in any respect to discharge any function under this Part which it ought to have discharged, he may make an order declaring the authority to be in default.

(2) The failure to discharge any such function may be a failure in a class of case to which the function relates or a failure in a particular case.

(3) An order made under subsection (1) above which declares an authority to be in default may, for the purpose of remedying the default, direct the authority ("the defaulting authority") to perform any function specified in the order (whether in relation to a class of case or a particular case) and may specify the manner in which and the time or times within which the function is to be performed by the authority.

(4) If the defaulting authority fails to comply with any directions contained in such an order the Secretary of State may, instead of enforcing the order by mandamus, make an order transferring to himself any function of the authority specified in the order, whether in relation to all the classes of case to which the function relates or to such of those classes or, as the case may be, such particular case as is specified in the order.

() Where any function of a defaulting authority is transferred under subsection (4) above, the amount of any expenses which the Secretary of State certifies were incurred by him in performing the function shall on demand be paid to him by the defaulting authority.

(6) Any expenses required to be paid by a defaulting authority under subsection (5) above shall be defrayed by the authority in like manner and shall be debited to the like account, as if the functions had not been transferred and the expenses had been incurred by the authority in performing them.

(7) The Secretary of State may by order vary or revoke any order previously made by him under this section.

(8) An order transferring any functions of a defaulting authority may provide for the transfer to the Secretary of Slate of such of the property, rights, liabilities and obligations of the authority as he considers appropriate; and where such an order is revoked the secretary of State may, by the revoking order or a subsequent order, make such provisions as he considers appropriate watt respect to the property, rights, liabilities and obligations held by him for the purposes of the transferred function.

(9) Any order under this section may include such incidental, supplemental and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(10) This section shall not apply to Scotland.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Mills moved a similar and related amendment in Committee it was strongly resisted on the perhaps understandable ground that it appeared to be an attempt to allow the agency to take over the functions properly assigned to local authorities. My noble friend was aiming to ensure that, if for any reason local authorities failed to carry out the functions effectively, there was a fall-back position.
This amendment replaces the original attempt to transfer the responsibility to the agency with a proposal that we should place the default power with the Secretary of State. There is nothing very original about that because it is a frequent provision in a whole range of Bills. When speaking on the last occasion about this matter, my noble friend referred to the powers under the statutory nuisance provisions in Part III of the Environment Protection Act to deal with the problems posed by contaminated land. He pointed out that those powers were extensively used.
What he did not point out, although it seems relevant, is that there are default powers as regards the statutory nuisance provisions under Part III of the Environment Protection Act. I suppose it can be argued that local authorities have used those statutory nuisance powers extensively partly because there is a default power behind them. My noble friend's remarks can be found in the Official Report of 31st January at col. 1437.
I remain convinced that the Bill should include a default power, not because of any general failure on the part of local authorities in the past, but in recognition of the fact that, for a variety of reasons such as scarcity of resources and specialist expertise, there might be particular difficulties at some sites which would prevent local authorities acting effectively. Earlier this evening we debated an amendment on special sites. If my noble friend introduces an amendment at a later stage that picks up that special site provision effectively, I suppose that that will slightly weaken the requirement for default powers to go to the Secretary of State.
The case is strong and the form of provision is found in other administrative statutes. The exercise of default powers by the Secretary of State would be discretionary; the local authority would have an opportunity to comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State and only if the local authority then failed would the Secretary of State have to act. It is a reasonable proposal and, in view of the fact that the original suggestion has been modified, I hope that my noble friend may feel able to accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I oppose this amendment. Naturally, the local authorities do not wish to be placed in a subservient position to the agency. I note that there is no suggestion that local authorities might be able to suggest that the agency was acting in default and that the Secretary of State should take over. It is merely local authorities which are viewed with suspicion.
The amendment is also unnecessary in the sense that it is the agency and not local government which has the responsibility for taking action as regards pollution from contaminated land to controlled waters. Moreover, local

229
government has a good record in managing and remediating contaminated land. In the current year, for example, nearly £12 million has been made available by the Department of the Environment for supplementary credit approvals for contaminated land. Councils have bid in excess of £37 million, so it is clear that they are active in the area at present. There is no suggestion that they are lagging or not doing the appropriate things.
Moreover, the amendment threatens the integrated strategic approach to contaminated land which is laid down in the Bill. If contaminated land is to be dealt with in a strategic fashion, it is essential that there should be a partnership between local authorities and the agency. The local authorities should not have constantly to look over their shoulders and wonder whether they are going to be reported to the Secretary of State for not having carried out appropriate functions. It is essential that they work together as equal partners.
The understanding in the Bill is that contaminated land is essentially a local problem which requires local identification and management, but according to guidance issued by the agency. Such a partnership cannot survive or prosper if either of the partners believes that the other one cannot be trusted and must be placed in a subservient position in relation to them.
The agency is the best organisation to work with local government in determining appropriate standards and cannot, of course, be in a position to undertake the work itself. If the agency attempts to intervene over particular cases or sites by suggesting that the matter is not appropriate for local government, that will undermine the whole strategy which the authorities have carefully developed to cover their entire areas. For that reason alone, the amendment is misguided.
10 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 166, which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, would enable the Secretary of State to declare a local authority to be in default for failing in any respect to discharge a function, to direct that local authority to carry out a function and, if it fails to comply with such a direction, to transfer the relevant functions to himself and recover his expenses in carrying out that function from the local authority.
My noble friend tabled an amendment in Committee with a similar intent, but which would have allowed a transfer of functions to the agency as opposed to the Secretary of State. The current amendment is, on that basis, better than the earlier version. However, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is still unnecessary, and undesirable.
There is no evidence that local authorities will fail significantly to exercise their functions under the powers. In any case, there is an argument that if they do fail, this should properly be a matter for local political judgments and remedies. The national report on the state of contaminated land which the agency will produce will also potentially reveal where any individual local authorities are doing little to exercise their function. To that extent, it would serve as a shaming mechanism.
230
It also gives the Secretary of State the power to make an order transferring any local authority's functions to himself and to recover his costs incurred in carrying out the function from the relevant authority. I do not consider it appropriate to transfer the functions of an elected local authority directly to central Government in that way. Therefore, I cannot approve the amendment and I ask my noble friend to withdraw it.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I suppose that in some ways we should welcome the Government's new-found concern for the independence and freedom of local government. If that is the case, I wonder why it was as recently as 1993 that default provisions were introduced into the Clean Air Act and why they exist in Part III of the Environmental Protection Act. However, having made my point and in the hope that my noble friend is right and that local authorities will always perform their functions splendidly, I do not intend to press the amendment tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
Clause 55 [Abandoned mines: England and Wales]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 167A and 1678:
Page 60, line 46, leave out from ("that") to end of line 5 on page 61 and insert ("any land will, in consequence of the abandonment, become contaminated land, within the meaning of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990,").
Page 61, leave out lines 9 and 10.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 128C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 56 [Abandoned mines: Scotland]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 167C and 167D:
Page 63, line 15, leave out from ("that") to end of line 22 and insert ("any land will, in consequence of the abandonment, become contaminated land, within the meaning of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990,").
Page 63, leave out lines 26 and 27.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 128C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 57 [Amendments to sections 89 and 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991]:
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 63, line 38, after ("apply") insert ("to the Coal Authority or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we discussed at length earlier the problems of the pollution of water due to mines in general. This group of amendments seeks to address specifically the problems of water pollution from coal mines. It seeks to place the responsibility for dealing with it quite specifically on the Coal Authority.
When I moved these amendments in Committee, I did so with the aim of seeking an effective and lasting solution to this particular problem. This subject was addressed last year during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made various statements to the effect that such mine water pollution would be the responsibility of the Coal Authority. He said:
"We do, of course, understand the concerns about the threat of pollution related to mine closures and the related concerns about the legal framework applicable to abandoned mines".—[Official Report, 26/4/94; col. 539.]
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, stated last year that the Coal Authority will become the owner of all abandoned mines and will take on the responsibilities that go with the ownership of that property.
These amendments seek to place that responsibility on a statutory footing, and to bring the Coal Authority in line with other industrial sectors with regard to trade effluence.
The Minister responded to these amendments in Committee and said that all would he resolved. He said:
"The Government will expect [the Coal Authority] to go beyond the minimum standards of environmental responsibility which are set by its legal duties".—[Official Report, 26/4/94; col. 541.]
I hope that the Minister will clarify what those specific legal duties are, and in what way the Coal Authority will go beyond the minimum standards of environmental responsibility.
If it means, however, that the Coal Authority will be expected to do no more than was done by British Coal, then we can be certain that the pollution problem will worsen. The situation that exists today is clear enough testimony to the failure of British Coal in that role over the past 50 years since nationalisation. We know that there are already 150 miles of polluted rivers and streams in England and Wales, and a further 100 miles in Scotland.
The intention of the amendments is to give the Coal Authority the legislative tools that it needs. It does have sufficient finances, one would imagine, because the Government tell us that £1 billion was raised from the sale of the coal industry, and that a further £5 billion is expected from the sale of British Coal's substantial land and property portfolio. Therefore, the money is available to support the statutory duty which these amendments seek to impose on the Coal Authority.
In those circumstances, what are the statutory duties of the Coal Authority with regard to the coalfield environment? In what ways, specifically, do the Government expect the Coal Authority to go beyond its statutory environmental duties? What funding does the Coal Authority receive to deal with minewater pollution?
Finally, in view of the large sums of money that the Coal Authority will receive from the sale of its various assets and land, is it intended that some of those financial resources shall he devoted to dealing with the problem of minewater pollution? I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have some sympathy, to say the least, with the amendment, although, as I understand it, the amendment would mean
232
that the Coal Authority would accept the first responsibility for polluted minewater, whereas I believe that the first responsibility should be on the polluter. Maybe I am wrong about that, but that is how I see it. Therefore I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 169, which follows this and which takes a very similar line.
I raised the problem of innocent occupiers being saddled with the liability for polluted minewater on 31st January. I was given, I am sorry to say, a Sir Humphrey answer—possibly in keeping with the time of the night, which I think was 12.45 a.m.
This amendment would define and protect the innocent landowner, the one who has not been the operator or played any part in the mining activity. My noble friend suggested at col. 1481 that I was trying to protect someone who had sold his interest in the mining operation. With respect, I believe that my noble friend was misinformed. Such a person could not escape liability because of Section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991.
As the Bill is drafted, innocent owners who find, or are told, that water is percolating through their land into controlled waters are guilty because they knowingly permit it. The polluted water could come from a mine many miles away, particularly—this is likely—as the pumps may be turned off in future in abandoned mines, if that has not been done already. I have to ask my noble friend, as did the noble Baroness, to study carefully the Government's statement on polluted water at cols. 539–542 of the report for 26th April 1994, during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde then said:
"Once the lease has come to an end the authority will be responsible for the mine as for any other abandoned mines".—[Official Report, 26/4/94: col. 542.]
Unless the Government were being mealy mouthed, that means, to me anyhow, that any pollution caused by an abandoned mine where the owner cannot be traced or is the man of straw about whom we have heard on many occasions—I see the noble Lord, Lord Morris, laughing—will be the responsibility of the Coal Authority.
I hope therefore that my noble friend will accept the amendment, or something like it, or will assure noble Lords that the innocent occupier can never be liable for polluted minewater in which he had no interest flowing across the land.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, to the danger of polluted minewater flowing under his land, because there is a real danger, now that many shafts are being filled with rock, of polluted water from lower strata coming up and being sucked into aquifers at higher levels. That may be a long-term problem.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 168, 172 and 177 and wish to express my deep and continuing disappointment at the Government's attitude toward the issue. During the debates last year on the Coal Industry Bill we received the clear impression that the Coal Authority would be

233
responsible for all discharges from coal mines, and that, in addition, the date of the abandonment of the mines would not be irrelevant.
Can we take it that the seriousness of the effect of minewater pollution is not in dispute? Some of us have on numerous occasions spelt out what occurs when the pumping of minewater ceases. That is not a theory; it has already happened on a small scale in various parts of the country, including County Durham, which I know well. If it were to happen on a large scale, the outcome hardly bears thinking about. On that point, I was extremely surprised by the statement made the Minister earlier this evening—he will correct me if my impression is wrong—that only 1.5 per cent, of mine workings would be affected if pumping were to cease.
I remember that vividly—I hope that I am not doing the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell an injustice—because when that figure was mentioned, I remember him shaking his head. He is an expert on this subject. He knows the details. I suspect that that figure may be wrong, but perhaps the Minister will comment upon it when he replies. I am bound to say that, even if it is 1.5 per cent, the people affected by that 1.5 per cent, will know what it is all about. I believe that the Minister has seen some of the photographs and diagrams produced by Durham County Council, which have made a big impression on Members of the House who are interested in this issue.
The question therefore is: who is to be responsible under a privatised coal industry? The Government have given a commitment that the responsibilities for British Coal and the historical legacy of mining will be taken on by the new Coal Authority. It would be manifestly unfair if the Coal Authority were to shelter behind the exemption in favour of abandoned mines. Are the Government saying—they certainly seem to be implying—that the problem of minewater pollution has nothing to do with the mining of coal?
During the Committee stage of the Coal Industry Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said:
"I should like there to be no doubt that so far as water pollution or potential water pollution is concerned the Government will not be content for the authority to rest on the present effect of the exemptions".
The words "will not be content" appear to be pretty strong stuff and clearly mean that more will need to be done. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, went on to say that,
"we will expect it go beyond the minimum standards of environmental responsibility which are set by its legal duties in these areas".
Those words make the position even more clear. But there may be a sting in the tail. His next words were, "and to seek the best environmental result which can be secured from the use of the resources available to it for those purposes".—[Official Report 26/4/94; col. 541.]
What if the Coal Authority states at some point that it does not have the resources to deal with minewater pollution? I feel sure that it will, and that may be a legitimate point to make. I confess that I am not entirely sure about the way in which the Coal Authority obtains all its money. What I do know is that the Government have obtained millions of pounds—£1 billion has been
234
mentioned on a number of occasions—from the sale of the coal industry and, moreover, have millions more to come from the sale of British Coal Corporation land and other assets. What is to be done with all of that money? We would like to know. Perhaps tonight is an opportune time to be told. I remind your Lordships that in County Durham alone, where all the pits have been closed, pumping costs exceed £1 million per year.
At Question Time last week I said that it was disgraceful that the stocking of coal on the sites of abandoned mines should be permitted because for decades mining communities have had to put up with the dust, dirt and pollution caused by pit heaps. If minewater is allowed to pollute former mining areas that would be yet another addition to the degradation of those areas.
Coalfield communities can and do feel proud of the contribution they have made for many years to the national wealth. Accepting the proposed changes would be at least some recognition of that contribution. I wish to repeat for the sake of emphasis that the main issue, which was clearly spelt out by my noble friend on the Front Bench, is whether the Coal Authority will be responsible for this most important issue. We ought to know that, and tonight is the time for us to be told.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I do not intend to repeat what was said earlier arising from my noble friend's misunderstanding of what I said about the relative impact of seepage from metalliferous mines and coal mines. I was making the point that the substances which emerge from metalliferous mines are often more dangerous than those from coal mines. However, that is not to suggest that coal mines cannot present serious problems to our water environment. It is a mistake to talk just in terms of percentages. If rivers or parts of rivers are wrecked by seepage from coal mines, that is a disaster for that particular area whatever percentage of the total river mileage is affected. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not pursue that point too far.
I wish to repeat the question which I asked earlier. Has the Minister had time to consider, since I raised the matter earlier, the question I posed about the legal position with regard to the dangerous substances and groundwater directives? We should have some guidance as to whether or not mines are exempted from those directives because if they are not, the Government in particular should be concerned about the possibility that we render ourselves liable to challenge if we fail to comply with the requirements of those directives.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I became depressed at an earlier time when this was discussed because my noble friend on the Front Bench produced the excuse that this sort of behaviour had been going on since 1875. It seems rather odd to pray in aid Mr. Henry Davis Pochin's pleading to the then Conservative Government—or was it a Liberal Government?—or the special interests of the then Lord Londonderry that they had to be relieved of duties to keep the water clean. That is not a sufficiently good reason to produce in 1995.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, went down one group of amendments, and

235
spoke to Amendment No. 169, with which my Amendment No. 249 is grouped, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak now to that amendment.
The key Scottish points on abandoned mines are contained in Schedule 13. Amendment No. 249, which amends Schedule 13, provides that the persons responsible, under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, for causing or knowingly permitting mine water from entering controlled waters are the owners or occupiers of the mine in question and not the surface owner.
The definition "knowingly permitting", which is accepted by the courts, is wide and may well place liability on a farmer or other surface owner of ground where polluted mine water emerges from underground shafts on to the surface.
It is hoped that the Minister will confirm that surface Owners should not be held liable in that situation and that the appropriate persons to be held responsible are the owners and occupiers of the mine in question as provided for in the amendment.
On the subject of abandoned mines, it will be helpful if the Minister will clarify whether polluted water presently in a disused mineshaft may result in the land or mine falling within the definition of contaminated land under Clause 54.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I support the amendments. There is one thing worse than contamination for spreading around its ill effects and that is risk. There is one thing worse than risk in general and that is unquantifiable serious risk and, following on from that, people's reaction and their total aversion to it.
I said earlier in connection with the Bill that it is no good looking for scapegoats and, in particular, for innocent scapegoats. As usual, the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, spoke with enormous authority about coalfield dereliction and the problems associated with that. I know a little of the problems caused in some areas of the Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire coalfields, from where some of my forebears come.
I accept that mines have been closed and I make no particular point on that. But does the economic blight caused by those closures have to be added to by the blight of uncertainty relating to how liability for mine water is to be apportioned?
I said earlier that there are certain aspects of old residual contamination that rightly and properly fall into the public domain. I also said that it is no good for the Government and the Minister to ask, "Why should the taxpayer pay?" It is a matter of fine judgment as to what is appropriate for society to bear generally via the taxpayer —also known as the Treasury—and what it is proper for the individual to bear. One of the failings of the Bill as it stands is that it makes no proper distinction between the two. I support the amendments because the Government will now have to consider whether to leave things as they are or face the music of the human and social disarray and economic dereliction which will otherwise be visited on areas which already have problems enough at present.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Clause 57 removes the statutory protections for discharges permitted to flow from mines abandoned after the end of 1999. Section 30J(4) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 added by paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 and the amendments in paragraph 25(16) of Schedule 18 have the same effect in Scotland. In proposing those changes, the Government have been concerned to remove an anomaly which resulted in discharges from abandoned mines being dealt with differently from other discharges.
In the Bill we are seeking to enhance the agencies' abilities to deal with water pollution from abandoned mines, and to remove anomalies in the existing legislation. There is at present a defence against prosecution and an exemption from recovery of costs by the National Rivers Authority in cases where polluting water is permitted to flow from an abandoned mine. We consider it right that those statutory protections should be removed, but have, for the reasons which I gave earlier, decided that they should only be removed in the case of mines abandoned after the end of 1999.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 168 and 172 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, would mean, for the Coal Authority alone, that the removal of the statutory protection applied to all coal mines regardless of when they were abandoned. That would simply create a new anomaly. Surely it cannot be right for one discharger, whether it be the Coal Authority or anyone else, to have far heavier responsibilities than any other.;
The same point applies in the case of Amendment No. 177 which places on the Coal Authority responsibility for the prevention, control and treatment of water pollution from abandoned coal mines. That responsibility would apply to mines abandoned before 1st January 1996. It is not clear whether the amendment envisages that the statutory protections for such mines would continue to apply. It would in any event appear to envisage that the Coal Authority is responsible for water pollution from any abandoned coal mine. Under the water resources legislation, an offence is committed where a person causes or knowingly permits water pollution to occur. If pollution from an abandoned coal mine occurred but the Coal Authority had neither caused nor knowingly permitted the discharge, it would clearly be wrong for the authority to bear the responsibility.
My noble friend the Chief Whip said, while he was a Minister with the DTI, that the Government would expect the Coal Authority to go beyond the minimum standards of environmental responsibility that are set by its legal duties, and to seek the best environmental result which can be secured from the use of the resources available to it. We consider that the Coal Authority should have the discretion to take action where circumstances demand, rather than be placed under such an indiscriminate duty as Amendment No. 177 would appear to envisage. There is clearly a need to have proper regard to use of public funds in addressing environmental problems of that kind.

237
While it is too soon to say what might emerge, the Coal Authority is currently consulting the regulators about concerns and priorities. I believe that that answers in part the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, as regards the nature of the statutory duties and how the authority would go beyond its legal duties. I shall have to write to her on the question of the money it has, as I do not have the answer for her this evening.
I understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, and by his noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley in respect of a previous amendment, about the problems of the North East of England in particular, the closing of so many coal mines in Durham, and the consequent problems of the pumping of minewater from those abandoned mines. Perhaps the noble Lord misheard me. I indicated that the NRA' s recent report stated that 1.5 per cent. of river length in England and Wales is currently affected by minewater pollution. I did not refer to what would happen if pumping operations ceased in the future. I also indicated to my inoble friend Lord Crickhowell that I gather that, of that 1.5 per cent., only 0.5 per cent. of the river length in England is polluted by water from abandoned coal mines. I do not disagree with my noble friend that perhaps the 1 per cent. is more damaging than the 0.5 per cent.
It is right that my noble friend should draw attention to our European responsibilities. Earlier in the evening my noble friend raised the question of the provisions in the Bill concerned with abandoned mines and compliance with European Community legislation. My noble friend will be well aware that it is the Government's policy to comply with our European Community obligations in this area as in any other area.
The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, would maintain for landowners the defence against prosecution for pollution of controlled waters and the exemption from cost recovery by the agency where water is only permitted to flow from an abandoned mine unless they are the owner or operator of the mine. The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, aims to achieve a similar effect as regards defence against prosecution in Scotland.
Under the provisions in the Bill, discharges from mines abandoned after the end of 1995 will be subject to the same rigorous controls as other discharges into controlled waters. That means that anyone causing or knowingly permitting such discharges will need to do so in compliance with a discharge consent. In addition, the provisions in Clauses 55 and 56 will place a requirement on mine operators to furnish the agencies with information regarding the consequences of abandonment for any future pollution of controlled waters. In those circumstances such abandoned mines will be well known to the regulator and it will be a matter of fact whether any landowner is either causing or knowingly permitting the discharge.
My noble friend Lord Stanley, in speaking to his amendments, drew attention to his concern at the possibility of innocent landowners being prosecuted for discharges from abandoned mines. An offence would be
238
committed only if a person had caused or knowingly permitted the pollution of controlled waters. This is a strong test and there would be no liability for truly innocent landowners. To be liable a landowner would have to know about the discharge and it would have to be within his or her power to do something to prevent it. As I have already said, the provisions of Clauses 55 and 56 will greatly improve the agencies' knowledge of mines to be abandoned and enhance their ability to prevent pollution occurring in the first place. It is clear that in those circumstances the agencies would prefer to act against mine owners or operators in advance of pollution occurring wherever that was possible, since they are the people in the best position to do something about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I believe the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, asked about the test of liability regarding "caused or knowingly permitted". The knowledge of an ability to prevent the pollution occurring is required to satisfy "knowingly permitted". That would be a difficult test to meet where there was pollution of an aquifer deep under ground. The owner of the surface land would be unlikely to know about it or be able to prevent such pollution.
The provisions in Clauses 55, 56 and 57 and Schedules 13 and 18 strike a balance between protecting the environment and creating a regime which is workable. They also remove a long-standing anomaly which is widely felt to be confusing and unnecessary. It would surely be wrong to remove that anomaly only to replace it with another, thus frustrating the Government's aim of putting all types of water pollution on the same footing.
Having said that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the Minister said. However, I do not think that he has fully answered the points made to him. The Government gave certain undertakings during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill last year which I do not believe have been fully fulfilled. I believe that there should be a statutory obligation on the Coal Authority to deal with minewater pollutions from abandoned mines. In the circumstances, I propose to test the opinion of the House.
10.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 168) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 56.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kintore, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lytton, E.

David, B.

Moms of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Northbourne, L.

Feversham, L.

Onslow, E.

Freyberg, L.

Palmer, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Walpole, L.

Hamwee, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

239

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Long, V.

Astor, V.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Brain of Wheatley, L.

Mackay of Ardbreeknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Bumham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clinton, L.

Norrie, L.

Courtown, E.

Northesk, E.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Rankeillour, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rawlings, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Renton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elton, L.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gage, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gisborough, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goschen, V.

Stewartby, L

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe, E.

Trumpington, B.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

Kingsland, L.

Vinson, L.

Knutsfonl, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Leigh, L.

Wise, L.

Lindsay, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.44 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 63, line 38, after ("apply") insert ("to the owner or operator of any mine").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was most unhappy about the last amendment and could not make up my mind, so I stayed in my seat. The question I must ask my noble friend yet again is this. As the downstream owner or occupier of land, I may know perfectly well that polluting water is coming on to my land from an abandoned mine. I knowingly permit it into the water course. Therefore, as I read the Bill, I am guilty. I am saying that that is incorrect in so far as it is not my fault. I am an innocent bystander, an innocent occupier, and I should he able to pass the responsibility back to the person who pollutes. The snag comes when I cannot find that person if he is dead or nobody owns the mine. What is the position so far as I am concerned? Am I protected as an innocent landowner? I have knowingly permitted that pollution to be in the water. I can see my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, in his former position, coming along to me and saying, "Stop that water going into the water course". As I see it, it is my liability, according to the Bill, to clear it up. I would be very pleased to hear my noble friend explain exactly what the position is. Unless he can say that I am innocent, I am most unhappy.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is extremely important to get this question of the interpretation of the word "cause" absolutely clear in our minds. There is the case (admittedly, it arose on another issue) of a company called CPC polluting a stream. There was no possible
240
way that the company could have known about the pollution. It was completely innocent, and the NRA said that its behaviour was exemplary. However, the company was found, because of an interpretation of the word "cause", to have committed an offence. You can "cause" something in law, it appears now, completely and utterly innocently and unknowingly and you are still, according to the law, guilty of an offence. In spite of everything that my noble friend on the Front Bench said about "knowingly permit" implying that there has to be an element of negligence or knowledge, if the word "cause" is in the Act that "cause" allows no such defence. That is what the Appeal Court has found within the past five years. Can my noble friend confirm or deny that fact?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, of course I cannot deny that fact. But it is, I believe, a different point entirely from the one that troubles my noble friend Lord Stanley. My noble friend Lord Onslow is talking about "causing". I believe that my noble friend Lord Stanley is not so much interested in "causing" because I believe he understands that the pollution about which he is worried and which is appearing on his land he did not cause. The test, which I believe my noble friend accepted, is that if it is pollution of controlled waters, to be liable the landowner would have to know about the discharge and it would have to be within his or her power to do something to prevent it. If he were not in a position to prevent it, then he would not be liable. But if he was able to prevent it, and was asked by the agency to prevent it and failed to prevent it, then I dare say that he would be liable. But that is a different offence to causing it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, it is late at night. I shall not prolong this debate. I am still not happy. My noble friend says that I would not be guilty if I was in a position to prevent it. But what does that mean? Does it mean that I should have to go back to the mine and pump it out? I am not happy. Do I have to pump out every mine in the country because the pollution might be coming down to me? I might not be able to prevent it.
I shall leave the matter for the moment, but I may well come back to it—in fact, I am almost certain to come back to it—at Third Reading. I am most unhappy about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment,
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 171 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 172 to 174 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 175 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 176:
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
("Survey of water pollution from abandoned mines
. The Secretaries of State shall require the Agency and SEPA to carry out a national survey of potential and existing incidents of water pollution from abandoned mines which shall be publicly available and shall be updated annually.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have been talking about the serious problem of water pollution from abandoned mines. This amendment seeks to ensure that we identify the extent of water pollution from abandoned mines. To some extent so far we have been dependent on anecdotes, newspaper accounts and possibly, in some instances, scare stories. The amendment would provide that there should be a national survey of potential and existing incidents of water pollution from abandoned mines. It is an attempt to assess the extent of the problem. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, would place a significant new duty on the agencies. It proposes that they should be required to carry out a national survey of both existing and potential incidents of water pollution from abandoned mines. The survey should be publicly available and should be updated annually.
The National Rivers Authority produced a useful report in March 1994 entitled Abandoned Mines and the Water Environment. In fact, we took account of the report in our review of the legislation governing water pollution for abandoned mines, which resulted in the abandoned mines provisions in the Bill. In seeking to estimate the scale of the problem of water pollution from abandoned mines, the NRA reported on those discharges from abandoned workings which cause significant pollution. However, it pointed out the problems which would be encountered in undertaking a survey of all existing and potential polluting discharges. Among these are the fact that the effects of discharges from abandoned mines are often most acute in streams and upper reaches which are not routinely monitored; the lack of records of long abandoned mines; and the complexity of underground workings, particularly where mines have been worked over several centuries, which makes it difficult to predict where an outflow of minewater may occur. There would therefore be considerable practical difficulties in producing a survey of the kind envisaged by the noble Baroness.
Apart from those practical considerations, it has always been our view that the water regulatory bodies should have discretion in the way in which they exercise their powers, and the same should apply for the agencies. It will be for the agencies to consider whether they wish to produce surveys of particular kinds of pollution, and we would not wish to impose statutory duties for activities of that kind. If they do carry out surveys of pollution, the agencies will consider whether the likely environmental benefits will justify the costs involved.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness's concern will be to reduce the incidence of water pollution from abandoned mines. That is the intention of the measures which we have included in the Bill. In particular, the new requirement for mine operators to give the agencies at least six months' notice of their intention to abandon a mine will allow steps to be taken to prevent future incidents of minewater pollution.
242
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Clearly, it would place an onerous duty on the agencies. I understand that. But this was an attempt to assess the extent of the problem. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 177 not moved.]
Lord Crickhowell Lord Crickhowell moved Amendment No. 178:
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
("Preventative and remedial action
. After section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991 there shall be inserted—
"Preventative and remedial action.
161A.—(1) Without prejudice to section 161 above, where it appears to the Agency that any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter is likely to enter, or to be, or to have been, present in any controlled waters, then the Agency may, by notice, require the person on whom the notice is served to carry out the following works and operations, that is to say—
(a) in a case where the matter appears likely to enter any controlled waters, works and operations for the purpose of preventing it from doing so; or
(b) in a case where the matter appears to be, or to have been, present in any controlled waters, works and operations for the purpose—
(i) of removing or disposing of the matter,
(ii) of remedying or mitigating any pollution caused by its presence in the waters, or
(iii) so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, of restoring the waters, including any flora and fauna dependent on the aquatic environment of the waters, to their state immediately before the matter became present in the waters,
and, in either case, the Agency shall be entitled to carry out investigations for the purpose of establishing the source of the matter and the identity of the person who has caused, or knowingly permitted, it to be present in controlled waters or at a place from which it was likely, in the opinion of the Agency, to enter controlled waters.
(2) Subject to subsection (5) below, a notice under this section may he served on any person who, as the case may be—
(a) caused or knowingly permitted the matter in question to be present at the place from which it was likely, in the opinion of the Agency, to enter any controlled waters; or
(b) caused or knowingly permitted the matter in question to be present in any controlled waters.
(3) A notice under this section shall—
(a) state that the Agency is of the opinion that works and operations are needed;
(b) specify the nature and location of the matter in question and its point of entry into controlled waters, or its likely point of entry;
(c) specify the steps to be taken by way of works or operations to be undertaken;
(d) specify the period within which those steps must be taken.
(4) Any person who fails to comply with any requirement imposed by a notice under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both; or

243
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.
(5) A person on whom a notice is served may, within the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day on which the notice is served, appeal against the notice to the Secretary of State.
(6) On any appeal under this section the Secretary of State may confirm the notice, with or without modification, or quash it.
(7) Where the Secretary of State confirms a notice, with or without modification, he may extend the period specified in the notice for doing what the notice requires to be done.
(8) Regulations may make provision with respect to—
(a) the grounds on which appeals under this section may be made; or
(b) the procedure on any such appeal.
(9) Regulations under subsection (8) above may (among other things)—
(a) include provisions comparable to those in section 290 of the Public Health Act 1936 (appeals against notices requiring the execution of works);
(b) prescribe the cases in which a notice is, or is not, to be suspended until the appeal is decided, or until some other stage in the proceedings;
(c) prescribe the cases in which the decision on an appeal may in some respects be less favourable to the appellant than the notice against which he is appealing;
(d) make provisions as respects—
(i) the particulars to be included in the notice of appeal;
(ii) the persons on whom notice of appeal is to be served and the particulars, if any, which are to accompany the notice; and
(iii) the abandonment of an appeal; and
(e) make different provision for different cases or classes of case.
(10) A notice under this section may not be served on a person requiring works and operations in respect of water from an abandoned mine which that person permitted to reach such a place as is mentioned in subsection (2) above or to enter any controlled waters unless the mine in question became an abandoned mine after 1st April 1996.
(11) In this section "controlled waters" and "mine" have the same meaning as in section 161 above.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know that the House is anxious to jump the hurdle or hedgerow into national parks and I shall try to be as brief as I possibly can.
Amendment No. 178 and Amendments Nos. 280A and 282 cover related but rather different subjects. Amendment No. 178 would give the agency a new power to serve a notice requiring anti-pollution works to be carried out by a polluter or potential polluter of controlled waters. These works could include the removal of polluting matter, remedying or mitigating pollution or, so far as reasonably practical, restoration of waters to their state before the pollution occurred.
When a similar amendment was moved on 31st January, my noble friend said that he recognised that:
"the underlying principle that the agency should be able to require polluters to take action to remedy water pollution and pay for that action merits further consideration".—[Official Report. 31/1/95; col. 1486.]
He criticised the amendment then before the House on the ground that it provided no right of appeal. This amendment has introduced a right of appeal. The appeal provisions are modelled on those in the Bill for
244
contaminated land enforcement notices, which I hope will satisfy my noble friend's desire to achieve as much consistency between provisions in the Bill as possible. On 31st January the Minister asked my noble friend Lord Mills to withdraw the amendment while he undertook consideration of the problem. I press the matter again tonight to see what that consideration has produced and whether or not the Government have come to any conclusion upon it.
Amendment No. 280A raises an issue that 1 have raised before. Following the decision of the House of Lords last year in the Yorkshire Water Services case, we have been forced reluctantly to the conclusion that discharge consents issued by the NRA restrict or control only the discharge of substances that are identified within the terms of the consent. The net effect is that the holder of a discharge consent will have a defence as regards pollution caused by the discharge of matter or substances which are not controlled or regulated by the consent purely because the consent exists. If that is really so, a discharge consent can in effect become a licence to pollute. I cannot believe that that is the intention of Parliament. The NRA and all its predecessor bodies have taken the view that a discharge consent is exclusive; in other words, anything that is not identified in a consent is not permitted to be discharged. Surely, that must have been the intention of Parliament when the legislation was introduced. I know that the Government are considering the problem, and I do not expect my noble friend to produce a solution tonight. But it is important that some indication be given of the way that the Government intend to act.
If legislative action is taken—which may be the neatest way—we have to ensure that it is not retrospective in effect. We must also ensure that it does not make dischargers responsible for that for which they cannot reasonably be held responsible. Section 87 of the Water Resources Act 1991 probably satisfactorily relieves sewerage undertakers of the responsibility for the wrongdoing of trade effluent dischargers. On the other hand, if the new agency is forced to proceed by way of amendment of all existing consents, I think it is perfectly fair to suggest that there ought to be prior consultation between the DoE, the agency (or the NRA if the matter comes up sooner) and such organisations as the Water Services Association, the CBI, the Chemical Industries Association and so on. I do not suggest that we rush in without proper consideration of the issues. If there is not to be a major void created in effective pollution control there must be either legislative action or large-scale amendment of existing consents.
That takes me to Amendment No.282. I confess that I do not expect my noble friend to accept it. I urge that, if the agency has to go down the route of amending its consents and that stimulates a rush of appeals against those amended consents, as it almost certainly will, those appeals should be dealt with expeditiously by the department. I suggest that there be a 12-month limit before the Secretary of State deals with the appeal. If the appeal is not determined in that period, it will fail. We must address the realities of the situation.
That brings me back to a point that I believe I made fairly forcefully at Second Reading. I said that this legislation created a partnership between the agency and government. If the department does not play its part effectively, the agency will be totally ineffective. If we have a situation where discharge consents are amended and appeals are not dealt with promptly, the agency will be rendered powerless.
I am prompted to make that observation because in the five years and more of the NRA's existence a very large number of appeals have been made against revised consent conditions and virtually none of them has been dealt with by the department. That has proved a major weakness. I really do fear that it could be a crippling weakness for the new agency. I hope that if my noble friend is not prepared to put in a 12 months' limit—I suspect that he will find all kinds of faults with my amendment—he will at least give a very clear undertaking that the Government recognise the seriousness of the problem that I have identified and will come along with, a solution and give undertakings that every attempt will be made to deal with the problem speedily and effectively. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 178 revisits a proposal made in Committee for the agency to be able to exercise a new power to serve a notice on a polluter or potential polluter of controlled waters requiring the performance of anti-pollution works. This amendment sets out in more detail the procedure envisaged, and I am grateful to my noble friend for the further work which has been undertaken.
We are giving very careful consideration to the proposal for the introduction of a pollution notice procedure. I appreciate that the NRA considers that such a power would be of considerable benefit in preventing pollution incidents and that such a power would have proved useful in respect of a number of recent cases. As I indicated in Committee, the proposal does raise some difficult issues and we need to complete our consideration of them. If we are able to develop a suitable proposal, I am sure that we would wish to discuss it with interested parties.
We considered an identical amendment to Amendment No. 280A during the Committee stage. I appreciate that my noble friend has a very strong interest in this matter which, as I have previously indicated, we are looking at carefully. The amendment would amend Section 88 of the Water Resources Act 1991, which provides certain statutory defences against a charge of pollution, so that any consent granted by the agency in respect of discharges to controlled waters is not to be taken as authorising the discharge of substances other than those specifically identified in the relevant consent. The intended effect would be to establish that a discharge under and in accordance with a consent should not attract a statutory defence against a charge of pollution as regards any substance in respect of which there is not specific provision in the consent. In short it would limit the scope of the current defence.
246
I know that there is a long history underlying this proposal and I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell takes the view that enforcement actions by the National Rivers Authority have been constrained. However, as I explained to the House previously, we cannot accept the proposal which he has put forward.
As I mentioned in Committee, many of the perceived difficulties stem from the drafting of the consents that have been granted. My noble friend indicated that he agrees with that. Legislation is unlikely to be the right vehicle to try to solve the contentious but clearly technical matters affecting individual consents which vary greatly and have been granted over a long period of time by different regulatory authorities. Retrospective effects are of particular concern to the Government and also to my noble friend.
We are, however, looking at the effect of recent judgments on the law governing these matters. That is a prerequisite before considering whether corrective action is required or, if so, whether a legislative route would be either desirable or practicable. Changes in this area are of great importance, affecting a substantial number of dischargers, and potentially controversial. We therefore need to be quite sure of our ground before any action can be considered.
My noble friend recognised these issues to be extremely difficult and complex. I should also signal that, were the conclusion to be reached that action might be required, given the potentially major implications for those currently holding discharge consents and those applying for consents in future, we should want to hear from all the interested parties.
Amendment No. 282 would give the Secretary of State, or the inspector acting on his behalf, 12 months to decide an appeal against a discharge consent, otherwise it would be treated as refused.
The intention behind the proposal is to reduce the time taken by my department to reach decisions on appeals. It is the case that delays have occurred in the past in a number of discharge consent appeal cases which have involved complex policy issues. However, through discussion primarily with the National Rivers Authority and the water industry, these issues have largely been resolved. A general review by the NRA and the water industry of affected consents and related appeals is now well under way.
For the future, it is envisaged that numbers of new appeals in respect of decisions by the environment agency on discharge consent applications will be very substantially fewer and the timescale for resolving them significantly shorter, especially through the use of inspectors appointed by my department's planning inspectorate. I hope that in the light of this response my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the assurances which he has given. A member of the department complained rather sadly that it was perhaps inconvenient that the House of Lords judgment did not come until December, which virtually coincided with the introduction of the legislation. These things tend to come at inconvenient moments. The reality is that a solution has to be found because, as my

247
noble friend said, these consent wordings go back a very long time to predecessor bodies, which suggests that people have been working on certain assumptions about their meaning and indeed that they have been generally accepted because they have not been previously challenged in the courts.
Therefore, we have a problem and I believe that my noble friend recognises that. In the light of the clear assurances which he has given that serious consideration is being given to the best way to resolve the problem, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No, 178A:
Before Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
("Major development test
. Any proposal for development within the National Parks which is likely to have significant effects on the environment shall not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated by rigorous public examination, prior to a decision on consent being made, to be necessary in the national interest and there are no practicable alternatives.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I take as my brief in bringing this new clause before the House the recommendations of the most thorough and highly respected National Parks Review Panel. Part III of the Bill represents a considerable step forward in the internal management and protection of the parks, but it still does nothing to protect them against the arguably far greater threats which they face from external pressures for development.
At Committee stage there was overwhelming support for the principle that that issue should be addressed. There was also strong support for the concept that because national parks are such precious assets they deserve special and different protection from such external development threats. It is for that reason, and with the Edwards Report ringing in my ears, that I bring forward this new amendment.
It will ensure that development proposals in national parks which have potentially significant environmental effects will not be permitted unless environmental criteria are satisfied. I hope that noble Lords will find that this much simplified amendment responds to the criticisms of the earlier amendment at Committee stage. I shall return to that point.
The national parks cannot be entirely insulated from major development pressures. However, I believe that their special status requires a statutory test to ensure that such development is allowed only in certain circumstances. It should be demonstrated through rigorous public examination that the development meets a national need and that there is no alternative means of achieving the desired objective. The need for such a test is strongly endorsed both by the Countryside Commission and Countryside Council for Wales.
The Government have already agreed in principle the need for such a test. That is demonstrated by the 1992 policy statement on national parks and by Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 7. However, the weakness of PPGs is that they constitute advice only and that they are but one material consideration among others. Also they do not cover all forms of development, the main
248
categories being electricity, infrastructure and major road proposals. As I have mentioned, this new amendment has been drafted in response to criticism of an earlier amendment in Committee that "major development" would be difficult to define.
My amendment overcomes that problem because the test would apply to any proposal requiring an environmental assessment. Whether a development requires such an assessment is already established in legislation. The trigger is whether a development is likely to have "significant effects" on the environment. That term is well understood and has a precise legal meaning, being used in the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. Environmental assessment legislation applies to developments under the electricity and highways legislation, so, unlike PPGs, this test would apply to the necessary range of projects. The Government rightly regard national park designation as conferring a high status of protection as far as landscape and scenic beauty are concerned. I believe that we should take the advice of the Edwards Report that that cannot be achieved without a statutory test for assessing major development. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be aware that we supported the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, in Committee —and we support this amendment. It is difficult to achieve a balance between policy planning guidance on the one hand and practice on the other. As we have discovered on many occasions, the major developments which may take place are not necessarily subjected to the rigorous examination that they need. The noble Lord mentioned developments under the Electricity Act. I should like to refer also, as I did in Committee, to developments under the Telecommunications Act whereby BT has rights to override the planning mechanisms.
In Committee the Minister said that his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade was aware of those matters. I very much hope that the Government feel that something needs to be built into this part of the Bill to ensure that those who are on the fringes of the planning process, if I may put it that way, can be brought fairly and squarely within the ambit of the Bill—although they abide by the legislation that is relevant to them.
There is a danger at present that, although environmental assessments may well be undertaken by those who are outside the normal planning procedures, the crucial questions are not asked. They include questions as to whether a certain development is necessary and whether there are alternatives to it. I noted that, in their 1992 policy statement on the national parks, the Government said that, when an environmental impact assessment is to be carried out, the national park authorities may reasonably expect a prospective developer to examine alternatives to his preferred option. I believe that the amendment would help to ensure that that happens in practice. I very much hope that the Government will give it a fair wind.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment and should like to make three points on

249
it. First, I believe that it would bring transparency to the decision-making process. I should like to make it clear that what we are trying to do does not relate only to public inquiries. Whether a decision is being made by a national park authority, the Secretary of State or an inspector, and whether a proposal falls within the town and country planning system or the consent procedure operated by the President of the Board of Trade, the proposal should be subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, said, to rigorous examination of need and alternatives, and there should be an opportunity for public input into the decision-making process.
My second point is parenthetical. I had the impression in Committee that some noble Lords thought that major developments in national parks were usually subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Okehampton bypass was cited. As I understand it, that proposal came before Parliament because the compulsory purchase of an open space was involved and therefore the parliamentary procedure under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 applied. In fact, parliamentary scrutiny does not normally apply just because the land targeted for development may lie within a national park, nor, as I see it, does this introduce scrutiny by Parliament.
Thirdly, in Committee, as I understood it, the main thrust of what the Minister and other noble Lords said was that we have in place, through statute and the PPG system, clear planning procedures and criteria. National parks are planning authorities, and we have laid down in statute for structure plans and local plans, procedures and so forth. But PPG7, taken with these statutory procedures, is argued to be a better control mechanism—better because, implicitly, the guidance element is a more flexible tool than statute for detailed definition. In a sense, solutions can be "negotiated", in that appropriate solutions can be achieved on a case by case basis.
The system usually works well within its terms, but I accept that it only on the basis that the existing statutory backing—fine though it is for its purposes—is entirely different in kind from what is needed for national parks. I emphasise the point "different in kind." That is what this amendment seeks to provide. Moreover—and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised this in Committee - PPGs can be changed; Secretaries of State change; Governments change. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, received a satisfactory answer from the Minister on that point.
We need to set out the broad principles in the Bill—as this amendment seeks to do—and those principles should underpin the guidance procedure.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I will speak very briefly at this hour of the night. We on these Benches feel that national parks should have the highest possible protection from the kind of development that we are talking about. The amendment includes a reservation about the national interest, because in an on-going parliamentary democracy you cannot have total, absolute protection. The Bill provides the most protection we can give and, that being so, we should give it.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, the Edwards Report lists the national development pressures on national parks as being mining, quarrying, major roads, electricity, water supply, sewage treatment, major tourism and military installations and defence training grounds. I could speak for hours on all of those aspects as they have affected the national parks in Wales, but I will not do so.
Lord Marlesford: Shame!
Lord Elis-Thomas: If there is enthusiasm on the Government side to keep the debate going, I am sure that noble Lords on all sides would enjoy doing so.
The time has come—and this, surely, is the time—for national park legislation to state the priorities for sustainable development in national parks, and to relate them to this major development test. When arguing for sustainable development within national parks we are sustained by the support of the national concept in another sense. I use "national", obviously, in the ambivalent national Welsh and national English context.
With regard to national parks, the concept is about a clear designation of land for a particular environmental, social and amenity purpose. Therefore it follows that, having made that definition, there are certain other national interferences with that concept that should not be allowed to play. That is what the amendment is about. It is about stating quite clearly that within a particular designated area there is a test which limits developments to those which have a value that overrides the initial environmental, social and amenity value given to designated areas.
In fulfilling their national parks obligations in terms of existing legislation and sustainable development, the Government continue to repeat in This Common Inheritance and other papers the importance of national parks—we heard that in earlier debates—as areas where sustainable development can be tested. But it seems to me that what is sustainable in national parks is what relates to the local socio-economic and environmental structure. That structure is sustained by the further concept of the amendment that there should be no interference with that externally by major developments.
I could obviously cite power stations, nuclear power stations, reservoirs and road building—my noble friend Lord Chorley raised the issue of the A.5 in Committee—which are all examples of potential or existing interference with sustainable development within the national parks, which have been allowed by previous governments. Obviously, I do not hold the present Government responsible for that, but I ask them, at this stage of our legislation on national parks and environmental policy, to take seriously the whole issue that there should be no interference with sustainable development within national parks unless it is an overriding necessity.
It is self-evident that at this stage, or later in the Bill, the Government should return to the Edwards Committee's recommendation and legislate clearly to ensure that an underpinning of the planning basis for national parks is set out clearly in the Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister sent me a letter on this issue, from which I should like to quote. He wrote:
"We have an objection of principle to putting planning policies in statute which we consider both unnecessary and undesirable. Putting selected planning policies on a statutory basis would consume a great deal of Parliamentary time to keep them up to date. We will continue to uphold the test for major development in National Parks set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 7".
If the Government resist the amendment, what they are saying —as I read the letter—is that they want to be able to change PPG7 easily. Those of us who are worried about a major development in national parks do not want the Government to be able to change PPG7 easily. As I understand it, what my noble friend said in the letter was that he wants to be able to change something easily. In this case he should not be allowed to do so.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, at the risk of delaying the House further, perhaps I may make just a few points on the amendment. First, I have always held the view that planning schemes should be dealt with on their merits—that includes their demerits —and I hesitate before accepting that there should be a blanket provision in the Bill.
My first impression was that the amendment was very widely drawn, but the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, pointed out the formula which he said was well tried and tested. I take it that he meant the formula of words, "likely to have significant effects on the environment". The noble Lord nods in affirmation, so I take it that I have it right.
I did not know that that form of wording was statutorily defined. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that that is the case and whether the wording suits the particular purposes of national park authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, referred to environmental assessments. As I understand it, in the little blue book which I have there are two categories where environmental assessment, in one case for major petro chemical installations and that type of thing is mandatory, and another where it is more discretionary. I am not clear about whether the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, intends that his new clause shall apply to everything in both categories or only one.
I was even more confused when the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, fluidly rolled off a list of items from the Edwards Report. It covered items which might or might not fall within the environmental assessment category. I am a little bemused but believe that there are grounds on which there should be a presumption against certain types of intrusive and disruptive developments in national parks. I do not believe that anyone disputes that but I am a little anxious about the wording as it stands.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I believe that the wording is not good. We know what is meant and are sympathetic to what Edwards had in mind. However, the phrase "significant effects on the environment" is better than "major development". It is interesting that the latter phrase has been omitted.
We are talking about what is not only a development but also an activity and therefore I should have preferred the phrase "development or activity". Furthermore,
252
rather than the phrase "significant effect on the environment", it would have been better to have thought in terms of "any significant effect on the character of the park". Finally, the phrase "rigorous public examination", certainly in the context of the history of the House of Lords, almost implies the use of the rack and therefore I do not believe that the use of the word "rigorous" is ideal.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, when in Committee we considered the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Norrie, I made it very clear that we had an objection in principle to putting planning policies in statute because we considered that to be both unnecessary and undesirable. I am glad that I managed to repeat the same words that I put in a letter to my noble friend Lord Onslow. There is some method of consistency somewhere.
I also made clear in Committee, however, and shall repeat again tonight, that the test for major development in the national parks is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 7. That states unequivocally that major developments should not take place in national parks save in exceptional circumstances. Because of the serious impact that major developments may have on the natural beauty of the parks, applications must be subject to the most rigorous examination, including a demonstration that they are in the public interest. All major development proposals in the national parks must be examined against this test.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether such considerations should include those assessments. I wish to draw his attention to the considerations that are quoted in PPG7. It states:
"Consideration of such applications should therefore normally include an assessment of: (1) the need for the development in terms of national considerations and the impact of permitting it or refusing it upon the local economy".
That is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, also considered. It then says:
"(2) the cost of and the scope for developing elsewhere outside the area or meeting the need for it in some other way; (3) any detrimental effect on the environment and the landscape and the extent to which that should be moderated".
The document continues:
"Any construction or restoration should be carried out to high environmental standards".
The Government's planning policies, as set out in planning policy guidance, are material considerations which the town and country planning Acts require local planning authorities to take into account both in preparing their development plans and in deciding individual planning applications. The Secretary of State is bound by the same requirement and shall have regard to the same policies on matters which come before him on appeal or where he may have called in applications for his own determination.
A number of noble Lords expressed concern that perhaps other statutory undertakers would not be bound by the same kind of test. I confirm that the test also applies to those major developments which are controlled under other legislation. Those responsible for that legislation, as, for example, those bodies responsible for consents associated with the provision of

253
statutory services, are well aware of the test for major development in national parks set out in PPG7 and the need to take government policy on these matters fully into account when considering major proposals.
I do not accept that policies for major developments in national parks are unique and therefore justify this exceptional treatment in statute. National parks are extremely important areas of the countryside and fully deserve the protection that our policies already provide for them. However, I know that there are others—for example, with a close interest in he future of green belts—who could claim the same treatment.
That would introduce a degree of inflexibility which I believe to be unreasonable. An enormous amount of effort and parliamentary time would be absorbed by the need to keep such tests up to date.
My noble friend Lord Onslow indicated that he wanted to make certain that the amendment should be accepted and that that would override PPG7. I cannot accept that. Planning decisions always involve judgments. Putting a planning test into statute will not make it any more or less likely that some people will disagree with particular decisions. I believe the present system works well and is underpinned by strong and effective legislation.
I do not believe that my noble friend's amendment raises substantial new issues, and I have not heard anything this evening which persuades me that we should review the principle that it is not appropriate for this and other planning policies to be put in statute. I therefore ask him to withdraw this amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. At this late hour, I shall not pursue the matter. I shall look very carefully at Hansard to see whether we can come hack on Third Reading with something about which we agree. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 [Purposes of National Parks]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 178B:
Page 64, line 26, leave out ("the next following subsection") and insert ("subsection (2) of this section").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 178B, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 178C and 178D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Barber.
The purpose of this group of amendments is to explore further the amendment which was moved and agreed to in Committee to revise the second national park purpose. I thank the Minister and his officials for the help which they gave in relation to the wording of the amendment. I also declare an interest as a farmer in a national park.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, gave an extremely comprehensive explanation as to what he meant, and in particular what he did not mean, by the
254
term "quiet enjoyment". My amendment is intended to reinforce that explanation and to ensure that it is defined clearly on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lord referred in particular to his amendment being concerned with the type of recreations which national parks were to have a statutory purpose to promote. My amendment is nothing to do with banning any recreational purpose but is everything to do with the purpose of promoting. I should like to make that very clear.
The purpose of the amendment is to define "quiet enjoyment". It defines it as:
"enjoyment in ways which are not likely to disturb the tranquillity, or otherwise detract from the special qualities, of the areas in question".
That is what national parks will have a purpose to promote. That is the first part of the amendment and I hope that we can all agree that that is the intention underlying the amendment that was agreed to in Committee and that my interpretation is correct.
In Committee, we heard a great deal about noisy activities and the effect that they have on the enjoyment of the parks by others. A view is held in some quarters that such activities should be banned. As I understand it, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, explained that he did not intend that any activities should he banned as a result of the introduction of the term "quiet" in the second national park purpose. Therefore, my second amendment sets out to ensure that that intention is made explicit on the face of the Bill. It makes clear that,
"no person shall be under a duly to prevent"—
and I stress the last three words—
"reduce or restrict noise in [national parks] by reason only of the reference…[to promote] opportunities for the quiet enjoyment of those areas".
There may well be other reasons why noise should be prevented or reduced and I believe that there are other means to control noisy activities, but concentrating on the particular point at issue, the purpose of my second amendment is to make it clear that the word "quiet" in the Bill would not in itself be a reason to prevent such activities from taking place.
More particularly, I would go further and say that it is certainly not my intention that the existing powers to prevent noisy or damaging activities should be circumscribed —far from it. The whole idea is that the amendment should leave them intact. I believe that that was the noble Lord's intention in Committee. The amendment is intended to probe whether that is in fact the case. My intention is to clarify the term "quiet enjoyment"
The wording of the amendment, into which a good deal of careful thought has been put by others, may not be perfect. I would be the first person to recognise the fact that reconciling the different views of what is actually meant by the word "quiet", and from whose standpoint, is a vexed and difficult area.
I turn now to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Barber. On my yardstick, if I may put it that way, I believe that his amendment takes matters quantifiably further than the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, by introducing the concept of

255
"lasting" damage and conflict with enjoyment by the public, in addition to the concept of acoustic disamenity. In my opinion, that highlights the dangers of leaving the term "quiet enjoyment" undefined on the face the Bill. I believe that that is something of a slippery slope due to poor definition.
The concept that I should like to flag here is that of multi-use recreational facilities in national parks as an integrated entity with existing land use activities. National parks are not wilderness areas, although parts of them may be—and, in that respect, some more than others. Nor are they mere tourist fleshpots, though that certainly applies in some limited areas. In many cases, they have to cope with extremely large visitor numbers at times and I feel that that poses the greatest challenge of all. However, in the past, the parks have catered for a broad spectrum of activity. I believe that that should continue and that no single interest should be unnecessarily pre-emptive of others. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, wished to intervene at this point, but perhaps I may make our views of the amendment as clear as I can. I recognise that there is some need for a definition of the term "quiet enjoyment". However, after the noble Earl's introduction, I am unclear whether the amendment is a government effort—he seemed to imply that it was drafted by officials in the Department of the Environment—or whether it is an individual, solo performance by the noble Earl. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Minister will clarify the position in his response. I see that the noble Earl wishes to intervene. I give way.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I am much obliged. I expressed my concerns in the past about the lack of definition of the words "quiet enjoyment" and, indeed, did so in a letter to the Minister. I must admit that the formula of words in the amendment is not mine; it comes from the department. The purpose of the amendment is purely to open the way for debate on this matter and to try to achieve a better definition. As it is a probing amendment, it is not one that has any consequence for us this evening.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am not quite sure where that gets us. Perhaps it gets us one step further.
I find the first half of the noble Earl's amendment perfectly acceptable but I have some difficulty in understanding the second half. Its language seems rather tortuous. Clearly, it would be very difficult for a national park authority, which is after all a planning authority, to make a distinction when called on to make a planning decision as to whether it was accepting or refusing the application by reference only to quiet enjoyment or for other reasons. That requires a sudden change of hats which would be difficult to put into practice.
I am therefore more attracted to the amendment which I hope will be spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. If some conjunction between the two could be achieved by the Government, they would do the whole House and the Bill a service. I believe that some
256
definition is needed. I am not sure that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has got it absolutely right. However, I believe that the Government have an opportunity to include a provision which makes sense and improves the Bill.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, far be it from me to speak for draftsmen in the Department of the Environment or the Welsh Office, or for my noble friend, but the amendment has a certain attraction. It sets out at greater length the general principle of quiet enjoyment. It attempts to define it, but then does not relate it to specific activities. That seems to be the intention of the amendment.
We are on a positive track. Earlier in the debate some of us may have sidetracked the House by referring to specific examples of noise or activity which disrupted the "quiet enjoyment" of parks. That may have prevented the Government from seeing the validity of utilising this definition. If we can reach a definition of quiet enjoyment as a general principle in terms of park objectives which does not predetermine decisions in respect of specific activities that might seem to conflict with that principle, we shall have achieved something. For those reasons, on balance I am attracted by the amendment.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, we have two entirely different amendments on the same point. I hope that we can treat them both as probing amendments. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that his was a probing amendment. I hope that we can treat them both as such, because I believe that we need to explore the question more thoroughly.
On reflection, I have been wondering since the Committee stage whether we need to define quiet enjoyment in the Bill. Reference was made at Second Reading to similar phrases in landlord and tenant law. So far as I am aware, quiet enjoyment in that sense has never been defined by statute but in the courts we nevertheless seem to get along quite well.
As regards Amendment No. 178C, I too find it acceptable up to the semicolon. Then I run into difficulty with the second part. I listened very carefully to what the noble Earl said about the second part of the amendment, but I read it as having the opposite effect to that intended. The amendment states that:
"no person shall be under a duty to prevent, reduce or restrict noise".
It seems to me that, whatever level of noise emerged over time, the authority would have no power to reduce or restrict it. I hope that that is wrong. Since we have learned that the provision was drafted at the DoE, perhaps the noble Viscount will tell me whether I have it right or wrong. It is rather crucial.
Amendment No. 178D seems reasonably satisfactory, although I should like some reference to the words "intrusive activities"—a phrase used by the Edwards Review Panel. I believe that the key lies in the word "intrusive" in relation to special qualities of a park rather than concentrating narrowly on noise. If we need a statutory definition, do we need to spell it out in detail? Would we not do better to arrange perhaps for some guidance note, although clearly not the kind of guidance used in the 31st January draft circular?

257
It seems to me that the problem is getting the right balance. I thought that the Edwards Review Panel got it about right. The Edwards Report states:
"We recognise the intrusion caused by several noisy sports…While we do not support their total prohibition in national parks, they should only take place on those rare sites where they do not cause undue annoyance to other park users or damage to the fabric of the parks themselves. In most cases, there may be more appropriate sites outside the parks, and recreational provision of this kind should be determined on a regional scale".
That is the essence of the Edwards Report. Perhaps that could be the basis of guidance.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Barber of Tewkesbury: My Lords, I had not realised that we had got as far as the amendment in my name. My noble friend Lord Lytton has, happily, helpfully said nearly everything that I was going to say. My main aim in moving the amendment is to seek to bring a sense of purpose and urgency in finding a definition that will fit.
I do not wish to repeat much that has been said, but I wish to make this background point. I refer to the sense of relief that we all had when the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, was carried. It dealt with the question of "quiet enjoyment". All of us who work with the parks in one way or another realise how vulnerable and fragile these marvellous places are. However well we try to protect them, any close personal association with them brings a sense of unease because their integrity will be extremely difficult to maintain; such is the strength and variety of the inevitable pressures which beset them. Here, in this successfully amended clause, was some provision to help.
Perhaps I may make clear a few points, even if they have been made before. It was made clear in the debate on Second Reading that the purpose of "quiet enjoyment" does not preclude a wide range of other activities taking place. It does not preclude noisy sporting undertakings. Planning controls, traffic regulation orders and by-laws are mechanisms available for quelling noisy sports. It does not affect field sports, as some people have mistakenly suggested. The sweet cry of hounds and the sound of 12 bores remain unaffected. It means primarily that the parks do not have the statutory purpose of promoting the whole recreational range.
However, it was also made clear at the Committee stage that much difficulty lay in defining the term of "quiet enjoyment". I do not believe that we have got much further forward at this stage, beyond suggesting that Amendment No. 178D is slightly less obscure than the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lytton. I still cannot understand the latter part of his amendment.
I have no intention of wandering idly into legal fields which are terra incognita to me and out of bounds. But I am advised by one legal source that a statutory definition of "quiet enjoyment" in the context of national parks is not essential because the expression does not have an existing statutory definition elsewhere. An accepted understanding of its meaning in landlord
258
and tenant affairs, for example, has evolved through case law. But clearly there is a need to explore further as to legal and non-legal definitions that are proper and practical in application.
The amendment, which is supported by many bodies—not least the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales—has been stitched together with some care as a step down the road to a clearer view. I offer it for consideration, although I have no doubt that some refashioning and re-honing may well be desirable. I repeat that I feel anxious—and I think I speak on behalf of large numbers of people—that we must have a sense of purpose and urgency in eventually establishing precisely what the definition should be. In that spirit, I commend Amendment No. 178D.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I believe we all agree that it is important to get this amendment right in one form or another. Inserting the words "quiet enjoyment" was useful in reinforcing the Bill in carrying out one of the essential themes of Edwards. We had difficulty in Committee, possibly caused by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I am not a lawyer, like some who have spoken, but I had the impression that somehow he felt that the words "quiet enjoyment" had a well-established common law meaning which may not be appropriate in a statute. Unfortunately, he is not here to help us further tonight.
Setting that aside, assuming that for that reason or others, we need a definition, I prefer the one put down by the noble Lord, Lord Barber and myself, except for the frightful word "quietude", which I cut out. Perhaps I may put the word of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, "tranquillity" in place of "quietude" and then we would have a useful definition. We need quiet enjoyment in the Bill as a concept; it must be in the statute. Secondly, if it needs to be defined, let it be defined and let us at least say that it is a starting point. My impression is that the Government are well seized of the desirability of what we have been talking about and will help us, if not tonight, at some later stage.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I wish to add my strong support for Amendment No. 178D in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and my noble friend Lord Marlesford. In addition, I am interested in Amendment No. 178C in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I have had less opportunity to study it, but I understand it to be probing. It is a constructive contribution.
As noble Lords will know, I brought forward an amendment in Committee to make it clear that national parks should promote quiet enjoyment. I was worried that as it stood the Bill required the parks to promote all kinds of enjoyment, even noisy and intrusive activities. Noble Lords agreed that the Bill should be amended in that way.
There was also agreement during the Committee stage that it would be helpful to define "quiet enjoyment" in the context of the national parks. I am advised that, as the noble Lord, Lord Barber, said, such a definition need not be on the face of the Bill. However, I hope that we can agree that a definition in some form of the quiet

259
enjoyment of national parks as used since 1945 will greatly assist those responsible for implementing the legislation.
When I moved my amendment in Committee, I used as my point of reference the description of "quiet enjoyment" in the Dower report of 1945 which laid the foundations of our national parks. It is significant that the Dower definition provided the basis for the Countryside Commission's proposed definition. That demonstrates that we are not talking about a new concept. There has been great consistency in what kind of recreation is intended for promotion in the parks. The only difference is that in 1949 no one thought it necessary to qualify in the statute the type of enjoyment intended. The escalation of modem, noisy and incongruous pursuits was understandably not foreseen. It is important that any definition should capture the three elements of the Dower description. They were that any recreational activity should be considered in terms of its impact on, first, the natural qualities of the parks; secondly, the quietude of the area; and, thirdly, people's enjoyment. Amendment No. 178D captures those three dimensions. Amendment No. I78C captures the first two dimensions most elegantly, but not the third.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked me to return to the distinction between "promoting" and "banning". As I said in Committee, the promotion of quiet enjoyment is not equivalent to banning other activities. There are mechanisms already in place, such as planning controls, by-laws and traffic regulation orders, for controlling noisy or intrusive activities on a case by case basis. I also wish to repeat the statement that I made in Committee that I do not wish to see the promotion of quiet enjoyment used as a basis for banning field sports.
I strongly endorse the Countryside Commission's advice, published for Report stage, that national park authorities should take a positive approach to recreation in the parks. They should make extensive use of positive management methods so that, wherever possible, multi-purpose use can take place without causing damage to the essential quality of the parks.
I also note the Government's position as described in the 1992 policy statement on national parks. Not only did this state that park purposes shall refer expressly to "quiet enjoyment"; it also provided a detailed strategy. I shall quote the relevant paragraph to the House, because I consider it to be most pertinent:
"The Government believes that cooperation is the best means of encouraging sensitive use of the National Parks. Nonetheless, it is clear that those experiences which are unique to the Parks—and which are largely related to the quiet enjoyment of these areas—should be protected and fostered. New recreational uses which threaten those qualities are inappropriate. The question of existing activities, some of which support long established businesses, has to be examined on an individual basis".
I believe that this existing policy provides a very sensible way forward. I further suggest that Amendment No. 178D is consistent with the Government's policy that I have just described.
I welcome clarification on Amendment No. 178C. I ask the following questions. What would the impact be on existing controls over noisy or intrusive activities? Would the amendment mean that action could be taken only if an activity affected the landscape of the park and
260
never on the basis of excessive, troublesome noise? What effect would the amendment have on the use of by-law procedures where issues of noise are currently decided on a case by case basis? I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response.
I hope that the two amendments before us tonight will provide a very good basis for discussions with the Government. There is much common ground. I hope that it will perhaps be possible at Third Reading for the Government to bring back a definition of their own upon which we can all agree.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I welcome the two amendments. It is so very necessary in a crowded island such as ours to have places where we can escape from the tyranny of the noisy internal combustion engine. I suspect that the national parks are one of the places where this should be made possible. I support the amendment.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I shall be very brief at this time of night. I opposed the amendment on "quiet enjoyment" when it was passed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made a very powerful speech. No one tonight has answered the points that he raised. "Quiet enjoyment" is totally subjective. I fully respect all noble Lords who have made the point tonight that it will not affect field sports and this, that and the other. But at the end of the day the national park authorities will interpret the legislation when it is passed. I have no confidence that they will necessarily interpret it the same way.
Therefore, short of doing what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said in Committee—that is, making a list of activities, whatever they may be, that are not allowed as they do not pass the "quiet enjoyment" test—I am not happy. I cannot support these amendments.
Midnight
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we have had a further interesting discussion about the meaning of the second national park purpose, as amended in Committee. The fact that nine noble Lords have spoken about this matter indicates the level of their concern about how "quiet enjoyment" describes that purpose.
The amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, and my noble friend Lord Marlesford, defining the term "quiet enjoyment" have, I believe, helped to expose the very important issues which surround the use of the term. The amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, represents what I believe many noble Lords said in Committee, explaining the intention underlying my noble friend Lord Norrie's amendment. Indeed, the noble Earl sought my assistance on the amendment, as he described.
There is clearly some concern among your Lordships about how the term might be interpreted. However, our debate has produced some measure of agreement about the meaning of "quiet enjoyment". The majority view seems to be that it means enjoyment by the public in

261
ways which are not likely to disturb the tranquillity of the parks or otherwise detract from their special qualities.
There seems to be less agreement about what "quiet enjoyment" excludes. I feel that it was useful that my noble friend Lord Annaly drew attention to his concern on that matter. On the one hand, there are those who think that the revised second national park purpose provides a justification for banning some noisy activities, such as motor-bikes and four-wheel drive vehicles driven across open countryside. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would perhaps have liked to get rid of low-Flying aircraft. On the other hand, there is a view, as my noble friend Lord Norrie explained in Committee, and as the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, makes clear, that the parks should be areas where quiet activities are to be promoted but noisy activities are not to be prevented from taking place by reason of the introduction of the term "quiet enjoyment".
In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, expressed his view that "quiet enjoyment" goes beyond the concept of tranquillity and quietude to embrace the physical condition of the parks so that activities that may cause lasting or serious damage to their fabric should be brought within the scope of the term. That is an interesting point of view.
I have listened with great interest to what has been said this evening. I believe that we need to study very carefully the points that have been made. I expect that there will be a further opportunity for this matter to be considered in another place. In the meantime, I ask the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, clearly, I do not want to prolong the debate. I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken to the amendments. I am sorry if the second part of the amendment was so baffling to a number of noble Lords. Perhaps I should reinforce what I thought I had said earlier; namely, that it endeavours to make sure that there will not be a consequential duty to prevent along with the purpose to promote. That was a point mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in Committee. He was concerned that the one was the obverse side of the coin to the other. I am trying to separate the two.
262
By that separation, I wish to reassure noble Lords that the intention is to leave completely intact all the existing powers available to national park authorities. They would not be circumscribed by the amendment. I thought that the wording was reasonably clear and that it meant that there was no duty to prevent arising out of the particular purpose to promote, but all other duties and powers from wherever they are derived remain.
Obviously, I should like to answer a number of the points made by many noble Lords, but the hour is late and it would be wrong for me to prolong matters. I shall read carefully what has been said. I hope that perhaps with the Minister we can sit down with other interested noble Lords and try to find a better formula of words if mine is not acceptable. For the time being, while reserving my position, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 178C not moved.]
Lord Barber of Tewkesbury Lord Barber of Tewkesbury had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 178D:
Page 64, line 30, at end insert:
(" () In section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (National Parks) after subsection (3) there shall be added—
"(4) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, the expression "quiet enjoyment" in subsection (1) above means recreation, active or passive, which does no lasting or serious damage to the natural beauty, wildlife or cultural heritage of a National Park, respects its quietude and does not diminish enjoyment of its special qualities by the public.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to echo what has been said by my noble friend. (That is something that I appear to have been doing for the past half hour.) I thank the Minister for his constructive reply. It is hoped that there is a general feeling that we should press on with this as a matter of urgency. I would hate to think that we would lose that quiet enjoyment as a result of getting into a legal tangle and finding it difficult to find a way through it. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 178D not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay: 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 five minutes past midnight.

  World Summit for Social Development
  World Summit for Social Development
  Rights of the Child Convention, Hong Kong
  Rights of the Child Convention, Hong Kong
  Light Dues
  Light Dues
  M.25, Junctions 12 to 15: Improvement
  M.25, Junctions 12 to 15: Improvement
  Traffic Flow Predictions: Inputs
  Traffic Flow Predictions: Inputs
  World Summit for Social Development
  World Summit for Social Development
  Postgraduate Courses: State Bursary Support
  Postgraduate Courses: State Bursary Support
  Prisons: Prevention of Drug Misuse
  Prisons: Prevention of Drug Misuse
  Probation and Bail Hostels: Weekly Costs per Place
  Probation and Bail Hostels: Weekly Costs per Place
  Congenital Limb Defects, Isle of Wight
  Congenital Limb Defects, Isle of Wight
  Guinness plc: Investigation
  Guinness plc: Investigation
  EU Anti-sex Discrimination Legislation
  EU Anti-sex Discrimination Legislation
  Trident: Operational Control
  Trident: Operational Control
  Burmese Military Personnel: Training in UK
  Burmese Military Personnel: Training in UK
  European Commission Members: Pensions
  European Commission Members: Pensions
  Single European Currency: Advantages to Britain
  Single European Currency: Advantages to Britain