Sitting of 9 March 1995

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Thursday 16 March.
QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 16 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Corporal Punishment
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to enable courts to issue sentences of corporal punishment for certain crimes of violence.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Unfortunately, I have no plans to reintroduce corporal punishment into the sentencing powers of the criminal court.
    Mr. Winterton: I am sorry to receive that reply. Does my hon. Friend accept that, despite the Government's herculean efforts to reduce crime in recent years, crime and the fear of crime continue to blight our lives? Does he not think that those young people who commit offences of violence against the individual should be in receipt of a dose of their own medicine and that the maxim "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is more appropriate and relevant today than ever before?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which will strike a chord with many people in this nation. He is also right to talk about the fear of crime. Nevertheless, we must not forget that the last year for which figures are available saw a remarkable drop in levels of crime—down 5.5 per cent.—following a 1 per cent. drop the year before. I certainly accept my hon. Friend's point of view that a punishment of that kind would satisfy the desire of many people, but the deterrent value might be slightly more questionable. We have a wide range of penalties which, if they are
    444
    used by the courts in all the appropriate circumstances, should be more than adequate for some of the young hooligans that we have to contend with today.
    Mr. Maginnis: Is the Minister aware that, if he reconsidered his decision on that measure, it would have a significant effect in Northern Ireland in so far as it would bring the Government into line with the IRA Sinn Fein, to whose wishes, ethos and practices they have tried so hard to concede in the past few weeks?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman lays a tempting trap, but it is not one into which I wish to step at present.

    Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
    Mr. James Hill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 against crime; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The Act received Royal Assent only last November, and it is too soon to say what effect it has had, but I am confident that, as the Police Federation has said, it will
    "enhance the stature and ability of the criminal justice system to reduce crime, bring criminals to justice and significantly reduce the fear of crime, thereby improving the quality of life for many members of society".
    Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in some cases the law seems to protect the yobbos? I refer to the case in which a person who harassed a family, threatening to throw a baby out of a railway carriage, but was not punished; the policeman who hit the person doing the harassing was fined £150 while the young yobbo got away scot free. For the sake of the British public, we have to tighten up on that sort of harassment of innocent people by yobbos.
    Mr. Howard: While I entirely understand the indignation that my hon. Friend expresses, which I am sure will be felt by many people, he will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual cases, especially as I remain the final appellate authority for police disciplinary matters. My hon. Friend will also understand that the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts are independent and that I have no responsibility for them.
    Mr. Bermingham: As certain provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are not yet in place, in so far as they are not yet operative, will the Home Secretary reconsider the caution and the right to silence in the light of recent rulings by the European Court to the effect that there is a right to silence?
    Mr. Howard: About two thirds of the Act are in force and I have no plans to look again at the caution or the changes that we have made to the so-called right of silence. I am confident that they do not conflict with any of our international obligations.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that the courts use positively and purposefully the stronger powers given to them, especially in dealing with young people, and

    445
    that the public are sick and tired of seeing young offenders—and young thugs, in particular—apparently walking away scot free from our legal system?
    Mr. Howard: Yes, Madam Speaker.

    Criminal Injuries Compensation
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take regarding the future organisation and level of criminal injuries compensation.
    Mr. Howard: It would be premature to take any action in advance of the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. In the meantime, we are continuing to take note of any comments or representations made to us about the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
    Mr. Ainger: In the light of that, is the Home Secretary aware of the case of Miss Merlyn Nuttall who, three years ago, was raped, strangled with a cheese wire, stabbed to the bone in her neck with a broken bottle and left for dead in a burning room? Last week, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarded her £76,101 compensation. How can the Home Secretary justify the fact that, under his tariff scheme, victims assaulted in that way today would receive only £7,500? Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary is only claiming to be hard on criminals, whereas in fact he is being hard on victims?
    Mr. Howard: I am aware of the facts of that case but, as I have said many times before, unless and until the Opposition are prepared to give a commitment that, were they ever to come back into government, they would restore the old scheme in its entirety, it is pointless for the hon. Gentleman and his friends to make arguments of that type. The truth is that at least 60 per cent. of victims will receive at least as much or more under the tariff scheme, which will remain the most generous scheme of compensation for criminal injuries in the world.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether those responsible for the criminal injuries are made to contribute towards the cost of the compensation to the victims, and if so, in what way, and if not, why not?
    Mr. Howard: The courts certainly have the power to make orders of that type, and they frequently do so.
    Mr. Michael: What kind of example is the Home Secretary setting for young yobs when he seeks to avoid responsibility for the consequences of his actions, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) in the example that he gave? Does the Home Secretary still not realise that his rhetoric about victims has no effect when people can see the indelible effect of his one genuine policy, which is to cut the total sum available to victims, and especially to cut the level of compensation available for the victims of the most horrific crimes?
    Mr. Howard: Far from being cut, the sum will continue to increase. We have had enough synthetic indignation from the hon. Gentleman and his friends. If they care as much about that topic as they say they
    446
    do, they would make the commitment that they have consistently failed to make. In the absence of such a commitment, what they say on the subject is so much hot air.
    Mr. Fabricant: We would all like the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to increase its funds—as, indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend has said that it has—but is not our scheme already seven times more generous than that in France and 20 times more generous than that in Germany?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. It is also more generous than the whole of the rest of the European Community and more generous than in the United States.

    Police Establishment, North Yorkshire
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the police establishment in North Yorkshire.
    Mr. Maclean: Since 1979, the approved establishment of the North Yorkshire police has increased by 90 to 1,418. The budget for the North Yorkshire police will increase by 8 per cent. for next year, which will mean a real and substantial increase in resources for the force to spend as the chief constable thinks fit.
    Mr. Bayley: According to the most recent figures, 24 fewer police officers are serving in North Yorkshire now than in 1979. How does that square with the Government's manifesto pledges to be tough on crime? Will the Minister give a guarantee to the people of North Yorkshire that when the new arrangements for funding the police are introduced in April, he will increase the number of police officers serving in the county at least to the authorised established figure of 1,418 which he mentioned?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not been following what has been happening in the House for the past year. The Government will cease to set establishment figures. The chief constable can use his 8 per cent. increase in next year's budget to spend as he sees fit on officers, civilians, a mixture of both, or technology. The hon. Gentleman's figures are right, but they are only part of the story. Had he bothered to check with North Yorkshire police, he would have discovered that, while the overall number of officers in the force has declined, it has been at the expense of support and administration staff, and the force assures me that it has 38 more constables out on the streets on operational duties, which is surely to be welcomed.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the difficulty currently faced by North Yorkshire police in rural areas in policing demonstrations by animal rights activists outside farms? Does he agree that that is yet a further reason why we need to concentrate new and more resources on policing in rural areas which, representing a rural constituency as he does, my hon. Friend knows only too well is so important for farmers and people who live in our villages?
    Mr. Maclean: It is important that the law is upheld throughout the whole country, and I am confident that the 43 police forces in England and Wales will continue

    447
    to uphold people's legitimate right to go about their lawful and legal business. That will be done in North Yorkshire, Sussex, Essex and throughout the country. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that rural areas require adequate policing. The budget increase of 8 per cent. for North Yorkshire police will enable the chief constable to deploy his resources appropriately and in the best possible way, giving maximum coverage to all parts of the county.

    Sussex Police (Funding)
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future funding of the Sussex police.
    Mr. Maclean: Sussex will have £145.78 million available for 1995–96, an increase of £14.2 million or 10.8 per cent. over 1994–95. In addition, it will not have to find £1.14 million, or 0.8 per cent., to pay for common police services. We have also allocated £7.62 million for building projects and the purchase of equipment. Those significant increases in resources will help Sussex police to continue their excellent performance.
    Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware how widely his generosity in the settlement for Sussex has been welcomed by my constituents in Eastbourne and how much they agree with the chairman of the new police authority, Dr. Walsh, who talks of
    "a budget to be proud of",
    particularly the recent announcement of an increase of more than 100 new bobbies on the beat in Sussex?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am glad that Sussex is using the increased funds available for that purpose. My hon. Friend has given us only half the story, however, as according to the latest survey in the Police Review magazine Sussex is to recruit not only 110 extra bobbies but 123 extra civilians. That seems to match the pattern around the country, where the survey reveals there could be 400 extra officers next year and 900 extra civilians. It is a safe bet that the vast majority of the extra civilians whom the police service intends to recruit will release yet more bobbies for operational duty, adding to the 7,000 extra officers released for operational work since 1983 through the civilianisation programme.

    Warwickshire Police (Funding)
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about levels of funding for the Warwickshire police.
    Mr. Maclean: Representations about the proposed level of funding for 1995-96 have been received from the acting chief constable and from the chairman of the police authority. My right hon. and learned Friend and I have also received letters on that subject from my hon. Friend and other hon. Members.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Is he aware of the growing concern in Warwickshire about levels of police funding? It is alleged that, because of inadequate funds, police numbers will remain the same with no further increase.
    448
    I am also advised that there will be no additional training and that there is a distinct possibility that promotion within the force will be restricted.
    Added to that are the difficulties created by funding the policing of demonstrations currently taking place at Coventry airport in connection with live animal exports. All that adds up to a pretty grim picture for Warwickshire. What hope can my hon. Friend give me and other Warwickshire Members about funding for Warwickshire?
    Mr. Maclean: The biggest item of police expenditure—police pay—is due to increase by 2.5 per cent. next year, but Warwickshire's overall budget will increase by 5.3 per cent. Of course, we will not take back the 0.8 per cent. for common police services. Warwickshire police should have more than 6 per cent. in new resources available to them next year. In those circumstances, I hope that they will not experience the difficulties to which my hon. Friend alluded. I believe that that will enable a good but very small force such as Warwickshire to continue its excellent record.
    As to the policing of demonstrations, I know that some concern was expressed that costs were running at £27,000 per day, but I can assure my hon. Friend that that is not so; that was the one-off cost for the day of the funeral at Coventry cathedral. The daily cost to Warwickshire is about £5,000, and the Warwickshire force is sharing the policing operation with the West Midlands police and splitting the cost in that way.
    Mr. Olner: Will the Minister respond to the honest representations that have been made? Over a number of years, the police force in Warwickshire has reduced senior ranks so that more money can be spent on the constabulary for policing the beat. I wish that the Minister would announce a settlement for Warwickshire that is as generous as the aforementioned settlement for Sussex.
    Mr. Maclean: I have listened carefully to representations that I have received from all over the country and we introduced a formula in an attempt to get a fairer distribution of resources. To put the situation into perspective, since 1979 spending on the Warwickshire police has increased by 125 per cent. in real terms. The national average is 92 per cent. The strength of the Warwickshire police force has increased by 23 per cent. and the national average increase is 14 per cent.
    I pay tribute to Warwickshire for having civilianised 122 posts since 1985, which has released more bobbies for the beat. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary suggests that a further 80 posts could be civilianised. Perhaps Warwickshire will spend some of the 6 per cent. extra resource allocation this year to continue its successful civilianisation programme.

    Prison Regime
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make the prison regime more rigorous.
    Mr. Howard: Prison regimes should be rigorous, demanding and constructive. This year the Prison Service will be introducing a new system to ensure that

    449
    privileges are earned by good behaviour and lost by bad behaviour. I have taken steps to strengthen the prison discipline system.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Will the Home Secretary put a stop to Sky Television and nine-hole golf courses in our prisons, together with the practice of inmates sending wardens out of prison to get steak and chips? Senior citizens in my constituency of Welwyn Hatfield are concerned when criminals want to get into prison and not out of it. They also want to know—[Interruption.] —if the lot opposite ever got into power, would the nation be subject to hard labour like it was in 1979, with a 98 per cent. tax rate and 27 per cent. inflation?
    Mr. Howard: I have no doubts about answering the last part of my hon. Friend's question in the affirmative. I think that the other points that he raised were covered in my original answer.
    Mr. George Howarth: Is it not time that the Home Secretary understood—as everyone else does—that tough words and no policy are no substitute for a proper approach to our prisons? After almost 16 years in power, does he not realise that the Government have failed to produce a drug-free and secure prison system which keeps offenders properly locked up? Is he aware that failure is being trailed by Lord Tumim, the chief inspector of prisons, and the boards of prison visitors? When will the Home Secretary do something to ensure that our prisons have proper work-based regimes and are drug-free? We need prison regimes which work and positively rehabilitate people, rather than the mess that he has got the prison service into at the moment.
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman were remotely interested in what is happening in our prisons, he would know that we have already started our mandatory drugs testing programme, that we are taking firm action to deal with the all too prevalent problem of drugs in prisons, that we are implementing the security recommendations in Sir John Woodcock's report and that we are dealing with these matters. Effective action is indeed being taken.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: In view of the successes in relation to recidivism, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing into Britain a pilot scheme along the lines of the American boot camps? Will he bear in mind that they provide training in discipline and respect for other people, which we have lost since the abolition of national service, training in the work ethic and respect for other people in society—particularly families—and that the advantages of those camps are beginning to percolate the American system and ought to be imitated here?
    Mr. Howard: I know that my hon. and learned Friend and the Select Committee on Home Affairs visited a boot camp in the United States, as have I and a number of Prison Service officials. We are currently evaluating the study that has been undertaken of boot camps in the United States. I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for some of the facets of the boot camp system and I hope to make an announcement shortly.

    Schengen Agreement
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Schengen agreement.
    Mr. Howard: I understand that the Schengen agreement is due to come into the operation as between seven of the Schengen states on 26 March for an initial period of three months. The United Kingdom is not a party to the agreement and has no intention of applying for membership, which would be inconsistent with the maintenance of our system of frontier controls.
    Mr. Trimble: Has the Home Secretary studied carefully the arrangements within the seven Schengen countries for close police co-operation, which is appropriate for them as they are creating a common travel area? As there is already a common travel area in the British Isles, does he not consider it appropriate to have the same levels and the same provisions for police co-operation operating in the British Isles as will be operating within the Schengen system?
    Mr. Howard: There has been considerable improvement in recent years in the extent of co-operation between the police in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic and I hope that will continue.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that our constituents will never accept that the control of immigration into Britain should depend on the uncertain reliability of policing of the coasts and borders of such countries as Italy, Greece and Austria, and that if the European Union ever dreams of trying to force such a policy on us it will begin—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken with his question on this particular agreement. Is there another Conservative Member—
    Mr. Jenkinrose—
    Madam Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get the right question. I am sure that he knows what the agreement means.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Schengen agreement represents the ambition of the hard core of the European Union to do away with internal frontiers? Can he allay the concerns arising from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State's visit to the Brussels Council today and confirm that a common visa does not bring any nearer a common system of immigration and the abolition of our frontiers?
    Mr. Howard: I can certainly and without any equivocation give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will also be pleased to know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is placing a parliamentary scrutiny reserve on the common visa format regulation which is before the Council of Ministers today.
    Mr. Straw: I welcome what the Secretary of State had to say about not implementing the Schengen agreement in Britain. Does he agree that it would be quite inappropriate for us as an island to adopt that

    451
    agreement and replace border controls with a potentially less effective but more repressive system of internal controls, street stops and compulsory identity cards?
    Also, will the Home Secretary resist the imposition of any list of European Union common visas that, as currently proposed, would impose visa requirements on visitors from 29 mainly black Commonwealth countries, including Zambia, Zimbabwe, Trinidad and Barbados—but not one white Commonwealth country? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that such a policy would do nothing for equal rights or race relations in this country?
    Mr. Howard: The visa list is still under discussion in the Council of Ministers. It is no use the hon. Gentleman making such points when he and his party committed themselves to a policy document that said that majority voting in the European Community should become the rule.
    Mr. Salmond: Does not the Home Secretary feel foolish, at a time when all political parties in Northern Ireland are in favour of the common travel area through the island of Ireland, that members of the Government and Labour Front Benches are hostile to the sense of the Schengen agreement? When will members of both Front Benches stop pandering to the prejudices of their Back Benchers?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will find, much to his electoral cost when the time comes, that the people of Scotland are as enthusiastic about the retention of external frontier controls as are the people of the rest of the United Kingdom.

    Prisoners
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.
    Mr. Howard: On Tuesday 7 March 1995 a total of 50,804 Prison Service prisoners were in custody in England and Wales.
    Sir David Knox: Why is it necessary to lock up more people in prison in this country than in most other west European countries? Is not there a cheaper and more effective form of punishment for at least some of the people who end up in prison?
    Mr. Howard: I advise my hon. Friend to view comparisons with other European Union countries with great caution. The latest figures available to me show that the number of prisoners per 100,000 population is higher in Spain, Portugal and Austria; the same as this country in Italy; and nearly the same in France.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Is the Home Secretary concerned about the large increase in the number of women sent to prison, which has increased 40 per cent. in the past two years? Many of them are fine defaulters. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider giving magistrates the same option as their counterparts in Scotland to issue supervised attendance orders to fine defaulters?
    Mr. Howard: Courts have a wide range of sentences at their disposal, and they decide which sentence is appropriate in any particular case.

    Whitemoor Prison
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to visit Her Majesty's prison Whitemoor to discuss prison policy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: I visited Whitemoor prison on 10 October 1994. I have no plans for a further visit.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I visited Whitemoor prison, just outside my constituency, last Monday? As well as meeting the excellent new governor, Mr. Brody Clark, I met many prison officers. The majority of them, while believing that there should be a balance between toughness and rehabilitation, feel strongly that when it comes to prisoners wearing their own clothes, doing their own cooking and receiving as many as five visits a month, there should be more emphasis on punishment.
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest. He will have heard the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), which dealt with many of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham).
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Home Secretary confirm that in his tough, rigorous prison system it is possible for IRA terrorists to carry Semtex from one prison to another?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows full well of the dreadful events at Whitemoor prison, which the House considered on a previous occasion at some length.

    Prisons (Drug Abuse)
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to introduce to encourage greater vigilance among prison staff in respect to drug abuse in prisons; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): A new and comprehensive Prison Service drugs strategy will be announced shortly. It will contain a number of measures aimed at helping prison staff to be more vigilant in reducing the supply of drugs within prison. The new compulsory drug testing programme now being introduced will help further by identifying many more drug misusers than at present.
    Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware of what I learnt recently during a visit to a prison in my constituency, which is what is known as the mogadon factor? It is the tacit approval of prisoners obtaining drugs because when they are stoned they are more docile and more easily placated. Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is such condonation of the use of drugs, it is the Government's duty and that of prison governors to ensure that it is stamped out?
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend that reducing the level of drug misuse of any sort is one of

    453
    the Prison Service's seven strategic priorities for 1994-97. The strategy that will be announced will embrace these very matters.
    Mr. Tipping: Does the Minister recall that Judge Tumim, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, has recently reported on Styal women's prison, stating that almost all the prisoners there are using cannabis and that 80 per cent. of them are using opium? Does he recall also that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, wrote in November 1993 warning of the problem? Why has action not been taken to resolve the problem?
    Mr. Baker: A great deal of action has been taken. Research and resources have been mobilised. Work has already started on the drug programme in 12 prison establishments. The strategy that will be outlined shortly will reveal that a comprehensive training programme to enable staff better to recognise drugs and the introduction of mandatory drug testing for prisoners will be included. The problems are being addressed, and they will be addressed even more in future.
    Sir Terence Higgins: Will the proposals include provision for physical barriers to prevent drugs from being passed from visitors to prisoners in prisons where there is known drug abuse?
    Mr. Baker: Yes. That is one of the matters that is being taken up in the strategy.

    Broadcasting (Violent Material)
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research is being undertaken by his department into the levels of violence in society and the broadcasting of violent material.
    Mr. Maclean: The Home Office is funding a research project which will look at whether it is possible to identify images and concepts in videos which appeal to, and have a greater effect upon, young offenders, both at the time of viewing and subsequently.
    Mr. Alton: I welcome the new research, which I understand will be undertaken over the next couple of years. Does the Minister accept, however, that common sense alone tells us that what we see is bound to have some effect upon us? Is he aware of the "Panorama" programme, which revealed recently that up to 10 per cent. of people who are predisposed to commit violent acts are likely to have them triggered by what they see?
    Will the Minister take the opportunity to condemn the makers of violent television programmes, videos and films in which violence is glorified? Will he take the opportunity also to condemn those who set violence in an amoral context and who see the cultivation of violence as the ultimate fashion accessory of the 1990s?
    Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman says. It is true that the research conducted to date is inconclusive, but common sense tells us—this is the Government's firm view—that video and television images must have an effect. If television does not influence behaviour, why should hard-nosed capitalists spend £3,000 million a year on advertising? Of course television is bound to influence behaviour. There is a heavy burden on everyone who makes films—not only videos but those who are in charge of news
    454
    programmes as well—to ensure that if there are scenes of violence they are set in a relevant context, that they are not gratuitous and that they are not included merely for titillation.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend confident that the research project will deliver valuable results? I understand that much of the large budget of the Home Office that has been spent over the years on research has resulted in little of that research being used in the making of policy. Is he able to give us an assurance that that is not the case?
    Mr. Maclean: I can give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance that, whatever the results of the research, the Government will implement them. I might not agree with the conclusions. We have tried to focus on the research. We commissioned it to seek to establish whether it is possible to identify certain images of concepts in videos that might appeal to youngsters of a certain disposition. For example, and without going into detail, my hon. Friend may watch the film "Terminator II"; he may or he may not; certain parts of it may appeal to him. Research has shown that some parts of the film—it is interesting that there are some especially horrific scenes—are of particular interest to young offenders. If we can identify the trigger mechanisms, we might be better able to guide censors in future.
    Mr. Straw: While research directed specifically at the effect of violence on young offenders is welcome, does the Minister not accept that it is likely that the gratuitous violence that is seen on television, videos and through other media is corrupting not only potential young offenders but all young people, since it is bound to reduce their tolerance to violence? Although research is essential, it is also essential that action is taken, particularly by people like the British Board of Film Classification, to ensure that the gratuitous violence that is now on our screens is cut out.
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why, in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, we introduced new statutory criteria for the BBFC to have special regard to when classifying works. We also brought computer chips and cartridges under the scope of the Act for the first time. We gave trading standards officers new powers to deal with videos and introduced a new custodial sentence for the supply of unclassified video material.
    I hope, by this summer, to lay before the House orders that will narrow the category of video works that are exempt from the requirement of classification, and to bring in powers to review old works, if the BBFC thinks that appropriate, because that will also help to cut out some of the gratuitous violence. I return to the basic point: the first onus is on film producers to be sensible.

    Illegal Immigration
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what methods he uses to assess the extent of illegal immigration into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: There are no official estimates of the number of illegal immigrants in the United Kingdom. By its very nature, illegal immigration is difficult to measure and any estimates would be highly speculative.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Did my hon. Friend see official figures this week that forecast that legal immigrants to

    455
    London from Europe and elsewhere will number more than 1 million over the next 20 years? Can he assure me and my constituents that controls are adequate to stop illegal immigrants adding to that number?
    Mr. Baker: The figures to which my hon. Friend refers are projections and are not intended to be forecasts; they reflect inward migration assumptions that were published two years ago. Indeed, a large element in the figures is migration from other European Union nations. I can assure my hon. Friend that firm action is taken against those who are found to be here unlawfully. Some 7,200 illegal entrants were detected in 1994 and 4,750 overstayers, or persons working in breach of conditions, were issued with a notice of intention to deport. We take firm action against any illegal immigrants we find.
    Mr. Madden: Can the Minister confirm that, unless elaborate, inconvenient and expensive arrangements are made to count into the United Kingdom every person who enters, and count out every person who leaves, estimates of illegal immigration can be nothing more than a wild guesstimate?
    Mr. Baker: Estimates of illegal immigration that I have seen have been, as the hon. Gentleman said, wild guesstimates, and they do nothing to enable a proper atmosphere in which action can be taken and people in this country reassured. I must reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have a wide and busy programme of action to deal with illegal immigration, about which many people in this country are concerned.
    Mr. Hawkins: While I welcome what my hon. Friend has said, does he agree that many people in my constituency and in constituencies across the country are concerned about illegal immigration and need to be reassured, and that the Labour party is hopelessly split on this issue, as on many others, because while the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said that he is in favour of keeping frontier controls, the Labour leader in the European Parliament, Pauline Green, the leader of the whole European socialist group, has said that she is in favour of dismantling all frontier controls, here and right across Europe?
    Mr. Baker: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. People need reassurance. Notwithstanding that, they receive no reassurance when they listen to the Labour party. The action that we take is part of a full programme. We act through operations and exercises against illegal immigration. We follow up cases on a targeted basis. We liaise with the police and we take action against facilitators, who are perhaps at the worst end of the illegal immigration business.

    Market Testing
    Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to announce a pause in market testing for prison services.
    Mr. Howard: The prison service is committed to the policy for increased private sector management of prisons which I announced in September 1993. Four prisons are already under private sector management, contracts for two new prisons will be awarded shortly, two market tests of prisons have been completed and a further market test
    456
    is planned for this year. In addition, contracts are now in place for private management of the court escort and custody service in half England and Wales.
    Ms Church: Now that the Home Secretary has realised that the proper priority for the prison service is to improve security and control drug-taking in our prisons, why does not he realise that the best steps to be taken would be to abandon the policy of market testing and concentrate on those priorities?
    Mr. Howard: The facts do not support the hon. Lady's assertions. For example, the first two contracts on escorts have saved the taxpayer more than £10 million a year, the courts now receive a better service and escapes have been reduced by more than 40 per cent.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Dowd: Will the Prime Minister join me, and I am sure the whole House, in sending our deepest condolences to the family of Mr. Malcolm Murray, who died in Leeds general infirmary yesterday? Does he share the anger that we feel at the fact that he was in Leeds general infirmary because he had to be flown by helicopter some 200 miles after a fruitless search for an intensive care bed in London? Does not that demonstrate conclusively that the bed closure programme that the Government are pursuing in London has gone too far? Is he aware that he can do something immediately by instructing his Secretary of State for Health to accept the recommendation of the South-East London health authority that Guy's hospital must not close?
    The Prime Minister: This is certainly a tragic incident and I share the view that the hon. Gentleman expressed about that. I believe that the whole House will join me in extending my deepest sympathy to Mr. Murray's family upon his death. This is a serious case and the South Thames region has set up an urgent investigation, the outcome of which we must await. The full facts of the case are not yet in front of me, but I understand that Mr. Murray required a highly specialised form of treatment with which Leeds was particularly able to help—[Interruption]—a highly specialised form of treatment, and that was the medical decision that was taken. Beyond that, we will have to wait for the result of the inquiry.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend seen that interest rates in France have had to be raised by 1.5 per cent. this week, notwithstanding the fact that–—[Interruption.]—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    Mr. Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend seen that interest rates in France have had to be raised by 1.5 per cent. this week, notwithstanding the fact that inflation is

    457
    virtually non-existent and that unemployment stands at 12.5 per cent.? That has been necessary in order to confirm France's status as an economic vassal state of Germany. Is it not therefore a cause for congratulation for our Government that we were not obliged to take the same course of action this week? Should we not make more of the fact that both the Opposition parties are committed to such a ruinous policy?
    The Prime Minister: There is, indeed, a great deal of exchange rate turbulence, which has reflected itself in the interest rate increase in France, to which my hon. Friend refers. As I have told the House before, there has been a pretty massive flight into deutchmarks as a result of an unsettled international situation. That is the principal underlying reason that has led to such difficulties for the franc. As I told the House some time ago, I see no prospect of the United Kingdom returning to the exchange rate mechanism for some time. I have made that point perfectly clear. The fundamentals of the British economy are such that I am delighted that we are not suffering precisely the difficulty that France has.
    Mr. Blair: Is it true that, when Ministers proceeded with the sale of electricity shares on Monday, they already knew that the electricity regulator was actively considering announcing a cut in prices?
    The Prime Minister: There have been some distorted versions of what has happened, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to set out precisely what the circumstances are.
    The fact is that Professor Littlechild did not decide to undertake his review until Monday afternoon, after trading had begun in shares in PowerGen and National Power. But, although the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry were aware that he was considering the possibility, he had not notified them even on Monday morning—when stock exchange trading began—that he had made any decision to go ahead.
    I should also tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Treasury took independent financial and legal advice at the end of last week on whether, in the light of the possible uncertainty, the share sale prospectus was still accurate. The legal and financial advice that it received was that, even if the issue of price controls for the regional electricity companies was reopened, that was not material to the share sale of the generating companies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] That is the legal advice that hon. Members say is rubbish. As for the generating companies, they are subject to a wholly different basis of regulation. It was in the light of that legal and financial advice that the Treasury decided to proceed.
    Mr. Blair: That may have been the legal advice, but may I ask the Prime Minister about the duty of his Government? Will he confirm that the Government knew that the regulator was actively considering making such an announcement? That is the first point. Secondly, if they did know, does the Prime Minister not think that it would have been better to disclose the information to prospective investors?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say just now, that was precisely the point of seeking the legal advice: to determine whether the prospectus was right. The right hon. Gentleman himself is a distinguished lawyer—
    458
    (Interruption.] I suspect that, if the Government had sought legal advice on an issue of this sort and then not taken the legal advice that they had been given, the right hon. Gentleman would have been at the Dispatch Box asking why we had not taken the legal advice that we had legitimately sought and received.
    Mr. Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for his compliment about my being a lawyer, but surely the point—(Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I expect better behaviour from Ministers.
    Mr. Blair: I cannot say that we do, Madam Speaker.
    The question relates not to the legal advice, but to the responsibility of the Government. Does the Prime Minister not think that it would have been better to disclose that information? Never mind whether the Government were legally entitled to it; does he not think that it would have been better to disclose it? Or is the short truth that a privatisation programme already damaged by boardroom excess and customer complaints is now tarnished by at best incompetence and at worst double dealing by Government?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has now asked the same question three times. I answered his third question with my first answer, and I made the position clear in my second answer. Other than to get in his ritual soundbite, I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman has asked his question a third time.
    The fact is, as I have said, that the Government were aware that the regulator was considering the possibility at some stage in the future. He had not notified the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, even on Monday morning, of whether he had determined to proceed, and whether he had determined what his statement would be.
    That is the purpose of ensuring that the prospectus is right; that is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took legal advice. On the basis that it was right to proceed—that the prospectus was accurate—my right hon. and learned Friend proceeded. If he had not, the right hon. Gentleman would have been standing there asking why the sale did not proceed and why the Government did not take the legal advice that they had sought in order to do so.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: On the question of exchange rate turbulence, does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent rise in the deutschmark against the pound is good for British exporters to Germany and bad for German exporters to Britain? Would it not be a bad thing if we were ever again to shadow the deutschmark?
    The Prime Minister: We are not shadowing the deutschmark and I do not anticipate that we will. At the moment the performance of British exports makes it clear that both British industry and the British currency are performing well.
    Mr. Ashdown: Why does the Prime Minister not cut the legal waffle? The real question is not what is legally possible: it is what is right. Is the Prime Minister proud that his Government had to hoodwink the public to get them to buy their electricity shares?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is not a distinguished lawyer. If he lets fly like that I hope that he is never sitting down where he has to take a cool, calm decision of what is in the national interest. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to read the three answers that I gave to the right hon. Member for Sedgefied (Mr. Blair). Perhaps upon several readings of them he will know the answer to his question.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that devolving power to schools and hospitals has led to improved educational standards and more patients being treated? Would the imposition of an unnecessary layer of regional government harm that success?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that it most certainly would. There are forms of devolution that I favour, most notably devolution down to the family and to the local community so that they can make their own decisions. We are certainly not committed to regional assemblies. There seems to be some confusion among the Opposition as to whether they are. On Sunday the right hon. Member for Sedgefield ( Mr. Blair) said:
    "We are not committed to regional assemblies."
    The deputy leader of the Labour party said:
    "No, I don't say that is the position."
    There seems to be some confusion about that on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Burden: When the number of full-time employees in the civil service has fallen by 29,000 in the past five years and the number on temporary contracts has grown by 82 per cent. in the same period, why are managers in the Employment Service being encouraged to sack temporary workers rather than let them have employment rights? Does the Prime Minister not realise that constant job insecurity is one of the biggest factors preventing any kind of feel good factor?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman took a wider view rather than being concerned with the point that he mentions, he would also have mentioned the dramatic fall in unemployment in every region of the United Kingdom. Self-evidently, work loads in Departments fluctuate, and by limiting periods of casual employment Departments are obliged to fill permanent vacancies with permanent staff, as they should. That is what is happening in the Department of Employment.
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider those seven schools in west Norfolk that have become grant-maintained? If he visits those schools he will find high morale and excellent motivation and commitment. Is it any wonder that more and more Members on the Labour Front Bench want to send their children to grant-maintained schools, and is it any wonder that the public find that grossly hypocritical?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that there are seven grant-maintained schools in my hon. Friend's constituency. I hope that there will be more in every constituency in the future. Education is an important ladder that helps people to raise themselves to a higher standard of living. Grant-maintained schools offer a wide choice, which I commend to everyone and congratulate everybody on taking. I trust that everybody will ensure that it is open to all who wish to have it.
    Mr. Enright: In spite of the headlong rush into vegetarianism, does the Prime Minister agree with Bob Reid, the former chairman of British Rail, that he would rather put money into a butcher's shop than into rail privatisation?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman should have heard what else Sir Bob said. He also said:
    "I do believe that privatisation is right."
    The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that.
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lidington: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's efforts to secure peace in Northern Ireland, does he agree that, until terrorism has been eradicated, it is right that we should continue to support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 to secure the protection of our fellow citizens in every part of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I do agree with that. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear yesterday, we shall retain the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 as long as the powers are needed for the protection of the public in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. I should add that we have accepted independent advice that all of the powers in the Act continue to be necessary and justified. My right hon. and learned Friend made that clear to the House yesterday.

Medium Support Helicopter
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)rose—(Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Will the Secretary of State wait until hon. Members have left? I hope that they will do so quickly and quietly. This is an important statement for which the House has been waiting for some time.
Mr. Rifkind: With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about support helicopters.
Following a detailed assessment, the Government have concluded that a high priority should be placed on enhancing the tactical mobility and flexibility of our forces in the changed strategic environment. The Army has an operational need for additional support helicopters to enable it to meet its current and its prospective tasks.
Our evaluation of the operational requirement has concluded that only the Westland utility EH101 and Boeing Chinook are capable of meeting our particular needs for a medium support helicopter. As a result, in December 1993 I authorised the start of parallel negotiations with the two manufacturers. Our evaluation of the respective offers from the two companies is now complete.
We have concluded that, bearing in mind the increasing importance of retaining flexible forces, there would be advantage in operating a mixed fleet of utility EH101 and Chinook support helicopters. Following the parallel negotiations, we have therefore decided to procure 22 utility EH101 support helicopters and a further eight Chinook HC mark II aircraft. The costs of introducing an additional helicopter type into service and creating a mixed fleet are inevitably higher than those of an all-Chinook fleet, and this means that a direction is required to the accounting officer that the Government have taken into account wider implications in reaching their decision. The accounting officer has advised that, if the Government conclude that the overall benefits outweigh the costs, it is possible to choose the mixed fleet with propriety. That is the Government's conclusion.
The EH101 is a modern design and offers advantages of operational flexibility. Those include commonality with the Royal Navy's Merlin helicopter, which will be of particular significance in land and sea-based operations. The EH101 will also provide a middle lift option between the Chinook and the Lynx light support helicopter, which will remove the need to replace Wessex with a new helicopter. The additional Chinooks are required because some large loads can be carried only by that aircraft, which is a reliable and capacious helicopter, proven in Royal Air Foice service. In addition, we are procuring a further six replacement Chinooks to maintain the current fleet, taking into account expected attrition losses. Those orders are subject to satisfactory completion of contracts.
In reaching this decision, the Government have also taken full account of the wider implications for the aircraft industry. They have invested some £1.5 billion in the development of the EH101 family, which is central to Westland's comprehensive design and manufacturing capability. The EH101 has excellent export potential in both its military and its civil variants, from which the
462
Government will derive substantial financial benefit through the levy on sales. Our decision demonstrates the confidence that we have in that new British aircraft.
I am sure that the House will wish to join me in welcoming this decision, which will increase our existing medium support helicopter capacity by 70 per cent. At the same time, it will help to secure the future of the United Kingdom helicopter design and manufacturing capability and so strengthen the United Kingdom's aerospace industry, which provides important opportunities for United Kingdom suppliers as well as technology skills, both within and outside the aerospace industry. This decision will bring a substantial increase in capability for our armed forces as well as industrial and employment benefits. I commend it to the House.
Dr. David Clark: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House because, as you so wisely reminded us, Madam Speaker, we have waited a long time for this statement—eight years to he precise.
We welcome the announcement because the Labour party has always championed the Westland EH101. We think that today's news is important for not only the armed forces but the United Kingdom defence industry. It is important because it means that we have increased our helicopter capability for lift and—this is vital—we have maintained a helicopter building capability here in the United Kingdom. I know that the House will welcome that.
We welcome the Secretary of State's conversion to the idea that competition is not the sole criterion for purchasing equipment such as this. We commend him for the way in which he has decided to take into account the future of the United Kingdom defence industry. That is wise and the Opposition support him in that.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that this helicopter order is the one that was originally announced to the House on 9 April 1987—eight years ago? Can he explain why we have had to wait eight years for the announcement? Can he also explain why we have lost jobs and export orders because of the Government's indecision about placing the order and their failure to gain the endorsement of the helicopter by our armed forces?
Will the Secretary of State tell us what offset arrangements he has with Boeing? We understand that he has placed an order for eight new helicopters and six further replacements. Does that mean that we get 100 per cent. offset costs, or is it a higher level because there is a larger order? If there are offset arrangements, will he give the House the categorical assurance that those arrangements are not merely in the form of what I might call metal-bashing, but also involve United Kingdom high-tech industry? We think that this is a good announcement. It has been a long time in coming, but we are glad that it has finally come.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general welcome, but I found some of his later remarks confusing and confused to say the least. He suggested that I am moving away from the principle of competition. He seems to be unaware that in evidence to the Select Committee about a year ago I said that we had a preference for a mixed fleet and that, assuming that the mixed fleet would meet our requirements, that was what we would wish to go for. That is the basis of the approach.

463
Part of the reason for the time that has elapsed was to ensure that we could extract from both companies the best price available.
On offset, yes, there will be proper offset arrangements on the Boeing aircraft. The hon. Gentleman asked why we have had to wait since 1987. For an Opposition defence spokesman to be unaware of what has changed since 1987 shows a lamentable grasp of the international situation. It is not only the Labour party that has changed since 1987. We have seen the end of the cold war, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of the Warsaw pact. [Interruption.] Yes, perhaps they are of the same order as the changes in the Labour party and with the same consequences.
The House would have expected us to have a full strategic consideration of the continuing need for support helicopters and that is what we have done. I believe that it is right and proper to go forward with a major order of this sort so as to maximise the flexibility and deployability of our armed forces to meet the new strategic requirements.
Mr. Tom King: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, as I announced the purchase of the 44 Merlin EH101 helicopters, I especially welcome this announcement because it is a vote of confidence in the further development of the EH101? Will he ensure that the Ministry of Defence gives every encouragement not least to our Italian partners in this venture to take part in the programme and start the export development of this valuable new piece of equipment which, I believe, has considerable potential around the world?
Mr. Rifkind: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his contribution to the development of the programme. He is right to emphasise the fact that it is a joint British-Italian programme. The Italian Government expect to purchase the aircraft, which will be welcome for Westland and in terms of the export potential of this very impressive aircraft
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am tempted to say, "At last," but, as I do not wish to sound too curmudgeonly, I shall say that this order, although late and less than was originally promised, is nevertheless very welcome. It is especially welcome for the reasons outlined by the Secretary of State. It is a vote of confidence not only in the quality of the aircraft but in the quality of the work force and management that produced it.
Is the Secretary of State aware that it will open possibilities for sales and strengthen Westland's position? There is an especially interesting competition going on for the Westland Merlin in terms of the US navy's helicopter requirement, and I should be grateful if he will confirm that the Government will give their full support as they have in the past. Will he confirm that the decision also opens up the possibility of much wider use of the EH101 throughout our armed forces and in NATO where, if properly supported, it has the possibility of becoming a NATO standard?
Mr. Rifkind: There are important economic and employment implications associated with the decision. For example, including the EH101 sales that are likely to take place overseas, it will provide on average more than 1,100 jobs a year for the next 30 years. In addition to Westland in Yeovil, companies such as Rolls-Royce at Bristol, Smiths Industries in Cheltenham, GEC Marconi
464
in Basildon, Martin Baker in Uxbridge, Racal Electronics in Slough, Lucas in Birmingham and a number of other important companies in various parts of the country will benefit from the work involved in this project.
Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this is welcome news not only for my constituents but for many people in the west country? Will he accept on behalf of all of us—Conservative and Labour Members—who fought so hard to get this order, congratulations on the way in which his present ministerial team and the previous one fought our corner and fought not only the internal battle within the MOD, about which we should perhaps not say too much, but a little battle, or skirmish, with the Treasury?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend. The important point to emphasise is that the decision is extremely welcome from the point of view of the armed forces as well as from the point of view of industry. Not only are we announcing a 70 per cent. increase in the lift capability of our armed forces, but we shall be doubling the number of support helicopters available on the front line. That is why the armed forces have today signalled their very warm welcome for the decision.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Secretary of State asked what had happened since 1987. Does he agree that since then the Wessex, which entered squadron service in 1964, has been subject to heavy use and that it is a rather expensive helicopter to run? I welcome the statement, but does he accept that there will still be some residual doubt about the heavy lift capacity that may be relevant in the fulfilment of future international commitments and in the use and deployment of the air mobile brigade?
Mr. Rifkind: Today's announcement will remove the need to replace the Wessex with a completely new helicopter because the EH101 is of a category that will enable us to meet that need.
As for the total lift capability, of course, if one had an all-Chinook fleet, because of the larger size of the Chinook and its greater lift capability, the total increase in lift capability would have been even more than the 70 per cent. to which I referred. One has to balance that against the flexibility available through the mixed fleet decision. As the EH101 is a smaller and more agile aircraft, it can use landing spots that the Chinook would find more difficult and it is more suitable for land and sea operations, especially working with the Merlin, of which it is a variant. So there are operational benefits to take into account as well.
Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that Westland Isle of Wight is the second largest plant in the United Kingdom? According to its managing director, Chris Gustar, this order means that the company and the Isle of Wight's economy—it is such an enormous part of our economy on the island—have really turned the corner. In view of that excellent order, will my right hon. and learned Friend see what we can do to get the helicopter into the coastguard service as well as the military?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend and confirm that this is very good news for the Isle of Wight. We shall be interested in supporting the helicopter's use in other areas, if it proves suitable, and in doing all that we can to assist Westland to increase its export potential because the

465
overall impact will have a continuing profound effect on employment and industry for a generation to come, and we can work with the company to help to encourage that.
Mr. Mark Robinson: My right hon. and learned Friend's decision will also be warmly welcomed in my constituency, where many Westland workers and senior management live. It is a timely decision, given the forthcoming IDEX exhibition, which is to take place in the middle east in the middle of March, where there will be all sorts of opportunities for us to promote the aircraft in export markets. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues will give all support to the marketing of the excellent civilian version of the EH101, which is also on offer.
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, there are three variants—the utility, the maritime Merlin and the civil variant—and it is important to try to maximise the export opportunities for all those forms of helicopter. The Ministry of Defence is especially interested in two of the three categories, but the order announced today will undoubtedly have benefits across the spectrum of equipment that Westland has on offer.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that congratulations are due to him on the announcement of the order? Many of us have constituents who work in the plant and without the order the British helicopter industry would have been severely in doubt. It is, therefore, immensely important. When does he expect the first batch of helicopters to be delivered to the RAF and over what period will deliveries be extended?
Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance that the Ministry of Defence and the Government attach to the helicopter industry continuing in the United Kingdom and to the need to sustain that support with the sort of order that we announced today. I understand that the first deliveries of the EH101 are likely to be in 1999 and that they will continue thereafter.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, in addition to the list of large companies that he said would benefit from the order, many small specialist companies, such as Fireproof Tanks of Portsmouth, which are competing in the international market, will be given greater prestige because they are associated with the decision?
Mr. Rifkind: Indeed, Portsmouth will benefit. Fireproof Tanks is one of the companies that will be participating in the production of the helicopter as a result of today's decision.
Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. and learned Friend will he aware how important the decision is, not only to Westland but to the aviation industry, including the avionics industry, which is a large employer in my constituency. He will shortly have to make a decision about the attack helicopter for the Army. Without pre-empting his decision in any way, will he assure the House that he will be just as mindful of the need to support and promote the British high-technology aviation industry, including avionics?
Mr. Rifkind: The attack helicopter is a separate issue and will be considered on its merits. A number of serious bids have been put forward to the Ministry of Defence and are being evaluated. I hope that we will reach a conclusion before the House rises for the summer recess, but it is a complex and difficult matter. We will certainly share our decision with the House as soon as we have been able to reach it.
Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that this announcement will safeguard jobs in my constituency and elsewhere throughout Somerset, and will also be a major fillip to the defence and manufacturing industries in the south-west. Can he confirm to the House that, in addition to the UK industrial and export factors that rightly weighed with him, there is a strong defence factor in choosing the EH101 in such numbers to take account of the changed nature of potential warfare?
Mr. Rifkind: My main responsibility has to be to consider, in the broadest sense, the defence requirements of the United Kingdom. That required me to take into account, not only the need to sustain a military helicopter manufacturing capability, but the benefits that flow from the mixed fleet because of the versatility that that provides for our armed forces.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: If it has taken eight years for the Minister to make that statement, when is the date of the next general election?
Mr. Rifkind: It will be less than eight years, but the hon. Gentleman will have to wait.
Mr. Alan Howarth: May I put a question to my right hon. and learned Friend in his capacity as a member of a Cabinet that proceeds on the principle of collective responsibility? I ask him, even now, to reconsider the balance of the country's interests as between investment in helicopters and investment in literacy. Is he really content that more than £1 billion should be spent on a helicopter order while £30 million is denied for central Government support for the generalisation of the reading recovery programme? In Warwickshire, we have a clear and urgent preference to be allowed to have the resources to pay for the educational basics.
Mr. Rifkind: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety to ensure that that aspect of his interest is properly safeguarded. I hope that he will also understand that it is not only desirable in general policy terms to ensure that our armed forces are equipped with the most suitable equipment to carry out their tasks, but that it could mean the difference between life and death for those whom we send to carry out those tasks on our behalf.
Mr. Keith Mans: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the decision to buy a mixed fleet of helicopters will be very much welcomed by many of us who have for long felt that that was the best way to meet the future needs of our armed forces' vertical lift capability. Will he ensure that those helicopters are delivered to the Royal Air Force on time and on cost, and that any suggested modifications by the Ministry of Defence are considered closely, to ensure that they are

467
necessary, and that the aircraft reaches RAF service on time, instead of reaching it delayed and at an increased cost?
Mr. Rifkind: It goes without saying that the armed forces have an important and urgent requirement for those aircraft. We expect both the Westland EH1O1s and the Boeing Chinooks to be delivered on the basis of contractual arrangements that we shall enter into, and we intend to ensure that both companies meet that requirement in the months and years to come.
Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly welcome the commitment made in ordering the helicopters, but will my right hon. and learned Friend expand on his plans for helping export sales? Which countries does he expect to take the initial interest, and how exactly does he intend to go about it?
Mr. Rifkind: We have a Defence Export Sales Organisation, which works closely with industry. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be wise for me to speculate on individual countries at this stage. I can say that a number of NATO and non-NATO countries have expressed serious interest in the EH101, and we and the company will continue to liaise with them to discover whether that interest can be translated into firm orders.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm certain quality aspects of the EH101? I heard this morning, on radio, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) suggesting that the only reason why the Canadians did not buy that helicopter was that we would not give confidence by making an order ourselves. In fact, Westland won the order completely on its own merits, and the Liberal Government coming into power in Canada cancelled the order. Will he further confirm that—[Interruption.] Indeed, the right hon.
468
Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) congratulated them on doing it within a week of their coming to office.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Defence Research Agency has done studies about the vibration and the fatigue that Chinook pilots experience because of the old technology, and that the EH101, which suppresses that vibration, overcomes the problem so that pilots can fly longer?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right on both accounts. The Chinook is older—some 30 years old—whereas the EH101 is a state-of-the-art aircraft and therefore much more impressive. My hon. Friend's earlier point is correct. Once again, he shows the superiority of his knowledge compared with that of the Opposition spokesman. The previous Canadian Government had ordered the EH101, but the Canadian Liberal party chose to campaign on a pledge that it would cancel the order if it won the election. It did win the election and, notwithstanding the interest of the Canadian armed forces, the order was cancelled. I see that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale is desperate to comment on that.
Sir David Steel: I well understand the concern of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) about the Canadian effect on Conservative politics, but I shall not comment on that.
On the more serious helicopter issue, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Canadian Government are actively considering ordering EHIO1s for their search and rescue service?
Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, if they are prepared to reconsider the decision, we shall be delighted. They are currently subject to certain legal claims from Westland because of the cancellation of the contract. If that leads to reconsideration, we shall all be delighted.

Business of the House
3.55 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week. The business will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 MARCH—Second reading of the Gas Bill.
TUESDAY 14 MARCH—Second reading of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill.
Motion on the Miners' Welfare Act 1952 (Transfer of Functions of Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation) order.
WEDNESDAY 15 MARCH—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Estimates Day (second allotted day): debate on support for business, consumer and investor protection, energy programmes and administration, in so far as it relates to the Department of Trade and Industry's support for the development of broadband communications; followed by a debate on administration, in so far as it relates to the Department of the Environment's retail planning policy. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At Ten o'clock, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding excess votes, the spring supplementary estimates and defence votes A.
THURSDAY 16 MARCH—Until about Seven o'clock, proceedings on the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill.
Debate on the Commonwealth, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 17 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 20 MARCH—Second Reading of the Child Support Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 15 March to consider European Community document Nos. 9508/93 and 8251/94 relating to hallmarking.
The other information that I can give the House, which is not as complete as I would like but which I hope will he helpful, is that, on Thursday 23 March, I anticipate Government business of an ordinary kind until about 7 o'clock, followed by a debate on a motion for the Adjournment. [Wednesday 15 March
Estimates Day (2nd Allotted Day)—Relevant reports: Class IV, Vote 1, in so far as it relates to support for the development of broadband communications: Third Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1993-94, (HC 285-1), Optical Fibre Networks; DTI, Creating the Superhighways of the Future: Developing Broadband Communications in the UK, November 1994, CM 2734.
Class VII Vote 7, in so far as it relates to retail planning policy: Fourth Report from the Environment Committee, Session 1993-94 (HC 359-1), Shopping Centres and their Future.
European Standing Committee B, European Community Documents (a) 9508/93, (b) 8251/94, Hallmarking; Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports (a) HC 48-xxiv (1993-94) and HC 48-xxiv (1993-94), (b) HC 48-xxvii (1993–94).]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information.
470
Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that it is strange to have scheduled for Monday 20 March the Second Reading of the Child Support Bill, which I gather comes into operation later next year, whereas important regulations that involve changes to the workings of the Child Support Agency, which are to come into operation from April—next month—have not yet been laid before the House? As those regulations are extremely important and complex, will he ensure that hon. Members have sufficient time to consider them? Will he also assure us that, because of the Bill's complexity, sufficient parliamentary time will be allowed for debate at all stages—including, if necessary, Report on the Floor of the House?
Two private Members' Bills received their Second Reading last Friday, with strong support from both sides of the House, as was the case with the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. As those measures have received widespread support both inside and outside the House and across the political spectrum, the Government should be willing to facilitate further discussion of the Bills by ensuring that they go to Committee. Parliament can then make a decision about the issues involved, rather than being frustrated by procedural devices.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a ministerial statement early next week to report on the poverty summit in Copenhagen, not least because so little has been said or written by Ministers about the Government's attitude to that potentially important summit?
Will the Leader of the House also ensure that Ministers have the opportunity to clarify another issue which, following Prime Minister's Question Time today, I think requires further clarification—the Government's role in the electricity privatisation and regulation fiasco?
As the Prime Minister acknowledged today that Ministers were aware that the electricity regulator was considering a review of the price mechanism, and that they even took legal advice before the flotation of National Power, and as it is absolutely clear that consumers have been overcharged and that shareholders—both individuals and pension funds—have been ripped off, surely the time has come for Ministers to reveal to the House the full extent of their involvement.
Ministers should not hide behind legal advice and say that they were not compelled to disclose information—so much for open government from that group of Ministers. We need an urgent debate, so that Ministers can face their responsibilities to consumers, shareholders and to the House.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I might take the points made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) in reverse order. The hon. Lady will understand that there was a substantial exchange about the electricity issues that she has touched upon during Prime Minister's Question Time not long ago. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the position very clearly, and I am not able to add to that.
As to the hon. Lady's penultimate question about the conference in Copenhagen, she will know that my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker is acting for Britain at that social summit. I think that she is very well qualified to do so, and that she will make Britain's position completely clear.

471
The second of the hon. Lady's questions related to private Members' Bills—she put her questions in what I would describe as a more sophisticated form than usual. However, I have no plans for providing Government time to discuss private Members' Bills or of departing from the usual practices in relation to private Members' Bills.
Lastly, on the Child Support Bill and associated matters, I entirely take the hon. Lady's point about the regulations. We will try to ensure that they are available and are debated in good time, because, as she said, they are due to come into effect sooner than the Bill. Of course, a Bill takes a good deal longer to pass than a set of regulations. The hon. Lady is already making demands for time later in the Session, which constitutes a good reason for getting on with the legislation.
Mr. David Howell: I am very glad that there will be a debate next week about the Commonwealth, and that excellent organisation the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Will my right hon. Friend try to provide some time for a debate on Hong Kong, the China economic region generally and the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on that subject, which was released some time ago? It is a long time since we debated Hong Kong in the House.
Mr. Newton: As the debate on the Commonwealth responds to various representations made to me from both sides of the House during the past few weeks, I think that I have demonstrated my willingness to listen to representations of the kind that my hon. Friend has made. I shall not make any promises at this stage, but I will certainly look carefully at what he has said.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Although I have no doubt that Baroness Chalker is "acting for Britain", as the Minister put it, will he go much further and confirm that a Minister will have the chance to come to this place to account for Britain's actions—particularly for what is perceived as Britain's lamentable performance in its responsibilities to the rest of the world—following the social summit in Copenhagen? Will the Minister confirm that there will be a statement, or at least that there is the prospect of one?
Given that the matter that has concerned hon. Members urgently today and was the subject of the first question to the Prime Minister was the failure of the emergency services to come to the rescue of the man injured in Kent last night, who died in Leeds general infirmary, can we examine how the accident and emergency services—all of them—work and the way in which we inquire into them?
The Marchioness inquest is next week and there are many who are unhappy that, in the last few hours, people are having to scrabble around for money to pay for the legal representation of the bereaved of the 51 who died in an accident on the Thames six years ago.
Mr. Newton: I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's last point to the attention of my right hon. Friends. I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the tragic incident involving the man from Kent. As he made clear, an investigation is under way, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage.
Apart from the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has reminded me, there will be questions on overseas development matters on Monday week, which
472
will provide an opportunity for adverting to these matters, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about Britain's record. Indeed, Britain's bilateral aid programme is widely regarded as one of the most effective in the world. This year's budget is the sixth largest across the globe, and it is absolutely unquestionable that we lead the way on debt reform.
Mr. Piers Merchant: May I press my right hon. Friend a little further on his reply to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) on Hong Kong? If my memory serves me aright, it is a long time since the House had the opportunity to have a full debate on Hong Kong. In view of the vast political developments there and the impending handover to China, I hope that my right hon. Friend would considerably favour an early debate on the topic.
Mr. Newton: I repeat what I took as the friendly and constructive answer I gave my right hon. Friend, and ask my hon. Friend to take it as embracing my attitude to his request also.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): The Leader of the House was present a short while ago the Prime Minister answered three questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I advert particularly to the third question and answer. Would the Leader of the House, bearing in mind the precedent set over the Al-Fayed allegations about payments to Members, when the House was reassured by the Prime Minister that Sir Robin Butler had carried out an—(Interruption.] Madam Speaker, will you tell the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) to shut up or put up?
Madam Speaker: Order. I have cautioned hon. Members on both sides of the House before on barracking from sedentary positions. There is far too much of it in the House, and far too many times it comes from certain hon. Members. I also caution hon. Members that we are in the middle of business questions, and that questions put to the Leader of the House should be directly related to next week's business. I hope that such a question will now be put.
Mr. Bermingham: It is coming indeed, Madam Speaker.
As I was saying to the Leader of the House, we were reassured by the fact that Sir Robin Butler had carried out an investigation. Later inquiries before a Select Committee revealed that no investigation had been carried out. Today, we are assured that advice was taken from counsel with regard to the electricity sell-off.
Madam Speaker: Order. I really must have a business question now. I have listened long enough to a preamble which is really an argument. [Interruption.] I need no help whatsoever from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). I now insist that I have a direct question from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I have heard enough of a preamble.
Mr. Bermingham: All I want is for the Leader of the House to put in the Library of the House a copy of the questions asked of counsel, so that we can then debate whether they were the relevant questions that should have been asked of counsel.
Mr. Newton: I have already made it clear in responding to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that I am not in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend said, which I thought was very clear.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will my right hon. Friend find some time soon for a debate on education, so that we can explore the refusal of the East Sussex Liberals to fund a teachers' pay award in full, when there is plenty of money in the budget to cover it, while at the same time they are frightening governors, teachers and parents into signing a petition demanding more taxpayers' money?
Mr. Newton: I will investigate whether it is possible to find time to debate important issues such as that which my hon. Friend raised, so that they may be fully explored.
Mr. Edward O'Hara: Perhaps I may turn that into a cross-party call for an education debate, in the light of Government policy initiatives that emerged recently. Before Christmas, there was a much trumpeted and much welcomed, if belated, Government commitment to new money for nursery education. Last week, the Secretary of State for Education advised local authorities to fund the gap in their budgets by taking money out of pre-school education.
This week, a cessation of funding for the reading recovery scheme was announced, just at the time that the scheme is demonstrating its success in improving literary standards in schools. It is important—
Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Whips ought to arrange seminars on how to put business questions, which are not meant to provide an opportunity for hon. Members to make statements first on their point of view. Their purpose is to ask why the business of the House cannot be changed to allow debate on a certain issue. Hon. Members are taking far too long to explain themselves.
Mr. O'Hara: I was simply asking whether the Leader of the House agrees that such important policy initiatives merit the attention of the House.
Mr. Newton: A variety of important matters merit the attention of the House. I set down a number of them for debate next week, and at present I am not able to satisfy the request of the hon. Gentleman and of my hon. Friend for a debate on a different subject.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement on early-day motion 763.
[That this House notes the honourable Member for Leicester West, as Chairman of the Employment Select Committee, is interviewing leading industrialists and businessmen on their remuneration packages whilst at the same time offering these people his services on how to improve their public speaking and presentational skills; further notes that other services offered by the honourable Member for Leicester West include advice on making people redundant and serving on the Remuneration Committee of Ladbroke plc which awarded the Chairman of that company a salary of £583,000 per annum—£108,000 per annum more than the Chairman of British Gas plc—and in addition awarded five directors of the company 1.3 million share options worth £2.3 million; believes that these activities represent a conflict of
474
interest with his current position as Chairman of the Employment Select Committee; and calls on him to resign immediately.]
During the passage of trade union legislation, the Department of Employment received a letter from Ladrokes calling for the abolition of wages councils. Is the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Janner), who serves as a board director, opposed to abolition?
Mr. Newton: I saw a number of references in the press during the week to the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman who is Chairman of the Employment Select Committee. People will form their own views on that matter, which ultimately must be one for the hon. Gentleman's judgment of what is proper under the rules of the House.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we debate next week the document "Open Government: Code of Practice on Access to Government Information"? I presume that the Leader of the House has read that document, so can he say whether all parliamentary answers given by Ministers meet the criteria in that code of practice?
Mr. Newton: They do, so far as I am aware. If the hon. Gentleman has reason to believe that they do not, he had better let me know and I will take the matter up in the appropriate quarters.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on local government spending? An issue of great importance to my Sutton constituents, who suffer under the yoke of a Liberal-controlled local authority, is that that authority plans to spend £150,000 on a new bus route, which is completely unpopular with local residents and will wreck their peace and quiet. They do not want that bus route, but want the money spent on social services and helping the elderly.
Mr. Newton: That sounds like a good example of the many local authorities which say that they do not have money to spend for purposes that the public want, but which spend money for purposes that the public do not want.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: May we have a statement on the privatisation of utilities? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when the Tory Government privatised rain, it resulted in water board chiefs lining their pockets? We now know that an 83-year-old disabled ex-miner is being asked by a water board to pay £11.75 to have a tap washer fitted.
Mr. Newton: All those issues have been extensively ventilated over a long period, and no doubt some will be further ventilated in the first two days of next week, when the House debates the two Bills that I mentioned. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his point then.
Mr. Gary Streeter: May we debate next week the serious issues arising from early-day motion 763, so that the House may decide whether to refer that matter to the Nolan committee for an assessment of the position of a Select Committee Chairman, when such a glaring conflict of interest has arisen?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has raised an entirely legitimate point. I do not think that I can add to what I said about the rules of the House and the necessity both for the Chairman and for any Committee concerned to make a judgment about the application of those rules.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Having heard what both the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister have said about the tragic death of Malcolm Murray, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position. Next week, there will be written answers that will provide sufficient information for the House to take a view. In the light of the statement made today by the new Minister with responsibilities for the citizens charter—
"I find it astonishing that there was nowhere else in London where he could have been taken to. This just goes to show the need for a proper range of facilities within a reasonable distance"—
will the Leader of the House find time to arrange a debate, so that the Secretary of State for Health can answer questions about an appalling tragedy in London?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and later I myself have said about the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is due to answer questions on Tuesday next.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to enable us to discuss the prison regime? I shall then have an opportunity to give my full support to the military-style boot camps that are so popular in the United States. Although we have become extremely tough on criminals, the debate for which I ask would reinforce to my constituents that we shall become tougher still on criminals. With the drilling, marching and forced running in all weathers that takes place with criminals in boot camps in the United States, reoffending has been cut from 60 per cent. to 13 per cent. We should have such a regime in this country as soon as possible.
Mr. Newton: I shall bring my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I cannot promise an opportunity for an early debate on prison matters. As I have said on several occasions, they may fall to be considered when we have the results of some of the inquiries that are taking place.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the Leader of the House provide time for an early debate on a Government announcement today that will have a serious impact on passenger transport in South Yorkshire? The Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs has reversed—through a press release and not in a statement in the House—the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that would prevent the Mainline bus company in South Yorkshire from operating in the way it wants.
The decision flies in the face of what is called for by the local chamber of commerce, local organisations and Members in the area. It will mean more bus congestion and more pollution. Above all, it may threaten an employee share ownership company. Everyone in South Yorkshire believes that the decision has been sneaked out through a press release to stab in the front a successful and thriving company that is owned by its employees.
Mr. Newton: Whatever may have happened, I am certain that the purpose was not that ascribed to it by the
476
hon. Gentleman. I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend advise me whether we should be having a debate on, or a Select Committee investigation into, the number of Labour Members who are benefiting from share option schemes, the ways in which those Members are benefiting, and whether the benefiting goes from the very bottom to the very top of the Labour party?
Mr. Newton: I do not know whether any of that is thought to he happening in Birmingham. My hon. Friend may have noticed that there is to be a debate on local government in Birmingham on Wednesday.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on the current state of political parties in Britain? When I arrived home in my constituency on Friday last, I found the following statement in the local newspaper:
"Top Tory quits over sleaze."
One of my constituents, Councillor Roy Newman, was the vice-chair of the Rother Valley constituency party. He has resigned because he believes that the party has lost its way, that leadership does not exist, that it is riddled with sleaze, and that, at the same time, the poor are becoming poorer while the rich are getting richer. I would like to express my constituent's thoughts as soon as possible.
Mr. Newton: I have already made reference to the debate next Wednesday on local government in Birmingham, in which one or two somewhat different perspectives on some of these matters may emerge. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can work in any relevant remarks while remaining in order, but he might like to try.
Mr. James Clappison: May I support the call for a debate on education, which would unable us to debate assisted places, which is of great interest to hundreds of families in my constituency? In spite of cynical window dressing and talk of co-operation between the private and public sector, the Labour party proposes to abolish those assisted places, to the disadvantage of hundreds of low-income families in my constituency.
Mr. Newton: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), my hon. Friend has given an excellent reason for seeking a possible debate on education. That, too, I will bear in mind.
Mr. George Foulkes: As the Leader of the House has been helpful in giving us a debate on the Commonwealth, I shall be equally helpful and suggest a debate next week on state funding of political parties.
In view of the report in today's edition of the Daily Record, which said that Tory party treasurer, Lord Hambro, returned from a fund-raising trip to Hong Kong empty-handed, the Tory party is in need of some assistance. I want to know why or how it is able to get a £14 million overdraft from the Royal Bank of Scotland, the chairman of which is Lord Younger of Prestwick—it does not have any collateral, does not own its

477
headquarters, and has no basis on which to get that loan—when some of my constituents cannot even get a loan of a few hundred quid from the Royal Bank?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his offer of help.
Mr. Christopher Gill: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the conversation that he and I had a week last Friday and the letter that I subsequently wrote to him on 27 February concerning the establishment of the meat hygiene service, which is due to become operational on 1 April this year? Does my right hon. Friend consider it appropriate for the House to debate those matters, in the light of the fact that that new service will have a budget of £50 million?
Because the House does not sit tomorrow, however, it will not be possible to give sufficient notice of the establishment of that service, and the necessary statutory instruments will not be able to be laid within the prescribed time. Does my right hon. Friend feel, as I do, that the House should be able to debate those important matters, not least because the approval of the House has already been assumed and staff have been appointed to that new service, offices have been taken on all around the country, and the whole industry is expecting it to be operational on 1 April, yet it has not technically been approved by the House?
Mr. Newton: I remember my conversation with my hon. Friend. I also have a copy of the letter and the fairly voluminous enclosures he sent me. I have not yet had the result of my inquiries on the points he raised, but I will of course come back to him as soon as possible.
Mr. James Couchman: May I join my hon. Friends the Members for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) in
478
urging a debate on early-day motion 763? The House has debated conflicts of interests of hon. Members before, but there can have been few greater conflicts of interest than that of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) in his dual role of Chairman of the Employment Select Committee and principal of an employment consultancy that gives advice on how to make people redundant.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's remarks, coming after those made earlier, do indicate some concern about those matters. I hope that that will be reflected on by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I cannot say more than I have already said.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: When the Leader of the House responded to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who made an unwarranted smear on every Labour Member of Parliament but did not name anybody, he then tied in next week's debate on Birmingham with that smear.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister responding to next week's debate to come and tell us about the Tory leader of a council in the midlands who, it has recently been disclosed, has a prison record, and a Tory mayor in the midlands who was recently in gaol for rigging the electoral system? That is what we do not want in a proper debate in the House. We want to debate public probity and finances. I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that the debate is on a proper level and not the level, he indicated in his answer to the hon. Member for Dover.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman may wish to take part in the debate on Wednesday, and I am sure that it will be approached with proper seriousness by my right hon. and hon. Friends. But since, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have considerable regard for him and I am frankly sorry to have upset him, I make it clear that I certainly intended, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Dover intended, no slur on him or any particular Member of Parliament.

Point of Order
4.24 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, in the course of an exchange during the debate on the prevention and suppression of terrorism reported at column 373 of the Official Report, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), having quoted me, went on to say:
"Of course at that time he was not so contaminated with IRA/Sinn Fein".
My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) sought to have the hon. Gentleman withdraw that comment, and Madam Deputy Speaker said:
"I think it was just about within the bounds of the way that we deal with things here".—[Official Report, 8 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 373.]
I find that a strange statement, for a number of reasons. In the seven years that I had the honour to represent my party on Northern Ireland matters, at no time, in any way whatever, did I have any dealings with the IRA or provisional Sinn Fein, unlike Her Majesty's Government. Such a comment about an appointed spokesman of the Labour party reflected also on two former leaders of my party and upon the fact that what I was advocating were the principles established by the Labour party conference and the national executive committee of the Labour party. They have been accused of being contaminated by IRA/Sinn Fein.
What is within the bounds of what we are allowed to say in the House? Membership of the IRA, a proscribed organisation, is subject to a period of imprisonment of up to 10 years. To address a meeting of three or more people soliciting support for or advocating the aims of the IRA
480
is also a punishable offence, in gaol or otherwise. That I am accused of having been involved in, and that was within the bounds accepted by Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think that we can accept that.
Finally, with regard to etiquette of the House, that attack was made on me without any forewarning. I have written to the hon. Gentleman today telling him that I intended to make this statement, and, had he been in his place, I would have taken this opportunity to set out his record and responsibility for the many unhappinesses that have happened in Northern Ireland during the past 25 years.
Madam Speaker: Let me say at once, and far from the first time, that I deprecate very strongly indeed the use in debate of words which reflect on the probity of other Members. In that context, I have looked at the exchanges in the Official Report to which the hon. Member refers. I conclude that the phrase to which he objects was not so disorderly as to demand its immediate withdrawal. Nevertheless, for all that, I deprecate most strongly its use, and I repeat my general plea for good temper and moderation as characteristics of parliamentary language.
I say to all Members who participate in our debates, in terms that I think the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) may take note of, that we should remember the injunction of St. Paul to the Philippians:
"Let your moderation be known to all men."
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is an experienced Member of the House, and he does not need my advice on the courses of action open to him. I hope that he will feel that I have dealt with the matter, although perhaps not in a way that is entirely satisfactory to him, in a sensitive manner. I appreciate all the work that he has done over the years on Northern Ireland, as do many of us in the House.

Orders of the Day

  South Africa Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  More than 30 years ago, Hendrik Verwoerd took South Africa out of the Commonwealth—exited before being pushed—because of the apartheid policies of the then South Africa; so the return of South Africa to the Commonwealth last year is a cause for celebration in all Commonwealth countries.
  The intervening 34 years were dark years for South Africa—years of isolation. It was isolated from the west because it offended human and democratic values, and isolated in Africa because of its treatment of Africans and others. But South Africa was not forgotten; we knew that change must come. Change has come, and there has been a special sense of joy throughout the Commonwealth at South Africa's decision to return to the family of the Commonwealth.
  The main purpose of the Bill is to modify existing legislation to place South Africa on an equal footing with other Commonwealth countries. It involves purely technical amendments to a number of Acts in order to apply them to South Africa; those amendments are set out in detail in the schedule to the Bill. The immigration and electoral implications of South Africa's return to the Commonwealth have been dealt with separately by an Order in Council made in June last year, which added South Africa to the list of Commonwealth countries included in schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981.
  We are determined to do all we can to support the reconstruction of post-apartheid South Africa. Immediately after the South African elections last year, Britain committed a total of £100 million of aid to South Africa. We gave support to the reconstruction and development programme—support welcomed by South Africa.
  Welcoming my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to South Africa last year, President Mandela made it clear that
  "we in South Africa, and I refer both to my government and the people as a whole, are particularly thankful for the commitment shown by your government to help us deal comprehensively with the legacy of apartheid".
  The Prime Minister and President Mandela have agreed the areas of focus for our bilateral aid. They are in education, health, supporting good governance, including local government, encouraging the development of business and enterprise, and support for agriculture. Our assistance to South Africa is driven by the needs of the South African people.
  We have offered help with the arrangements for the local elections in October this year, and with the regional integration of the South African police service. We have also offered co-operation in the fight against drug trafficking. About a third of our aid funds for South Africa are currently spent on education. Our assistance is intended to increase access for disadvantaged South
  482
  Africans to education and training opportunities. We have a clear commitment to supporting South Africa through our aid budget.
  To succeed, however, South Africa needs more than aid; it needs investment and trade. The United Kingdom is the largest overseas investor in South Africa: our investments have an estimated book value of £2 billion, and a market value estimated at between £8 billion and £10 billion. In July last year, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade led a party of British business men to South Africa, and launched a trade and investment campaign called "Opportunity South Africa"—a campaign to include seminars, trade fairs and further high-level missions to promote investment in South Africa.
  Funds will come from both private and public sectors. There will be support for small businesses, and exchanges between UK industry and South African postgraduate students. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced that an additional £1 billion would be available in ECGD cover.
  My right hon. Friend also announced a British investment promotion scheme to encourage more small and medium-sized UK companies to invest in South Africa by providing grants towards the cost of pre-investment feasibility studies and the training of local employees. One part of the campaign, for example, is the Soweto skills initiative. Young entrepreneurs from
  Soweto will come to Britain to gain management experience with British companies. Forty trainees are coming to Britain this year; six have already arrived.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on his visit to South Africa last September, took with him a further team of senior business men. During his visit, he and President Mandela signed an investment promotion and protection agreement, which is aimed at encouraging investment by British companies in South Africa.
  In January, a full-scale trade promotion campaign for this year was launched, called "Britain means business". The campaign will include two high-profile commercial events in South Africa during the year. First, immediately following Her Majesty the Queen's state visit later this month, a series of seminars will be held in Cape Town: they will cover invisibles, education and health care. At the same time, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will be in South Africa, accompanied by a team of senior United Kingdom business people, to meet South African Ministers and business people to discuss urban regeneration, airport development, and electricity distribution to ensure a guaranteed supply of electricity to the townships.
  The transition to a democratic society which is no longer based on the principle of racial discrimination requires a sound economic and financial basis. We are determined to do all we can to support investment in projects and people in South Africa.
  There is a steady strengthening of relations between Britain and South Africa, and that is warmly welcomed on both sides. At the end of next week, Her Majesty the Queen, the Head of the Commonwealth, will pay a state visit to South Africa, the first such visit for nearly 50 years. That visit, which I know is eagerly awaited in South Africa, will set the seal on the revival of an old and mutually beneficial friendship between our two countries.

  483
  South Africa and its people have triumphed over division and racial injustice. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister concluded in his speech to Parliament in Cape Town:
  "South Africa has come out of the storm and into the calm, out of isolation into fellowship, out of division into unity".
  South Africa is forging a single, non-racial, democratic nation at peace with itself. That is a formidable challenge for the years ahead. The road ahead will have dangers, but South Africans have already travelled the greater distance on their journey. They have the full support of the British Government and the British people as they work towards the goal they have set themselves of regeneration and reconstruction. South Africa's re-entry to the Commonwealth, her coming home to where she belongs, should also provide a stimulus for the Commonwealth family of one third of the world's nations.
  The emergence of the new South Africa is a particular cause for rejoicing here and across the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.36 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I confess that it is quite a novel experience for me to support without hesitation the Second Reading of a Government Bill whose brief text reflects a historic event—the return of a multiracial South Africa to the family of the Commonwealth.
  On 20 July last year at a service in Westminster Abbey, South Africa was welcomed back into the Commonwealth. It was fitting that on a day of such celebration the congregation was addressed by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a man who somehow managed to endure the darkest days of apartheid without losing either his spirit or his smile.
  Archbishop Tutu compared the event with the tale of the prodigal son. He said that South Africa had left the Commonwealth in 1961 and had squandered her riches during the years of apartheid, but that the international struggle and the pressure of her people had finally brought the country back to its senses. He added:
  "like a prodigal she has returned home".
  The Commonwealth which South Africa left consisted of only 11 nations. Now its 51st member, South Africa, can look forward to a range of benefits, including wider trading opportunities, which will benefit South Africa and other countries. Nigeria, Malaysia and India are among those countries which have sent trade delegations to South Africa in the past year, and they have all had an increase in trade.
  South Africa's emphasis on regional co-operation as part of its foreign policy is in marked contrast to the policies that were pursued under apartheid. It will certainly assist in bringing stability to southern Africa as a whole, thus benefiting its Commonwealth neighbours in the region. On the level of co-operation between peoples, we shall now have the pleasure of South Africa's participation in the Commonwealth games, which are traditionally known as the friendly games.
  For those reasons among many others we rejoice in South Africa's return to the Commonwealth. That means, of course, that there is no longer an ambassador at South Africa house. The new high commissioner, Mendi Msimang, is the former African National Congress representative in the United Kingdom. He has spent a
  484
  considerable amount of his time over the years standing in the street outside South Africa house in the company of thousands of other people. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to welcome him to his new position.
  In May, just three months before that service at Westminster Abbey, I had the privilege to witness, along with other hon. Members, the first free election in South Africa's history. That was a truly remarkable event. It was a tremendous experience to be there. We watched in awe as long queues of patient voters waited for hours, often in hot and cramped conditions, without any opportunity even to have a drink of water, and determined to express their collective relief, enthusiasm and expectation at the end of apartheid. That was a defining moment in South Africa's history.
  That was my second visit to South Africa. My first, as a journalist, was in 1975. The country I then visited was different. I witnessed hatred, intolerance and immorality. I saw poverty of staggering proportions in what is still one of the richest countries in the world. I talked to black people in the homelands who watched their children die from measles because they could not afford the vaccine to treat the measles. I saw hospitals in which the surgeon had to send instruments 30 miles down the road to be sterilised. I saw women scratching a living from the soil, forcibly parted from their husbands, who had to stay in the towns. That was the reality of homeland life in South Africa.
  At the same time, however, I saw courage and fortitude. I visited the Kwazulu legislative assembly, where black person after black person went to the microphone to declare that they were prepared to die for their freedom. That courage, as well as the humanity and extraordinary lack of bitterness among so many black South Africans, are the key to the changes taking place in South Africa today.
  It is just five years since President Nelson Mandela was released from prison. The intervening years have brought changes so vast and so irreversible that the South Africa of old seems to belong to a different age. Despite the centuries of oppression, and against the expectations of even the most optimistic forecasts, a sense of unity and progress has emerged among enemies to transform our ideas of what is possible in politics.
  We salute the forbearance and vision of Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Thabo Mbeki and their colleagues. We pay tribute to Oliver Tambo, Chris Hani, Joe Slovo and others, including the many thousands of nameless South Africans of all colours who helped to fight the evils of racism.
  Mr. John Carlisle: While the hon. Lady is giving congratulations and salutations to those people, would she find room—which she may have planned to do later in her speech—to salute the courage of F.W. de Klerk, who, in some cases, has stood out almost as a pariah in his own community? He took a step that was alien to many members of his party and the white community. He should perhaps be equally congratulated by the hon. Lady as she gives her salutations.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I am pleased to add my congratulations to President de Klerk. The reality that he recognised was the mark of a true statesman. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had played such an honourable part in the many debates that have taken place in the House over the

  485
  years. We remember his role during the years when so many other people were pointing out the evils of apartheid and fighting those evils in the House.
  Mr. Carlisle: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Clwyd: Not again.
  Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady perhaps impugns or, indeed, questions my honour in this place. In criticising the honour of another hon. Member, was she was within parliamentary procedure on the conduct of debates? She did mention the word "honour" in relation to my attitude to debates.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): As I heard the hon. Lady, she did not say that the hon. Gentleman was dishonourable. She questioned the contribution that he had made. On balance, there has probably been a fair debate, but I hope that no comment of an adverse nature to any hon. Member will be made. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber hold strong views. The Bill has clearly united all hon. Members. I hope that the debate can continue in that context.
  Mrs. Clwyd: We are all encouraged by wider developments in the region. The past year has seen successful democratic elections in Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia and Botswana, together with the restoration of democracy in Lesotho and the signing of the Angolan peace agreement. Those events give us cause for optimism that real progress will be made in South Africa. At the same time, the fragility of the peace in Angola serves as a reminder that we must also be wary.
  Labour Members are proud of the role that we played in the campaign to isolate the apartheid regime. My hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) took positions of leadership in the Anti-Apartheid Movement, which mobilised thousands of committed people in that struggle. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) also took an active role in that campaign. I should also like to pay tribute to the role of Bishop Trevor Huddlestone.
  The Commonwealth played a proud part. The apartheid regime engaged in the systematic use of armed forces and economic destabilisation against majority-ruled states in southern Africa. It backed terrorism elsewhere, yet the Commonwealth Heads of Government remained steadfast in their support for the liberation forces in South Africa.
  In 1986, the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group produced a report supporting sanctions against the apartheid regime. Membership of that group included a former Conservative Prime Minister of Australia and a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, who had considerable economic interests in South Africa as chairman of the Standard Chartered bank.
  Unfortunately, our Government ignored that report. For a long time, they refused contact with members of the African National Congress, whom they regarded as terrorists. Despite the intransigence of Baroness Thatcher's Government, the Commonwealth continued to play an active role in the ending of apartheid, right up until the final days of that hated regime.
  486
  All hon. Members will rejoice in the ending of apartheid, but let us not suppose for a moment that the fight is over. South Africa still has massive problems to overcome in terms of economic, social and political development. The country has unique problems. According to some indicators, it has a relatively developed economy, but we know that the vast majority of its people live in conditions that are comparable with those in developing nations.
  The national average for infant mortality among black South Africans is higher than the average in Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe. According to United Nations Children's Fund data from the period 1980 to 1991, among the 10 neighbouring Southern African Development Community states, only Tanzania had a higher percentage of underweight children than the rural areas of South Africa.
  Thirty per cent. of the black adult population of South Africa is illiterate, and a further 30 per cent. are considered to be functionally illiterate. That compares with adult illiteracy rates of 9 per cent. in Tanzania, 26 per cent. in Botswana, 27 per cent. in Zambia and 33 per cent. in Zimbabwe. The World bank believes that half the black work force is without formal sector employment. By any estimate, the number is probably over 6 million.
  Although the number of black senior managers has doubled in the past few years, they still make up less than 4 per cent. of the total. In the interests of peaceful change, for the present, affirmative action has been downplayed.
  Of about 40 million people, 17 million probably live below the minimum subsistence level. We are talking about a country in which, during the last decade, one sixth of the population earned two thirds of the income.
  As blacks were merely temporary urban residents under apartheid, housing was deliberately neglected. Soweto, which, not long ago, was a new township, is now a city of 5 million. Just a few hundred migrant workers' hostels house up to 1 million people. There are over 200,000 squatters in the Pretoria and Johannesburg area alone and the population of the region is expected to rise by 80 per cent. by the year 2010.
  A disproportionate number of households in poverty are headed by women and World bank research makes the point—we have made it time and again in the House—that investing in women's education probably provides the highest return on any investment in developing countries.
  The skewed provision of health care was perhaps one of the cruellest effects of segregation. A black baby was 10 times more likely to die in infancy than a white baby. Lack of clean water, the constant struggle for food and the overcrowded housing all exacerbated a polarised system that had health care as fine as anywhere in the world for the few and a life expectancy worse than much of sub-Saharan Africa for the majority.
  The problems facing South Africa emphasise the scale of the commitment needed from the rest of the world. The economy has been facing inwards for so long that it will be a slow and difficult process to restructure it. The campaign to disinvest from South Africa was a necessary support for the end to apartheid, but now we need to reverse that flow of capital while ensuring that it will help positive change rather than strengthen existing inequalities.
  The reconstruction and development programme, known as the RDP, is the cornerstone of the new Government's policy to eradicate those problems. Its first

  487
  priority is to attack poverty and deprivation. As the Minister mentioned, specific proposals include employment creation, redistribution of land, building over 1 million new homes, providing clean water and sanitation to all and providing universal access to health care. It also seeks education and training from the cradle to the grave, together with the modernisation of industry. Above all, it wishes to extend and to deepen democracy. I think that we all agree that that last point is essential to meet the challenges facing South Africa.
  Later this year, the first local government elections will be held in South Africa. Unfortunately, voter registration for those elections is dangerously low. It is vital that the people register if the important elections are to be given democratic legitimacy. Of course, the elections are extremely important for the complete democratic transformation of South Africa.
  I welcome the technical support provided for the elections by the Commonwealth and the Overseas Development Administration. The United Kingdom and the wider international community have a duty to respond positively to requests for assistance. In particular, British local government can play a role in helping the new non-racial local government structures after the election.
  We must welcome the decision of the Inkatha Freedom party to end its two-week-old boycott of Parliament last weekend. Whatever the rights and wrongs of its case, the issue of regional autonomy in Kwazulu Natal continues to threaten the future of the Government of national unity.
  For all those reasons, while rejoicing in the progress made in South Africa, we must not assume that its problems are yesterday's problems and that our task is complete. There are a number of ways in which the United Kingdom could help South Africa to overcome the devastating legacy of apartheid. Our voice in the United Nations, including the Security Council and the key specialised agencies, as well as in the European Union and the Commonwealth, puts us in a unique position of influence in all those forums. This month the EU will be sending a fact-finding mission to investigate industrial co-operation. It will probably highlight the opportunities awaiting closer co-operation.
  British investment accounts for 40 per cent. of the total foreign investment. Britain is South Africa's second most important trading partner after the United States. I acknowledge the United Kingdom's aid commitment to South Africa, which totals £100 million over three years. However, I am disappointed that that is less than half the cost of the unwanted Pergau dam, or about the same as the bonuses promised to a handful of top executives at Barings.
  We could also offer vital assistance if we were to support South Africa's inclusion in the Lom éconvention, but in a way which benefits South Africa and does not harm the wider regional interests. The fourth Lome convention is an aid and trade agreement between members of the European Union and 70 ACP—African, Caribbean and Pacific—countries. In fact, 95 per cent. of the ACP's population live in sub-Saharan Africa. At present, South Africa is not covered by the convention.
  Lomé IV lasts for 10 years, from 1990 to the year 2000. A joint mid-term review must be completed by the end of this month. Among other things, the review is re-examining national contributions to the European Development Fund which finances Lomé. The United Kingdom is the third largest contributor after Germany
  488
  and France, but the Government have given notice that they intend to cut their contribution to that funding by 30 per cent. I should like the Minister to explain the rationale behind that proposal because the Commission proposed that the budget should increase from 11 billion ecu to 14 billion ecu for 1995-2000.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having some difficulty relating the hon. Lady's comments to the Bill.
  Mrs. Clwyd: When the Bill was discussed in another place, there was a fairly wide-ranging discussion on South Africa.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All sorts of Bills are discussed in all sorts of places in all sorts of ways. I am purely responsible for the debate in this Chamber. I have made my point and I hope that the hon. Lady will respect that.
  Mrs. Clwyd: We are talking about the contribution that this country can make to the future of South Africa. One of the ways we are doing that is, hopefully, by passing this Bill.
  It is disgraceful that Britain is the only country that has called for a considerable reduction in its cash contribution to Lomé. Once again, we are the odd man out in Europe. I think that the point is sufficiently made.
  President Mandela made it clear in his opening address to the South African Parliament last month that South Africa has no desire to detract from the efforts to help poorer countries within the ACP. Whether South Africa should be granted full membership or a looser form of association is open to discussion, but what is important is that a substantial relationship with the European Union is being sought by the South African Government as a matter of urgency and this country has considerable influence in that. Those matters can and will be pursued on other occasions, perhaps when the Conservative Whip is absent.
  On behalf of the Labour party, I greatly welcome the return of South Africa to the international community and the Commonwealth. We fully support the Bill.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. David Howell: This Second Reading debate is a good opportunity to welcome, on a bipartisan or, indeed, on a tripartisan basis, the arrival of South Africa in the Commonwealth. I know that it joined last year, but we are tidying the legislative requirements arising from that. This is also an opportunity to comment briefly on the entirely new and changed South Africa that is emerging and on the changed Commonwealth, something to which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) referred.
  This debate also enables us to comment on the changed policies which the United Kingdom has been developing, is developing and will need to develop to respond to the circumstances being legislated for in the Bill.
  We have all watched, sometimes with sadness and sometimes with high hopes, the ups and downs of South Africa as it has emerged from its horrific past and the prospects that have now opened up for all its people. About four years ago, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs visited South Africa and expressed the hope that this day would soon come and that the British

  489
  Government would realise that a completely new set of policies and approaches were required on aid, training, assistance and, especially, on development.
  We have begun to learn that aid, or the amount of that aid, does not necessarily equal development. The whole world now recognises that other motivations and mechanisms are at work which are possibly more effective in boosting development, especially in a country such as South Africa which has a vast infrastructure already in place and where there is a curious mixture that is often commented on: it is a first-world economy sitting in the middle of third-world economies.
  We very much hope that South Africa's politics will work as a result of the courageous actions of a number of people who have already been mentioned in this debate. I hope in particular that South Africa's new leaders have the skill, not only to be adaptable in their economic policies—they have given some signs that they are in realising that private, inward investment will be the driving force of the new South Africa for which we are legislating—but to approach their governmental tasks in a way that allows some decentralisation and some autonomous rule. I hope that that will enable the views of Zulu and Kwazulu people to be accommodated. It appears that the leaders are just about managing to do that although there have been some tense developments, especially during the elections in April last year.
  The new South Africa is full of opportunities and also full of needs that we have to meet in the most imaginative and lively way that we can. South Africa is joining a new Commonwealth whose membership, far from diminishing, is growing. It is striking that the new atmosphere in the Commonwealth—an atmosphere that will be reinforced by South Africa's full integration—is very different from that which prevailed in this country towards the Commonwealth and even in the Commonwealth gatherings of past years.
  To be brutally frank, many people admired the good works of the Commonwealth but regarded it as a talking shop and a forum that was not fruitful when it came to advancing the interests of South Africa, the United Kingdom or any other of its members. That mood has gone. A signal that it has gone is that other countries are trying to join. They would not want to join a club if it were only a talking shop, and South Africa would not be wanting to join under the Bill if it regarded it as such.
  As usual, the planners and grand strategists did not foresee what was happening. They wrote off the Commonwealth. They said that it was an interesting gathering of various worthy organisations but not part of the new global economic and geopolitical order. Their view is rapidly turning out to be wholly wrong. Something remarkable is happening.
  The exciting new markets of the world, which will include South Africa if it gets its politics right, coincide increasingly with those of the Commonwealth countries. They are South Africa, parts of India, or certainly places such as Bombay and Bangalore, and Oceania countries–Australia and New Zealand, which is one of the sparkiest economies in the world. They include Singapore and, dare I say, Hong Kong and even Malaysia. I hope that, as a full member of the Commonwealth, South Africa will be
  490
  one of the new and expanding markets where the opportunities for British trade and interests will be so valuable.
  The Bill marks not only an important step in the history of South Africa but an important moment in the history of the Commonwealth. Another great, and potentially very great, economy is coming back into the global system. I cannot resist mentioning the fact that we have well under half our interests in the European Union and considerably more than half, in terms of our total overseas earnings, outside the European Union in the booming markets of Asia and, I hope, increasingly, South Africa. We should take note of the great change in the trend of world trade, which is relevant to South Africa and its membership of the Commonwealth.
  As the Minister and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, it is not only a matter of trade. It has been said that the United Kingdom's investment in South Africa amounts to some £8 billion to £10 billion, although the figure that I have is £10 billion. Investment is beginning to flow back into South Africa. That is crucial, especially when it involves people in South Africa putting their own money back into the country. It is a sign that the situation is turning around.
  We can consider our own interests when passing this legislation and we need to consider not only our overseas trade and earnings but our overseas assets. The majority—80 per cent.—of our earning assets overseas are in South Africa and the booming Asian economies, on the Indian subcontinent and in Latin America. Up to 60 or 70 per cent. of our colossal invisible income comes from outside Europe, from the new markets.
  I have long argued that, although we must get our relations right with the European Union, it is, as the Bill reminds us, to the new markets where we already have much of our investment, that we should address our foreign policy interests and around which we should adjust our aid, development, training and human resource policies to ensure that our country's interests are enlarged as well as those of South Africa, as it joins the Commonwealth.
  I do not think that it is necessary for me to do so—I believe that it is fully understood—but I plead with the Government to bear in mind the fact that we are considering Britain's interests. We are not considering Europe alone; in bringing South Africa into the Commonwealth, we can also promote our own interests.
  The Prime Minister had a very successful trip to South Africa last September, when he mentioned many of those issues and saluted the welcome arrival of South Africa in the Commonwealth. He was also able to emphasise a new aspect of our relationship with South Africa—one that would be enhanced once it was fully in the Commonwealth. That is relevant to the schedules in the Bill, which deal with some military aspects, albeit at one remove.
  The Prime Minister surprised many people, as he said that we would be able to contribute to South Africa not merely by providing products—on those we have good and bad performance—or managerial skills, which are needed, but also by providing training for public administration, the military and the police and many other forms of human resource service of a type with which those of us considering categories of trade and investment are not usually familiar. He was touching on a very important new role for this country in markets such as

  491
  South Africa, southern Africa and the other Commonwealth countries that I described, which were written off and have suddenly turned out to be the booming opportunities of the future.
  The British military advisory training team is operating in South Africa in just the way that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs hoped that it would four years ago, and in the way that it operates in a number of southern African countries. Suddenly, the world is anxious to purchase our skills in military training and in integrating the different military groups that were fighting each other in and around the edges of South Africa.
  Countries are anxious to purchase our skills in providing good public administration, local government, and police administration, as well as legal and consultancy—a range of skills at which this country happens to be extremely good, in ways that we perhaps do not always appreciate. If we move into the new markets, like that provided by this new member of the Commonwealth, we can successfully deliver such a service—to the benefit of the recipient and of our own affairs.
  The Bill is a very valuable opportunity to ensure that we turn our policy away from—dare I say it—too much of an obsession with local affairs in Europe and Eurocentricity and towards our old friends, who have become our friends again in the Commonwealth structure, such as South Africa.
  We have the opportunity to develop the resource exports and earnings that I described with South Africa and other countries in a way that we have not done in the past. We have the opportunity to ensure that South Africa has access to the European Union, of which we are a member. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley said that the European Union was interested in various aspects of aid to South Africa. She even suggested that the Lomé convention should somehow embrace that country. We want to make very sure that the European Union is open to South African goods, which it by no means is, and that our friends in the Commonwealth countries that are seeking to be booming markets—I hope that South Africa will he one—have an opportunity to market their goods in European markets.
  We want to ensure that our aid and development policies are not entirely hijacked by countries with different priorities. As a global power, with global friends and markets, and long historical links with countries like South Africa, we must ensure that we are able to use our aid and development as much as we can to further those interests—to put it bluntly—rather than the different interests and priorities of other countries, which may want to use their aid and development as they wish. They should leave us to use our aid and development as we wish and to use it in our interests.
  This is an important moment for the House, for South Africa and for southern Africa around it, which will, I hope, benefit from that country's increasing stability and economic prosperity. This is also an important moment for those of us who are interested in ensuring that our island and country has a strong place in the completely new global order that is emerging as we move into the next millennium.
  5.14 pm
  Sir David Steel: This is indeed a very happy occasion and I readily join members of others parties in welcoming the Bill and in welcoming South Africa back into the Commonwealth.
  The Minister began by reminding us that Dr. Verwoerd led South Africa out of the Commonwealth more than 30 years ago, in anticipation of its expulsion. The Sharpeville massacre in 1960 was the single event that, more than any other, triggered the expulsion. As a student at Edinburgh university at the time, I remember my reaction as someone who had been at school in east Africa and I remember the deep sense of shock that went around the world. I signed up as a member of the new Anti-Apartheid Movement, little realising that later, when I came to the House, I would serve as its president for four years in the late
  1960s.
  I must also pay tribute to the many people who did not live to see the transition that we are celebrating today. I remember some of the people I worked with at the time, who were exiles from South Africa in London. One thinks of Ruth First, who was later blown up by a bomb. When I met her husband, Joe Slovo, at a very tricky point during the CODESA, Convention for a Democratic South Africa, negotiations in South Africa a couple of years ago, just after AWB—Afrikaanse Werstandsbeweging—thugs had driven through the wall of the convention building, he was in an extraordinarily optimistic mood. When I expressed great concern about the slowness and stickiness of the negotiations, he was bubbling away, saying, "No, no, have confidence. It's all going to work. We're going to get through these negotiations and see the transition." Before his death, he served for a tragically short time as the Minister of Housing in the new Government.
  I think of people like Albie Sachs, who was also blown up by a bomb and remains severely injured to this day. I also think of people from the liberation organisations, who used to visit us in London when they were in exile—people like Oliver Tambo and Sam Nujoma, who is now the president of Namibia—and of the meetings that we used to have in those days. They were either small meetings here in the House or great rallies across the road in Methodist Central hall. On an occasion like this, it is right that we pause and remember those people.
  I recall my first visit to South Africa in 1972 and the horrible conditions in which one had to meet people who opposed the Government. A pew in the Anglican cathedral was the only place that I was allowed to meet Helen Joseph, because she was under a banning order. I remember the brave women of the Black Sash movement, who did such practical work to alleviate the awful effects of the pass laws on individual citizens. I also remember the sports boycott campaign and later the sanctions campaign.
  I also think of two people I knew in the Liberal party in South Africa. That party dissolved rather than accept the imposition of racism on political parties. Alan Paton and his party ceased to exist as a political movement, but other people formed the Progressive Federal party, which later became the Democratic party. Notwithstanding the racist nature of politics and the political set-up, they believed that they should try, however inadequately, to mount some kind of opposition within the parliamentary system.

  493
  The great Helen Suzman was outstanding among those people and was, for so many years, alone. Even though, in later years, I disagreed with her over sanctions, I remain an intense admirer of the skills with which she battled alone in Parliament, and we have remained very good friends. I also remember Colin Eglin, whose role as her successor and leader of that small party was far greater in the negotiations and transition than the electoral strength of the party would have suggested. All those people deserve to be honoured on an occasion like this.
  The British Government always had a somewhat ambivalent posture, to put it mildly—I do not want to be controversial on a day like this—towards the South African Government. I went to South Africa again in 1986 as party leader. Although the British Government would not meet anyone from the African National Congress, they were happy to arrange for me to be hosted by our high commissioner in Lusaka, where the ANC had its offices in exile, and for me to meet Oliver Tambo and Thabo Mbeki in the drawing room of the British high commission. I could never quite get over the distinctions that the Foreign Office drew between contact and non-contact. It was a very positive discussion.
  On that occasion, if the House will forgive one further reminiscence, I had my first meeting with Pik Botha. He took the wind out of my sails. It was a tense meeting because I had been refused permission to meet the current President Mandela—then of course prisoner Mandela—and I was naturally angry about that. I visited Foreign Minister Pik Botha, and he spent the first 10 minutes of a long meeting trying to persuade me that he was really a liberal and that, unfortunately, all those other people in the Government were preventing him from doing the things that he would like to do.
  Mr. John Carlisle: He is a liberal.
  Sir David Steel: Perhaps later he justified some of that reputation.
  I looked up some of the notes of the meeting the other day. I remember one amusing exchange when he said, "You people who come from London pay far too much attention to the person of Nelson Mandela. After all, the chap has had no experience of Government. He has hardly ever made a speech; he has never held a press conference." As he obviously saw my jaw dropping, he added, "I don't suppose that was really his fault"—which, in retrospect, was the understatement of the year.
  Anyway, those are past days, and now we glory in the transition that has taken place. Like the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), I had the great pleasure and privilege of participating in the South African elections and in helping the supervision and monitoring process in Natal Province during that election. What a heart-warming and emotional experience that was. President de Klerk deserves thanks and congratulations for the imagination that he showed in leading his country, and especially his party, away from the past and on to the process of transition that is taking place.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley quoted part of Desmond Tutu's sermon in that great service that we had in Westminster Abbey. I remember that when he finished his analogy with the parable of the prodigal son and South Africa returning home, he finished by saying, "and so we
  494
  are having a party"—this in Westminster Abbey—and it was a great party. The country is about to have another party with the state visit of Her Majesty the Queen, which I am sure will be greatly appreciated by all races in South Africa. I trust that that visit will prove the seal on the act that we are performing today in passing the legislation.
  I want to say three things about the future, because there is a danger of endless repetition of the same themes. Our future relations with South Africa are extremely important at the moment, especially in the investment sector. I listened to the list that the Minister gave of the aspects in which we were hoping to help in the public sector and in the private sector. I trust that it was only inadvertence that he missed out one important aspect—housing.
  I believe that one of the great political problems that confronts the South African Government in its five-year period of transition and, perhaps more important, when they reach the end of that transition, is the failure to meet unreal expectations among the population. It is inevitable.
  There was great excitement in the mass of population; apartheid was ending and President Mandela was being installed. There is a natural feeling among uneducated masses that jam will come tomorrow—but jam will not come tomorrow.
  We can make fairly rapid progress in trying to improve housing conditions and, in so doing, we can produce some immediate employment. I hope that every effort will be made in the public and private sectors to increase investment in housing fairly immediately and dramatically.
  Secondly, I believe that the regional role of South Africa is most important. I gladly follow the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in that theme. Since South Africa left the Commonwealth, the surrounding picture in Africa has changed out of all recognition for the better. Almost every one of South Africa's neighbours to the north, to the east and to the west are now democratic. The only one over which a question mark continues to hang is Angola. The change is there and it is real. It has been one of the most encouraging political developments in a globe that is not always full of good news, that the countries of southern, central and eastern Africa are becoming more democratic and are beginning to follow the norms of good governance.
  South Africa itself is in such a dominant position economically that she needs to be the power house of the regeneration of the whole region. With the single exception of South Africa, I have noticed that there has been a tendency, in British and international political discussion, to write off Africa in recent times. That is why I was rather cheered by the speech of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) to which we have just listened.
  I hope that attention is returning to the needs of Africa, and that South Africa will be regarded as the pivotal power in that region, not as an isolated country.
  Thirdly, I want to sound a word of caution. During the period of sanctions, it was inevitable, I suppose, that South Africa would build up an arms industry of its own. I know that there is intense discussion in the present Government about the future of Armscor. I hope very much that, whatever else happens in South Africa, it will not continue to be one of the arms-exporting industries countries of the world.

  495
  As recently as about 18 months ago, it was discovered that the South African arms industry had been supplying both sides in the Rwanda civil war. That is not a record of which the new South Africa should be proud, and I hope very much that the arms industry will not play a major part in the future economy of South Africa.
  I conclude by joining, as I started, in congratulating all the people of South Africa who have made that transition possible, and welcoming them back into the Commonwealth. The people of South Africa have triumphed. They are at the moment in a mood of optimism, and it is up to us in the outside community to do our best to sustain that.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I welcome the chance to make a brief contribution, and to follow the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). I agree with a great deal of what he said. He took us very eloquently down the lanes of our recent memories. He mentioned several people, in South Africa and in this country, who are familiar to all of us, and we know of his long-standing interest, and indeed family background, in that part of world.
  Without mentioning any further names, let me say something that emphasises what the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale said. I visited South Africa about 18 months ago, when we were discussing the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association contribution to the elections. I had on my right-hand side, at the then embassy, someone who had done 12 years in Robben Island, who now is a distinguished political servant of the present Government, and on my left-hand side a similar servant of the present Government, who had done 10 years. At that time, when one would have thought that the atmosphere would be becoming tense and the elections were approaching—and those people were then but African National Congress servants—I was unable to determine, throughout the dinner, an iota of enmity towards those who had oppressed them.
  That is one of the best things that the new Government have in their favour. There are many other dangers, but the spirit of enmity—the spirit of revenge—was definitely not there. The balance that that peculiar island appears to have given to so many people who are now outstanding servants of a new country is remarkable. Goodness knows, we all wish it well.
  In that spirit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you have given a wide licence to the debate because the Bill is very limited, I say that I very much welcome the readmission of South Africa to the Commonwealth. I do so on behalf especially of the British South Africa all-party parliamentary group, which I have the honour to chair.
  The rivalries and divisions in South Africa, as with so many other things, were mirrored in the House. It is no exaggeration to say that one of the most acrimonious meetings that I have attended in the House took place in 1987, when we created the then British Southern Africa all-party parliamentary group as an alternative to the then British South Africa parliamentary group. Well in excess of 100 colleagues from both sides of the House were present. The meeting was bitter and divided. I was standing for a certain office. Other hon. Friends were standing for other offices.
  496
  I am not talking about the past. The old British South Africa parliamentary group is now a welcome part of our new British South Africa group. Indeed, only a few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), the last chairman of the old British Southern Africa group, was sitting next to me.
  Mr. John Carlisle: He was the secretary.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: And my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was its chairman. Forgive me for getting the offices wrong. The important point is that, if that can be done in South Africa, we can do it at Westminster. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will be mentioned a little later by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). It, too, has an important role to play, as does the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
  What has happened in South Africa is remarkable and I emphasise that the Bill can help in the process. The United Kingdom has much to do by way of training schemes—the police and the military have already been mentioned. We can also contribute by helping in local elections.
  May I make just one point to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)? I do not mean it in an unduly debating way, because this is not that type of debate. I agree that we must support British interests and concentrate on new friends and markets, but we must not forget that, although South Africa is interested in this country, what is paramount is its access to the European market. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford mentioned that. When British people talk about going out to South Africa, we must bear in mind what we can do for that country. We have much to give and can also help in the European context.
  That leads me to the most substantive point that I wish to make: the need to develop the South African economy. Such development is vital for the successful future of a country whose honeymoon period is virtually over. This is our first opportunity in the House to salute what has been happening, many hon. Members having had a little to do with it.
  As we progress, we must recognise that South Africa is entering more difficult periods, which is why the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale mentioned the need for housing in developing South Africa's economy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said, we are effectively dealing with two countries: a first division country and a developing country. When such a sudden transition takes place, triumphant though it is, there is a danger that it will be taken too rapidly. We must not encourage South Africa to get too carried away with it. It must keep its feet on the ground.
  Through certain personal experiences, I have a horror of the extremes of export capitalism, if I may call it such. One has seen whole societies in developing countries taken apart, their whole way of life grievously disturbed and corrupted, which has led to revolution. I am sure that other hon. Members have had the same experience. A real danger exists in that respect for South Africa. The good news is that there are probably enough people in South Africa to steady the Buffs and bring the necessary reality into the picture. It is not for us to race at development.

  497
  We must realise that when we go to South Africa and take from it, we must also give to it. That is the sort of society that we have and why we can contribute.
  Last, but not least, is the all-important question of access to the European market. We are members of the European Union so, nationally, we can do only so much. South Africa wants access to Europe and we should recognise that we can help in that respect. It is difficult to say that South Africa will become a member of Lome, because of the diversity within the country. Perhaps we should accelerate either the process of membership or association with Lome or some special bilateral agreement between the European Union and South Africa, so that South Africa knows where it stands with regard to access to European Union markets.
  The main message is that we should act soon, and act above all for the benefit of South Africa.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: I contribute to this debate largely because, as the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said, although the Bill is technical, this debate is our first opportunity to devote ourselves exclusively to the momentous events that occurred last year in South Africa. Those events were beyond our wildest dreams.
  For the past three years, I have been a member of the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, representing this country and the Mediterranean part of the Commonwealth. Throughout that period and before it, there was not a conference or meeting at which South Africa was not the focus of attention of the whole Commonwealth. Great fears were
  expressed by Sonny Ramphal, the previous Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. We seriously discussed what the Commonwealth would do to aid the small African countries surrounding South Africa if a bloodbath were to occur and how we would help them with refugees and by giving aid. Thank God that nothing remotely like that happened.
  I pay tribute to two people, above all, who have brought the current position about—one black and one white. Incidentally, they both came out of a prison to do that. The black one is President Nelson Mandela, who suffered the indignity, disgrace and discomfiture of being imprisoned for most of his adult life, not for a crime which the rest of the world believed in but for his beliefs, his desire to improve the lot of his own people and his desire for democracy and the values that we all share in the House, whatever our party.
  The white prisoner is Mr. de Klerk. South Africa would not be where it is today without Mr. de Klerk. He was a prisoner of a system—a cultural system of racism institutionalised by apartheid. He must have made many enemies within the National party and South Africa because he had the foresight to recognise that such a system could not continue in the modern world. He had the foresight to create the opportunity to bring Nelson Mandela out of prison, hold democratic elections, albeit supervised, and step down as president and allow a black man who had been in prison for most of his life to succeed him as president of South Africa. I therefore pay tribute to them both as they are both responsible for the present democratic state of South Africa.
  498
  Another reason why I speak in this debate is that, like the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), I am honoured to be a governor of the Commonwealth Institute, which is the first institution named in the schedule to the Bill. It has a considerable part to play in helping this country and Europe to understand South Africa and what it means to bring that country back into the Commonwealth of nations.
  The South African economy has been mentioned. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who has temporarily left the Chamber, rightly said that many European institutions do not recognise the momentous events that have occurred, and South African goods are still banned from those countries. Even in this country, not everyone has caught up with the developments. We have long been accustomed, because of apartheid, not to drink South African wine, eat South African fruits or visit South Africa.
  We must wake up to the fact that things have changed and organisations like the Commonwealth Institute can play a role in reminding people in this country that South Africa is now a democratic country that desperately needs exports and tourism. The institute and the Commonwealth officers must get the message across not only in this country but to the United States of America and to those European nations that have not caught up with the pace of events. That will be our welcome to South Africa as a new member of the Commonwealth.
  I think that the institute can play an important role in that process. It was created from the old Imperial Institute by the House in 1958 and, as many hon. Members know, it has premises in Kensington. The institute will do its best to perform this additional duty in respect of South Africa, although it has recently suffered a considerable setback at the hands of the Government.
  Despite an excellent Government report in its favour, the institute stands to lose 66 per cent. of its grant next year and 20 per cent. thereafter. Its Government grant will cease entirely in 1998-99. That is no way to treat an institution whose importance the Government recognise in the Bill by placing it first in the list of institutions that can help in welcoming South Africa back to the Commonwealth.
  The institute is fighting hack. Last year, it received more than £500,000 from various organisations; it is not sitting back and relying on Government funding or lying down to die because the Government grant is to disappear. It is fighting back, and it will win that fight. It will provide many new attractions, including exhibitions, seminars, conferences, displays and educational material about the newest member of the Commonwealth.
  Tourism will be most important to South Africa. South Africa has sunshine—something that we in Europe need so badly—during our winter. We are geographically closer to South Africa than to India, Australia, or Thailand. It is very expensive to travel there at the moment, but I hope that tourism firms in this country will recognise South Africa's enormous tourist potential.
  As well as the sunshine, South Africa has some of the best beaches in the world, game parks and great cities. It has a tourist infrastructure unequalled by most other African countries, with hotels, restaurants and caravan and camping grounds. It is a paradise for the tourist. Most important of all, South Africa has that hallmark of true

  499
  civilisation: people drive on the left-hand side of the road. That will certainly prove to be a big attraction for British tourists.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Would it not be a good idea for the Parliament to travel to South Africa in January or February for a joint session with the South African Parliament to discuss matters of common interest?
  Mr. Oakes: I think that that is a superb idea. I would not inflict the rigours of a British winter on the new South African Parliament by inviting its members to this Chamber. I think that it is a great idea, although my hon. Friend's suggestion is made tongue in cheek.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Leominster, who referred to our role in Europe. We can play an important transitional or bridging role in South Africa's development as the link between that new member of the Commonwealth and the whole of Europe. I do not believe that one cannot be a passionate supporter of Europe and a supporter of the Commonwealth. There is nothing alien about that. I emphasise that Britain can play an important role in bridging the gap between Europe and the Commonwealth. Tourists from this country, Germany, Scandinavia, Holland, and so on would flock to the South African sunshine if the tourist industry were to get its act together and provide holiday opportunities.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman. Does he think that there should be more public pressure on the South African and the British airlines to increase passenger capacity on flights to South Africa? It is almost impossible to book a seat on a plane to South Africa from about November to February. That shows that the prices are too high and the passenger capacity is too small.
  Mr. Oakes: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that private enterprise will take the lead—as it did in the case of Spain—and that some of the smaller companies will break the ring of airline prices by offering cheap fares and package tours.
  Tourism is one of the few industries today that is labour intensive. It generates many jobs of all sorts—not just high-powered ones, but jobs for waiters, chamber maids and chefs—in the country that is the tourist destination. I hope that the Commonwealth Institute will urge the tourist industry to hold a seminar for educational purposes. It will be performing a valuable task not only for this country but for the Commonwealth as a whole.
  Every member of the House—and certainly every member of the Commonwealth—warmly welcomes the return of South Africa to the Commonwealth of nations as a democratic country. As the hon. Member for Leominster and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) said, South Africa will experience great difficulties. After the euphoria of gaining the vote, people will expect to secure jobs and own houses immediately. That will not occur within a year—it may not occur for a decade.
  President Mandela and the Government of South Africa face an uphill battle. They have inveterate enemies within South Africa who want to see them fail. There is a tremendous groundswell of demand from the people of South Africa who have waited all their lives for the economic freedom that they do not yet enjoy. They will
  500
  not have that freedom until the South African Government have sufficient resources to provide the necessary infrastructure, jobs, educational places, and so on.
  This country—with our close historical bonds, our investments in and our love of South Africa—should take the lead in helping the South African Government to provide the economic liberty that the people of South Africa quite rightly demand.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: It is a personal pleasure for me to address my remarks to the House in a somewhat calmer atmosphere than that which has greeted my comments on the somewhat thorny subject of South Africa in the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said, in the spirit of "no revenge", I shall not try to wreak any on Opposition Members or upon my hon. Friends.
  In the context of the South Africa Bill, I would like to lay to rest two old chestnuts that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) tried to revive. [Interruption.] I beg the hon. Lady's pardon if I have mispronounced the name of her constituency but, following the defeat at Murrayfield on Saturday, I have forgotten everything that might be supportive of her adopted country.
  I totally refute the claim that I ever supported the system of apartheid. I said on many occasions on the Floor of the House that I considered it to be a gross violation of human rights. I worked to end apartheid. The difference between the hon. Lady and some of her friends and me is that we went about it differently. The hon. Lady and her friends and other opponents of the South African Government sought to end apartheid by chucking stones at a glasshouse. I respect their opinion and the way in which they waged their campaign. I felt—as my Government did to a certain extent—that contact with South Africa was necessary to ensure that change occurred from within that country.
  In that context, the almost total castigation of all South African politicians who were members of that Government, and in some cases possibly of the then Opposition, was totally wrong, because many politicians in South Africa—the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) mentioned one of the most prominent ones—were totally against the system of apartheid and were working even within the National party, let alone on the liberal side, to have that system abolished. Mr. de Klerk, not at the time the greatest liberal of them all, had the courage to see that the system was not only unworkable but unacceptable to the rest of the world.
  My second point is that I said in the House, even before South Africa had a change of Government, that I was looking forward to the day that it would rejoin the Commonwealth. It was a great sadness to many of us when in 1961 it voluntarily withdrew from the Commonwealth, with all the problems that it faced from that time onwards. I hope that we will welcome the Bill in a spirit of reconciliation and looking to the future; I certainly would like to do so.
  In some cases, the effect of sanctions had some political advantages in changing the then South African Government's mind; but they also had, as I think members of the Anti-Apartheid Movement and others must recognise, a devastating effect on the lives of many South Africans.

  501
  I found it strange that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley came to my constituency and, with great relish, in front of the press photographers poured bottles of South African red wine down the drain under some banner outside one of my public houses. I still have the photograph, if the hon. Lady would like to see it. That wine was produced in the Cape, mainly by those of non-white origin. Had the hon. Lady visited South Africa, as I did at the time, and spoken to the workers at those wine farms and in those factories, she would have appreciated that it was very easy, from the lush pastures of Westminster, to cry foul and support sanctions when they had a devastating effect on jobs, and realised the full implications of that policy on the people at that time.
  This is not the place to argue about whether sanctions were correct or whether they had the effect that some would claim for them, but they brought enormous misery to many people and were not totally supported throughout South Africa.
  I shall confine the remainder of my remarks to welcoming the resumption of sporting relationships throughout the Commonwealth and other bodies. As the House will know, that has been the force of my campaign ever since I entered Parliament in 1979.
  I salute the leaders of the African National Congress and in particular President Mandela, who as soon as he began to have some political influence, even before he became president after the election last April, said that sports sanctions should be lifted. He surprised many observers, as that was a political weapon which he could so easily have used to beat not only the white politicians, who at that time still held power within South Africa, but those outside who did not wish South Africa particularly well. Almost as soon as he was released from prison, he instructed that the ANC should co-operate in terms of the bringing international supporting relations back to South Africa. I congratulate and salute him for that, although at the time it was a surprise to me and the rest of the sporting word.
  It is one area in which contact was continued, in some cases in difficult and unfortunate circumstances. It meant that the aspirations of some South Africans, black and white, were to a limited extent still met in a system that was not acceptable to everybody: but, because many courageous sports administrators wanted to maintain and encourage sporting contacts with the rest of the world, in the early 1980s the then South African Government said that discrimination in sport was put on one side and apartheid laws such as pass laws did not exist for sporting purposes.
  We welcome South Africa back into the Commonwealth. We welcome the fact that sportsmen and women are playing on international fields. They played a marvellous game in Auckland in the centenary test against the New Zealanders. We look forward to English participation—and possibly Welsh participation, in honour of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley—in the World cup in South Africa, and in particular the visit by the Lords and Commons IX in September to fly the parliamentary flag so well flown in this place by the hon. Member for Leominster and the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes). I know that many hon. Members are very much looking forward to that trip. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, the Commonwealth
  502
  games, or the friendly games, are the place where South Africans have a chance to meet fellow sports men and women throughout the world, and the spirit of those games has improved over the past few years.
  I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford that the Commonwealth now has higher standing than before. That is possibly because the thorny question of South Africa has now gone off the agenda. As the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said, Sonny Ramphal, in his time as the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, seemed to spend most of his time berating the South Africans or trying to help those countries surrounding South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to say that some of his worst fears were never actually realised. Perhaps the politicians in Pretoria were not quite the ogres they were originally thought to be.
  The Commonwealth now has a chance to improve its image and, indeed, to become a greater power in a competitive international world. In business terms, South Africa will need an enormous amount of investment, and there are still those who are hung up on the old system. It is the duty of the House, and partly the purpose of the Bill, to ensure all the old adages and thoughts about South Africa are now swept on one side on the basis that it is a country that can give enormous impetus to the business economy in that part of the world. If it does so through trading within the Commonwealth, so be it; that obviously is to its advantage.
  We can ill afford to ignore the part that South Africa has played, certainly in economic terms, over the past few years. I would say to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley that, even before the change of Government, South Africa was trading with some 49 out of 51 African countries, and in some cases helping them with their economies. The prospects are very good. The shadow over South Africa is its own internal problems, over which we have little control. They involve the tribal system, which is rife throughout the whole of South Africa and which is a proud tradition not only in the black population but in the white population. That, to a certain extent, is for South Africa to sort out, with our assistance, guidance and help.
  I welcome the Bill. It is a joy for me to see South Africa back on an agenda to be talked about with pleasure, and back in the family of the Commonwealth. I salute the visit of Her Majesty the Queen within the next few weeks or so. It obviously will be an enormous boost to that country and I wish the Bill Godspeed through this place.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: Like every other right hon. and hon. Member in the Chamber, I welcome the Bill. It is perhaps a tribute to Nelson Mandela that he has created circumstances in which a Bill can be brought before the House that Members of all parties so warmly commend.
  One of the reasons why Britain's relationship with South Africa is so important is that, because of the country's recent history, so many members of the present South Africa Government spent many years in Britain. I am sure that I am not alone in numbering as close personal friends a few members of the present South Africa Government.

  503
  When I was a student, I was lobbied on things South African by Aziz Pahed, who then worked in the ANC office in London and was deputed to lobby students. As deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in South Africa, he now fulfils the same role as the Under-Secretary of State.
  I remember Nkozozana Dlamini-Zuma, now Minister for Health, who came to Britain after the Soweto disturbance to complete her medical training. When I was at York university, a fellow student in the centre for southern African studies was Alex Erwin, who is now deputy Finance Minister.
  Our country and South Africa have a unique opportunity to forge close links built on this mutual understanding and friendship. It is in the interest of our country as much as of South Africa to ensure that country's economy develops successfully and vibrantly to the benefit of all people in South Africa. That could also act as a catalyst for development throughout Africa.
  Of all the continents, Africa has the furthest to go in terms of development. It is the continent of greatest poverty, where more people become poor in real terms every year. It is important to aid the southern African economy to grow in every way that we can, so that it may act as a catalyst and powerhouse for development throughout Africa.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Is my hon. Friend aware that good relationships with South Africa are essential for certain British industries? In engineering, for example, some additives to steel that make it suitable for particular purposes are found principally in South Africa and Namibia. It is in our economic interests that the relationships to which my hon. Friend referred are fostered.
  Mr. Bayley: No, I did not know that—but as southern Africa is so mineral-rich, I wholly accept my hon. Friend's point, which emphasises my argument.
  I was one of several hon. Members present in the Chamber who were fortunate to be asked last April by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to visit South Africa as election observers. On the final day that the votes were counted, there were not enough tickets for observers, so to do something useful I spent the day finding out about health care in South Africa, which is an interest of mine in terms of domestic policy.
  I visited the Alexandra health centre in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg and Baragwaneth hospital, which serves Soweto. The doctors at Alexandra said that as there had been no census of black people in South Africa, they had undertaken a survey of social conditions. They identified 36 per cent. unemployment and 37 per cent. homelessness, with people living in self-built shacks.
  Only 19 per cent. of Alexandra's population had running water in their homes and only 12 per cent. had toilets. Fewer than one person in 10 out of a population of hundreds of thousands was over the age of 40. That emphasises that although political apartheid has gone, the legacy of apartheid still runs deep. We have humanitarian obligations to address that legacy and those inequalities.
  I was told at Baragwaneth hospital that the World Bank had reported that 53 per cent. of all children aged two to four in South Africa have stunted growth because of malnutrition. South Africa has half a million people infected with HIV, and another 500 cases are reported
  504
  each day. It is expected that in 15 years, between 18 per cent. and 24 per cent. of South Africa's population will be infected.
  If a rich and developed country such as Britain faced that burden of disease, its economic development, viability and social stability would be tremendously compromised and threatened. When a poorer country such as South Africa is under such a burden, although we wish it well, that places many rocks on the path to its economic development.
  I agree with the Minister that South Africa's development will need investment and trade as well as aid. Investment and trade will be driven by market forces. I urge the Minister to guarantee that the Government will the UK aid for South Africa's reconstruction to further the principles of social justice and erase the legacy of apartheid. That would be wholly consistent with the Government priority of targeting aid at the poor—since the poor were the victims of apartheid.
  Mr. Baldry: I have no difficulty giving the hon. Gentleman that undertaking.
  Mr. Bayley: I am delighted to hear that, and I will make one further bid.
  The problems of social disadvantage in South Africa will be dealt with largely by local authorities rather than the national Government. The Minister mentioned the elections in October. The Local Government International Bureau says that a number of British local authorities have expressed interest in playing a part in assisting the development of South African social policy through technical co-operation.
  The local authority technical link scheme for eastern Europe could perhaps provide a model for the exchange or provision of expertise. That scheme was recently evaluated, and although improvements were proposed, it was found generally to provide good value for money. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on whether a similar scheme could be launched for southern Africa as part of Britain's development programme.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), who was in South Africa during the course of the elections as a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association outbound delegation.
  I join the general felicitations for South Africa's return to the Commonwealth which gives rise to today's debate. Tonight in the Palace of Westminster, for the first time since 1961, we have the presence of a member of South Africa's national Parliament as a delegate to the 44th Westminster parliamentary seminar, co-hosted by the UK branch and international secretariat of the CPA, of which I have the honour to be chairman of the executive committee. It is a nice coincidence that both occasions are running in parallel tonight.
  Some years ago, we resolved to reach out beyond the CPA's natural remit to countries outside the Commonwealth, because we felt it appropriate, where there was a historical connection, to draw them back in by whatever means. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and I served for a number of years on the international executive committee, and worked together to that end in respect of South Africa.

  505
  One of my first pleasures on assuming the office that I continue to hold was to lead a mission to South Africa in November 1993. It was the exciting time when the transitional constitution was being finally drafted. The purpose was to restate the invitation of Commonwealth parliamentarians to return to—I must be careful these days—the brotherhood of the Commonwealth. We must be politically correct.
  During the mission, we talked to all the leaderships of the political parties that would have Members of Parliament. We talked to all the agencies that would be involved in running elections. We talked also to those in the voluntary sector—the Churches, for example. We found what I can only describe as a hunger for shared experience. As parliamentarians, we have our experience to share.
  The people to whom we talked were interested in the workings of elections. How were voters to be educated? How was the electoral mechanism to operate? Hovering on the scene was wonderment at what would happen after the forthcoming election. There was no doubt among those to whom we talked that the election would take place, but they were interested in what would happen after that. As soon as the election took place, we restated our invitation to South Africa to engage in Commonwealth parliamentary affairs.
  It was a great pleasure to have observers at the African regional conference in May 1994 at Nairobi in the shape of two Clerks of the South African Parliament. In September, the two Houses of the National Assembly passed resolutions to join the CPA. We had for the first time, under the leadership of Senator Govan Mbeki, a full delegation at the plenary conference at Alberta. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister enjoyed the bilateral meetings that he had with that delegation, as I did, under the senator's remarkable leadershi.
  Many tributes have been paid to personalities during the debate, and it is singular that Senator Mbeki has not been mentioned so far. I want to rectify the omission.
  He is a magnificent gentleman who spent 25 years incarcerated on Robben island. He has a serenity and tranquillity about him the like of which I have never come across before, anywhere. I asked him how he survived 25 years of incarceration without becoming bitter, and how he had developed such inner strength. He replied, "Well, I realised that there was another way. I spent my time in prison teaching the incoming youngsters that there was another way." The transitional process reflects the fruits of Senator Mbeki's work, along with that of Nelson Mandela, who also has inner tranquillity and the awareness that there is another way. That is why we now have stability.
  One of the common threads of the CPA's discussions is the need to shorten the learning curve of parliamentary expertise. The young lady who escorted me through the parliamentary buildings at Cape Town in August was, as it were, a pointer. She was of indian extraction. I asked how she found things. She replied, "It is extraordinary. I passed here for 20 years as a schoolgirl and student, and it meant nothing to me. Now I am part of it. It is me." She has been engaged in the learning curve. She realised how much there was to learn about working the institution. That common thread has come through all my subsequent discussions.
  506
  In the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister, and implicit in his brief, is the recognition that priority must be given to the concept of good governance. That has already been said about local government. Good governance is not only the good administration of government: it also involves the understanding of parliamentarians of those who have been elected to various institutions. We can make a contribution as parliamentarians. When I talk about parliamentarians, I mean the broadest spectrum of membership of the CPA.
  We believe in this place that we have much to offer, but we are not alone. There is a tremendous wealth of experience among 11,000 parliamentary Members from all forms and structures of democracy in the Commonwealth. The strength of the CPA is that we can draw together the key people who are needed to match a workshop to the needs of the moment and the agenda for it. It is a unique and powerful asset.
  In South Africa, there is a National Assembly with two Houses. There are also nine provincial Parliaments. Most of the Members of the provincial Parliaments have never sat before in any instrument of government, or instrument of legislation. That is where one of our great tasks lies.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to think about investing some of his aid budget, in conjunction with Baroness Chalker as Minister with responsibilities for overseas development, in parliamentary workshops. A multiplicity of workshops is required within the terms of a good-value-for-money operation. It will not be good enough to set up one workshop and leave. I envisage a programme that will continue over many years. Constant attention must be given to meeting the need.
  We must pull together as well the political and parliamentary expertise in surrounding countries, all of which are welcoming the concept of seminars or workshops. I prefer in this context to talk about workshops. We shall be setting up one in Botswana in May-June. We set up one recently in Malawi. One was established recently in Lesotho.
  We must maintain the pressure on a wider basis, so that parliamentarians get to know one another, talk to one another and understand and share experiences. Shared experience will lead to a set of circumstances that stops electioneering on the basis of unnaturally heightened expectations. Electioneering must be based on deliverable promises and an understanding of how to deliver those promises. These understandings are so important if there is to be sustained credibility in the concept of democratic elections and government.
  Mr. Baldry: If my hon. Friend has ideas that he would like to bring forward, it goes without saying that my right hon. Friend Baroness Chalker and I would give them constructive consideration.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Having drawn his intervention, I shall move on to my final remarks.
  To put on a different hat, we are doing our bit in gener-ating trade between the United Kingdom and South Africa. One of the greatest pleasures that I have had as Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Catering was to say on the day after South Africa rejoined the Common-wealth, "Let there be South African wines for sale in the Dining Room." The House is doing its bit.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I join all hon. Members in welcoming South Africa back to the Commonwealth, and have very much enjoyed the contributions to the debate. I have one small interest to declare, in that I spent a lot of time in South Africa in the 1980s. I was arrested by the South African police.
  Perhaps, unlike the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who is no longer in his place, I saw a different side to South Africa on my visits down there. I wrote a book—now long remaindered and forgotten—about the black trade union movement, "Black workers, their unions and the struggle for freedom in South Africa". If any hon. Member really cannot fall asleep tonight, I would be happy to provide a copy.
  I welcome the Bill and pay tribute—many tributes have been paid this afternoon—to the people who have not been mentioned: those in the black trade union movement in South Africa, who, in the 1970s and 1980s, were the school of democracy, out of which the black majority in South Africa grew into a democratic maturity, which enabled them, with the help of the ANC and of overseas support, to form a movement of ideas and pressures such that it obliged President de Klerk—I salute his recognition of what was happening—to recognise reality.
  The Minister referred to the help for entrepreneurs that the Government are providing. I would like him in his closing remarks to address the question of what help he will be providing the trade union movement in South Africa, via the Trades Union Congress and the Commonwealth Trades Union Council, which is linked to the Commonwealth Institute.
  I know that our ambassador in South Africa has a discretionary fund of some £50,000, which is used to help the several million trade unionists, and the Overseas Development Administration as a whole provides a little under £200,000 for trade union help throughout the entire world. I compare that with the Netherlands, a much smaller country than Britain, which provides some £6 million for that kind of work. The United Kingdom currently gives the smallest help of any industrial country supporting the trade union movement in South Africa. I draw the House's attention to that singular lapse in Government policy towards South Africa.
  During the 1970s, Britain had a good record. The British consular department and British diplomats in South Africa were extremely helpful to the burgeoning black independent trade union movement. That was snuffed out dramatically in the 1980s, when the British embassy and British official offices in South Africa became no-go areas for the black trade union movement, at a time when other major countries, such as the United States, Germany, Sweden—even Japan—were giving help and support to the independent black trade union movement in South Africa.
  American companies—the Minister referred to the role of British business—responded to the call of black South Africans by withdrawing from activity in South Africa. BMW and Mercedes, those giant German companies, formally signed legally binding social charter-type agreements with the black trade union movement in South Africa, while British companies, notably BTR and Shell, victimised trade unionists, repressed them, tried to break their unions and fired many thousands of workers after they had gone on strike.
  508
  We have turned a page, and that is good, but let this House record simply that the 1980s were a page of shame for British policy towards the South African people. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister might be prepared to pay tribute to the Trades Union Congress and to the Commonwealth Trades Union Congress, to express, perhaps, a word for the unknown trade unionists—if I had time, I would list the many names—who were killed in the struggle to form independent and democratic trade unions in South Africa.
  South Africa has managed its return to democracy, and has done so in large part because of the great experience in democratic organisation of the trade union movement. When parliamentary procedures were denied to the black majority, it was in the trade union movement that they could develop the art of argument, compromise and give and take. That black independent trade union movement was the great school of South African democracy.
  I hope that we can encourage British companies as they increase their investment in South Africa—and I wish them so to do—to enter into a partnership with the black independent trade union movement in South Africa, because the sphere of economic development, the need for social stability as South Africa tries to handle the problem of the expectations of the mass of its people, is so important for its future harmonious development.
  I welcome the Bill. I welcome South Africa's return to the Commonwealth. I rejoice in the fact that I can now go back there freely, and not have to face harassment by the police. I welcome the fact that I can drink South African wine—and wonderful wines they are. I long to take my family on holiday to South Africa, because the air fares will become cheap and the tourist industry will develop.
  But the British Government should learn lessons from their mishandling of working people in South Africa. They should step up aid, via the TUC and the Commonwealth Trades Union Council. They should also learn the lessons that, in many other parts of the world, it is the working people, whether in Indonesia or China, who are forming independent unions, which are the schools of democracy for those nations as they seek the path not just to development or economic growth but to a democratic participation in the international comity of nations.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I rise to express my sincere support for the Bill. I am sure that it also has the sincere support of my constituents. Although it is a rather narrow Bill, which deals with administrative frameworks, under your generous chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the debate has ranged rather more widely.
  The important fact, of course, is that legislative frameworks can never create the results for which the legislation was prepared. The result arises from the actions of individuals, many thousands of them, carrying out actions as a result of the legislative changes. As far as our relationship with South Africa is concerned, it is not the changes in the law that will re-create the bonds we had in the past, and those which we hope to build in future, but the personal relationships between those who live in this country and those who live in South Africa itself.

  509
  I particularly wish to speak about the schedule, because it makes reference to the armed forces of the Republic of South Africa and also the United Kingdom, and about the relationship between those armed forces when there are reciprocal visits. I suppose that it is unlikely that we will ever again have the situation that arose in the second world war, when hundreds of thousands of British service men entered Cape Town on their way to the battle fronts in the far east and the middle east.
  My own father was one of those who went into that city, and he was struck by the amazing welcome given to service men by ordinary families in South Africa at that time. We shall never have that scale of interchange of service personnel again.
  I represent Portsmouth, which is a great naval base. In that city are those who have family links with South Africa, and they have always prayed for the coming of the situation that we have today, when they can feel free and happy in their associations with that country. They can once again see it as a friendly nation and a good place for their family to live.
  I hope that the legislation will facilitate the interchange of naval forces between the United Kingdom and the Republic of South Africa. In the past, there were many links between the two navies; many of my constituents who have retired from the naval service remember the days when they exercised with the South African navy in the south Atlantic from the Simonstown naval base. Many of them say that they were some of the best days they remember, and that it would be marvellous if we could return to such an association.
  I trust that young sailors from South Africa will come to our great ports, such as Portsmouth, for training in naval skills. We can offer that to many countries, but on this occasion specifically to South Africa.
  I hope that once again our vessels will be sailing to the south Atlantic, to Simonstown, because there is a great security need for a joint naval presence in that part of the world. This afternoon is no time to refer to the conflict in the south Atlantic, when South Africa was not part of the Commonwealth. What a difference it would have made had we had naval facilities then that could have been utilised for the assistance of our armed forces.
  The indication in the Bill that we will be welcoming to the armed forces of South Africa as members of Commonwealth visiting forces here will not only mean that we shall welcome them to the United Kingdom but that we shall ensure that our armed forces are represented at joint exercises in South Africa and the south Atlantic.
  The Bill is one more step towards the rebuilding of the traditional family friendship which exists between all people in Britain and all the races in South Africa.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) is right to draw attention to the family relationship—so many of us have family in South Africa, my own from the time of the Boer war; I have a cousin who must be the only Myfanwy Roberts in South Africa—and the reservoir of good will which has resulted from the way in which our history has grown up.
  510
  It is a great pleasure to follow so many distinguished hon. Members who have spoken with great personal knowledge of South Africa during the past decades, and a joyful surprise to he involved in a debate on South Africa where I am not crossing swords with the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). I recall that he had a hot line to the old regime and I am glad that he is now reconciled to the new regime—
  "even the ranks of Tuscany".
  It is grand that, if there is such wonderful evidence of reconciliation in South Africa, the least we can do in the House is to share some of that same reconciliation. I recall a remarkable Afrikaner whom I met recently who told me that in South Africa they talked about the liberation of the black man, but that his experience as an Afrikaner and a white man was that it was he who was now liberated in his own country. Therefore, a mutual sense of liberation is part of the prospects, the encouragement, for the new South Africa.
  All who have spoken have drawn attention to the fact that this is a technical Bill, but it gives us one of those rare opportunities to debate South Africa. Like many hon. Members I am genuinely excited about the developments in South Africa—
  "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive".
  I was a diplomat in 1962 when South Africa left the Commonwealth. The in joke at the time was that the South African representative had said with surprise that so much would South Africa welcome members from the Commonwealth, black and yellow members of the Commonwealth, that they would build a special hotel for them. That was perhaps the last straw which preceded the departure of South Africa from the Commonwealth.
  There then followed almost three decades of missed opportunities, political short-sightedness and oppression of some of the brightest and best people in South Africa. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and others have drawn attention to that reconciliation, that forgiveness, which is now so much part of the black experience in South Africa. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who has just left the Chamber, drew attention to the importance of the trade unions in South Africa for education, maturity of approach and moderation.
  I want to pay tribute to another group in South Africa whose praises are not sung so much but who so helped to bridge the divide. Future historians will ask why, despite the Bantu Education Act and the oppression of the black man over those decades, when South Africa became liberated there were so many black people with the political maturity to move into positions of responsibility. That is partly due to the trade union movement, to which I pay tribute, but also to the churches which allowed black people to move as far as their talents would take them. One thinks of Archbishop Tutu, not only a wonderful man but a symbol of what churches were doing. Dr. Beyers Naude of the South African Council of Churches and the Reverend Frank Chikane are just two of the people who might feel rather like the first stage of a rocket; they have played their role and can now return to the church.
  In the middle and late 1980s, many white South Africans were reading Alistair Horne's book "Algeria. The Savage War of Peace" and wondering whether white people in South Africa would be fleeing the country with only a flimsy piece of luggage as many of the whites in Algeria had done. Having visited the country more than

  511
  20 times during the past years, in my judgment one of the fundamental reasons why that did not happen was the influence of the church and the fact that there were grand Christians on both side of what might have been a barricade. That gave an education to both sides. It allowed people to obtain a moderate view and training in administration. The reconciling role of the Church has been fundamental in recent South African history.
  I had the privilege to speak on South Africa for the Opposition for nine years. I recall my first visit to South Africa in the early 1980s. I telephoned the man who was then the number two at the South African embassy because I did not want to waste money on my air fair only to be banned on arrival in Johannesburg. That man said that he would not ban me. It is again a happy symbol that that man is now the director general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in South Africa—another example of that happy reconciling process in South Africa.
  Concurrently, I became senior vice-president of the Association of West European Parliamentarians for Action Against Apartheid—AWEPAA—which tried to show, even in the darkest days when the army was in the townships and despair was all around, that there was a progressive view in Britain and Europe in respect of the South African situation.
  There was also the great role of the Commonwealth. Many in South Africa knew that there were Europeans on their side, but they also knew that the Commonwealth, the reconciling, multi-racial, unique Commonwealth—this is the essential part of the Bill—was fighting their corner.
  No one has mentioned, for example, the role of Chief Emeka Anyaoku, the current Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. I understand that he wrote a substantial part of the seminal report of the Eminent Persons Group, produced in 1986—or acted as scribe—and, through considerable personal diplomacy in the region, has helped to build bridges to the new South Africa.
  It should be borne in mind that the sub-region is essentially a Commonwealth region: virtually all the countries included in it belong to the Commonwealth. The exceptions arc Mozambique—which currently has what that same Secretary-General calls a cousinly relationship with the Commonwealth, whatever that may be, and wants to join—and Angola. The Commonwealth has played, is playing and will continue to play a major role. It is thus hardly surprising that, even in the darkest days, everyone said that once fundamental change had taken place in South Africa one of the first things that they wanted to do was rejoin the Commonwealth. The Bill adds some of the nuts and bolts.
  It could all have gone very wrong; but if we believe in miracles in politics, here indeed was a miracle. If there is still scope for joy in politics, here was joy on all sides. A number of us attended the elections last April. I was in Port Elizabeth, and for me the great symbolic time was the moment when I saw a queue of people in the sunshine waiting to vote. The white employer stood with the black servant; black, white, white and black all stood patiently in line—and each vote had the same value. For me, that was part of the great symbolism of reconciliation.
  I remain confident about the future. I shall not speak at length about the role of the Commonwealth, because the hon. Member for Hereford—a distinguished former chairman of our United Kingdom Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and now the international president—has already said a good deal about it. We
  512
  know, however, that both the international CPA, which welcomed South Africa back to the family at Banff in October—no legislation was necessary for that return—and our national CPA, along with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, have played a major role.
  What can we in the United Kingdom do now to help the process? We can, for instance, try to ensure that South Africa does not slip off the screen; despite all the past interest in Namibia, it—alas—has almost done that. We can try to ensure that South Africa remains high on the international agenda.
  Training has been mentioned. Even before the fundamental change in South Africa, the Commonwealth commissioned a report on human resources in the new South Africa: that was an important step. Moreover, training can work both ways: just as we can train South Africa's army, police, educationists and provincial government, South Africa can come and train us, helping to teach us how to play cricket and rugby.
  The United Kingdom can play a unique role as an advocate for South Africa in the various international forums of which we are part. The UK, indeed, has a unique role in the world because of our membership of so many of those forums.
  Let me say a little about the European Union and the Lome convention. This is probably the main current issue. Much has been said about aid, but it is a relatively small though valuable part of the equation. What South Africa wants most is access to an open European market. Along with those of our European Union partners who do not see the Union as a closed circle, we should act as an advocate for South Africa and others, recognising that in fighting for South Africa's cause we are fighting the cause of the region. South Africa is the region's main motor: in energy matters, for instance, ESKOM has played and will play a major part.
  South Africa has recently sought what is described as "alignment" of its future relations with the European Union through the Lome convention. The word "alignment" has been used because the South Africans recognise, realistically, that they cannot hope to become full members of the Lome convention framework: as many hon. Members have pointed out, South Africa is unique in belonging to both the first world and the third world, and the two are very close together there.
  What interests South Africa most are the trade provisions relating to market access, cumulation and the right to tender for European development fund projects. The European Commission, however, has ruled out the prospect of the Lome trade provisions being applied to South Africa. It proposes a two-tier approach—effectively an agreement between the European Union and South Africa on trade and co-operation and a protocol to the Lome convention, covering the terms and conditions of the South African accession to the convention.
  The Commission argues that there would otherwise be trade diversion, that South Africa's position would be in breach of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and that a number of GATT countries would object to it. Which are those countries? For example, given its record, the United States is hardly likely to take the blame for the blocking of South Africa's access to Lomé.
  If South Africa cannot diversify and expand its export base, it will be unable to restructure its economy and to bring about the necessary social and economic change.

  513
  That is likely to endanger the democratic transition which has taken place as people see their living standards falling as the appalling legacy of apartheid takes its toll. That is the challenge to us in the United Kingdom, and to the European Union. After all those brave words—all those resolutions in the 1970s and 1980s—when it comes to the hard fact of market access, will we allow South African goods to enter our market? If we do not, we shall certainly endanger the democratic process.
  We can hold as many seminars and workshops on good governance as we like—of course those are important—but if the economic substructure fails, the great South African experiment will fail. That is the challenge that I present to the Minister in respect of our country, as an advocate for the new South Africa.
  I believe that it is in the United Kingdom's national interests to act as such an advocate—not only because of our great historical ties, the large number of British people who live in South Africa and our investments there, but for sheer human and moral reasons: because of the way in which we have acted in the past, colluding with the apartheid regime in some ways. Along, I am sure, with the rest of the House, I welcome South Africa unreservedly as an old friend—a prodigal who now returns. The Commonwealth has played a vital and historic role in the past, particularly in the period of transition; I believe that it is now ready to play, at every level, an important and unique role that no other institution can perform.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Tribute has rightly been paid to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy for their practical help during the year or so of South Africa's transition. Tribute has also rightly been paid to individuals and institutions which have helped in the fight against white supremacy over the past 20 to 30 years. Many of those people have been named.
  I agree with the tributes that have been paid to the South African Council of Churches and especially to Beyers Naude and his successors. Anyone who had the opportunity to listen to him during the years when he was under a banning order and one normally had to meet him in a church, would have been impressed by the way that one of the leading theologians and seminarians provided a spark which was equivalent to that provided by the young man who returned to South Africa to refuse to wear his army uniform.
  When one sees the brightest and best willing not only to speak up but to sacrifice their future position and reputation for what they believe to be right, one appreciates the struggles carried out not only by the prominent examples but, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, by the countless numbers of people who tried to work in the trade union movement and in other civic organisations.
  In looking forward I hope that people will support the work that will lead to local elections. I have a specific association with the Educational Trust for Civic Responsibility in South Africa. One of its leading lights is Mildred Neville, who for many years worked with the
  514
  Catholic Institute for International Relations providing unbiased briefings and information links with people in this country.
  One of the people who worked with Mildred Neville, Tim Sheehy, managed to return to South Africa to work in connection with the European Community aid effort, having had various other roles in the South African Development Co-ordination Conference and in Zimbabwe.
  When I was elected to the House nineteen and a half years ago, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Baroness Thatcher, asked me what I was interested in and I said that I was interested in trying to persuade the white supremacists in South Africa and in the Conservative party that they were morally wrong and militarily losers. The positive side was to say that others could benefit from the democracy and the flexible economic system that we have built, which we protect, and from which we benefit. We have one person, one vote, and British Governments do not control as much of the economy as, sadly, the South African Government did.
  The schedule deals with visiting forces. Some of the actions by South African Government forces during the years of apartheid were disgraceful and should have been more widely condemned. I draw the attention of foreign Governments to what I think are called the Whitehall guidelines, which are available in the Library. The protocol department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office took the opportunity to express to embassies and high commissions assurances that they would receive the highest consideration. They were also told, "By the way, do not in this country go in for the bully-boy tactics that you use in other countries."
  Some of the bombings, assassinations and intimidation were carried out by agents of BOSS, the Bureau of State Security. South Africa was not the only country guilty of such actions but it was more guilty more often, and the Government should have exerted more pressure to eliminate such activity.
  Father Trevor Huddleston has been mentioned. Not just in this country but in Africa, people generally owe him a great deal. I link with Father Huddleston the name of Mrs. Jill Thompson who has worked with him over most of the past 30 years. I hope that Father Huddleston will enjoy his time in South Africa. What a blessing it is that he has lived to see his life's work reach a successful culmination. He was helped by the late Tony Rampton and Mrs. Rampton. People like that, prophets who preach often to an apparent wilderness, need support. I hope that many whose names have not been mentioned will be able to share in the tributes that have been paid by hon. Members.
  Another clergyman who deserves recognition is Bishop Timothy Bavin, the Bishop of Portsmouth. He gave up his position in South Africa so that Desmond Tutu could rise in the Church and carry on his work more prominently. I hope that Bishop Timothy Bavin will accept the congratulations of hon. Members. They are well deserved.
  People have faced many difficulties, some of them arising from ignorance in the general community. Many young people in this country have been sensitised to world affairs by some of the struggles against apartheid. I fear that the Government are making a mistake in reducing funding to the Council for Education in World Citizenship. Work such as that carried out by the council, which provides material encouragement and holds conferences for children in schools throughout the

  515
  country, has helped to make people more aware that people in other countries cannot take for granted that which we in Britain take for granted.
  I plead with the Government to reconsider their decision to cut severely the funding for the CEWC because that would be a mistake. It is even more of a mistake than the severe cutting of funds for the Commonwealth Institute, although that institute brings home to children what it is like to grow up in the world and not just in one part of it.
  My final point is about family and personal connections. In this short debate and in others over the years, it has been quite clear that hon. Members have benefited from the opportunity to visit South Africa and the front-line states. It is a mistake to believe that we can he world citizens without travelling. One way or another we should add to the opportunities to go on Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegations. We should also take the opportunities that are occasionally offered by airlines or by other countries. We should be able to decide for ourselves whether to go on visits.
  Most of my visits to Africa as an individual have been very productive because I have been able to move around and meet, as it were, non-legal people—those who work in townships or even in the more affluent suburbs of Johannesburg. One can also meet people in churches and sometimes in prison. Such opportunities are valuable. We cannot do our job properly in encouraging the Government or in speaking up as British Members of Parliament in other countries if we cannot travel with reasonable independence.
  Even if the cost means cutting the number of Members of Parliament, we should provide a reasonable travel allowance to be used at one's own discretion. Those who use it for freeloading and holidays would be discovered, but those who would use it for detailed investigative work of the kind that I have mentioned deserve the opportunity to do that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Wells.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Broadcasting of the House
  6.58 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the First Report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting of Session 1993-94, House of Commons Paper No. 112, on Developing the Parliamentary Broadcasting Archives.
  I also move the motion in my role as Chairman of the Select Committee on Broadcasting. By way of background to the debate, perhaps I should explain that the master videotapes of all proceedings in the Chambers of both Houses, and of those Committee proceedings that are chosen for recording by the broadcasters, are transferred to the Parliamentary Recording Unit, which is located in the television control room complex at 7 Millbank. The tapes are retained by the PRU until the end of the Session following their date of origination, after which they are transferred to the National Film Archive, which is responsible for ensuring that the tapes are catalogued and stored in properly controlled conditions, in return for which it receives an annual management fee from Parliament. A substantial historical library is being built up.
  Most right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of the existence of the broadcasting archives through the tapes of their speeches which they order from the PRU—mostly, I assume, for their personal use—but there is also a small and growing interest from individuals and organisations outside the House. They are making use of archive material for a range of purposes, some educational, some charitable and some avowedly commercial. Many of those uses were not and, indeed, could not have been anticipated when the original rules governing the use of archive material were drawn up. Our report, therefore, represents a modest and—with one possible exception that I will come to later—uncontroversial attempt to bring those rules up to date.
  The Committee's 16 recommendations are set out fully in the report, so I will do no more than refer briefly to some of the more important ones. The Committee was especially keen to encourage the use of archive material
  for educational purposes, both
  "as a means of spreading knowledge of the Parliamentary system of government and as a vehicle for portraying some of the less glamorous but important aspects of the House's work".
  This debate might come under that heading. It is certainly not glamorous or, I hope, controversial, although it has some importance.
  The report therefore endorses the continuation of the existing concessionary rate for tapes purchased for educational purposes, gives the Supervisor of Parliamentary Broadcasting the lead role in regulating educational videos featuring parliamentary archive material, and accepts in principle the idea of a loans system, whereby video material could be hired by schools and other educational establishments for a small handling charge.
  As I explained earlier, all non-broadcasting uses of archive material are governed by a set of guidelines, and those are published in an appendix to the report. Essentially, they are declaratory in form and, accordingly, considerable scope exists for their interpretation in specific cases—there is scope for judgment. The

  517
  Committee took the view that, as the permanent televising of the House's proceedings was firmly established, it was sensible to adopt a somewhat less restrictive approach to the application of the guidelines. As the report puts it:
  "This implies a presumption that a particular use of archive material… ought to be permitted unless there is a compelling reason why it should not be".
  In that context, of particular relevance is the use of videos for campaigning purposes, where the Committee thought it increasingly impractical to seek to uphold a rigid notion of political balance.
  The important point to emphasise, however, is that the Committee is not recommending a complete free-for-all. Important safeguards will remain in the form of a requirement on the part of video producers to uphold the dignity of the House and the rights of hon. Members. That does not mean that individual Members can exercise a veto over the use of videos featuring extracts from their speeches, but they will be protected against, for example, editing techniques that distort their speeches or that make them appear to express views which they do not hold.
  In addition, the Supervisor of Parliamentary Broadcasting exercises a monitoring role and has the right, where she thinks it appropriate, to preview any video that has been the subject of an application to use archive footage.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: One of the disgraceful aspects of American electioneering and, in effect, television party political broadcasts is the practice of picking up a sentence uttered once by a potential opponent and running it over and over again. We cannot do that in this country. I would be grateful to know whether a political party could take an expression by, say, the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition and use it in a party political broadcast. Will there be any controls or regulations to safeguard against that?
  Mr. Newton: If my hon. Friend will bear with me for a while, I am coming to the specific question of party political broadcasts, which is the area of controversy to which I referred earlier, and where the position is different from what I have just described.
  There is one other important way in which the House's rights are protected. In the case of videos produced for commercial gain, a royalty can be levied following discussions between the supervisor and the producers. That provision has already been invoked in a couple of cases, but I would not encourage the House to look to this as a source of large windfall revenues. The market for such material remains relatively small, but it is right that the House should derive some return from whatever profits are earned.
  I referred earlier to one possibly contentious recommendation in the report—this brings me to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). It relates to the use of parliamentary archive material in party political and election broadcasts. Hitherto, that has not been permitted, but the Committee concluded, after some considerable discussion, that that was no longer a tenable position, especially in view of the proposed more liberal approach to the use of videos for non-broadcasting purposes. The report therefore
  518
  recommends that clean feed extracts—the pictures—may be used in party political and election broadcasts, but with two important provisos.
  Those are that the material in question should be taken from a speech or other contribution by a member of the party responsible for making the broadcast, and that it should be included only with his or her permission. That would allow, for example, any of the parties to feature extracts from a parliamentary speech by their leader, but it would not be possible to show a clip featuring a political opponent. I think that that answers the principal thrust of my hon. Friend's concern, which I share.
  Some Committee members wanted to go much further than that by removing all restrictions on the use of archive material in party political broadcasts and election broadcasts—which is what my hon. Fried would fear—but, as the House will learn from the minutes of proceedings, an amendment to that effect was defeated on the acting Chairman's casting vote. I was unable to be present at the sitting. If I had been present, there would not have been a need for a casting vote. The matter was settled in that way. I think that that was the right approach.
  Perhaps I could briefly mention one other recommendation—that the terms of the licence granted by the Speaker to Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd.—known as PARBUL—should be amended to make it clear that the right to exploit, or to permit others to exploit, the signals for non-broadcasting purposes remain with Parliament from the date of the origination of the material. If the House approves the report tonight, the change will probably be incorporated in the new licence, which will need to be issued when the current one expires in July 1996.
  The report makes a number of useful, although quite modest, recommendations that should encourage the more widespread availability and use of the recorded proceedings of the House, but without permitting what many of us would regard as their abuse, which my hon. Friend was concerned about. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members share that objective, and I therefore commend the report to the House.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. John Battle: As the Leader of the House said, the debate is perhaps non-controversial and less glamorous than others, but it is important—slightly more so than some people would imagine simply from reading the title on the Order Paper. It is about how we present our proceedings and how Parliament is interpreted and understood not only now, but well into the next century. New techniques are being used that have moved on a long way from pen and ink and newspaper reporting, and Hansard.
  Some of us may recall the speech of the Secretary of State for Employment on back to basics and on fighting the "new British disease" of cynicism about institutions. It was delivered on 14 January last year at the annual dinner held by the president of the Conservative Way Forward group. He opened by saying that he would talk about one of the greatest threats that ever confronted the British nation. After seven pages of his speech he concluded by saying:
  "Parliament was, 1 think, ill advised to let in the TV cameras in."

  519
  I do not think that we can be held totally responsible for the undermining of our institutions such as the monarchy, the Church and Parliament simply because the television cameras have been allowed in here. I welcomed and was glad about that decision. We need to move with the times, but we also need to shape the destiny of the way in which we are presented in televisual terms. I do not accept the melodramatic and pessimistic view of the presentation of our work held by the current Secretary of State for Employment.
  As the Committee suggests and as the Leader of the House said, we need to be a little bit wary. Paragraph 62 of the report, under the heading "The Editorial Guidelines", states:
  "This sort of material will be shown to audiences many of whom will be of an impressionable age."
  I suggest that our debates are not a matter for the British Board of Film Classification. It is not for that body to decide whether our debates should be rated as 18, 15, or only to be watched with parental guidance. I do not think that parliamentary speeches could terrify our children.
  I welcome the report's recommendations. There needs to be a record—a video record—to catch living history. In this short debate, we should support and encourage the wider use of the parliamentary broadcasting archives for two reasons: first, to enhance the understanding of our parliamentary democracy and increase awareness of its complexity; and, secondly, to earn revenue from our proceedings. There is nothing wrong with earning a return by allowing the material to be used. That implies that we hold the copyright for that material here. The idea that a video of parliamentary proceedings will be damaging does not reflect the fact that there has been a real change in technology with which we are obliged to keep pace. As the report says, we can enhance revenues, but that should be done without reductions in quality.
  There is space to expand the scope and use of the archive, not only by Members of Parliament but to disseminate as widely as possible information about the working of the Chamber and the House of Commons. There are questions of royalties and copyrights and respect for the integrity of debate. But I hope that the House can call together the authorities of the House, the Library with its publicity role, the Public Information Office and the Parliamentary Recording Unit to ensure that we have the means to facilitate access to our material as widely as possible.
  There is a shift towards seeing the video of our proceedings as a substitute for Hansard. Newspapers were first allocated seats in the Public Gallery in 1803. Two characters recorded events here. William Cobbett wrote for Cobbett's Weekly Political Register and wrote brief summaries for the first Hansard. He sold his interest to Thomas Curzon Hansard and, since then, we have had an official report called Hansard.
  One of my great heroes, Charles Dickens, sat in the Gallery noting down our events. In 1831, he was helping with the task of recording debates on the first reform Bill. He took his place as a Gallery reporter working into the night. He commented that the work involved more stenography than creativity. In March 1832, he became a parliamentary reporter for a newspaper called, perhaps surprisingly now, True Sun. He continued to work for the newspaper called Mirror of Parliament. While trying to build up and organise an official parliamentary record, he gained recognition as the most rapid, accurate and
  520
  trustworthy reporter. He realised that it was about not just transcription but narration and interpretation. He said that objective dryness sometimes needed local colour.
  Interestingly, he moved out of the Gallery to go round the constituencies. At that time, Members of Parliament realised that they could give speeches on soap boxes around the country. There are not many hon. Members here tonight, but tomorrow they will be in their constituencies visiting local events. There was a sense in which the debate moved outside Parliament occasionally. There still needs to be a focus on what happens here. Even now, just as in Dickens's day, there is a danger that the action is seen as "out there" and that what happens in the Chamber is simply the objective dryness.
  During the war, I believe that Penguin published three volumes of reports from Hansard, covering the years 1939 to 1944. Just before my time, extracts of debates on the Falklands war were published in order to give people a better understanding of the debates. The Penguin publication was before the days when Parliament was even broadcast on radio, never mind on television.
  In recent years, press coverage of our proceedings has diminished substantially. Between 1933 and 1988, parliamentary debates received an average of between 400 and 800 lines of coverage in The Times and 300 to 700 lines in The Guardian. By 1992, coverage had declined to fewer than 100 lines in each newspaper. There used to be separate pages in the main broadsheets. There used to be a page called "The Day in Politics". It has now shifted to "Policy and Politics". Political commentary, sketches and reports of other events around the country have replaced what goes on in the House. In Charles Dickens's terms, there is stronger emphasis on local colour.
  At the same time as the decline in parliamentary reporting, there has been a sharp increase in the cost of Hansard. A daily part cost 12p in 1970 and 40p in 1979, and now costs £7.50. That is a tenfold increase over 20 years. Because of the televising of Parliament, newspapers no longer feel that they have a duty to report our proceedings. There is a view that those who are really interested can catch Parliament on television.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Lord President said that there could be a lower cost for this material for educational institutions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a far lower rate for Hansard? If we cannot have a lower cost for everyone, there should be a lower cost for libraries, schools and education researchers. To give those people access to Hansard shortly after it has been produced is far better than waiting until they might buy an annual CD-ROM.
  Mr. Battle: We should let as many people as possible have access to what is said here. If it is not reported in the newspapers and is not covered fully on television, we should try to ensure that the information is available. It might help if we advertised and produced the information in a format that people would find attractive. In that way we could sell more copies. It should not be run at a loss. The cost could be recouped by pushing the availability through education establishments and, to go further, to local groups, pensioner clubs, history clubs and even local groups that meet for tea and coffee. In that way more people would find out for themselves what is going on.
  The clips on television reduce our proceedings to Question Time, if not Prime Minister's Question Time. We see a spat of sound and fury. When I glance at the

  521
  news it strikes me that the way in which the images are presented on television creates an impression of the Saturday night programme called "Gladiators" which my children love and I abhor. We seem to be at odds with one another, swinging down to assault each other and then swinging back to the safety of a perch. I do not think that that image, with the notion of high drama, competing ideologies, for and against, should be the model—nor is it the model—for most of our proceedings. Of course, we have divisions, but it does not really reflect the nature of our debate.
  I sometimes think that television now presents politics as a spectacle and, in order to attract the lights of television, hon. Members might sometimes be tempted—I put it no more strongly than that—to go in for what I would perhaps uncouthly call "political streaking". Streaking always attracts attention at cricket, football or rugby matches, but it does not lead to people taking the House seriously.
  In other words, it sometimes seems that television has decided that ordinary debates on the detail of laws and budgets are not exciting enough for viewers and can therefore be bypassed and ignored, or that the Chamber is sometimes empty because there is more excitement outside. It thus becomes harder for Back Benchers of all parties to get any coverage of the detailed arguments that they make on behalf of their constituents and parties. If we could make use of the archive, the complex processes of Parliament could be more fully understood.
  In his evidence to the Committee, Mr. St. John Parker, a headmaster, who is concerned with the teaching of general citizenship and other more specific academic studies of politics, said:
  "When one brings students of any age to Westminster they cannot believe what they are seeing and hearing, and I say that in a thoroughly respectful way. It is a very disorganised experience they get, and a very ineffectual one. A suitably edited, and I do not mean faked or over-censored, video film can provide a truthful impression and that is badly needed."
  I absolutely agree.
  Mr. Sutton, the general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said in his evidence to the Committee:
  "In terms of wanting to teach politics to young people one is concerned to deal with the highly emotive and popular topics of the day because they attract attention but there is also a case for looking at the way in which Parliamentary democracy works, the whole business of the Government and Opposition in action which may not be so much up front as looking at the latest controversial issue looked at by the politicians. Those who are practitioners in the business need to relate closely to what is produced so they get what they want and not what somebody else thinks they want as a marketable product. We are talking about youngsters' experience of Parliament. Most of them, if they watch the television news, will see Parliament but a small selection, a 15 second bite of Parliamentary Question Time or a Ministerial Statement. They will have no concept of the real work of the House for 90 per cent. of its time and it is this we can usefully put across to them by making adequate use of the archives to produce programmes of the kind being talked about."
  I hope that that will be the use of the archive that we encourage, and encourage in a practical way. We want the Library, the Public Information Office and broadcasters to use the archive to make material available.
  522
  It is fair to say that such a move would not mean a monotone approach. I often think that if people sat in the Gallery, watched our proceedings, went for a quiet cup of coffee and then wrote a short account of what had been said, there would be as many different accounts as there are sketch writers. We should bear that in mind when we see our proceedings on video. In other words, there is not one simple and clear account.
  My final comments relate to the over-attraction of putting everything on to video and new technology. We can now get Hansard on a CD-ROM that we can attach to our computers and thus call up immediately the most recent speeches made in the Chamber. That might enable us to dispense with the beautiful green bound volumes that some of us collect as a record of our proceedings—it would certainly take up less shelf space—but it is worth recalling that American computer scientists are now warning of the hazards of switching everything on to the new digital medium.
  Replacing paper in an electronic record-keeping revolution may, in the long-term, mean losing the records entirely, not least because of the changes in hardware and software. It is possible that none of the information CD records may be intelligible in 50 years' time because we shall have forgotten the technology on which to play them. There may be no machine to access them, and the records may prove irretrievable.
  It is worth mentioning that disks themselves are subject to decay, oxidisation and stray magnetic fields and may become unreadable faster than we think. We cannot simply switch to an electronic archive and dispense with Hansard. That is not what the debate is about.
  I am told that magnetic tape has a five-year lifespan, as do video tape and magnetic disks. Optical disks are conservatively estimated to have a 10-year lifespan. However, they are comparatively short lifespans compared with that of the first printed edition of Shakespeare's 18th sonnet, which has now lasted for well over four and a half centuries. Therefore, we cannot assume that the electronic medium can replace the written word.
  As the Minister said, the key issue in the use of the archive must be judgment. Judgment always operates in a context and that context will change as technology changes—and technology moves fast. Yes, we should presume a less restrictive approach, and we should presume that access is permitted, but we should also state clearly that with access come obligations. We do not want to follow the American model mentioned earlier of party political broadcasts and negative advertising with the use of replays and so-called damage videos. That should not be our intention. We should welcome a commitment to the maintenance of a full archive to enhance the dignity and reputation of the House and individual hon. Members.
  Most people do not understand our proceedings, and most wonder why the Chamber is sometimes empty. They may not know that there are Standing Committees, Select Committees and Committees on Statutory Instruments upstairs. Most people do not even know what happens at Prime Minister's Question Time. People still ask me why the Prime Minister always says, "I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago."
  It would be helpful if useful material was collected from the broadcast archive to explain how we work and if that material was made available across the nation. If the newspapers are not going to do it and if television is

  523
  not doing it, we have an obligation to enhance confidence in our parliamentary democracy and foster understanding of our procedures and faith in political organisation in action as expressed in the House.
  The report contained a reference to the role of Hansard sub-editors. Yes, the Hansard office could oversee the new means of communicating our proceedings, but the broadcast archive should not be feared or erased. It should be used in the future to suggest that, although our way of operating may not be perfect and should be updated in time, it is a much better method than is available in many other parts of the world. That might encourage people to have more faith in our parliamentary democracy and support its institutions.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Nigel Jones: I read with some interest the first report of the Broadcasting Committee. As a relatively new member of the Committee, I found it a dry document but with some interesting passages. I knew that I was going to enjoy reading it when I saw the list of witnesses and found people whom I have never met but who have marvellous names such as Mr. Tune from Newsflash broadcasting consultants and, from the Public Information Office, a duo called Dr. Pond and Mrs. Weeds who, I am sure, gave wonderful evidence.
  I whole-heartedly support the commitment in the report to the maintenance of a full broadcasting archive. The report recognises the need to exploit this important resource and explore its potential for being opened to a wider market. At present, it seems predominantly to serve hon. Members seeking extracts of their own speeches. The unedited archive constitutes a key source of historical material. If we had the technology available and Parliament had passed the necessary orders 100 years ago, we might now be able to look at the speeches made by Gladstone and Disraeli. I suspect that most of us would be able to learn a lot about debating style from them.
  The archive is not only of educational importance now, but will leave a priceless legacy for generations to come. In the year 2095, people will watch the gladiatorial confrontations between right hon. Members on both sides of the House with some interest.
  The archive also provides a testimony to the workings of British democracy, and it needs to reflect that democracy and to show the people out there exactly how we work. An important aspect of the record is that it is a record of Parliament working-it is not intended to be entertainment. Bringing the cameras into the Chamber so many years ago has affected the way in which the House conducts itself, which I find regrettable.
  The report examines the potential for making more extensive use of the archive and maintaining it as a more financially viable entity, while putting it to educational use. While the nature and extent of the market for videos featuring archive material is still a subject for debate, the production of video tapes for educational purposes has already met with some success and provided insight into the market. The report mentions the video "Order, Order", produced by the Library's education unit, in collaboration with Force 8 Communications Ltd., which has sold almost 1,000 copies since its launch in September 1992.
  Ventures such as that and the production of other educational, special and general interest tapes in conjunction with production companies could provide
  524
  more income and perhaps a viable commercial foundation on which to build. To that end, the Broadcasting Committee has fairly comprehensively tackled key issues of pricing, by reviewing the rate card and royalties.
  While that will help to ensure that the unit is as financially efficient as possible, the Committee's report asserts the belief that
  "the operation should be run on an efficient but not entirely commercial basis."
  I am sure that if we had to run it on an entirely commercial basis, we would soon conclude that it was not possible to make a profit and it might disappear, which would be most regrettable.
  Interested parties can gain easier access to parliamentary proceedings without being hindered by costs imposed by market forces, and the democratic spirit of the set-up is maintained in the report. As we heard from the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, education is a key sector that will benefit from the archive, but it is one that is relatively poor. I shall not deal with the crucial, and relevant, issue of funding of education, much though I am tempted to do so.
  We need to look to the future. I was alarmed by some of the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds, West about losing the technology to read CD-ROMs. If we move to CD-ROMs, I do not think that that will happen, and I speak with 25 years' experience in the computer industry. Perhaps I should declare an interest in International Computers Ltd. while I am on the subject of computers, CD-ROM and technology. CD-ROM and the digital age are here and the information super-highway will be installed nationwide at some time in the future. I was concerned about some of the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds, West, although I would support him about keeping the archive in a readable format because tapes deteriorate.
  The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) was here earlier, and he and I exchanged grimaces about the football result at Bolton last night, which I hope is in order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are both Swindon Town supporters and in my archives I keep a copy of the 1969 league cup final, which Swindon Town won 3:1 after extra time. It is a much-scratched version, and eventually I shall have to have it copied or I shall not be able to see it again. The match last night stopped Swindon Town from going to Wembley to repeat that great victory.
  Video tapes require a lot of space for storage and, given the number of hours that the House sits in a year, they must take up a sizeable amount of space. As the hon. Member for Leeds, West said, video is not durable or stable, and that problem has to be tackled.
  I suspect that CD-ROM is the way forward. Its life expectancy has yet to be determined, but the prognosis is certainly more optimistic than that for video, and it is inherently a more stable medium. I envisage the possibility of a public service system similar to video on demand on the information super-highway, which will enable people to dial up the debates of their choice. They might even dial up this debate to find out what happened when we discussed the archives of the House.
  With CD-ROM, specific debates will be easier to access, facilitating the editing and production of special interest videos. That process will go hand in hand with the computerisation of Hansard, although I support the

  525
  hon. Member for Leeds, West when he says that we must keep a paper record as well. It would be deplorable if we were to let go the paper version of what goes on in this place. There is a job for someone to do—comparing what the video shows and the way in which the good people from Hansard tidy up some of the events in this place. A fascinating exercise—one thinks, "I am sure it wasn't like that," but they do an excellent job.
  The digital revolution will have profound consequences for the democratisation of Parliament. Those can be advantages only if we anticipate them now and plan for potential problems, such as the regulation of the use of archive material. The Leader of the House has already spoken about some of the regulations that we think appropriate.
  Once the initial investment in setting up a system for the equivalent of video on demand has been made, the cost of maintaining the archive and of making it more widely accessible will be significantly reduced. One of the main problems for the education market is that many teachers simply record coverage of Parliament off television to illustrate a point. That is not only because of cost. Another reason is that they prefer to illustrate lessons with contemporary issues, to which their students can more readily relate. Thus a video produced and purchased in a given month or year is often of little use at a later date. The easier access to a debate facilitated by CD-ROM would obviously solve that problem.
  Use of new technology will put parliamentary debates on line internationally and I am sure that there is an export market because whenever I go abroad people tell me how much they enjoy watching our proceedings in the House—usually Question Time. They regard it as entertainment rather than the House at work. I am sure that there is a market to be tapped.
  In terms of funding the digital archive, charges could be levied on a subscription basis if necessary—similar to the Internet or the Press Association wire. The charge could be made commensurate with the users' ability to pay, along the lines of the present rate card scheme, which is discussed in the report.
  The archive has been set up. We have the resource. Let us continue in the spirit of the Broadcasting Committee's report, to keep it running and extend ,its advantages to everyone now and in the future.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall be brief as I am conscious of having spoken quite often this week. I strongly support recommendation (x) in the conclusions on page xix of the Broadcasting Committee's report. For anyone reading the debate or the report I should explain that there is a slight slip-up on the contents page as the page numbers are given in ordinary and not Roman numbers, which is wrong.
  It would be an abuse for slips or deliberate statements made in the House to be used by opponents for political purposes and it is getting away from the normal rough and tumble of election or party political broadcasts. It would be misusing the correct decision to bring television into the Chamber. I am glad that my right hon. Friend was able to report to the House the conclusion that the Committee reached.
  526
  We must find ways of making what goes on in the House accessible to people in the country who are interested. I came to party politics rather late—some people may think that I never got there. In the year before I first stood for election, I subscribed to the daily Hansard for a year. I was not earning very much, but it was not a big hole in our finances.
  I do not think that I could do that in an equivalent position now. To pay more than £7 a day, five days a week, 34 weeks a year, would be beyond what most people would regard as reasonable. Yet the best preparation for a person thinking of entering Parliament—or for someone who is interested in politics but not in entering Parliament, which may be even more sensible—is to read what is said in Parliament, not what a sub-editor has taken out of a journalist's report.
  I do not wish to criticise newspapers unnecessarily, because usually they should be criticising politicians, rather than the other way round. We read in The Times this morning a report of the questioning of the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robin Butler, by one of our Committees, which said that he had had to correct something that he had written in relation to some inquiry, when in fact it was simply changing the word "their" in a letter to either "the" or "his". Readers of The Times will have read that something has apparently gone wrong without knowing its context or scale.
  There are other examples. The chairman of the Conservative party was in effect criticised by a leader columnist—also, as it happens, in The Times—yet we were not able to know what my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) had said. When I wrote to the columnist asking, "Why don't you let us in on the secret?" he mentioned the fact that I had written to him to comment on his comment, but he did not say what my comment was or what the original complaint was. We ought to make what is said quite easily accessible for those who have an interest in politics and in what happens in the Chamber.
  Technology will help deliver that. Most of the debate has been about the video record of what is said, which the television cameras help produce. Hansard is digitised now. It would be easy to put that on the Internet. We can have it on local network anyway, but having it on the Internet allows people to pull out the roughly 60 pages a day of proceedings in the Chamber and the roughly 60 pages a day of written answers. If we have a Wednesday session, there may be an extra 40 pages. That is not a complicated thing for the technicians to make available.
  However, not everyone will be able to use the Internet. We need to consider what the report says directly about the archive material from the television cameras—and the House can be satisfied that the Committee has done its work well—but also, if it becomes possible to keep a digital record of the video, in the way that one can now of the digitised words in the Hansard report, I hope that the Committee, in its next set of investigations and considerations, will discover whether that can be made available to people free of charge. If the marginal cost of making it available is nil—if people dial in to a solid state data bank—the charge should be nil. That is part of what our portion of democracy should be about.
  I return, at the margin of the debate, to Hansard. In the supplementary memorandum submitted by the editor of Hansard, we are told that the only subsidised copies of Hansard, besides those that go to Members of Parliament,

  527
  are those that go to rate-funded public libraries. That is not good enough. I do not want to become involved in the economics of Her Majesty's Stationery Office or the copyright, but I believe that we need to find a better way of making the words available as well as storing the pictures.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Newton: There was a moment when I feared that I would be encouraged by those who control all our lives to make a lengthy speech, for reasons that people may guess, but happily I am not in that position and I wish only to make a few brief remarks in response to the debate.
  First, I congratulate all three hon. Members who have spoken in the debate on the constructiveness and thoughtfulness of their contributions, and, in the case of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), the evidently substantial research that went into some parts of his speech. I am grateful for their supportive comments.
  The only thing that bothered me, as the debate proceeded—as it has done on several other occasions when I have strayed into the Chamber rather than being an active participant in debates that involve the discussion of information technology—was my gathering bewilderment as people spoke about the Internet, the information super-highway, and some person called SuperJANET who appears to be the only person on the information super-highway. I am happy to say that I am not drawn further into that difficult subject and I can concentrate on the more mundane arguments that have been made in the debate. I shall mention three.
  First, the hon. Member for Leeds, West rightly drew attention to the role of the Library's Public Information Office and the education unit. He will have noted that paragraphs 45 to 49 of the report discuss the inter-relationship between the Supervisor of Parliamentary Broadcasting and those two units. They are certainly talking together and, knowing the people involved, I am sure that they will work constructively together to ensure that each has a good part in helping as much as we can to ensure that sensible and useful educational material is made available.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Leeds, West mentioned the status of the written word, and that subject was picked up in various ways by those who succeeded him in the debate. Recommendation (xvi) of the report is
  "that consideration be given to the inclusion with all tapes of Committee proceedings of a note to the effect that the official record of the proceedings is the transcript of evidence"—
  528
  that is to say, Hansard.
  It may be of interest to the House to know that that recommendation was designed to avoid confusion about the status of the tapes vis-a-vis the transcripts, but the Procedure Committee is currently examining—that comes close to picking up an argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)—a proposal to enable Members to obtain Hansard transcripts of proceedings in the House on the day of origination, which is at present not practical because we have to wait until the printed version appears on the following day.
  Thirdly, the price of Hansard has been mentioned in every speech. That has been the subject of a good deal of comment in recent months, and indeed of a rather critical report from the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government. The House is probably aware, and I am very conscious, that the issue of the price of Hansard is being examined currently by the Administration Committee of the House at the request of the House of Commons Commission, chaired by Madam Speaker. I do not know what will emerge from that, but it is very much a response to the anxieties that have been expressed in the debate and elsewhere.
  With that, I need say no more except to express my gratitude to the House and my thanks to the House for being, as I judge, ready to endorse the report of the Committee that I have the honour to chair.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the First Report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting of Session 1993-94, House of Commons Paper No. 112, on Developing the Parliamentary Broadcasting Archives.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL
  Resolved,
  That, in respect of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

  OFFICE COSTS ALLOWANCE
  Resolved,
  That, in the opinion of this House, the limit on the office costs allowance in relation to Mr. Bernie Grant, for the quarter beginning 1st January 1995 and any subsequent quarter, should be 1.33 times the limit determined in accordance with paragraph (1) of Part A of the Resolution of 13th July 1994 relating to Members' allowances.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

  Natural Heritage
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: When Madam Speaker allocated the debate—the last this week, and at an earlier hour than many of us anticipated—it was assumed that it would be a debate about the national, not the natural, heritage. As the national heritage nowadays appears to be largely focused on gambling, it is perhaps not surprising that, at the beginning of the week, I was approached by several organisations concerned with gambling. I was relieved to be able to correct their impression.
  The debate may be rather more important. The House might care to consider also that, although there is a special care and a justified concern in the House about cruelty to animals, and that was demonstrated last Friday, there should be slightly more anxiety about the survival of a whole species rather than simply cruelty to a few members of that species. That is what the real anxiety is about—the survival of a species and the habitat on which that species may depend.
  I sought this debate to give the House an opportunity to consider and have on record comments with regard to European Nature Conservation Year 1995. I attended the Council of Europe Assembly in January, where I presented a report on behalf of the Environment Committee to launch that desirable campaign. I was grateful that the report was unanimously approved there.
  This debate allows me to ask the Minister to explain the Government's approach to the campaign and ascertain what official action is being taken and what support the Government are providing. I know that a major aim—perhaps the major aim—of the campaign is to promote wider public awareness of the need for conservation of our natural heritage, and I hope to show, in my relatively short speech, how essential that awareness is. The Minister may then care to comment on the case that I shall present.
  In 1975, my private Member's Bill became the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. At the outset, the then Secretary of State, Tony Crosland, ordered that every school should receive a poster illustrating the 20 species of flora and six species of fauna included in the schedules to the Act.
  In January, I saw some posters that had been produced by the nature conservation department of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. There was a display of photographs that could make an enormous impact, and the poster embodies a selection of those photographs. Will the Minister take a leaf out of the book of the Department of the Environment in the 1970s and provide one of those posters for each school in Britain? If the aim is to promote awareness, no better step could be taken.
  That awareness is needed is adequately revealed by a recent publication produced on behalf of the voluntary bodies concerned with nature conservation. As the Minister will be well aware, I refer to the document entitled "Biodiversity Challenge". It is the work of a team drawn from the voluntary organisations, and not only presents an analysis of conservation need today, but proposes action that should be taken to halt the decline. I shall demonstrate the fact that there has been decline and theie is an acute need for action.
  530
  "Biodiversity Challenge" presents an agenda to protect our natural inheritance, and proposes courses of action that can deal with the serious problems. The study is to be welcomed, not least because it is highly responsible but especially because its approach is practical. It demonstrates that the plans for action that it contains have been costed. It shows how much could be achieved and spells out what the costs would be.
  Much needs to be done, and we can now see how much can be done for relatively little expense. Will the Minister recommend those proposals to his colleagues in the Treasury with more confidence than might otherwise be the case, because even people employed in the Treasury must have regard to what this country will be like next year and for the next generation?
  Action is certainly needed. In the past 25 years, 70 species of British fauna and flora have become extinct, at least in these islands, but some were found only in these islands. So the loss is not merely ours but international. Some of those vanished species may have passed unnoticed, but their loss should not be dismissed lightly.
  Shoreham has been in the news recently. A great deal of attention has been focused on the traffic in animals destined for slaughter from that port, but little attention was paid to a vanished invertebrate that lived by Shoreham—I refer to Ive11's sea anemone, a tiny fawn and rose-spotted 12-tentacled creature. It was seen near Shoreham for the last time a few years ago but has now vanished, and the world will probably never see it again. Those who wish to see it will have to look at a picture.
  "Biodiversity Challenge" illustrates case after case of that kind. I believe that the Minister's constituency is fairly close to Hampshire or Dorset. A plant that may be found in his constituency is the early gentian, which may be about to disappear. "Biodiversity Challenge" offers a plan that might save it, and the Minister will have constituents who would wish that plant to be saved and may be concerned about retaining an adequate genetic balance in these islands.
  "Biodiversity Challenge" lists all the species that have become extinct this century. We can thus see clearly how the pace of decline has accelerated in more recent years. The threat of further losses is severe for, today, many species are endangered. This century, we have lost 49 species of lichen, 53 species of fungi and 13 species of wild flowering plants. Those include the peach-leaved bellflower, summer lady's tresses and lamb's succory, which are no longer to be found in our country.
  It is not only flora that have vanished. The opossum shrimp has gone, as have four species of spiders, three species of butterflies, including the black-veined white, the large tortoiseshell and the large blue. I included the large blue in my private Member's Bill in 1975. It was on its last legs then, and one hoped that the gesture might help, but it died out in 1979. An attempt has now been made to reintroduce it, and I hope that it will meet with success. Although I may criticise alien importation, the species being reintroduced is from the same genetic species, so it should be all right.
  Eleven species of moth have disappeared in the past 30 years, including the marsh dagger; the feathered ear, which is associated with our county, Mr. Deputy Speaker; and the Lewes wave. Interestingly enough, the last Blair's wainscot was recorded in 1966. Its remaining site on the Isle of Wight was destroyed by burning and draining. What a pity that the Blair's wainscot did not have its

  531
  home in constituencies where it might have been more cordially regarded, and where we might have been able to guarantee success. The Essex emerald disappeared earlier in the decade, largely due to lack of grazing, but work on sea defences may have been an important factor.
  This century, 41 other species of insect have become extinct in Britain, including a dozen types of solitary bee. Many people may not be concerned about the extinction of insect species, but their loss can affect the food chain. However, millions of people are interested in angling, and the burbot, a species of fish, has vanished. One hopes that angling organisations will co-operate with the voluntary sector with a view to arranging to restock. Yesterday, I mentioned that matter to Lord Mason of Barnsley, who, with his interest in angling and his noted energy, may be able to help in that direction.
  I referred a moment or two ago to the 1975 Act, which contained one schedule listing 20 species of endangered flora and six species of endangered fauna. The large blue butterfly has disappeared, despite legal protection, and the last mouse-eared bat expired in 1991.
  The most vulnerable species in the schedule of the 1975 Act was the lady slipper orchid. There was only one plant left in 1975. There is still only one plant left today, and it is in Yorkshire. In fact, it is Yorkshire's best-kept secret, and those people who know where it is will not tell anyone else. One can guess the penalty of indiscretion—we would have no lady slipper orchids at all. I am delighted to learn that Kew gardens is living up to its splendid reputation and may produce a few more lady slipper orchids to guarantee the species' survival.
  The first species to he protected in Britain were birds, seals and badgers. Birds are held in high regard by millions of our citizens and by some Ministers of the Crown who prefer birds of the feathered variety. Ministers frequently list birdwatching among their hobbies. Therefore, I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will respond to the voluntary sector's call in "Biodiversity Challenge" and thus secure the survival of some birds which are currently in serious danger of extinction.
  The pine marten is extinct in Britain, and it is just hanging on in Wales. Its remaining stronghold—if that is the correct term—is Scotland. I hope that the proposals in "Biodiversity Challenge" for the retention and safeguarding of certain habitat will help to restore that species to England, so that it is not restricted entirely to the woodland areas of Scotland.
  Some people may say that it is no good crying over spilt milk, that we should not spend money preventing the extinction of species and that we must expect reality. Certain changes in habitat may be unavoidable—for example, climate change and the effect of global warming—but I believe that the British population are concerned about the issue, and that they want the Government to address it as a matter of priority.
  Parliament recognises that we are part of Europe. Although some hon. Members may not care to hear about it, Europe has begun to take a quite serious view of the wildlife issue. The European Community has issued directives, not least in regard to the protection of birds, and the Council of Europe has been concerned about habitat for a long time.
  When I came to the House in 1970, I already had an amateurish interest in conservation. I pursued the establishment of the Badger Act 1973 and the
  532
  Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. However, I quickly recognised that there is little value in protecting a species if we allow the habitat upon which that species depends to be destroyed. I therefore took the view—over the years, the Council of Europe Assembly has adopted it also—that our priority must lie in protecting habitat.
  I presented a report on that matter on behalf of the Environment Sub-Committee, which I then chaired, and that led to the Berne convention on wildlife and habitat. I was delighted that the British Government were one of the first to sign, ratify and implement that convention which formed a major part of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Government acted swiftly on that occasion, and one hopes that, given the increasing challenges posed by the pace of change, they will maintain their commitment and accept that they have an obligation to ensure that this matter receives the same priority.
  Many species are at risk today, largely because we have lost 60 per cent. of our lowland wet grassland, more than half our sand dunes, 60 per cent. of our fen habitat and 95 per cent. of our raised peat bog. Coastal lagoons have been reduced to an area of just 1,300 hectares. Ancient broadleaf woodland, which once covered huge areas of our island, has shrunk, and today covers only 300,000 hectares. The remaining Caledonian forest has been reduced to 12,500 hectares.
  Limestone pavement has been reduced to 2,000 hectares—largely as a result of theft, sometimes by people who would be astonished if one accused them of that crime. Only 57,000 hectares of heathland are left on our island. Those remaining areas of habitat are not sufficient to guarantee the survival of scores of species, especially if that habitat is not managed properly.
  "Biodiversity Challenge" lists plans for action in each of those habitat categories. It also demonstrates which endangered species will benefit and how that will be accomplished. The proposed plans seem eminently sensible and I hope that each set of plans for the respective habitat groups will be regarded seriously. We need to recognise decline and vulnerability. Far be it from me to advise the Government on how to restore its popularity, but I cannot think of anything that would attract large numbers of people back to the Government's corner faster than the recognition that they are concerned about the environment and about the future of this island.
  As Government Members claim to be interested in wildlife, birdwatching and so on, I think that I am entitled to remind the Minister that eight bird species have suffered more than a 75 per cent. decline in their number since 1970—the corncrake, marsh warbler, red-necked shrike, common scoter, tree sparrow, grey partridge, wryneck and roseate tern. Only one quarter of their number that existed in 1970 remains today.
  The decline is more extensive in well-known species. Some 16 species have lost between one half and 75 per cent. of their populations since 1970. They include: the skylark, linnet, song thrush and turtle dove. The decline continues. I said recently that it would be extremely sad if children who were studying English poetry read the poems of Clare or Shelley about the thrush or the skylark and had to ask their teachers or parents what a skylark or a songthrush was.
  The natural phenomena of these islands have inspired British music, literature and art in all its forms. It would be criminal to deny ourselves and the next generation that

  533
  source of future inspiration. The danger that species of that kind will disappear is sufficient to justify my suggestion that the Minister should, if necessary, take on the Treasury with a little more vigour than might have been shown previously.
  Some people believe that, if a species is endangered or if it disappears altogether, we can simply bring in another species from overseas, and that it is all very well to import alien species in order to enrich the variety of wildlife in Britain. However, I think that it is timely to remind the Minister not to allow alien importation unless it has been considered very carefully. Some people brought in Japanese knotweed, and that was disastrous. Others brought in mink and allowed them to escape, and they have had a savage effect on nature in many parts of the country.
  We should consider others that are causing distress in the Yorkshire dales. Many people there were aware that the Atlantic crayfish was a useful part of the there natural phenomenon. The species is in decline in Britain partly because of pollution, but now it is under severe threat as a result of the marked competition from the American signal crayfish.
  We need to recognise that there has to be care about importation. I believe we could certainly justify the movement of some pine martens from Scotland if their habitat can be securely safeguarded in England. There is no problem about that. There is certainly no problem about the carefully prepared reintroduction of the white-tailed eagle by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. That bird became extinct in 1916, but it has now been reestablished. The numbers may not be excessive, but the re-establishment seems to be secure. I hope that the large blue butterfly can also be restored to Britain. Care and consideration are required.
  The Minister will probably confirm that some of the commitments and obligations to which I have referred were certainly reinforced, if not originated, by the Rio agreement, and we would be fulfilling some of the obligations which stem from that conference. For that reason, I suggest that we give some priority to the need to secure and properly manage areas of lowland heath. If we did, we would actually be securing the future of 12 threatened species, and we would enhance the areas involved. That approach would provide a very real recognition of the work of a number of wildlife trusts in several counties.
  Perhaps the most significant plan of action is that referring to the Caledonian forest. The cost of implementing the proposed 10-year programme would be £700,000 a year. The envisaged programme would not only secure the 12,500 hectares of Caledonian forest that remain, but would add an additional 5,000 hectares. It would cost £700,000 a year, but it would provide jobs. If one provides jobs, one secures contributions from the individual employments and the savings which accrue if they do not remain unemployed, so £700,000 is certainly not an unrealistic figure for a result which would transform many areas and would give us cause for pride internationally. As the Minister will be aware, the Caledonian forest in these islands is of international conservation significance.
  534
  Safeguarding the limestone pavements to which I have referred would ensure the survival of a number of species including the Lancashire whitebeam and rigid butler fern. I would prefer species unique to Britain to survive rather than people to be allowed to take more limestone pavement to enrich the rockeries in their gardens. Several other species would be safeguarded by that approach.
  The voluntary bodies have analysed the need and the nature of the action required for each of those habitats. They demonstrate what can be achieved, and the benefit could be of historic proportions.
  As a Member of Parliament representing South Yorkshire, I should refer to the lowland raised bogs. In South Yorkshire, at Thorne and Hatfield moors in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), two insects, the ground beetle and the mire pill beetle, are not found anywhere else in the world. I know that people are not particularly fond of beetles, although one Conservative Member breeds worms, but not many us share her taste or her political views. Those two species are the only ones in the world; they are found in the Thorne and Hatfield moors and represent a further argument for ensuring that that habitat deserves some priority.
  There are a number of studies within the biological diversity. I shall refer to four of them as examples of the plans which the document provides. The freshwater pearl mussel is in the IUCN data book as extremely endangered species internationally. It is still to be found in some waters in Britain, and we have an obligation to ensure its survival. It can be achieved at very little cost. It requires some monitoring, and perhaps an improved provision of special sites of scientific interest status where its main breeding potential exists.
  The southern damselfly is known in 18 localities in west Wales, Anglesey and the New forest, and is another species which the Minister might care to protect. It is globally threatened. Its breeding sites need to be protected and SSSI designation could be a considerable help. In respect of the freshwater mussel and southern damselfly, the designation of SSSIs involve remarkably little cost are once again represent scope for successful confrontation with the Treasury.
  I mentioned the burbot a moment ago. The sturgeon is extremely rare in serious decline throughout Europe, and we need a European initiative to ensure that that important fish survives. The first step is not expensive. We need adequate funds to ensure proper study of the movement and the prospects for the sturgeon in Britain. Millions of anglers in Britain might welcome that involvement.
  The corncrake was once an extremely common bird in the cereal areas of Britain. Its decline has not been sudden; it has continued for a long time. In 1993, there were just 478 active male corncrakes. Unfortunately, apart from a few in Fermanagh in Ulster, the rest are now restricted to the Scottish islands. Perhaps it could be introduced to protected grasslands areas in England, but only when we are satisfied that the habitat can securely sustain the species.
  If we are to see an end of decline, or at least a beginning of the end to decline, we have to recognise that the disappearance of species is extremely important. At the moment, and inevitably, concern for conservation is still seen as a matter for the Department of the Environment. As it is the job of the Department of the Environment, other Government Departments tend to

  535
  ignore it. I hope that the Minister will recognise that and insist that other Government Departments are aware of their responsibilities.
  Conservation is a matter for the Department of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Trade and Industry in particular, and those Departments must be aware that they cannot leave it all to the Department of the Environment; they have to give some attention and priority to the matter. They have to look at their wider responsibilities.
  The rural White Paper is due in the summer. Heaven knows, rural life needs to be considered and sustained and rural services need to be regarded. I hope the Minister can assure us that conservation needs will loom quite large in that report and in the consideration which Ministers will give it. After all, conservation is essential for rural life.
  I suspect that calls for the wider view would be endorsed by the Government's employees or advisers. Many who are employed in the public agencies—one can think of each of them—are far more knowledgeable, and perhaps far more concerned than most of us, perhaps because they have an almost daily exposure to the factors of need. The calls which I endorsed this evening originate from those who are responsibly involved in our large conservation voluntary bodies. They have professionally observed the disappearance of much wildlife and damage to much of its habitat, and believe that, if there is to be a future cause for inspiration in our culture, steps must be taken to ensure that the genetic inheritance of these islands is secured. ENCY 95 could serve a useful purpose in propelling understanding, and if there is understanding there will be strengthening of intention, and greater priority and urgency will be attached to implementing recommendations and fulfilling commitments that our sense of responsibility to the present and to future generations demands.
  I trust that I have not spoken too long but that the Minister will recognise the seriousness of those matters, as millions of people do. I hope that his remarks will give them some encouragement.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for allowing me to contribute to his Adjournment debate. He put the case well. It is a happy coincidence that his debate occurs on an evening when it is possible to exceed the usual half hour. I welcome the presence of my hon. Friends the Minister and the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope).
  First, I must declare an interest as adviser to the International Fund for Animal Welfare and to its founder, Brian Davis. That is not relevant to my remarks but a matter of record.
  I first became aware of rare species in my early teens when, not a quarter of a mile from this place, I was shown a rare spider sitting in a hole in a brick. A few years later, between school and university, I stood in for the director of studies of a grammar school for three weeks while the director, Mr. John Bechervaise, went off on an Antarctic relief ship. In his absence, I read the diary that he had kept when he led an Australian Antarctic expedition. During the long winter, he observed a small jar of earth with a microscope. His tales of the life within that small
  536
  amount of earth measuring no more than 12 sq in extended almost to the galaxy of species spoken of by the hon. Member for Wentworth.
  For a year, I had responsibility, as a Northern Ireland Minister, for the environment and agriculture, when I was well advised by voluntary groups and civil servants. I am not sure that there are many or any corncrakes still in west Fermanagh. The corncrake does not always remain in fields set aside for hay because it finds an easier life in the fields designated for silage. Unfortunately cutting silage also cuts up the corncrake.
  Habitat is rightly identified by those who put forward a biodiversity challenge. One day, we will need to go broader in protected areas. As someone who has heard the corncrake, I would strongly recommend some way, especially in these days of set aside and extensive agriculture—that is, of low inputs—of offering up more of west Fermanagh to non-silage fields. The advantage otherwise to the individual farmer might be surrendered, provided that compensation is generous. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will put that point to his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office.
  In Northern Ireland, the research advice that I received was that less than 2 per cent. of bovine tuberculosis cases might come from badgers. It is believed that most transmission is by cattle nosing each other over fences, and that double fencing would make it possible to keep particular herds of cows or beef apart. It is sad to continue gassing badgers, particularly in south-west England, on the evidence of inadequate research. Thousands of badgers are killed that way each year, but that appears to have no effect on tuberculosis among herds in the south-west. Gassing badgers should be reviewed, but that matter goes beyond habitat.
  It is important to use advice from nature organisations in helping to re-establish the red squirrel in areas where it has lost its prominence. The red squirrel is still seen on the Isle of Wight, but I would like to see more of that species in England.
  Mr. Hardy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that ill-considered reintroductions of the red squirrel to any part of the country should be avoided, unless it is reasonably certain that it will survive?
  Mr. Bottomley: I agree. The otter has returned because the environment changed. It can travel enormous distances. The otter population was seriously declining in the early 1950s, when I first saw an otter. In fact, I pretended to see one, but my sister did so, in Shropshire. If the environment is protected or improved, species re-establish themselves. Of most importance is that they do not die out or fall further behind in the struggle to survive.
  The hon. Gentleman made important points about the skylark and songthrush. No one who has heard a skylark would say that it should he lost from this country. It unites our history and much of our cultural inspiration, be it music or poetry, and is a strong part of country life.
  Referring again to Northern Ireland, Strangford lough is an amazing place. There is an enormous change of water twice a day through a narrow strait. When large-bottomed trawlers passed through, virtually everything was scraped away. That may be tolerable in some marine areas but not in one unique in the United Kingdom. I did all that I could to ban those trawlers from

  537
  the lough. If people tell the Government, "There is a major problem and if you wait too long, it will be too late," the Government have a responsibility to react.
  It is really a question of building effective alliances, and I add my support to the simple request of the hon. Member for Wentworth for a way of getting a good poster into all schools. Most of the 14 million children in this country are at school. If they can be sensitised to part of their heritage, they will carry on the work long after we are forgotten. There will be continuing interest not just from those who live in the countryside but those in towns and cities. The battle cannot be won only by people who live and are interested in the countryside. It must be a national effort. The Government are right to take an interest. They have done many things better, but there is more to do.
  People who tend urban gardens often want to enrich the soil. If they continue to do that using peat, they will in effect rob one the country of one of its irreplaceable habitats. I hope that gardening pages will support what has been said in the House today and will recommend that gardeners find other ways of enriching their soil, rather than destroying a scarce part of this country's heritage.
  8.29 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): This has been an educational debate. It has been educational for me because the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) have much greater detailed knowledge of species than I have. I am grateful to them, and especially the hon. Gentleman, for giving me the opportunity to explain some of the important developments that are taking place in the conservation of the natural heritage.
  Over two years ago, more than 150 Heads of State and Government recognised the importance of conserving the earth's flora and fauna by signing the convention on biological diversity at the earth summit at Rio. That fact was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wentworth. By signing the convention, the Government demonstrated their determination to play a full part in halting the global loss of animal and plant species and genetic resources. We followed this up with the UK biodiversity action plan, which was published in January 1994. The UK is one of the first parties to produce an action plan for biodiversity alongside its sustainable development strategy.
  The action plan sets out a strategy for the conservation of the natural heritage for the next 20 years. For the first time in a Government paper the plan draws together existing instruments and programmes for nature conservation and commits Government to a forward strategy and performance targets. A vital part of the strategy will be schemes for the conservation of certain endangered wildlife habitats and species of animals and plants. The aim of the schemes will be to preserve and, wherever possible, enhance the range and biodiversity of naturally occurring wildlife in the UK.
  Again, we are the first country to have given a commitment to produce specific costed targets for key species and habitats. We are working closely with the voluntary conservation sector in developing the targets,
  538
  under the umbrella of the biodiversity steering group, which is chaired by my Department. We shall publish the targets for consultation by the end of the year.
  The commitments to forward action are comprehensive and cover protected areas, the wider countryside, threatened species, public awareness, local initiatives, support for biodiversity overseas and better access to biological information and data.
  I think that it will be agreed that the initiatives build on an already excellent record for nature conservation. The Government have had active policies for the conservation of nature for many years which have enabled us to protect endangered habitats and species and meet all our international conservation obligations. They are implemented mainly through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the network of sites of special scientific interest, of which there are now over 6,700 in the UK. The Act gives strict protection to 167 species of plants and to 94 animal species. There is a regular review of the schedules to the Act to ensure that they reflect the needs of the threatened species.
  We believe that the policies are working. There are many exaggerated claims about the loss of SSSIs, but in recent years the numbers of them and the area of land that they cover have increased substantially, while within the SSSIs the rate of habitat loss and damage through development and inappropriate management has declined significantly. Importantly, we believe that most of the damaged sites will recover their special interest. The Government have shown themselves ready to address problems where they have been identified, and the measures that are being taken by English Nature and under agri-environmental initiatives should further reduce the incidence of avoidable damage in future.
  Statistics are needed to highlight the important issue and help both policy makers and the public to understand whether environmental quality is generally improving, and whether our development is sustainable. In November 1993, the Department published the results of the countryside survey 1990, which is the most comprehensive survey of the countryside that has ever been carried out. The UK is the first country to carry out such a survey, based on the integration of remote sensing and field survey data at a national scale.
  The primary aims of the survey were to provide information on the stock of land cover, landscape features and habitats in Great Britain in 1990, to identify change in these by reference to earlier surveys and to establish a new baseline for the measurement of future changes. Not all the changes that the survey reported were positive. For example, it showed a 23 per cent. reduction in the length of hedgerows between 1984 and 1990, and there was a decline in the diversity of plant species in arable fields, grassland and woodland.
  The countryside survey 1990 is part of a framework of research that is geared to understanding the effects of land use change and improving access to information on the countryside for policy purposes. It is planned to use this approach as a basis for regular reporting on the state of the countryside, with follow-up work on the causes of the changes reported in the survey and their significance for wildlife and biodiversity, as well as a full repeat survey in the year 2000. To improve access to the results of the survey and other information about the rural environment,

  539
  the Department has developed a computerised countryside information system, which is now available as a commercial product.
  The Government's nature conservation advisers—English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Council for Wales—base their conservation activities on working together with landowners and occupiers, and with local communities, to preserve and enhance wildlife habitats and species. I note the possibility that was referred to by the hon. Member for Wentworth and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham of providing posters for schools. I shall certainly examine that.
  From my own experience, I share the concern of the hon. Member for Wentworth about the introduction of alien species. As my accent makes clear, I come from a country which suffered from the massive introduction of English species such as rabbits, hares, pigs, cats and dogs—
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Convicts.
  Sir Paul Beresford: And people, not convicts. Someone's geography is a little inaccurate. The damage to the natural habitat was considerable.
  It is because of the success of conservation of the natural heritage in the UK that we depend on the support and commitment of those who own or work the land and on everyone who enjoys our natural heritage. While recognising the need to provide for man's needs—economic, social and recreational—it is important to promote an understanding of wildlife and an awareness of the threats to it, especially to those species or habitats that are threatened or are declining.
  The emphasis on understanding and local involvement is a central theme of European Nature Conservation Year 1995. The UK is playing a full part in marking it. The hon. Member for Wentworth has rightly signalled it as a key initiative with its theme, "Look to the future, look after nature". The UK is represented by English Nature on the Council of Europe's committee and ii is co-ordinating a myriad activities across the UK. The UK programme is planned to provide a wide variety of events and projects. The wildlife trusts are playing a central role by providing a local telephone advice service throughout England and co-ordinating a massive appeal called "A Million for Wildlife". The trusts are looking for I million days of volunteer action, and are raising £1 million to help local wildlife in 1995. There are many more initiatives.
  European Nature Conservation Year emphasises sustainable management to improve biodiversity as a key principle. We know that truly natural environments have become increasingly rare. Nature has adapted to our management of the land, and much of the natural diversity nowadays is dependent on the continuation of traditional techniques of land management. It is this biodiversity that gives us the variety and character of the landscape that we value so highly.
  The aim is not to make conservation of our natural heritage and economic activity mutually exclusive, but to ensure that man's activities are undertaken in ways that do not threaten our natural heritage, and wherever possible in ways that support it. The right sort of economic activity can sometimes protect or even enhance the environment. Good examples are the progressive reforms of Europe's common agricultural policy, which through
  540
  agri-environmental programmes and environmental cross-compliance have enabled the Government to promote nature conservation in the wider countryside. We have done this by introducing schemes such as environmentally sensitive areas, the countryside stewardship scheme, nitrate-sensitive areas and the habitats scheme, which assist farmers to manage their land in ways that contribute to overall conservation goals outside protected areas.
  The planning policy guidance note on nature conservation was published last year. It gives the most up-to-date guidance to local planning authorities and developers on the Government's policy on conservation of our natural heritage and development control. This specific PPG reiterates the prime Government objectives for nature conservation and also gives a full explanation of the implications for planning authorities of the new habitats regulations that implement the EC's habitats directive. The directive will play a significant part in our strategies for nature conservation in the medium and long term, which are being delivered through the biodiversity action plan.
  The habitats regulations complement the strategy and broader initiatives for the wider countryside. At the same time, they make a significant contribution to the directive's aim of helping to ensure biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora throughout the European Union, an aim which the Government wholeheartedly support. The habitats regulations also give legal effect to habitat protection under the EC birds directive, introduced by the habitats directive. Special protection areas, designated under the birds directive and special areas of conservation designated under the habitats directive will together contribute to the European Union network of sites to be known as Natura 2000.
  The Government have made significant progress on the classification of special protection areas under the birds directive. In the past year, 23 SPAs have been classified in the UK, bringing the total to 102, covering more than 323,000 hectares. The Government are committed to an accelerated classification programme and further sites are in the pipeline.
  Our commitment to the voluntary approach to nature conservation is reflected in the implementation of the habitats directive. We are committed to consultation on the sites proposed for designation under the directive. Advice from the statutory nature conservation agencies about which sites merit designation under the directive is currently being considered. The Government's proposals will be published shortly and a full and thorough public consultation at national and local level will begin.
  In the coastal and marine environment, the Government have taken initiatives aimed at enhancing the effective co-ordination of policies for the coastal zone in England. December saw the launch of the coastal forum, chaired and serviced by the Department of the Environment. The forum provides for an exchange of views on coastal issues and builds on existing liaison arrangements at regional and local levels. Policy guidelines for the coast are also in preparation and will draw together in convenient form guidance that is already provided on coastal issues. A best practice guide will highlight good practice and clarify how different elements of coastal zone management plans interact, and a review of byelaw-making powers relating to coastal management is also under way.

  541
  Last year, the Government also announced the rural White Paper, which will cover the issues of living in, working in and enjoying the countryside. The White Paper, which will be published in the middle of next year, will present a coherent view of Government policy for the countryside and will demonstrate the integration of rural concerns, across all Government Departments, which impact on the English countryside. There is no formal consultation, but we have written to 420 organisations, seeking their views, and so far have received 362 responses. The aim is to ensure that the resources that go into the countryside are used to the optimum effect, based on principles set out in the sustainable development strategy.
  The sort of things that the paper will look at are: the impact of the common agricultural policy on the countryside and the Government's objectives for its further reform; making provision for necessary development and finding ways of providing that in a sensitive, well-designed manner; the dynamic relationship between towns and cities and the countryside; the sophisticated nature of economic activity in today's countryside and the importance of
  542
  encouraging further economic development and diversification; the strengths of localism, including resistance to uniformity, the recognition of local identity and the role of local government; strengthening policies to respond to the decline in biodiversity and to protect and enhance the wider countryside as well as the most valued landscapes and habitats.
  The White Paper is not about quick fixes or instant initiatives. It is intended to develop a long-term, strategic framework for the future of our countryside. Ministerial colleagues from my Department and from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have almost completed a series of seminars around the country to listen to the views of local representatives.
  I believe that tonight I have briefly outlined a wide range of initiatives, from the biodiversity action plan to the rural White Paper, which demonstrate that the Government are taking a strategic view of the conservation of the natural heritage, which will take us forward positively and sustainably into the next century.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Nine o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Non-human Primates
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many non-human primates are imported to the United Kingdom annually; from which nation sources; which species are involved; and what information is held about distribution throughout the country.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  All species of primate are listed in the appendices to the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, and are therefore subject to the import/export licensing controls contained in the convention, which is implemented throughout the European Union under regulations 3626/82 and 3418/83. In 1994, 1,999 live primates were recorded as imports to the UK under the CITES regulations. The species and countries of origin involved are shown in the table. The Department does not keep comprehensive information about the distribution of imported specimens within the UK as this is not required by CITES for most of the specimens concerned.

  Species

  Number imported

  Country of origin

  Golden lion Tamarin

  2

  Hong Kong

  (Leontopithecus rosalia)

  3

  Japan

  Chacma baboon

  7

  South Africa

  (Papio hamadryas ursinus)

  Olive baboon

  55

  Kenya

  (Papio hamadryus anubis)

  Crab-eating macaque

  989

  Mauritius

  (Macaca fascicularis)

  431

  Philippines

  234

  Israel

  40

  China

  Rhesus macaque

  191

  China

  (Macaca mulatta)

  40

  USA

  Cotton-top tamarin

  4

  Japan

  (Saguinus oedipus)

  Owl-faced monkey

  1

  Zaire

  (Cercopithecus hamlyni)

  Pileated gibbon

  1

  Switzerland

  (Hylobates pileatus)

  Black howler monkey

  1

  USA

  (Alouatta caraya)

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what are his proposals for removing the current restrictions which apply to certain local authorities in the exercise of their economic development powers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have today laid before the House new regulations which will have the effect of removing from 1 April 1995 the current £10,000 limit on the amount of financial assistance which certain local authorities are able to provide to individual businesses each year under their economic development powers. All local authorities in England will now be free to decide, having regard to all their local circumstances including the resources available to them, the amount of any financial assistance which they provide to businesses.

  British Gas
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions there have been with British Gas about grant aid and the development of Foleshill gas work site; if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I understand that British Gas has reached agreement with English Partnerships about the grant required to develop phase 1 of the site and that a survey will be completed this month for British Gas to establish ground conditions on phase 2 of the site. A formal submission to the board of English Partnerships will be made shortly after that about the offer of a grant to British Gas.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make a submission to the European Commission under article 34 of the Euratom treaty in respect to the planned first shipment of high-level radioactive waste from Sellafield to Japan.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. Article 34 of the Euratom treaty relates to particularly dangerous experiments which are to take place in the territories of member states. The article will not apply to shipments of radioactive wastes from the UK, which will always comply with internationally agreed safety requirements.

  Sickness Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to combat sickness absenteeism in(a) Ordnance Survey, (b) the Planning Inspectorate and (c) his Department.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Line managers are required to monitor the level of sick leave taken by their staff and to take action where this gives cause for concern. Continuing failure to achieve the required standard of attendance can lead to medical retirement or dismissal. Where officers require help, the services of the welfare division are available. We can also call on specialist counselling services, and the civil service occupational health service to provide advice.

  The Department has also hosted exhibitions and publicised events such as the Health Education Authority's "Look After Your Heart" campaign, together with a health screening programme.

  Office of Water Services
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will permit Ofwat to make appropriate charges when asked to give advice in other countries on water privatisation and the role of the regulator; and if he will make a statement on the basis on which charges are permitted.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I understand that Ofwat, as an independent non-ministerial Government Department, follows the normal Treasury accounting guidance on charging practices for Government Departments.

  Bathing Water Directive
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will oppose a review and upgrading of the bathing water directive, as proposed by the European Commission.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Our objective in the forthcoming negotiations on the Commission's proposal will be to ensure that the revised bathing water directive concentrates on essential quality and health parameters, is cost-effective, based on up-to-date science and meets the requirements of subsidiarity.

  South West Water
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the projected cost of the reference by South West Water to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, following the limits imposed by Ofwat on water charging in the south-west.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The costs of the reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of the determinations in respect of South West Water Services Ltd. will be borne by that company, in accordance with the terms of its appointment, but these costs cannot be taken into account in setting price limits. The MMC cannot at this stage estimate with any accuracy what those costs will be.

TREASURY

  Bank of England Profits
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much profit has been made by the Bank of England in each of the last four years; and what happens to such profits.

  Mr. Nelson
  The profits of the banking department of the Bank of England for the last four years were:

  1990–91 £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  161.8

  166.2

  88.3

  120.2

  The profits were accounted for as follows:

  (i) Tax

  18.1

  30.9

  12.1

  24.4

  (ii) Paid to the Treasury

  81.5

  67.7

  38.1

  48.4

  (iii) Retained by the Bank

  62.2

  67.6

  38.1

  47.4

  264
  In addition, the profits of the Bank's issue department from the issue of bank notes, which were all paid to the Treasury were:

  1990–91 £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  2,546

  1,875

  1,556

  1,117

  This information is published in the Bank's annual report and accounts, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Career Breaks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. Nelson
  Figures relating to the number of staff who applied for career breaks over the last five years are unavailable. The number of staff from my Departments and agencies on career breaks during the period requested is 100 men and 2,224 women.

  The total number of staff from my Departments who have had their employment terminated in the last five years is 438. No staff on a career break had his or her employment terminated.

  Import Penetration
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of the last three increases in interest rates on import penetration.

  Mr. Nelson
  Import penetration depends on a variety of factors, including price competitiveness, domestic demand and capacity. Recent increases in interest rates were aimed at ensuring permanently low inflation and sustainable economic growth, thereby providing a stable climate within which British industry can compete successfully in both domestic and overseas markets.

  Tourism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the numbers of jobs(a) lost or (b) gained by changes in the balance of payments in tourism between 1976 and 1993.

  Mr. Nelson
  HM Treasury has made no such estimate.

  Convergence Programme
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to update the convergence programme produced by the United Kingdom in February 1994.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A revised convergence programme is today being submitted to the European Commission. Copies of the programme are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances it is envisaged that
  265
  people receiving incapacity benefit will be taxed at source; and how many people he estimates this will effect.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]It is estimated that there will be over 300,000 new recipients of incapacity benefit in 1995–96, of whom about 200,000 are expected to have an income tax liability. Tax will be deducted under pay-as-you-earn in one of two ways. For most recipients—who have some taxable income other than their benefit—tax will be deducted by adjusting the tax code applied to that other source. For those who do not have another source of taxable income—about 10,000 recipients—tax will be deducted from their benefit by the Benefits Agency.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of raising the personal allowance by an amount equivalent to the blind person's allowance for people receiving disability living allowance at a rate equal to, or greater than, the middle rate of the care component of that allowance.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]The estimated revenue cost in 1994–95 of such a change is £20 million.

  Allowances
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people currently receive(a) the married couple's allowance, (b) the additional person's allowance, (c) the widow's bereavement allowance and (d) the blind person's allowance.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]Latest estimates are in the table:

  Numbers benefiting from allowances in 1994–95

  Thousands

  Married couple's allowance1

  10,500

  Additional personal allowance

  750

  Widow's bereavement allowance

  120

  Blind person's allowance

  30

  1 Number of married couples with one or both partners benefiting.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if related allowances such as the adult and child dependency allowance will be treated as part of the income of the recipient of incapacity benefit once the benefit becomes taxable; and in how many of these cases taxing the recipient of incapacity benefit will render that person eligible for income support.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]Incapacity benefit, including age-related additions and adult dependency increases, paid to new claimants after 13 April 1995, will be liable to income tax. Child dependency increases will not be liable to income tax. It is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the number of recipients of incapacity benefit with an income tax liability who will be eligible for income support, as a result of taxing the recipient.

  Financial Institutions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if all individual traders in City financial 266
  institutions are required to have individual trading position limits set by their institutions, under Bank of England regulations, or under other regulations.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: Both the Bank and the Securities and Futures Authority require the management of relevant institutions to have limits on overall trading positions and, where appropriate, to monitor and record exposures against them.

  Barings
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement on Barings of 27 February,Official Report, column 693, what he has to add to his statement in respect of his comment that the unauthorised derivative positions in Barings Singapore were built up in a matter of days; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House on Monday 27 February. He has asked the Board of Banking Supervision to investigate fully and urgently all aspects of the Barings episode and to report back to him.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the responsibilities of Mrs. Lisa Leeson within the back office of Barings Singapore; and if they included the settlement of derivative trades undertaken by traders within Barings Singapore.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: This is a matter for Barings.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the trading limits imposed upon Mr. Nick Leeson of Barings Singapore by Barings.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: None at the moment, but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House on Monday 27 February, he has asked the Board of Banking Supervision to investigate fully and urgently all aspects of the Barings episode and to report back to him.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the dates on which the large unauthorised derivative positions build up recently by a trader at Barings in Singapore first became known to(a) Barings managers in Singapore, (b) Barings managers in the far east, (c) staff in the London office, (d) Barings management in London, (e) staff at the Bank of England, (f) staff at Her Majesty's Treasury, (g) the Governor of the Bank of England, (h) himself and (i) the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: I do not have the information on (a) to (d). For (e) to (i) the date in each case was Friday 24 February.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what occasions Barings London treasury department, or any other entity within Barings London, arranged funding for any of the recent unauthorised derivative positions initiated by a trade at Barings in Singapore;

  (2) on what date a team of staff from Barings in London flew to Singapore to investigate the large derivative positions which were recently taken by a trade in Barings Singapore and which resulted in the collapse of the bank.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answers 6 March 1995]: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the

  267
  Exchequer told the House on Monday 27 February, he has asked the Board of Banking Supervision to investigate fully and urgently all aspects of the Barings episode and to report back to him.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regulations exist to control the percentage of contract open interest which may be accounted for by any one trader or entity, on the futures exchanges in(a) London, (b) Tokyo, (c) Singapore and (d) Chicago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: The answers are as follows:

  London:
  there are no limits on the open positions that may be taken by persons dealing on recognised investment exchanges in London. Transactions on the London, International Financial Futures and Options Exchange, the London Commodity Exchange, LCE, the International Petroleum Exchange, IPE, and the London Metal Exchange, LME, are cleared through members of the London Clearing House, LCH, which regularly monitors its members' margin requirements against their capital. The LCH and the four exchanges also monitor large positions of their members at contract level. The OMLX exchange carries out a daily position and margin review of all its members.
  Chicago:
  two US futures exchanges based in Chicago are recognised as overseas investment exchanges under the Financial Services Act 1986. They are supervised by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission whose regulations have included provisions for limits on open positions for a number of years.
  Tokyo and Singapore:
  there are no exchanges operating in these centres which are recognised as overseas investment exchanges under the Financial Services Act 1986. Questions about the regulations applying to exchanges in these centres should be addressed to the relevant authorities.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has taken to create a more efficient, modernised civil service without demoralising the staff with job insecurity and a reduction of living standards.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 8 March 1995]: "The Civil Service—Continuity and Change", Cm 2627, and "The Civil Service—Taking Forward Continuity and Change", Cm 2748, explain what measures have been taken, and will be taken, to create a more efficient civil service; emphasise the Government's intention to deal with staff reductions on a voluntary basis wherever possible; and make clear the Government's commitment to maintaining a predominantly career civil service, committed to the training and development of all staff, and to effective communication to maintain morale.

  In addition, the recent consultation paper "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money: Resource Accounting and Budgeting in Government", Cm 2626, proposes potentially far reaching changes in the way Government Departments budget and account for all the resources they consume, and what they achieve with those resources, as part of the Government's commitment to improve the way that the public sector manages itself.

  Tobacco Products (Distance Selling)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to prevent the promotion and 268
  distribution of tobacco products through distance selling; what measures are being or will be taken to publicise the penalties for engaging in this trade; and how many companies have been prosecuted for distance selling of tobacco products.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 8 March 1995]: Distance selling, in which duty is paid in the country of destination, is a recognised legitimate activity for which provision has been made in EC legislation, which is implemented in United Kingdom legislation in the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992. Certain schemes which are being marketed as distance selling are being investigated by HM Customs and Excise as tax avoidance devices.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on recent British initiatives to assist the peace process in Sudan;

  (2) when the next round in the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development talks on Sudan is expected to take place;

  (3) what proposals are being considered at the United Nations to increase the pressure on all sides in the Sudanese war to find a peaceful solution.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We believe that the IGADD peace initiative offers the best hope of a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Sudan. We are in regular contact with the parties involved in the initiative and are encouraging them to negotiate in good faith. Consultations between the parties are continuing. No date for the next round of talks has yet been set.

  Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of(a) the progress of the CFE treaty implementation and (b) the prospects for implementation of all the obligations by all signatories by the November 1995 deadline.

  Mr. David Davis
  So far, progress on CFE treaty implementation has been good, with almost all states achieving the required 60 per cent. target by 16 November 1994. We are actively addressing outstanding problems and hope that the treaty will be fully implemented by all states at November 1995.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number and the types of CFE treaty limited equipment which have yet to be destroyed in all CFE signatory states.

  Mr. David Davis
  The information is in the following table.
  269

  At November 1994, the following equipment had yet to be destroyed by CFE signatory states:

  Country

  Battle tanks

  Armoured Combat vehicles

  Artillery

  Attack helicopters

  Combat aircraft

  Armenia

  —

  159

  —

  —

  —

  Azerbaijan

  216

  727

  103

  —

  —

  Belarus

  570

  434

  —

  —

  50

  Bulgaria

  317

  92

  162

  —

  40

  Czech Rep

  132

  98

  147

  —

  —

  Denmark

  58

  —

  —

  —

  —

  France

  —

  171

  —

  16

  —

  Germany

  253

  810

  402

  —

  —

  Greece

  400

  —

  202

  —

  —

  Hungary

  193

  —

  70

  —

  —

  Italy

  53

  220

  82

  18

  —

  Norway

  24

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Poland

  380

  —

  281

  —

  7

  Romania

  636

  421

  981

  —

  31

  Russia

  1,041

  897

  2

  39

  312

  Slovakia

  173

  74

  271

  —

  2

  Spain

  26

  —

  24

  —

  —

  Turkey

  424

  —

  48

  —

  —

  Ukraine

  728

  321

  —

  —

  226

  United Kingdom

  62

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Russian request for a revision of the CFE treaty.

  Mr. David Davis
  Russia has called for revision of article V of the CFE treaty, which sets limits on the amount of treaty limited equipment in the northern and southern flank regions. We have urged Russia to use the flexibility within the treaty to meet her security concerns. We have also, with our NATO allies, stressed the importance of full implementation of the treaty's provisions.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the consequences of the Belarus decision to halt the destruction of weapons requested by the CFE treaty.

  Mr. David Davis
  We are most concerned by Belarus's announcement, which, if implemented, would have potentially serious consequences for the CFE treaty. We and other NATO allies have strongly urged Belarus to resume its destruction programme. We are also considering what assistance we might provide to help Belarus to fulfil its reduction obligations by the November 1995 deadline.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the British Government will be pursuing the issue of an enhanced role for national Parliaments in contributing towards the accountability of EU institutions at the intergovernmental conference.

  Mr. David Davis
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 1 March:
  "we shall present a range of our ideas at the conference…We shall set out ways of achieving a stronger role for national Parliament".— [Official Report, 1 March 1995; Vol. 255, c. 1063.]

  Ivory Coast
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received on the human rights situation in the Ivory Coast;270
  and if he will publish the representations made to the Government of the Ivory Coast.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer to his question of 10 January, column 59.

  Code d'Ivoire is a multi-party democracy with functioning human rights institutions. The Ivorian authorities are well aware of the importance attached internationally to full respect for human rights.

EDUCATION

  Sickness Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures she is taking to combat sickness absenteeism in(a) the Teachers Pensions Agency and (b) her Department.

  Mr. Boswell
  Sickness absence in the Department, including the Teachers Pensions Agency, is monitored and reported monthly to heads of branch. Referrals are made to personnel and welfare officers when an individual's sick leave totals give cause for concern. In addition, the Department is about to launch an initiative to(a) remind staff of the procedures to follow if they are sick and (b) encourage line managers through briefings and training to take a leading role in managing sickness absence firmly but fairly.

  North Yorkshire County Council
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the number of employees in the education department of North Yorkshire county council in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The employment of individuals in the education department of North Yorkshire county council is a matter for North Yorkshire local education authority. The Department does not collect such information.

SCOTLAND

  Incentive Prescribing Schemes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on the introduction of incentive prescribing schemes for non-fundholding practices; which health boards have incentive prescribing schemes already in place or definitely due to start on 1 April and how many practices and list patients will be covered.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The indicative prescribing scheme, introduced in April 1992, allows for incentive prescribing schemes to operate in each health board area. To date, no applications from health boards have been formally approved under the indicative prescribing scheme to set up incentive prescribing schemes.

  Allowances
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the (i) salary, honorarium or allowance payable to and (ii) number of days, or part days, on a weekly average devoted to the performance of public duties by(a) the chairman and members of Scottish Homes board, (b) the chairman and members of Argyll and Clyde health board, (c) the chairman and members of the Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS trust, (d) the chairman and members of the RAH trust, (e) the leader of Strathclyde regional council, (f) the chairpersons of committees of Strathclyde regional council, (g) other members of Strathclyde regional council, (h) the leader of Renfrew district council, (i) the conveners of committees of Renfrew district council and (j) other members of Renfrew district council; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of allowances paid to individual members of local authorities are not held centrally. Each authority decides on its own scheme within the requirements of the Local Authorities Etc. (Allowances) (Scotland) Regulations 1991, as amended. Details of payments made to individuals are available for inspection by local electors at the appropriate council offices on request.

  The information requested for the chairman and members of the other bodies is provided in the table.

  Salary honorarium or allowance £

  Estimated time commitment

  Scottish Homes

  Chairman

  38,330

  3 days per week

  Members

  6,600

  2 days per month

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  Chairman

  17,700 per annum

  2-3 days per week

  Non-executive members

  5,000 per annum

  3 days per month

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Chairman

  19,285 per annum

  2-3 days per week

  Non-executive directors

  5,000 per annum

  3 days per month

  272

  Salary honorarium or allowance £

  Estimated time commitment

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  Chairman

  17,145 per annum

  2-3 days per week

  Non-executive directors

  5,000 per annum

  3 days per month

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in his Department from Messrs. Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

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

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the decision to keep closed until 2006 the Forestry Commission file No. F43/454 at the Public Record Office.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The file is now available for inspection by the general public at the Public Record Office.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many abattoirs there were in 1993 and 1994; and how many of these met European Community standards.

  Sir Hector Monro
  At the end of 1993, there were 54 licensed red meat abattoirs in Scotland, of which 27 fully met European Community standards and were approved to trade throughout the EC. Of the remainder, 17 plants were operating under a temporary derogation while upgrading towards full EC status and 10 plants were low-throughput premises.

  At the end of 1994, 31 of the 49 licensed red meat abattoirs were up to the full EC standard. Ten plants continued to operate under a temporary derogation and eight plants had low-throughput status.

  Social Work Trusts
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of state for Scotland what consideration he has given to the establishment of social work trusts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Guidance to local authorities has said that, in relation to community care, they should distinguish between their purchasing and providing functions. The establishment of social work trusts is one option which could assist social work authorities in developing their enabling functions.

  Care Services
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue detailed guidelines on the criteria to be used to determine whether a person is in need of health care or social care.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In his statement to the Scottish Grand Committee on 1 March,Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, columns 1-12, my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State announced that as part of an on-going review of all aspects of

  273
  continuing care and care in the community the Scottish Office has continued to refine the guidance that is available in this respect.

  Consistent with the approach adopted by the Department of Health, to which the Scottish Office contributed, detailed guidance on the operational aspects of arranging and funding continuing care services is to be issued from the Scottish Office.

  A letter issued on 1 March from the Scottish Office on this matter to directors of social work, general managers of health boards and chief executives on NHS trusts in Scotland. A copy of this letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  NHS Management Executive
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what examination the NHS management executive is giving to the merger of health boards and local authorities in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Salmon Roe
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he had to legalise the sale of salmon roe produced in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Interested parties will be consulted shortly on proposals which would permit trade in farmed, but not wild, salmon roe.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the allocation of the European regional development fund to each of the objective 1, 2 and 5b regions in Scotland for the current programming period.

  Mr. Kynoch
  The objective 1 and 2 single programming documents were approved on 29 July and 16 December respectively. Allocations from the European regional development fund are shown in the table.

  Approval of the Scottish objective 5b programmes is still awaited. However, the proposed allocation for each programme from the ERDF is also shown. All allocations are at 1994 prices.

  Designation

  Period

  Area

  ERDF mecu

  ERDF £million

  Objective 1

  1994–99

  Highlands and Islands

  180.000

  142.068

  Objective 2

  1994–96

  Eastern Scotland

  96.000

  75.770

  Western Scotland

  222.910

  175.935

  Objective 5b

  1994–99

  Borders

  20.400

  16.101

  Dumfries and Galloway

  33.900

  26.756

  North and West

  Grampian

  28.250

  22.297

  Rural Stirling/Upland Tayside

  16.875

  13.319

  * Exchange rate £ = 1.267 ecu.

  Each area is eligible to receive further ERDF resources from Community initiatives.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many drug and related finds, broken down by type of drug, were made in gaols in Scotland in each year since 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 9 March 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question on how many drug and related finds, broken down by type of drug, were made in jails in Scotland in each year since 1990.
  Any prisoner found in possession of illicit drugs or injecting equipment is guilty of a disciplinary offence under The Prison and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 1994. The number of such recorded offences since 1990 are as follows:

  1990–91: 749

  1991–92: 845

  1992–93: 838

  1993–94: 895

  Detailed information for these years is not available on the type of drugs found but records indicate that most of the disciplinary offences involved cannabis.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the proposed salaries and expenses for(a) the chairman, (b) the chief executives and (c) all other board members for the proposed new water authorities.

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: The chairman of the North and West water authorities will each receive £40,000 per annum while the chairman of the East of Scotland water authority will receive £24,000 per annum. The chief executives of new water authorities have yet to be appointed, but the salary of each will be around £80,000, plus a possible performance bonus to be settled each year. The other members of the new water authorities will normally receive £6,000 per annum. In all cases, expenses incurred on water authority business will be reimbursed.

  Voluntary Bodies (Grants)
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has reached a decision on the allocation to voluntary bodies of grant under the special grants (environmental) programme in 1995–96.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I am pleased to have been able to offer 51 individual grants totalling £429,930 to 46 voluntary bodies in Scotland to assist them in carrying out their valuable environmental conservation, improvement and education work. The sums available in the special grants (environmental) programme in 1995––96 represent an increase of some 12 per cent. over 1994–95. This increase demonstrates both the value that the Government place on the work carried out by the voluntary sector, and its role in taking forward the Government's environmental objectives.
  275

  Organisation

  Grant £

  Association for the Protection of Birds

  4,500

  Association of Deer Management Groups

  5,000

  Biological Recording in Scotland Campaign

  5,000

  Buchan Countryside Group

  3,000

  CSV Scotland

  18,000

  Council for Scottish Archaeology

  16,000

  Easter Ross Rights of Way Society

  800

  Friends of the Earth Scotland

  5,000

  Game Conservancy Trust

  5,000

  Garden History Society

  4,000

  Glasgow Building Preservation Trust

  10,000

  Heartland FM

  2,000

  Heather Trust

  8,000

  Heatwise Glasgow

  5,000

  Highlands and Islands Forum

  18,000

  Landwise Glasgow

  4,000

  Lothian and Edinburgh Environmental Partnership

  5,000

  National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection

  4,400

  Planning Aid for Scotland

  19,000

  Plantlife

  3,500

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  20,000

  Rural Forum Scotland

  16,000

  Rural Forum Scotland/Reforesting Scotland

  10,000

  Scottish Bat Groups

  1,730

  Scottish Conservation Projects Trust

  42,000

  Scottish Ecological Design Association

  8,000

  Scottish Environmental Education Council

  37,000

  Scottish Environmental Forum

  8,000

  Scottish Farm and Countryside Education Trust

  5,000

  Scottish Historic Buildings Trust

  11,700

  Scottish Landowners Federation

  4,000

  Scottish Native Woods Campaign

  6,000

  Scottish Rights of Way Society

  7,000

  Scottish Scenic Trust

  1,000

  Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link

  12,000

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  39,500

  Strathclyde Greenbelt Company

  10,000

  Sustrans (Sustainable Transport Scotland)

  8,000

  Treewise

  5,500

  Touchstone

  1,500

  Venture Scotland

  3,300

  Vision 21

  4,000

  Water of Leith Conservation Trust

  4,500

  West Galloway Fisheries Trust

  4,000

  Woodland Trust

  5,000

  Youth Clubs Scotland

  10,000

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet determined the level of fee remission grant which will be available to parents under the assisted places scheme in school session 1995–96.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is making £10.656 million available for fee remission in 1995–96. Fifty-five schools across Scotland will participate in the scheme. This funding should enable the number of pupils currently benefiting to be maintained at slightly above 3,000.

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the income scale which will apply to the assisted places scheme in Scotland in school session 1995–96.
  276
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For school session 1995–96, I propose to lay regulations before the House in due course providing for progressive parental contribution for one assisted pupil in relation to family income as follows:

  Part of relevant income to which the specified percentage applies

  Parental contribution (percentage)

  That part (if any) which exceeds £9,545 but does not exceed £10,378

  9

  That part (if any) which exceeds £10,378 but does not exceed £11,226

  12

  That part (if any) which exceeds £11,226 but does not exceed £12,909

  15

  That part (if any) which exceeds £12,909 but does not exceed £15,494

  21

  That part (if any) which exceeds £15,494 but does not exceed £18,872

  24

  That part (if any) which exceeds £18,872

  33

  The relevant income scale is open ended, but the remission can, of course, be given only where the parental contribution is less than the school tuition fee.

  Cable Television Franchises
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those areas of Scotland which are covered by cable television franchises.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Fourteen franchises, covering 1,123,000 homes have been awarded in Scotland to date, in the following areas:

  Aberdeen

  Dundee and Carnoustie

  Perth

  Glenrothes and Kirkaldy

  Edinburgh

  Falkirk and Livingston

  Cumbernauld, Airdie and Coatbridge

  Motherwell and East Kilbride

  Greater Glasgow

  North West Glasgow and Clydebank

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  Dumbarton

  Paisley and Renfrew

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  The ITC is considering further local delivery operator franchises in Scotland.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Framework Document
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what complaints he has received about the non-availability of the framework document; how many copies of the document had been distributed by Tuesday 28 February; and what proposals he has to make the framework document readily available to all the people of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  There was enormous public interest in this document and, as a result, there was some initial difficulty in quickly meeting immediate demand.
  277
  At 28 February, approximately 60,000 copies had been distributed through post offices and approximately 40,000 through the freephone and freepost mechanisms.

  The Government recognise the importance of everyone in Northern Ireland having an opportunity to consider the proposals. Copies continue to be available in the 30 main post offices and are still being issued in response to requests to the freephone and freepost systems.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the J. Hawthorne listed as a consultant in the fair employment small firms employment scheme in his answer of 15 February,Official Report, columns 679-80, is the same person as James Hawthorne CBE, the head of the Community Relations Commission and the former controller of BBC Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  Yes.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many abattoirs there were in 1993 and 1994; and how many of these met European Community standards.

  Mr. Ancram
  All abattoirs in Northern Ireland are approved in accordance with the terms of European Community directives, laying down the hygiene, operation, supervision and structural conditions of abattoirs, so that they will meet European Community standards.

  At the end of 1993, there were 16 approved red meat abattoirs, of which 15 were fully approved to trade throughout the Community and one was a full throughput premises with a temporary derogation. At the end of 1994,

  Spend 1993–94 £000s

  Forecast 1994–95 £000s

  Planned 1995–96 £000s

  Planned 1996–97 £000s

  A.

  Probation Service

  10,097

  10,496

  10,087

  10,374

  B.

  Training Schools

  12,017

  13,173

  12,316

  12,540

  C.

  Grants to Voluntary Bodies

  812

  712

  690

  690

  D.

  Crime Prevention

  121

  239

  158

  165

  E.

  Victim Support

  197

  267

  270

  298

  F.

  Civil Defence

  -1,154

  473

  368

  145

  G.

  Civil Emergencies

  -1,154

  473

  368

  145

  H.

  Elections

  1,243

  1,255

  1,254

  1,232

  I.

  Services in support of the Security Forces (PANI non police pay expenditure plus NIO Security Responsibility Centre)

  133,890

  133,797

  137,971

  133,164

  J.

  Legal Services Crown Solicitor's Office

  684

  1,014

  927

  990

  Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions

  7,054

  7,170

  7,134

  7,203

  K.

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  227

  289

  254

  261

  L.

  Information Services

  1,259

  1,285

  1,410

  1,425

  M.

  Northern Ireland Office Administration

  756,983

  755,735

  715,816

  718,766

  This includes:

  a.

  RUC Pay

  478,139

  480,198

  477,913

  499,768

  b.

  Compensation Agency Costs

  106,689

  95,338

  65,257

  45,287

  c.

  Prison Costs

  141,130

  147,485

  143,813

  144,365

  278
  there were 15 approved red meat abattoirs, of which 14 were fully approved and one had a temporary derogation. Premises with temporary derogations are approved to trade on the national market.

  Portaferry-Strangford Bridge
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to build a bridge linking Portaferry and Strangford village; what is the estimated cost of such a bridge; and what EU funding could be available for such a scheme.

  Mr. Moss
  There are no proposals to build such a bridge, which, in the absence of detailed costings, is estimated to cost between £15 million and £20 million. It is not possible to say whether European Union funding could be available without first considering a full economic and financial appraisal.

  Expenditure
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent from the law, order, protective and miscellaneous services programme on(a) the probation service, (b) training schools, (c) grants to voluntary bodies concerned with the rehabilitation of offences, (d) crime prevention, (e) victim support, (f) civil defence, (g) civil emergencies, (h) elections (i) services in support of the security forces, (j) legal services, (k) the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights, (l) information services and (m) Northern Ireland Office administration in 1993–94 and 1994–95; and what is the estimated expenditure in 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The amount spent in 1993–94, forecast spend for 1994–95 and planned expenditure for 1995–96 and 1996–97 from the law, order protective and miscellaneous services programme are as follows:
  279
  Ms Mowlam
  To aks the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the amount of money spent under the law and order, protective and miscellaneous services programme on criminal damages and injuries compensation in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and what is the estimated expenditure in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Compensation Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Denis Stanley. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. A. Stanley to Ms Mowlam, dated 8 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply, on behalf of the Compensation Agency, to your recent Question regarding criminal injuries compensation.The following table details how much was spent on criminal damage and criminal damage and criminal injuries compensation in 1993–94, the forecast for 1994–95 and the current estimate for 1995–96 and 1996–97:

  Year

  Criminal damage compensation £ Million

  Criminal injuries compensation £ Million

  1993–94

  67.9

  29.6

  1994–95 (forecast)

  55.0

  31.7

  1995–96 (estimate)

  26.0

  33.8

  1996–97 (estimate)

  9.0

  30.8

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to seek parliamentary authority for an increase in the television fee.

  Mr. Dorrell
  On 1 December 1994,Official Report, column 805, I announced that, from 1 April 1995, the fee for a colour television licence would increase to £86.50 and that for a monochrome licence to £28.50. I have today laid before the House the regulations necessary to bring these fees into force.

  Whitehall Study
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what brief and limits he set for the study he has commissioned on the future of Whitehall and of its urban design consequences;

  (2) what is the cost of the study of the future of Whitehall and of its urban design consequences will be published;

  (3) when he expects the study of the future of Whitehall and of its urban design consequences will be published.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  Property Holdings commissioned a portfolio review last year to examine the scope for rationalising the Whitehall estate and for reuse of surplus space. Property Holdings with the Department of National Heritage also commissioned an urban design study of the Government estate in the Whitehall conservation area, which will provide day-to-day best practice advice to Departments carrying out maintenance and alterations affecting the
  280
  external appearance of their Whitehall buildings. Copies of the reference for both studies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The portfolio review is on-going and the initial report was received in October 1994. It is estimated to cost up to £75,000 plus VAT, but it will not be published as it includes market-sensitive information that could affect any property negotiations resulting from the study. The design is expected to be completed by July 1995 and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House. It is estimated to cost £40,000 plus VAT, including the printing and production costs of the guide.

  Children's Play
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which organisations he has invited to bid for funds to carry out work under his new arrangements for children's play.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I will shortly be meeting a number of organisations to discuss the new arrangements which we propose to introduce and will then invite bids for funds from these and other interested organisations.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he has taken to ensure that all children's play activities are recognised by the Sports Council for the purposes of national lottery funding.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under the National Lottery etc. Act 1994, it is for the Sports Council to consider the eligibility of projects submitted to it in the light of the Act and the directions which I have issued to it. I understand that the council is considering this matter in the light of the announcement which I made on 2 March about new arrangements for children's play,Official Report, column 640.

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to conduct research into the effect that the introduction of an instant win game by the operators of the national lottery will have on fund raising by charities, sports clubs and other organisations, especially through the medium lotteries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no such plans.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has had with the Director General of the National Lottery with regard to placing a limit on the first prize payable in respect of any single winning ticket.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have had no such consultations.

  Tourism Promotion
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he takes to establish the accuracy of local claims regarding the origins of historical figures used in terms of tourism promotion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]It is not my function to check the accuracy of traditional associations of historical figures with specific localities.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Election Law Breaches
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Attorney-General how many allegations of(a) fraudulent voting,(b) misuse of proxies, (c) breach of financial limits and (d) other breaches of election law and been (i) received by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service, (ii) investigated and (iii) prosecuted, and with what result, for each year since 1992.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of cases reported to the CPS with a view to investigation for election offences between 1992 and 1995 and covering both parliamentary and local government elections is a follows:
  1992 101 cases 1993 30 cases (between 1 April and 31 December) 1994 61 cases 1995 (to date)3 cases
  There are no accurate figures for the first three months of 1993.

  Categorisation of the cases in the manner requested by the hon. Member could be effected only through recovery from archives and scrutiny of each individual file. This would involve disproportionate cost. In 1992, there were five successful prosecutions for the personation of those entitled to vote; two of double voting; and one case of a person convicted on an eight-count indictment of theft and forgery of ballot papers and personation.

  In 1993, there was one successful prosecution for a failure to return a declaration of expenses; one of making a false statement of fact about the personal character or conduct of a candidate; and one case of two offences of falsification of proxy forms. There was also an acquittal in a case of incurring unauthorised expenses.

  In 1994, a case of falsification of a nomination of candidate form was commenced. The case has been committed for trial but no trial date has yet been fixed.

  There is no central record of allegations received by the police but not submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Sickness Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Attorney-General what measures he is taking to combat sickness absenteeism in(a) the Treasury Solicitor's Department, (b) the Serious Fraud Office, (c) Government Property Lawyers and (d) the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Attorney-General
  The departments for which I am responsible are concerned about the well-being of their staff and monitor closely and investigate both individual cases and overall trends. They make every effort to control the level of sickness absences through preventive measures which include the provision of:

  (a) health screening programmes;

  (b) free eye tests and where necessary allowances to purchase spectacles for users of visual display units;

  (c) stress awareness and management seminars;

  (d) health and safety advice; and

  (e) the services of a welfare officer.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Overseas Aid Policy
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Minister for Overseas Development will be publishing a statement about the United Kingdom proposals for improvements in its overseas aid policy at the time of the world summit for social development.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our objectives, policies and achievements are reviewed annually with a view to maintaining and improving the quality and effectiveness of the aid programme.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the Overseas Development Administration, published its 1995 departmental report on 8 March and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Sickness Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to combat sickness absenteeism in the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mr. Baldry
  Established guidelines are in place for the management of sick absence, including welfare, medical, disciplinary and inefficiency procedures which accord with best practice as recommended by the National Audit Office.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Domestic Committees
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission what recent changes have been made to the responsibilities of domestic committees.

  Mr. Beith
  Following discussions between Committees, the House of Commons Commission has now approved the following modifications to the responsibilities of domestic Committees which take account of the Information Committee's primary responsibility for the parliamentary data and video network and the latter's endorsement by the House:
  the distribution of the clean feed within the House—from the Broadcasting Committee to the Information Committee;annunciator services and the provision of television, video and radio channels—from the Administration Committee to the Information Committee.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what factors are contributing to the delay in connecting hon. Members to the Internet.

  Mr. Waller
  The Information Committee considered the proposed experimental connection to Internet on 16 and 30 January. Before the system is operational, it is necessary to finalise and award the contract, arrange certain security measures and install a dedicated link.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what assessment the Committee has made of whether it would be technically feasible to identify
  283
  electronic mail sent by hon. Members from the parliamentary data and video network via the Internet to domestic addresses and those sent to the international addresses.

  Mr. Waller
  While it would be technically feasible to monitor Members' Internet e-mails, there are no plans to do so. It is a long-standing tradition of the House that hon. Members' parliamentary communications are not monitored by the House authorities. Since there are no charges for Internet e-mail, there would be no bar to Members receiving and sending either domestic or international e-mail messages.

  Word Processors (Training)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what facilities exist for training hon. Members on the use of word processors.

  Mr. Waller
  Training for hon. Members in all aspects of IT including word processors was considered by the Committee in its report "The Provision of Members' Information Technology Equipment, Software and Services"—first report, Session 1992–93, HC737—which was approved by the House on 30 June 1994. The report recommended, inter alia, the provision of a modest amount of basic on-site training which would be paid for by Members from their office costs allowance. Training in the use of the parliamentary data and video network is provided without charge to Members' office cost allowances.

  Parliamentary Channel
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Broadcasting Committee what are the current arrangements for parliamentary charging for the Parliamentary Channel; when these arrangements are subject to review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The licences from the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Clerk of the Parliaments which underpin the arrangements for parliamentary broadcasting run for five years until the summer of 1996, when they will fall due for renewal. PARBUL—Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd.—which is the company charged with producing the signals on behalf of Parliament, is funded by shareholdings from the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, BSkyB and the Parliamentary Channel. Funding is on a per-channel basis and the Parliamentary Channel therefore provides one sixth of the costs of the equipment and staff involved in the creation of the signals. The original agreement between Parliament and the broadcasters, which was approved by the House, provides for the broadcasters to make a contribution, via PARBUL, of roughly 50 per cent. towards the costs of the televising operation, in return for the right to make use of the signals for broadcasting purposes. No question arises therefore of any charge being payable to Parliament by the Parliamentary Channel.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Broadcasting Committee what steps the Committee is taken to ensure that the Parliamentary Channel is made available free to all electors who are connected to satellite; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The Parliamentary Channel is a cable channel and is available at no extra charge as part of the basic package of channels to all subscribers to broadband 284
  cable systems. The Select Committee on Broadcasting, in its first report of Session 1990–91 on "The Arrangements for the Permanent Televising of the Proceedings of the House", recommended that the United Artists proposals for the Parliamentary Channel offered the most promising prospect for the provision of a dedicated channel. It also noted that the proposal should not be regarded as the last word, nor as excluding or pre-empting any other proposals for a dedicated channel which might come forward in the future. I am not aware of any plans for the establishment of a dedicated Parliamentary Channel receivable by owners of satellite dishes. In any case, because of the high start-up and operating costs of such a channel, it could be provided free of charge only either at a commercial loss or on the basis of a large and continuing public subsidy.

  Audio-visual Resources
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will promote or fund a CD-ROM on how Parliament and British democracy works for use by schools and electors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waller
  I have been asked to reply.

  The question of a multi-media presentation is at present under discussion between the officers of the two Houses, and other interested parties. Various audio-visual resources on Parliament are already available from the education officer.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

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

  Mr. Newton
  No member of the Privy Council Office's staff has applied for a career break in the last five years.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gas Licences
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish further information about the licences which would be granted pursuant to the Gas Bill, once enacted.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am today publishing further information about proposed gas licences, in advance of the Second Reading of the Gas Bill next Monday. These outlines will give a clearer idea of the measures and safeguards that would be established for the operation of a fully competitive market in domestic gas supply.

  The principal standard conditions are likely to include:
  for supply licences, an obligation to supply all prospective domestic customers within their area, subject to certain technical exceptions; to publish charges; to offer a reasonable range of methods of payment to customers; to supply gas where directed to do so by the Director General of Gas Supply, to ensure the continuity of supply to customers; to make financial arrangements, such as a bond, to cover the costs which would be involved if another company had to take over supplying their

  285
  customers; to offer consumers reasonable rights to terminate contracts; to provide special services for disabled customers or pensioners free of charge; to adopt suitable methods for dealing with customers who have genuine difficulty paying their bills; to advise customers on energy efficiency; to check the background of officers authorised to enter customers' premises and provide them with official identification.for transportation licences, requirements to keep separate accounts for transportation and storage business; to furnish the director with details of charges, and both the director and the Gas Consumers Council with other information; to establish standards of performance and provide compensation if they are not met; to establish a "network code" under which others may use the pipeline system; to make effective arrangements for the provision of emergency services to the public; to raise a levy, if necessary, to compensate any suppliers with disproportionate social obligations; and to obtain the director's approval before disposing of key assets.for shipper licences, obligations as regards the use of pipeline systems; to assist the transporter during an emergency; to supply the director with appropriate information.

  Gas Market (Competition)
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, columns 125-27, if he has reached any conclusions in relation to the consultation on the initial areas for domestic gas competition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The area for the first phase of the transition to a competitive gas market will cover some 500,000 gas consumers in Cornwall, Devon and Somerset.

  The south-west has received by far the most support—nearly a third of all responses to our consultation document suggested the south-west as the most suitable area.

  The responses demonstrated widespread enthusiasm for competition in gas supply from all over the country. Local authorities and other organisations from all parts of the country—from Clydesbank to Carrick, from Devon to Dover, from Rotherham to Rugby—requested that they should be the first to benefit from competition in the domestic gas market.

  The south-west fulfils the criteria set out by the Trade and Industry Select Committee and the consultation document:
  it will be one of the areas that might be relatively disadvantaged by the higher transportation charges applicable;it has a mix of rural and urban areas and a representative cross-section of types of consumers;it is suitable for testing and necessary technical systems;it is a clearly defined area with clear natural boundaries.
  Because of the need for further consideration of technical factors, no decision regarding the second phase of the transition to competition has yet been made.

  The Gas Bill published last week would provide the legislative and regulatory framework for the extension of competition in supply to 18 million domestic gas consumers in Great Britain. We have proposed that, subject to parliamentary approval of the Bill, the introduction of competition should be phased from 1996 to 1998, with the first phase in April 1996 covering some 500,000 homes, which would be extended to 2 million homes in 1997, before nationwide competition in 1998.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which EC member states permit European regional development fund grant to be accessed using wholly private sector match funding; and what are the reasons for Her Majesty's Government not permitting the same procedure.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government do permit European regional development fund grant to be "accessed using wholly private sector match funding"—projects to be financed by the fund and the private sector alone. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) on 20 February 1995,Official Report, columns 31-32.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the details of the models which the Government have developed and submitted to the Commission for facilitating objective 1 funding.

  Mr. Eggar
  I take it that the hon. Member is referring to the Government's proposals, mentioned in the reply I gave him on 20 February 1995,Official Report, column 31, for facilitating private sector contributions to projects to which the European regional development fund makes grants.

  I do not intend to make these proposals public in advance of the Commission's response.

  They relate not only to objective 1 grants but to ERDF grants generally.

  Departmental Filing Arrangements
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether filing arrangements in his Department include indexing under the names of individual hon. Members.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Correspondence between hon. Members and Ministers in the Department is recorded in their respective private offices in the name of the hon. Member.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether filing arrangements in his Department include indexing under named lobbying companies.

  Mr. Heseltine
  There is no such index in the Department.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. Heseltine
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: It is not the normal practice to disclose information about communications between hon. Members and Ministers.

  Network Marketing
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what inquiries are going on into the activities of companies involved in network marketing.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: Since June 1994, the Department has successfully applied to the

  287
  High Court to wind up 12 companies engaged in the promotion of money-making schemes with a pyramid recruitment structure similar to that used in network marketing. However, as a matter of policy, I cannot disclose whether any current inquiries are taking place.

  Pneumoconiosis Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many payments were made under the coal industry pneumoconiosis compensation scheme in(a) 1980, (b) 1986 and (c)

  Mr. Page
  The numbers of lump sum payments awarded by British Coal under the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme in the nearest financial years were as follows:

  Year

  Number of lump sum awards

  1980–81

  521

  1986–87

  295

  1993–94

  263

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average level of payment made under the coal industry pneumoconiosis compensation scheme in(a) 1980, (b) 1986 and (c)

  Mr. Page
  Average levels of lump sum payments awarded and loss of earnings allowances paid by British Coal under the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme in the nearest financial years were:

  Average lump sum payments£

  Average loss of earnings allowances £

  1980–81

  781

  1,183

  1986–87

  914

  2,330

  1993–94

  1,640

  5,850

  Progression payments—supplement payments to lump sums—were introduced in 1988 and averaged £378 in 1993–94.

  The estimate for average loss of earnings allowances in 1993–94 is provisional.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many payments have been made under the coal industry pneumoconiosis compensation scheme since 1974.

  Mr. Page
  The numbers of lump sum payments awarded by British Coal under the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme since 1974 are as follows:

  Period

  Number of lump sum awards

  1 October 1974 to 2 December 1976

  62,617

  25 March 1979 to 31 December 1994

  13,465

  Figures for the period 3 December 1976 to 24 March 1979 are not readily available.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants since 4 May 1979 have 288
  left the Export Credits Guarantee Department and have within two years joined companies engaged in contracts with the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her to the same question on 8 February 1995,Official Report, column 314.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which permanent secretaries have left his Department's employment in the last five years; and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 8 March 1995]: Mr. J. R. S. Guinness left the employment of the Department of Energy as permanent secretary during the five years from 1 March 1990. Mr. Guinness was appointed as part-time chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc. No permanent secretary left the Department of Trade and Industry in the same period.

  Regional Selective Assistance Grants
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the total values of all regional selective assistance grants paid to businesses in the Barrow and Furness parliamentary constituency in 1993–94 and 1994–95; and what was the average grant paid in each year.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The regional selective assistance grants which were made and accepted in the Barrow and Furness parliamentary constituency totalled £2,222,800 in 1993–94 and £135,500 in 1994–95. These projects are at a variety of stages of payment, although the average value of each offer made was £202,000 in 1993–94—this figure is influenced by one particularly large grant—and £22,600 in 1994–95.

  Career Breaks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. Heseltine
  My Department does not hold details on the number of staff who applied for career breaks over the past five years. However, between 1990 and 1994 the Department granted career breaks to 13 men and 263 women. None of these staff has had his or her employment terminated.

  American Deregulation Initiative
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reports have been sent by the embassy in Washington concerning the US Administration's deregulation initiative and the Bill introduced by the Republican party; and when these reports were despatched.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The British embassy in Washington has sent two reports, dispatched on 9 and 18 January 1995, concerning the "Congressional Republicans' Contract with America". The embassy brought to our attention two of the 10 proposed pieces of legislation, which collectively make up the contract, that may have deregulatory or competitiveness implications. These are the Job Creation and Enhancement Act and the Common Sense Legal Reforms Act.

  Deregulation (Reporting)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what instructions have been sent to overseas posts on the reporting of developments relevant to the Government's deregulation policies.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  As part of the Government's strong commitment to raising the profile of deregulation at the Community level, overseas posts were updated in February on deregulatory developments. Posts were requested to report on member states' current deregulation initiatives.

  Libyan Sanctions
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had from Babcocks of Renfrew on the issue of Libyan sanctions and the export of boilers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: None.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Sickness Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he is taking to combat sickness absenteeism in(a) the Public Trust Office, (b) the Public Record Office, (c) HM Land Registry and (d) his Department.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question partly concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executives of the three agencies concerned are best placed to provide an answer. I have accordingly asked each of them to reply direct.

  Absenteeism in my Department is taken seriously by managers at all levels in the organisation. All staff are issued with a handbook which explains the Department's policy on sick absence and details what will happen if poor attendance prevents an individual from giving regular and reliable service. Managers are required to tackle sick absence constructively and promptly and this includes conducting a "return to work" interview with staff after any period of sick absence. Levels of sick absence are monitored both locally and centrally and initiatives designed to tackle areas where sick absence is highest have been introduced. In particular, my Department is currently conducting research into the incidence and causes of stress in the Department and the linked problem of stress-related sick absence.

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 9 March 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your parliamentary question, listed on 28 February 1995, regarding measures being taken to combat sickness absenteeism.The Department's central guidance is available to all Public Trust Office staff. On return from sick leave, all staff are interviewed by their managers. Managers are responsible for monitoring sick absence levels, and for taking action if these are unacceptable.I am in the process of issuing new written guidance to managers, and a comprehensive refresher training programme is to be run shortly to support this.290
  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 9 March 1995:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary for the Lord Chancellor's Department to reply to your recent question concerning the measures being taken by HM Registry to combat sickness absenteeism. I can provide the following information.

  1. Periodic health screening is carried out to assist in identifying potential health problems and providing information on healthy living.

  2. Appropriately trained line managers at all levels are involved in managing attendance. Local Personal Managers oversee the operation and effectiveness of procedures.

  3. There is close liaison with the Occupational Health Service over cases of concern and the Registry's own Welfare Service play an active supportive part in the well being of staff.

  4. The Registry has developed a customised Personnel Information System which provides detailed information on sickness absence and its causes. This information is used to inform line managers and to further develop the Agency's sickness absence policy.

  5. All staff in the Land Registry have a personal copy of the Agency's policy on staff attendance and this is publicised on a regular basis.

  I do hope that this answers the point raised with the Parliamentary Secretary but please contact me if I can be any further assistance.
  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 8 March 1995:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your question about measures being taken to combat sickness absenteeism in the Public Record Office.
  In October 1993 the Public Record Office put in place a plan of action to combat sickness absenteeism. This included:
  drafting a revised sick absence policy which has now been circulated to all staff;
  Personnel Management Department providing managers with monthly reports about staff whose sick absence is a cause for concern, agreeing what action should be taken and ensuring that subsequent attendance is monitored regularly and;
  Statistical data on sick absence is now compiled and analysed by Personnel Management Department and this information is circulated to managers on a regular basis. This enables managers to identify and deal with problems at an early stage.

  Specific action which has been taken since February 1994 is as follows:
  64 staff have been asked to discuss sick absence with their manager and agree a plan of action to improve it. Their attendance is then monitored at least quarterly and further action taken if appropriate. Personnel Management Department work closely with managers throughout this process;
  17 referrals have been made to the Occupational Health Service (OHS);
  8 medical retirements have been requested (6 already actioned);
  4 verbal warnings have been given;
  1 written warning has been given; and
  3 staff have been dismissed.

  International Information Super-highway
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what plans he has to ask the Law Commission to investigate the impact on British law of the international information super-highway;

  (2) what efforts his Department is making to liaise with (a) the Governments of the other member states of the European Union, (b) the institutions of the European Union and (c) the American Government with regard to possible law reform as a result of the impact of the international information super-highway;
  291
  (3) what plans he has to increase the number of his officials working on the impact on British law of the international information super-highway;

  (4) how many of his officials, at which grades and in what departmental groups, are engaged in research into the impact on British law of the international information super-highway;

  (5) what research his Department is doing into the impact on British law that the international information super-highway is currently having and is likely to have in the future; and what plans he has to publish this research;

  (6) what plans he has to introduce legislation to make changes to British law in the light of the impact on it of the international information super-highway.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I currently have no plans to ask the Law Commission to investigate the impact on British law of the international information super-highway. However, the Law Commission's business law team is taking part in examination, being conducted by the Department of Trade and Industry, as to whether formal requirements in English law would inhibit the use and effectiveness of electronic data interchange in its commercial application.

  At present, my Department is not engaged in any liaison with the Governments of the other member states of the European Union, the institutions of the European Union or the American Government on the possibility of law reform as a result of the impact of the international information super-highway. No officials in my Department are currently involved in research into this issue. I have no immediate plans to change this situation, nor to introduce legislation to make changes to British law. However, any issues raised by the existence of the international information super-highway are being assessed, and discussed with other interested Departments, as the need arises.

  Defamation
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to reverse the burden of proof in cases of innocent dissemination in defamation cases and when he plans to publish a Bill on this subject.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A Bill putting the defence of innocent dissemination of a statutory footing, and making the defence available to a wider category of defendants, is in an advanced state of preparation and a draft will be published very shortly. It is not proposed that the burden of proof should be reversed.

  Judiciary (Performance Appraisal)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) of 1 March,Official Report, column 572, if he intends to introduce performance appraisal for the judiciary.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Royal Commission on criminal justice recommended the creation of a formal system of performance appraisal for the judiciary. That recommendation remains under active consideration by the Lord Chancellor, who will respond in due course.

  Gerry Adams
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the case of Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein and the European Court of Justice; what United Kingdom public expenditure this has entailed to date; what estimate he has made of the potential future expenditure from public funds; and in what circumstances and under whose authority public funds are allocated in respect of this case.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Legal aid has been granted to Mr. Adams in support of his application for a judicial review of the Home Secretary's decision excluding him from entering Great Britain under the prevention of terrorism Act. The matter has now been referred by the High Court to the European Court of Justice for an interpretation of the relevant European Union law. Where a reference is made by the High Court to the European Court of Justice, legal aid automatically covers work done for the European Court of Justice element of the case.

  To date, a total of £9,234 has been paid on account from the legal aid fund. No estimate has been made of the final cost to legal aid, nor do I consider it appropriate to speculate as to what the final cost might be.

  In dealing with his application for legal aid, Mr. Adams was assessed on the same means and merits criteria as any other applicant for legal aid, in accordance with the appropriate regulations.

  Immigration
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current waiting time for appeals to be hear against refusal of settlement visa applications from spouses and fiancees in India and Pakistan.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Statistics are not kept by the country of origin, but where parties have indicated readiness for the appeal to be heard, cases are now being listed for hearing by the immigration appellate authorities at the hearing centres as follows:

  Centre

  1995

  Glasgow

  March

  Birmingham

  April

  Leeds

  April

  Manchester

  April

  Hatton Cross, London

  June

  Thanet House, London

  November

  In view of the current lengthy waiting times in the south-east, the chief adjudicator has indicated that when notices of hearing are sent from London, the immigration appelate authorities will offer the parties the opportunity of an earlier date at one of the regional centres, if the parties are willing to travel to that centre.

  Wills
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Chancellor's Department what safeguards are available to protect a bereaved person who does not wish the deceased person's will published for security or other reasons; and what is the status of the Data Protection Act 1984 in this respect.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Under section 124 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, a will is a public document.
  293
  However, anyone may apply to a district probate registrar to prevent inspection of a will. The registrar may grant the application if, in his opinion, inspection would be undesirable or otherwise inappropriate. A record of every will administered by the probate registry is kept on a computer system; the general public do not have access to this computer system and the system is fully registered under the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Bryce Taylor
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 573, who is now paying Mr. Bryce Taylor's costs.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Since there are no cost implications for the legal aid fund, the question of costs is entirely a matter for the parties concerned.

  Assault Compensation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received urging, and what plans he has to ensure, that when magistrates courts award sums in compensation to be paid to victims of assault by their assailants that those amounts are paid by the court and received from the assailant by them.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Representations to this effect are received from time to time. However, if compensation were paid to compensatees directly from court funds, this would create a free loan for offenders at taxpayers' expense. If offenders defaulted, it would result in a new burden on the public purse. The proposal would also remove the element of restitution from the court's sentence. We believe that it is important for offenders to be required to repay their victims.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 24 February,Official Report, column 346, if he will list the current political balance of magistrates for each (a) metropolitan borough, (b) London borough and (c) non-metropolitan district in England.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements exist to ensure the Benefits Agency treats in a confidential manner the financial information required of claimants appealing against reduced invalidity benefit on grounds of hardship; and what arrangements exist for protecting confidentiality in respect of the agency's use of a private firm to open claimants' letters containing such information.
  294
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 8 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding the confidentiality aspect of claims to Invalidity Benefit and the opening of Benefits Agency post by private sector companies.
  All information received within Benefits Agency offices concerning the financial and other circumstances of customers is held in strict confidence. All Agency staff have an overall duty to protect any information that is held and to ensure it is not disclosed to anyone without the customer's consent. Any post received in connection with appeals on Invalidity Benefit entitlement will be treated in this manner.
  As you may know, the Government's Competing for Quality initiative subjects public functions to competition from the private sector. As part of this initiative the Benefits Agency has market tested its accommodation and office services, which includes post opening operations. In some areas this has resulted in the Agency's post being opened by private sector contractors.
  The contract specifications drawn up contain all the necessary safeguards to ensure confidentiality of information is maintained to the high standards required by the Civil Service. All staff directly involved in post opening are bound by the same stringent security and confidentiality rules. This includes each member of staff involved in post-opening being required to sign a declaration acknowledging the provisions of section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which makes it a criminal offence to disclose personal information provided for Social Security purposes.
  I am sure you will appreciate that these arrangements present many opportunities for enhanced customer service, in terms of the Agency's business as a whole.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 536, how many of the invalidity benefit recipients are (a) males and (b) females; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Number of invalidity benefit recipients in Great Britain and Wales, at a particular time, by sex

  Great Britain

  Wales

  Year

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  1979

  504,000

  106,000

  58,000

  11,000

  1983

  593,000

  144,000

  70,000

  17,000

  1987

  754,000

  213,000

  93,000

  29,000

  1993

  1,156,000

  424,000

  125,000

  47,000

  Notes:

  1. The number of recipients figure is at June for 1979, and April for 1983, 1987 and 1993.

  2. The Welsh 1979 figure may contain a small number of claimants not in receipt of benefit.

  3. Figures based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the total cost of paying income support for mortgage interest in Scotland in each year since 1982–93 and (b) the total number of households in Scotland receiving income support for mortgage interest in each of these years.
  295
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table.

  Year

  Number of households1

  Estimated annual cost2 £ million

  1989

  15,000

  19.3

  1990

  14,000

  24.6

  1991

  18,000

  33.1

  1992

  19,000

  32.4

  1993

  22,000

  32.6

  Notes:

  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2 Estimated annual expenditure on mortgage interest is calculated as total numbers multiplied by average weekly amount multiplied by 52.

  Source:

  Income support statistics annual inquiries 1989 to 1993.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 623, what estimate has been made of the housing benefit payable to the 41,960 asylum seekers receiving income support in February 1994.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Asylum seekers who are liable for housing costs can claim housing benefit in the normal way. They are not, however, separately identified in the statistical information gathered by local authorities. Accordingly, it is not possible to estimate the housing benefit payable to asylum seekers.

  War Pensions
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of those service personnel who served in Northern Ireland are currently in receipt of a war pension.

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

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of war widows currently in receipt of pensions qualified for payment after 14 August 1945; and how many have so qualified within the last 12 months.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Some 1,608 war widows pensions were awarded in the year ending 31 December 1994.

  Child Support Agency
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will set out details of the compensation scheme available in the case of the Child Support Agency failing to take appropriate action;

  (2) how many time compensation has been awarded by the Child Support Agency when they failed to take appropriate action.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency may consider paying compensation under the terms of the Department of Social Security special payments arrangements. Since the CSA is a relatively new business, we are considering how those arrangements might better cover CSA cases. When these are agreed, we shall be making public the 296
  criteria under which payments for redress may be considered as we do for other agencies of the Department. In the meantime, officials will carefully consider the merits of any requests for compensation and what redress, if any, should be made.

  To the end of January 1995, we have made special payments for financial redress on 34 occasions.

  Sickness Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to combat sickness absenteeism in(a) the Resettlement Agency, (b) the Benefits Agency, (c) the Contributions Agency, (d) the Child Support Agency, (e) the Information Technology Services Agency and (f) his Department.

  Mr. Hague
  A number of steps are being taken across the Department to manage sickness absence. Specific initiatives include: the internal publication of absence details, awareness presentations for line managers and staff, guidance on the responsibilities of line managers, tightening up the procedures for first reporting absence, return to work interviews, involving personnel branches in appropriate cases and seeking examples of best practice from other organisations. There are also various health promotion initiatives.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

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

  Economic Policy
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what is the Government's policy in respect of promoting political, social and economic expansion;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which his goals relating to the promotion of social and economic expansion have been achieved.

  The Prime Minister
  The objective of the Government's economic policy is to promote sustained economic growth in order to raise living standards and create jobs. The Government are pursuing prudent fiscal and monetary policies together with supply-side measures which will continue to improve the working of the economy. This is the only way to ensure that economic recovery is sustained with low inflation.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister who will represent Her Majesty's Government at the special meeting of the members of the Basel convention in Dakar called to clear up the confusion on how to define toxic waste; and what will be their remit.
  297
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]:Her Majesty's Government will send an observer.

TRANSPORT

  Planning and Compensation Act 1991
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the full text of his Department's criteria and guidelines for implementing section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991(a) pertaining to when section 62 first came into effect and (b) pertaining currently.

  Mr. Watts
  I have placed in the Library the guidelines and application form, which were introduced on 17 January 1992, and also the current versions of these documents, which are under review.

  Sickness Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to combat sickness absenteeism in(a) Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and (b) the Driving Standards Agency.

  Mr. Norris
  For a number of years DVLA has been pursuing a strategy of improving attendance through the introduction of more effective line management controls and initiatives to improve staff health and motivation. Since 1985, the average number of days per employee lost through sickness in DVLA has reduced from 16 days to the civil service average of eight days.

  Sick absence in the Driving Standards Agency is currently well above the civil service average. The agency is setting up a working group to identify the reasons for this and to make proposals. In the meantime, the agency has introduced a pay scheme designed to reward staff who, through good attendance, help the agency to provide a better service to its customers.

  British Rail Property (Crime)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were victims of crime on British Rail property in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Watts
  The table shows by calendar year, the total number of offences recorded on British Rail property, including ScotRail, by the British Transport police, which is the force responsible for keeping law and order on the railway.

  Date

  Number of offences

  1991

  22,186

  1992

  20,904

  1993

  20,359

  1994

  17,313

  Road Building Projects
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all priority 1, priority 2, agreed start and reserve start road building projects currently planned or under way, giving their cost and completion dates.
  298
  Mr. Watts
  The bulk of this information is contained in "Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review", a copy of which is in the Library. The new starts programme for the remainder of 1994–95 and for 1995–96 was subsequently amended by my right hon. Friend's announcement of 19 December 1994. A copy of the press release issued at the time is also in the Library.

  Completion dates for schemes which are not yet under construction depend on the successful conclusion of statutory procedures and the availability of funds.

  Orange Badge Holders
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he will make to enable orange badge holders to park on double yellow lines for an indefinite amount of time when the yellow lines occupy space outside an orange badge holder's home.

  Mr. Norris
  I have no plans to extend the time limit for parking on yellow lines. Local authorities have powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to designate by order a parking place reserved for a disabled badge holder.

  Trunk Roads Review
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the next trunk roads in England review will be produced.

  Mr. Watts
  There are no plans for a further review of the trunk road programme at present. The results of the last review of the programme are set out in "Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review".

  Overloaded Lorries
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many convictions were secured in respect of the operation of overloaded lorries in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Vehicle Inspectorate.

  I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. Paul Tyler, dated 9 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of convictions in respect of the operation of overloaded lorries in the last 10 years.
  I do not have information for the past 10 years and it can only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, the details below show the number of successful prosecutions carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate and the Local Authority Trading Standards Officers for the last 5 years.

  Year

  Number of prosecutions

  1990–91

  13,396

  1991–92

  13,295

  1992–93

  10,831

  1993–94

  9,151

  1994–951

  8,555

  1year to date.

  If there is any further information you require, please let me know.

  Marchioness
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide references for public and published statements made by him or his predecessors providing reasons for not establishing a formal investigation in to the loss of the Marchioness and lives as provided for in section 56 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]: Reference to statements made by Transport Ministers are as follows:

  Minister

  Date

  Volume/Column

  1. Patrick McLoughlin

  WPQ 19 January 1990

  Vol. 165 Col. 443

  2. Patrick McLoughlin

  WPQ 12 February 1990

  Vol. 167 Col. 103-04

  3. Patrick McLoughlin

  OPQ 12 March 1990

  Vol.169 Col. 5-6

  4. Patrick McLoughlin

  WPQ 29 March 1990

  Vol.170 Col. 240

  5. Steven Norris

  Debate 9 July 1992

  Vol. 211 Cols. 669-700

  6. Robert Key

  Debate 14 December 1993

  Vol. 234 Cols. 984-986 and 988

  7. Steven Norris

  WPQ 15 December 1993

  Vol. 234 Col. 706

  8. Steven Norris

  WPQ 11 Janurary 1994

  Vol. 235 Col. 132

  9. Steven Norris

  WPQ 16 December 1994

  Vol. 251 Col. 876

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on his Department preparation and supervision costs in "Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review" as regards the proposed Birmingham northern relief road;

  (2) how much his Department expects to spend on the compulsory purchase of land and property to make way for the proposed Birmingham northern relief road;

  (3) how much his Department has spent so far on the administration of the public inquiry into the proposed Birmingham northern relief road; and how much he expects to spend by the time the inquiry is finished.

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 1 March 1995,Official Report, columns 597-98.

  Auxiliary Coastguards
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what official vehicles are available to Cemaes Bay auxiliary coastguard;

  (2) on how many occasions in the past 12 months the auxiliary coastguards have been forced to use their own vehicles in response to emergency calls.

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for the Coastguard agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms Joan Walley, dated 9 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary questions as these questions deal with operational matters, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  300
  PQ 1082/94/95. The Coastal Response Team at Cemaes Bay have occasional use of coastal response vehicles.
  PQ 1072/94/95. None. All Auxiliary Coastguards on enrolment agree that their private vehicles may be required for emergency purposes, should it be necessary.

  M25 Link Roads
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to make a further announcement on the progress of his plans for link roads between junctions 12 and 15 of the M25; and when he intends to hold a public inquiry into the scheme.

  Mr. Watts
  Draft orders for the further improvement of the M25 between junctions 12 and 15 were published in April 1994. The public inquiry into the scheme was delayed to allow objectors more time to prepare their cases. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Road Surfacing Costs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost per kilometre of(a) porous asphalt; and (b) conventional asphalt; and what is the lifespan in each case.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gordon Prentice. dated 8 March 1995:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts MP, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the cost per kilometre of (a) porous asphalt and (b) conventional asphalt; and what is the life span in each case.
  Costs of constructing roads with porous and conventional asphalt surfacings can very significantly between contracts and are influenced by geographical location, local construction details, complexity of traffic management and associated works such as drainage. There are also differences which reflect market conditions. The costs given in the following table are of surfacing materials only and are broadly indicative bearing in mind the limited use of porous asphalt. There are additional costs for porous asphalt which are not applicable to conventional asphalt. Additional drainage is needed and more frequent salting in cold weather. Further, laying the material is more difficult and requires more extensive traffic management. These additional costs are not included in the figures given and can vary widely depending on site conditions.

  Approximate £ thousand/kilometre

  Porous asphalt

  Conventional asphalt

  Single carriageway

  50-100

  35-45

  2 lane dual carriageway all purpose

  100-200

  70-100

  motorway

  120-220

  80-110

  3 lane dual carriageway all purpose

  140-260

  90-130

  motorway

  130-290

  100-150

  4 lane dual carriageway motorway

  190-330

  120-180

  Porous asphalt surfaces are not suitable for use on all roads, but providing conditions are suitable, a life of over 7 years should be possible and in some cases as long as 12 years. This is in contrast to conventional asphalt surfaces where life can range from 10 to 15 years.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Probation Reform
  15. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for reform of probation; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Howard
  I have already published proposals to reform the qualifying training of probation officers. I am today publishing revised national standards for community sentences; and will shortly be publishing a Green Paper setting out proposals for legislation to restructure community punishment. These initiatives are between them intended to ensure that the work of the probation service commands the greatest possible confidence on the part of the courts and the public.

  Cost of Crime
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's latest estimate of the cost of crime to the British economy.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is not feasible to provide a meaningful total figure. Any realistic assessment would have to take full account of the personal and social damage as well as the financial costs.

  Child Refugees
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied child refugees entered the United Kingdom in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and what information he has about the principal ports of entry.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A total of 357 unaccompanied children applied for asylum on arrival in 1994. Although specific information about principal ports of entry is not available, most of these applications would have been made at Heathrow.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority he attaches to the partnership approach to crime prevention.

  Mr. Maclean
  Partnership is fundamental to the Government's approach to crime prevention. We all need to work together in partnership to ensure that the opportunities for crime are reduced. In September 1994, my right hon. and learned Friend launched the partnership campaign "Partners Against Crime", aimed at encouraging individual members of the public to join with the police as partners in the fight against crime.

  Asylum Policy
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received since 15 February expressing support for his asylum policy.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I believe that there is widespread support for the Government's objective of determining asylum claims as quickly as possible, in the interests both of genuine refugees and of the removal of those whose claims are unfounded. The measures announced on 15 February,Official Report, columns 693-95, will contribute significantly to that objective.

  Police Liaison, London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the interrelationship between himself, the Police Authority for London, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the advisory committee and the police and community consultative groups in each of the London boroughs.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend is the police authority for the Metropolitan police district. The Metropolitan police committee will advise him in that capacity, taking into account information received from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and his senior colleagues, from the police community consultative groups operating within the Metropolitan police district, and from other sources.

  Criminal Injury Compensation
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take about the future organisation and level of criminal injury compensation.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier this afternoon to the same question from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger).

  Drugs
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many charges for possession of the drug crack have been brought in the Metropolitan police area; and what new initiatives he will take to deal with this threat.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not held in this form. Records are not kept of the numbers of charges for possession.

  The latest available figures, supplied by the Metropolitan police, show that there were 542 recorded offences of possession of cocaine in the period October 1993 to September 1994. There are no separate records for crack. Seizures are, however, recorded separately: provisional figures show 847 crack seizures in the Metropolitan police area for 1994.

  The Government's strategy for dealing with drugs misuse is currently being reviewed and a White Paper will be published in the spring. Vigorous law enforcement will continue and there will also he a new emphasis on drug education and prevention.

  Fire Stations (Closure)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of local fire stations programmed for closure following the reduction in fire authority budgets.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made no such estimate. Any fire authority wishing to reduce the operational capability of its brigade, including the number of fire stations, must seek his approval under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. His practice is to grant approval only where he is satisfied that the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover will be maintained.

  Persistent Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to help the police and courts to deal with the most persistent juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 contains important new measures which will help the police and the courts to deal more effectively with young people who commit crimes. The secure training order will enable the courts to order the detention of persistent juvenile offenders for periods of between three months and one year, followed by a similar period of supervision.

  Make-a-difference Initiative
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the progress of the make-a-difference initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  This initiative to promote voluntary activity has made excellent progress: grants have been made to 27 local partnerships; Government Departments have prepared action plans for involving volunteers; and last week we launched a national telephone helpline to make it easier for people to find volunteering opportunities in their area. The make-a-difference team, with members from business, voluntary and public sectors, is aiming to publish a strategy on the future of volunteering in June.

  Road Scheme Protests
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional financial provision he plans to make for police forces in 1995 to cover the cost of protecting road schemes against protesters.

  Mr. Maclean
  The policing of demonstrations at road scheme sites falls within the normal law enforcement duties of the police. The costs are provided for in the same way as the costs of any other forms of policing. Police authorities will still be able to apply for special payments of grant where they face really large and exceptional demands which they could not have foreseen.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what percentage police funding has risen since 1979 in real terms.

  Mr. Maclean
  Estimated expenditure on the police service in England and Wales has increased by 92 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79.

  Sickness Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to combat sickness absenteeism in(a) the UK Passport Agency, (b) the Prison Service and (c) the Home Office.

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office has procedures in place to record and monitor absence through sickness. Steps have recently been taken to reinforce line managers' responsibilities in this area. Where levels of absence through sickness give cause for concern specialist medical advice may be sought. There is also an occupational 304
  health care programme for staff and access to the welfare service.

  The UK Passport Agency has a policy on health care and absence caused by sickness which aims, where possible, to prevent absence through sickness and thereby to increase efficiency and promote the well-being of staff. This is achieved by monitoring of absence through sickness by line managers, ensuring that staff have access to counselling, an on-going health care programme, seminars/awareness training for line managers and the issuing of guidance/information to all staff.

  The control of absence through sickness in the Prison Service is the responsibility of local managers, and following a report by an independent consultant, comprehensive guidance was issued to them in 1992. In addition, the service is seeking ways to enable quicker decisions to be taken on medical retirement, where that is appropriate; and various occupational health initiatives have been taken to encourage healthy practices, such as life style screening and health education seminars.

  In all areas of the Home Office, absence through sickness may lead to retirement on medical grounds or action being taken under the inefficiency procedures.

  Police (Complaints)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1989 the number of complaints against the police completed in England and Wales in which racially discriminatory behaviour was alleged; how many of those were substantiated and how many were unsubstantiated; how many were informally resolved; of those that were substantiated, how many resulted in a disciplinary charge; and what was the outcome of such a charge.

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures for the number of complaints against the police of racially discriminatory behaviour and their outcome are set out.

  Information is not collected centrally about the categories of offences leading to disciplinary proceedings.

  Complaints of racially discriminatory behaviour (all police forces in England and Wales)

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Substantiated

  4

  5

  7

  3

  5

  Unsubstantiated1

  107

  210

  240

  259

  281

  Informally resolved

  67

  69

  79

  98

  96

  Withdrawn

  113

  125

  100

  101

  68

  Total

  291

  409

  426

  461

  450

  1 Including complaints dealt with by dispensation.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for(a) the Metropolitan police and (b) the rest of England and Wales the number of police complaints in each of the last five years for which records are available that were dispensed with (i) in total, (ii) because it was not reasonably practicable to complete a satisfactory investigation, (iii) because they were anonymous, (iv) because they were repetitious, (v) because they were vexatious, oppressive or otherwise an abuse of the procedures for dealing with complaints, (vi) because more than 12 months has elapsed between the

  305
  incident and the making of the complaints or (vii) because the matter had already been informally resolved; and if he will list in each case the number of requests for dispensations that were (1) made and (2) refused.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Police Complaints Authority has kept statistics in relation to individual reasons for dispensations since 1993 only.

  In 1993, in respect of all forces in England and Wales, the figures were as follows:

  Reason for dispensation

  Number

  Incapable of meaningful investigation

  6,717

  Anonymous

  4

  Repetitious

  69

  Vexatious, etc.

  83

  Delayed

  202

  Total

  7,075

  There were also nine dispensations refused in 1993.

  The total numbers of dispensations recorded by the Police Complaints Authority since 1989 which were (a) granted and (b) refused, in respect of all forces in England and Wales, are as follows:

  Year

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Granted

  2,113

  2,991

  4,083

  6,035

  Refused

  28

  42

  37

  20

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil claims for police misconduct were reported to HM inspectorate of constabulary in each of the last three years for which figures are available in respect of each police force in England and Wales.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected by HM inspectorate of constabulary.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases in each of the last three years for which figures are available complaints against the police were investigated by an officer from another force.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of cases of complaints against the police for each of the last three years for which figures area available(a) which were mandatorily referred to the Police Complaints Authority for supervision, (b) which were referred to the authority for it to decide whether or not to supervise the investigation, (c) which the authority decided on their merits to supervise in the public interest and (d) which were referred to the authority for supervision in total.

  Mr. Maclean
  Sections 87 and 88 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Police (Complaints) (Mandatory Referrals etc). Regulations 1985 define the type of case which must be referred or may be referred voluntarily to the Police Complaints Authority for possible supervision. The Police Complaints Authority is required by section 89 of the 1984 Act to supervise the investigation of all complaints relating to a death or serious injury. It may also supervise any other complaint or non-complaint case which is voluntarily referred to it 306
  and where it considers it in the public interest to do so. The authority may also require the referral of a complaint so that it may consider supervision.

  The table shows the number of cases, including those originating from a complaint, between 1991 and 1993 (a) which were mandatorily referred to the Police Complaints Authority for supervision; (b) which were voluntarily referred; (c) which were required to be referred by the Police Complaints Authority; (d) the total cases referred; (e) the number which were mandatorily supervised by the Police Complaints Authority; and (f) which were supervised at the authority's discretion.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Mandatory referrals

  4,212

  4,333

  3,998

  Voluntary referrals

  103

  132

  129

  Referrals required by PCA

  15

  11

  12

  Total referrals

  4,330

  4,476

  4,139

  Mandatory supervision

  421

  420

  625

  Discretionary supervision

  308

  337

  326

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many police complaints cases completed in each of the last five years for which figures are available complainants made formal representations of dissatisfaction with an investigation or its outcome.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Appeals
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1988 the number of cases referred by him to the Court of Appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act 1968 in respect of conviction; and for each such year what was(a) the number of defendants involved, (b) the number of appeals allowed and (c) the number of appeals dismissed.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  References to the Court of Appeal under section 17(1)(a) of he Criminal Appeal Act 1968 in respect of conviction—1988 to 1994

  Outcome of appeal

  Year

  Cases (defendants)

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  1988

  12 (2)

  —

  1 (1)

  1989

  3 (6)

  3 (6)

  Nil

  1990

  7 (20)

  7 (20)

  Nil

  1991

  10 (12)

  210 (12)

  Nil

  1992

  8 (11)

  5 (8)

  3 (3)

  1993

  38 (9)

  4 (5)

  2 (2)

  1994

  49 (12)

  1 (2)

  Nil

  1 One case later abandoned.

  2 Court ordered a re-trial in one case: defendant later acquitted.

  3 Two cases outstanding.

  4 Eight cases outstanding.

  Royal Prerogative of Mercy
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1989
  307
  the number of cases in which the royal prerogative of mercy was exercised to grant (a) a free pardon, (b) a remission of imprisonment, (c) remission of youth custody and detention in a young offender's institution, (d) remission of detention and (e) remission of fine on grounds affecting the original conviction, in cases other than those involving road traffic offences.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The numbers of free pardons is given in the following table:

  Exercises of the royal prerogative of mercy to grant a free pardon on grounds affecting the original conviction (excluding cases involving convictions for road traffic offences) 1989 to 1994

  Year

  Free pardons

  1989

  15

  1990

  17

  1991

  14

  1992

  4

  1993

  5

  1994

  3

  The royal prerogative of mercy has not been used in the other categories—which go to a person's sentence—on grounds affecting the original conviction.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1988 the number of cases in which the royal prerogative of mercy was exercised to grant(a) free pardons, including those relating to road traffic offences, (b) pardons granted on grounds affecting the original conviction, (c) pardons granted for other reasons and (d) pardons relating to traffic offences.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Exercises of the royal prerogative of mercy to grant pardons—1988 to 1994

  Year

  (a) Free pardons (all cases)

  (b) Pardons on grounds affecting original conviction

  (c) Pardons for other reasons (ie excluding(b))

  (d) Pardons relating to traffic offences

  1988

  39

  39

  —

  26

  1989

  50

  50

  —

  35

  1990

  47

  47

  —

  30

  1991

  37

  37

  —

  23

  1992

  19

  19

  —

  15

  1993

  22

  22

  1

  17

  1994

  12

  12

  —

  9

  Miscarriages of Justice (Compensation)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount paid in compensation to victims of miscarriages of justice for each year since 1989–90; what was the total amount paid pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for each such year; what was the total amount paid under the discretionary scheme for each such year; and in each year in each category what was the number of such payments.
  308
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The total amount of compensation for miscarriages of justice paid since the financial year 1989–90 is £6,244,000, including £565,733 in ex gratia awards:

  £million

  1989–90

  0.285

  1990–91

  0.839

  1991–92

  1.719

  1992–93

  0.532

  1993–94

  1.506

  Part year ending 31 December 1994

  1.363

  These totals include interim payments in cases in which the final amount of the award has yet to be determined. The information is not collated in a way which enables separate totals for ex gratia payments to be distinguished.

  Agreement in principle to pay compensation was given, per calendar year, to the following numbers of individuals:

  1989: 6(1)

  1990: 10(8)

  1991: 27(2)

  1992: 26(1)

  1993: 9(2)

  1994: 19

  Figures in brackets show the number of ex gratia awards included in the totals.

  Extradition
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what request he has received from Singapore requesting the extradition of(a) Mr. Anthony Hawes, (b) Mr. Andrew Frazer, (c) Mr. Simon Jones, (d) Mr. Ian Douglas, (e) Mr. Gordon Bowser, (f) Mr. Peter Baring, (g) Mr. Andrew Tuckey, (h) Mr. Ron Baker and (i) Mr. Peter Norris; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No such request has been received.

  Firearms
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has concerning the number of non-functioning deactivated firearms which are currently held in the United Kingdom; what licences are required for such firearms; on how many occasions in each of the last five years for which figures are available such firearms have been used in the course of the perpetration of crimes; what sentences are provided by law for the use of such firearms; what plans he has to review the law in this area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Firearms deactivated in accordance with the provisions set out in section 8 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 fall outside the scope of firearms controls and do not therefore require a firearms certificate. Figures are not available about the number of deactivated firearms of the occasions on which such weapons have been used. The use of a firearm or imitation firearm in the furtherance of crime carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
  309
  In the light of concerns that some deactivated firearms have been illegally restored to working order and subsequently used in crime, the standards to which guns are deactivated have been reviewed and more stringent specifications will be introduced shortly.

  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the existing law preventing the sale to the public or easy access by the public to non-lethal weapons, with particular reference to Air Taser and other stun guns.

  Mr. Maclean
  Air Taser and other stun guns are classed as prohibited weapons under section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968, as amended. Their possession, acquisition, manufacture, sale or transfer is prohibited without the authority of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State does not grant authority to individual members of the public to possess such weapons. Possession of a prohibited weapon without authority is an offence for which the maximum penalty is 10 years, imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both. I am satisfied that the existing law in this area is adequate.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about GCHQ staff at Menwith Hill station intercepting domestic and international telephone calls.

  Mr. Howard
  None.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many warrants he has issued in each year since 1992, to date, under the Interception of Communications Act 1985; what duration of interception each warrant specified; and how many warrants are in force at present.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the annexes to the reports of the Interception of Communications Commissioner for 1992 and 1993, Cm 2173 and Cm 2522, copies of which are in the Library. Under section 4 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, a warrant is issued for a period of two months. It may lapse at the end of that period or it may be cancelled before the two months have elapsed or it may be renewed for a further period. It is not the Government's practice to publish figures for warrants in force at particular times other than in the commissioner's reports.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people seeking asylum in Britain have applied for(a) a writ of habeas corpus and (b) a judicial review of their case while in detention in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  During the 12 months to 31 January 1995, 221 asylum applicants sought judicial review of their cases. No statistics of asylum applicants seeking a writ of habeas corpus are maintained. Separate statistics are also not maintained of the numbers of asylum applicants seeking judicial review of their cases while in detention.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many people seeking asylum in 1993–94 absconded.
  310
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The records do not distinguish between asylum seekers and others who absconded from detention in 1993 and 1994 and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers who failed to comply with the terms on which they were granted temporary admission in 1993 is not available. However, a special exercise relating to 1994 identified 677 people, who had claimed asylum at some stage, as having failed to comply with their terms of temporary admission.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) Sri Lankan and (b) Turkish nationals applied for asylum status in each year since 1991; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many asylum seekers were deported in each year since 1991; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many (a) Sri Lankan and (b) Turkish asylum seekers were deported in each year since 1991; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) how many people applied for asylum status in each year since 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  In 1994, a total of 32,830 applications for asylum were received in the United Kingdom. Of these, 2,350 were from Sri Lankan nationals and 2,045 from Turkish nationals.

  The available figures for departures relating to those refused asylum or exceptional leave to remain in the country are for those removed or who embarked voluntarily after deportation or illegal entry action had commenced against them. Out of an estimated total of 2,110 departures in 1994, 130 were Turkish nationals and 45 were Sri Lankan nationals.

  Information on applications for asylum for 1993 and earlier years is published in table 2.2 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1993", issue 17/94. Information on removals and voluntary departures is published in table 9.1 of the same publication. Information on removals prior to 1992 is not available. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people have(a) applied for and (b) been accepted for asylum in the United Kingdom in the past 12 months;

  (2) how many people applying for asylum in the United Kingdom in 1994–95 were given exceptional leave to remain;

  (3) how many people (a) have sought and (b) were granted asylum in the United kingdom in 1994–95.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  During 1994, 32,830 applications for asylum, excluding dependants, were received in the United Kingdom. Some 20,990 decisions on asylum applications were taken during the year, of which 825 cases were granted asylum and 3,660 were refused asylum but granted exceptional leave to remain.

  The latest month for which data are available is January 1995. During this period, 3,570 applications for asylum were received and 2,450 applications were decided. Of these decisions, 130 cases were granted asylum and 460 cases were refused asylum but granted exceptional leave to remain.

  Settlement Visas
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many wives have applied from(a) India and (b) Pakistan for settlement visas to join their husbands in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years; and how many have been (i) granted and (ii) refused;

  Applications for entry clearance for settlement in the united Kingdom made by spouses in India and pakistan, 1992–1994

  Number of Persons

  Wives

  Husbands

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1992

  1993

  1994

  India

  Applications received1

  1,840

  1,930

  1,960

  620

  620

  580

  Granted2 3

  1,860

  1,660

  1,710

  570

  480

  450

  Initial refusals

  290

  310

  410

  300

  280

  340

  Pakistan

  Applications received1

  2,940

  3,020

  3,210

  3,090

  2,640

  2,720

  Granted2 3

  2,670

  2,390

  2,290

  2,370

  1,990

  1,720

  Initial refusals

  440

  620

  710

  1,550

  1,900

  1,690

  1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed.

  2 Granted initially or on appeal.

  3 Applications granted may include applications received in the previous year.

  Law Enforcement Officers
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if members of the Renseignements Généraux are authorised or need authorisation to work in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  Law enforcement officers representing foreign Goverments working in the United Kingdom must observe guidance issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. A copy of the guidance, known as the "Whitehall Guidelines", has been placed in the Library.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug and related finds by type of drug were made in women's gaols in England and Wales in each year since 1990.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 9 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many drug and related finds by type of drug were made in women's jails in England and Wales in each year since 1990.
  Information drug finds was not recorded centrally until 25 September 1990.
  The table below lists the drug and related finds in women's jails for the calendar years 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994.

  Items

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Heroin

  5

  4

  10

  36

  Cocaine

  4

  6

  4

  6

  LSD

  0

  0

  5

  2

  Amphetamines

  1

  0

  3

  2

  Barbiturates

  0

  0

  4

  3

  Cannabis

  32

  27

  44

  58

  Cannabis Plant

  4

  1

  4

  11

  Crack

  0

  0

  0

  0

  312
  (2) how many husbands have applied from (a) India and (b) Pakistan for settlement visas to join their wives in each of the last three years; and how many have been (i) granted and (ii) refused.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information is given in the table.

  Items

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Other

  3

  9

  10

  23

  Authentic syringe

  3

  10

  23

  21

  Improvised syringe

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Authentic needle

  0

  0

  2

  3

  Improvised needle

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pipe

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Roach

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Total

  53

  57

  112

  167

  It should be noted that increases in the numbers of finds may reflect more effective searching, as a result of the priority being given to the control of drugs, and are not necessarily an indication that there has been a corresponding increase in the presence of drugs.

  North East London Probation Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the effect of the November 1993 budget statement on the budget of the North East London robation service;

  (2) what will be the impact of the November 1994 budget statement on the North East London probation service.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 6 March,Official Report, column 30.

  Non-governmental Agencies
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what non-governmental agencies are funded by the Government to work in crime prevention; and what initiatives they are undertaking.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government provide a contribution to the core costs of Crime Concern, whose main objectives are to establish local crime reduction schemes and to develop new approaches to crime prevention. The
  313
  Government have also contracted Crime Concern, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the Society of Voluntary Associates to manage safer cities projects in 30 towns in England and Wales. The projects in turn provide grants for local crime prevention schemes. In addition, we have made extra funds available in 1994–95 for local partnerships which wish to install closed circuit television schemes in their areas as a crime prevention measure.

  Prisons
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the staffing ratio of(a) privately managed prisons and (b) publicly operated prisons.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 9 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the staffing ratio in both privately managed prisons and publicly operated prisons.
  On 31 January 1995, the staff:inmate ratio for privately managed prisons was 1:2.43. The staff figure is based on the number of prisoner custody officers employed, which equate to the three officer grades in publicly operated prisons. The inmate figure is the number held in these prisons at the end of January.
  On 31 January 1995 the staff:inmate ratio for publicly managed prisons was 1:2.0. The staff figure is based on the officer, senior officer and principal officer grades and includes specialist staff. The inmate figure is the total inmate population as at 31 January 1995, excluding those held in police cells and privately managed prisons.
  The ratio for publicly managed prisons is affected by the inclusion of dispersal prisons and other prisons with specialist functions which have a relatively high staff:inmate ratio, as well as accommodation being out of use for refurbishment. The private sector does not include prisons in this category, and is not currently undergoing refurbishment.

  Football Pools and Lotteries
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to guarantee the continued viability of the football pools and society and local lotteries.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: The Government have made a number of changes to the law to remove unnecessary restrictions on football pools and lotteries and more changes are on the way.

  A number of measures benefiting football pools were introduced in November 1994, when part IV of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 came into force. The age limit for participation was reduced from 18 to 16; the use of premises for the collection of coupons and stakes were permitted; and roll-over of prize money was permitted in certain circumstances.

  More recently, the Government have invited the broadcasting authorities to revise their advertising codes so as to permit broadcast advertising of the pools. In addition, we will shortly be issuing a consultation paper on gaming machines and betting offices which will include a proposal to allow betting offices to pay winnings on football pools coupons and to handle "spot the ball" coupons. Depending on the outcome of the consultation, the changes will be put into law later this
  314
  year by an order made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

  I am currently considering what scope there is for further deregulatory measures.

  Ashford (Middlesex) Remand Centre
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the site of the former Ashford (Middlesex) remand centre.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. David Wilshire, dated 9 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the future of the site of the former Ashford (Middlesex) Remand Centre.
  No decisions have yet been taken regarding the future of this site. The Prison Service's estate strategy recognises a need for additional accommodation by the end of the century and sites are still being sought for some of the new prisons announced by the Home Secretary in 1993. Current assessments of future needs indicate that Ashford is not an ideal location for meeting future population pressures. Other sites are being sought but Ashford may be considered if more suitable locations are not available.

  WALES

    Public Appointments
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the dates on which he intends to publish advertisements inviting applications to fill the vacancies on(a) the Arts Council of Wales, (b) the Sports Council of Wales, (c) the Wales tourist board, (d) the Wales Youth Agency, (e) the Welsh Development Agency, (f) the Glan Hafren NHS trust, (g) the Powys Health Care NHS trust, (h) the Morriston Hospital NHS trust and (i) Swansea NHS trust.

    Mr. Redwood
    I am keen to keep the boards of non-departmental public bodies and health bodies at the minimum number which is consistent with efficient management. Where there are vacancies to be filled, candidates are drawn from a variety of sources. These sources include the Welsh Office register of candidates for public appointment and, in some cases, specific advertisements. Recent health trust chairmanships were advertised.

    Lead Piping
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to encourage the replacement of lead piping in drinking water supplies; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    Water companies must comply with the requirements relating to lead set in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989—SI 1989 No. 1147. Among other relevant provisions, the regulations require water companies to replace their part of a lead service pipe when requested to do so in writing by a consumer intending to remove his or her part of the pipe.
    315
    The Government fund the mandatory home renovation grant system available from local authorities and which may be used for lead pipe replacement. Mandatory home renovation grants are available to bring properties up to the statutory fitness standard, which includes the provision of an adequate piped supply of wholesome water: it is for local authorities to determine applications and decide whether an individual property meets this standard. Minor works assistance, which is always discretionary, may be available to those home owners in receipt of an income-related benefit, for small but essential repairs to their houses. Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has a grant scheme to help any of its customers wishing to replace lead plumbing and, when this is done, also undertakes to replace its communication pipe.

    Cadw
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes in the priorities and approach of Cadw will be made following the appointment of a new chief executive.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    My right hon. Friend's priorities for Cadw will be set out in the Cadw corporate plan.

    European Regional Development Fund
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the allocation of European regional development fund to each of the objective 2 and 5(b) regions in Wales for the current programming period.

    Mr. Redwood
    The ERDF allocations for the industrial south Wales and rural Wales programme areas are £111.2 million over 1994 to 1996 and £89.9 million over 1994 to 1999 respectively.

    Public Transport
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what initiatives his Department is pursuing to increase the use of public transport in Wales, and if he will make a statement;

    (2) what new initiatives his Department is pursuing to improve public transport in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    The provision of good quality public transport services is a matter for the transport industries. County councils have a duty to supplement services where they identify a need. The Welsh Office assists by means of the bus priority scheme. Privatisation of the railways will provide more opportunities for improvements in that sector.

    Through Ticketing
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with colleagues in the Department of Transport to discuss future ticketing arrangements for rail services in Wales and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    The Rail Regulator and Ministers are committed to continuing easy access to through ticketing for passengers. The regulator has recently consulted widely on this subject and is considering the representations he has received.

    Railways
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve rail communications in Wales, and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    The development of rail communications is a matter for the railway industry. The Government's plan to transfer the railways to the private sector provides the best opportunities for improving rail services in Wales.

    Rail Freight
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives his Department is pursuing to increase the use of railways in Wales for the transportation of freight; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    Publicity will soon be given in Wales to the availability of enhanced grants to attract more freight on to the railways. The Welsh Development Agency has also been asked to consider the provision of rail freight connections at industrial estates in Wales.

    Sickness Absenteeism
    Mr. Chidgey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to combat sickness absenteeism in(a) Cadw and (b) the Welsh Office.

    Mr. Redwood
    In addition to programmes to promote good health, Cadw and the Welsh Office have well-established procedures applying to all staff and their managers, for reporting and monitoring sickness absence, so that potential problems can be identified and addressed at an early stage. In appropriate cases, the advice of the civil service occupational health service is sought.

    Cable Franchises
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what parts of north Wales he expects cabling to take place; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Redwood
    The Independent Television Commission has responsibility under the Broadcasting Act 1990 for administering the local delivery franchising process. The ITC is considering franchises in Wales in response to expressions of interest already received, but would welcome further approaches from companies interested in providing services in any currently unfranchised areas in Wales.

    Vehicle Spot Checks
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what location in Wales, he proposed to make roadside spot checks concerning atmospheric pollution caused by motor vehicles and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    Staff from the Department of Transport's Vehicle Inspectorate will be carrying out roadside spot checks of vehicle emissions at various cities and towns nationwide, including Wales, over the coming weeks. There will be no advance warning of specific locations.

    Optical Fibres
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next proposes to visit the optical fibres production centre on Deeside industrial park.

    Mr. Redwood
    I visited Optical Fibres Ltd. on the Deeside industrial park last. October. I have no plans to do so again in the near future.

    Optical Fibres is a world leader in the manufacture of fibre optic cables and is an excellent example of a Wales-based company at the forefront of the multimedia revolution.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to reduce unemployment in Clwyd; and what(a) job creation schemes and (b) training schemes he (i) has initiated in the last five years and (ii) will initiate.

    Mr. Redwood
    Unemployment in Clwyd, as elsewhere in Wales, is falling as the recovery proceeds. In the past five years, the strategic development scheme has been initiated by the Welsh Office while the Welsh Development Agency has participated in a number of regeneration schemes with the local authorities in the area. For 1994–95 and 1995–96, nearly £11 million has been allocated under the strategic development scheme to projects to promote economic development and job creation in Clwyd. The WDA's contribution to the urban and rural regeneration initiatives in which it is involved will amount to around £4 million in 1994–95.

    Over the past five years, the North East Wales training and enterprise council has provide a wide range of services to help unemployed people back to work.

    Significant measures introduced in the last five years include modern engineering apprenticeships and youth credits.

    In 1995–96, modern apprenticeships will be supported in other occupational sectors and a new programme of accelerated modern apprenticeships will be aimed primarily at 18 and 19-year-old college leavers.

    Regional selective assistance continues to make a significant contribution to creating and safeguarding jobs in Clwyd. Over the past five years, over 150 offers have been accepted which are forecast to create or safeguard almost 11,000 jobs.

    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to tackle long-term unemployment in Alyn and Deeside.

    Mr. Redwood
    Long-term unemployment, like unemployment generally, is falling as the recovery proceeds. A number of specific measures are in place to assist people who have been unemployed for more than a year to get back to work. These include training for work and restart.

    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to get people aged 25 years and under into work and out of long-term unemployment.

    Mr. Redwood
    A wide range of support is available to unemployed people under the age of 25. This includes training and practical help in finding work. All 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in full-time education or employment are guaranteed the offer of a suitable youth training place. Recent surveys have shown that 71 per 318
    cent. of young people who completed their training go into jobs or further education and training. Training opportunities for young people are being extended through modern apprenticeships and accelerated apprenticeships. Priority for recruitment under the training for work programme is now given to young people under the age of 25 who have never worked. Finally, the Employment Service offers a range of opportunities to help unemployed people into work including client advice, community action, job interview guarantee, jobclubs and work trials.

    Drugaid
    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had concerning the grant aiding of the 24-hour helpline for drug addiction problems run by Drugaid; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Redwood
    In October 1994, Drugaid was informed of the Government's proposal to establish a national HIV/AIDS and drugs telephone advice and information helpline from 1 April 1995, covering England, Scotland and Wales. Drugaid was invited to tender for the contract, and did so as part of a consortium. The contract was awarded to Network Scotland.

    From 1 April, Network Scotland will provide an integrated 24-hour freephone English and Welsh language HIV/AIDS and drug helpline, which will refer users of the service to the appropriate local agencies.

    It would be inappropriate for my Department to continue to support a Welsh helpline which would duplicate work undertaken nationally.

  HEALTH

    Nursing Homes
    Ms Jowell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elderly people in registered nursing homes have paid the full cost of their care in each year since 1990.

    Mr. Bowis
    This information is not available centrally.

    Private Psychiatric Hospitals
    Mr. Illsley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding the standards of care at private psychiatric hospitals.

    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding the standards of care in private psychiatric hospitals; and if she will make a statement.

    Mr. Bowis
    Arrangements for monitoring the standards of care given to national health service patients in private psychiatric hospitals are agreed between health authorities and NHS trusts and the private hospitals as part of the contracting process. Private psychiatric hospitals are subject to registration and inspection by the local health authority under the Registered Homes Act 1984.

    Electro-convulsive Therapy
    Mr. Illsley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received(a) about and (b) calling for the banning of the use of electro-convulsive therapy on children under the age of 16 years.

    Mr. Bowis
    We have received some such representations. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has advised us that it has updated its guidance on the use of electro-convulsive therapy. This guidance includes a series of recommendations on the use of electro-convulsive therapy in the treatment of young people.

    Pensioners' Nursing Care
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pensioners have had to sell their homes to pay for their nursing care in the latest available year; and what percentage of them could have remained in day or respite care.

    Mr. Bowis
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) on 14 February,Official Report, column 642.

    Cycling
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue a consultation document on the work of the physical activity task force; and if the consultation process will reflect her recent statements on the health benefits of cycling by targeting cycling as a widely accessible form of exercise.

    Mr. Sackville
    No decisions have yet been taken on whether to issue a consultation document based on the work of "The Health of the Nation" physical activity task force, but I shall continue to endorse the health benefits of cycling.

    Minimal Access Surgery
    Mr. Illsley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding the adequacy of training for doctors using minimal access surgery.

    Mr. Sackville
    We have received a number of letters concerning training issues associated with minimal access surgery. The Department of Health and the Wolfson Foundation have provided funds to establish two national training centres in London and Leeds. The two centres offer a range of training courses in addition to those already well established in the national health service.

    Epilepsy
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS medicines prescribed for people with epilepsy was licensed(a) within the last five years, (b) more than five years ago, (c) more than 10 years and (d) more than 15 years ago.

    Mr. Sackville
    Records from the Medicines Control Agency do not relate specifically to national health service medicines. However, records show that there are currently 215 products licensed for prescription to people with epilepsy.
    320
    Then number of products licensed for epilepsy in the periods are:

    (a) within the last five years—199l to 1995: 96

    (b) more than five years ago—1985 to 1990: 90

    (c) more than 10 years ago—1979 to 1984: 41

    (d) more than 15 years ago—1973 to 1978: 36

    It is not possible to match this information on licensing with NHS prescriptions.

    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS medicine prescribed for people with epilepsy is prescribed by its generic name.

    Mr. Malone
    The percentage of drugs dispensed in the family health services authorities in England in 1993 and prescribed by generic name for the British national formulary section "Antiepileptics", chapter 4.8, was 45.8 per cent.

    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to the NHS of providing medicines to people with epilepsy in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

    Mr. Malone
    The available information is shown in the table.

    Net ingredient cost of the British National Formulary therapeutic group Antiepileptics (Chapter 4.8), 1989–1993 England

    £ million

    Antiepileptics

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    1993

    Net ingredient cost

    19.0

    21.6

    26.0

    31.0

    36.3

    1. The net ingredient cost refers to the cost of the drug before discounts and does not include any dispensing costs or fees.

    2. The data for 1989 and 1990 are not consistent with data from 1991 onwards. Figures for 1989 and 1990 are based on a sample of 1 in 200 prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only. Figures from 1991 cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

    Wirral Hospital Trust
    Mr. Hanson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with the Wirral hospital trust regarding the proposal to introduce generic worker grades, nurse restructuring and ward manager posts; if she approves of such changes; and if she will make a statement.

    Mr. Malone
    National health service trusts are responsible for managing their own affairs, using the resources available to them to provide high-quality cost effective health services. Their freedom to determine the pay and conditions of their own staff is an important part of making services more responsive to local needs.

    Market Testing
    Mr. Gunnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what bids have been received from members of staff of(a) the North Yorkshire regional health authority, (b) the Northern regional health authority and (c) the Yorkshire regional health authority for a buy-out of specific services being market tested; and with what result.

    Mr. Sackville
    This is a matter for Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contract John Greetham, chairman of the authority, for further details.

    Barnet Health Authority
    Sir John Gorst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her oral statement of 20 February,Official Report, column 40, regarding further investment in primary care initiatives of £85 million in London, if she will list the amount Barnet health authority will receive, the initiatives that will be funded in Barnet and whether any of these funds will be deployed in the area covered by the Edgware general hospital.

    Mr. Malone
    The additional £85 million for primary care initiatives in 1995–96 is targeted at health districts in the London initiative zone. Barnet is not included in the London initiative zone.

    Filoviruses
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been carried out into human health risks associated with Ebola and Marburg viruses.

    Mr. Sackville
    Some limited studies of transmission and seroprevalence have been undertaken where cases have occurred in Africa. Responses to infection with Ebola, Marburg and other filoviruses have been studied in primates and cross protection studies using other filoviruses in animal models have also been undertaken. Improved diagnostic tests are currently under development.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what contingency plans are available in the event of an outbreak of Ebola or Marburg viruses in the United Kingdom;

    (2) what facilities are available to quarantine persons potentially infected with Ebola and Marburg viruses.

    Mr. Sackville
    There are no special contingency plans to deal with an outbreak of Ebola or Marburg viruses. These viruses have shown very limited potential for spread outside endemic areas. There are powers available to local authorities in the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 over people, premises and property to control the spread of communicable disease. We do continue to take a cautious approach and recommend strict precautions for personnel dealing with definite or suspected cases of viral haemorrhagic fever to prevent any possibility of spread. The Department of Health funds high security infectious disease units for the treatment of patients with viral haemorrhagic fever, although no case has been seen in the United Kingdom for about 10 years. These viruses appear to have a limited capacity for spread within the human population and the need for a vaccine for use in the UK has not been established.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place with German and American health agencies relating to outbreaks of filovirus infection in these countries.

    Mr. Sackville
    There have been no recent discussions with any overseas Governments on filovirus infections. The outbreak in Germany occurred in 1967 and the outbreak in the United States of America occurred in 1989.

    Local Authority Homes
    Ms Jowell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential places for the elderly were available in local authority homes in England in each year since 1990.
    322
    Mr. Bowis
    The information is shown in the table.

    Number of places in local authority homes primarily for elderly people, England

    As at 31 March

    Number of residential places

    1990

    103,600

    1991

    96,100

    1992

    85,000

    1993

    75,400

    1994

    67,200

    The decrease in number of local authority homes in part reflects the transfer by local authorities of the management and ownership of local authority homes to the independent sector.

    London Ambulance Service
    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has approved the conclusions of the study commissioned by the London ambulance service from Messrs. ORH, health consultants, concerning the resources received by that service in order to reach or maintain the patients charter standards and for ambulance response times.

    Mr. Sackville
    The report commissioned from ORH health consultants is a matter for the London ambulance service and the South Thames regional health authority.

    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to paragraph 7.2 of the evidence presented by her Department to the Health Committee on 2 March, in respect of the London ambulance service, what operational advantage she expects to arrive from transfers of the funding of that service from the regional health authority to district health authorities in their areas; and if she will give the number of districts so concerned.

    Mr. Sackville
    The delegation of funding for contracts for accident and emergency services with the London ambulance service from regional to district health authority level will ensure that the authorities concerned are fully involved in the process of specifying, negotiating and agreeing contracts with the London ambulance service and monitoring performance against those contracts. The 16 authorities will be represented for contracting purposes by a consortium of four lead purchasers. The consequent reduction in regional administrative costs will help to release funds for investment in direct patient care.

    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action was taken in her Department(a) by Ministers, (b) by the ambulance adviser to the Department of Health and (c) by the ambulance policy adviser group subsequent to the receipt of the petition of the House presented on 7 December 1990 concerning the continuing problems of the London ambulance service.

    Mr. Sackville
    At the time the South West Thames regional health authority was responsible for running the London ambulance service. The South Thames regional health authority is now responsible for the LAS and it, not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her Department, has day-to-day responsibility for the management of the LAS.
    323
    We have provided a real terms increase of funding for the LAS each year. In addition, this year we have provided an extra £14.8 million to enable it to purchase an extra 180 ambulances and recruit 240 extra front-line staff. The Wells report identified a number of short, medium and long-term objectives for the LAS which it needs to achieve in order to provide the service our capital city needs.

    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will obtain and publish the periods and relevant dates when the activation time for emergency ambulances dispatched from the headquarters of the London ambulance service exceeded(a) 10, (b) 15, (c) 20, (d) 30 minutes and (e) each further multiple of 10 minutes.

    Mr. Sackville
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on 25 January Official Report, columns 251-52.

    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the system of computer-aided dispatch placed in service by the London ambulance service on 26 October 1992 was appraised or approved by her ambulance policy advisory group or ambulance adviser.

    Mr. Sackville
    No. It is not for the Department's ambulance policy advisory group or ambulance adviser to intervene in individual ambulance services' operational decision-making processes.

    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action was taken by her Department during 1991–92 consequent on the gradual deterioration in service of the London ambulance service quoted in her evidence on the Health Committee on 2 March.

    Mr. Sackville
    During 1991–92 the Department monitored the performance of the London ambulance service through reports from, and meetings with, the then South West Thames regional health authority, which was responsible for the direct management of the LAS.

    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what ministerial statements concerning the London ambulance service have been made since 1990 which have drawn on information or advice received from(a) her ambulance adviser and (b) the ambulance policy advisory group.

    Mr. Sackville
    All ministerial statements concerning ambulance services draw directly or indirectly on advice received from the ambulance adviser or the ambulance policy advisory group.

    Alzheimer's Disease
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates she has made of the number of people suffering from Alzheimer's disease aged(a) 65 years and over or (b) under 65 years in (i) England and (ii) Wales; and if she will make a statement.

    Mr. Bowis
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 20 December 1994,Official Report, column 1148.

    Ambulance Services Departmental Adviser
    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will name the person holding the post of departmental adviser on ambulance services as the member of her ambulance policy group mentioned in the written evidence presented to the Health Committee on 2 March who have served in these capacities since 1990.
    324
    Mr. Sackville
    The post of ambulance adviser to the Department of Health has been filled as follows:

    1984–1991: Mr. Peter Hunt

    1991–1994: Mr. Michael Willis

    1994–: Mr. Gron Roberts

    The ambulance policy advisory group met for the first time in January 1992.

    Personal Social Services
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been given to certain directors of social services regarding the implications of local government reorganisation for personal social services; and if she will make a statement.

    Mr. Bowis
    None.

    The social services inspectorate has been or will be in contact with specific authorities once the individual structural orders have been made. The SSI will be able to offer appropriate advice to those authorities on the implications of local government changes for personal social services. We expect to issue general guidance to all authorities later this year.

    NHS trusts
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-executive directors of NHS trusts have been paid in excess of £3,000 for two attendances.

    Mr. Malone
    This information is not available centrally.

    Abortions
    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has concerning the numbers of(a) deaths, (b) serious medical complications arising following (i) legal abortions and (ii) illegal abortions performed upon women from (1) England and Wales, (2) Scotland and (3) Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

    Mr. Sackville
    The information requested for legal abortions is given in the tables. Data for 1993 are not yet available for Great Britain. Information for illegal abortions is not available.

    Table 1: Number of deaths following legal abortinons performed in Great Britain to residents of United Kingdom from 1984 to 1992

    Country of residence

    England and Wales

    Scotland

    Northern Ireland

    1984

    2

    0

    0

    1985

    1

    0

    0

    1986

    0

    0

    0

    1987

    1

    0

    0

    1988

    1

    0

    0

    1989

    1

    0

    0

    1990

    1

    0

    0

    1991

    0

    0

    0

    1992

    1

    0

    0

    325

    Table 2: Number of complications1 following legal abortions performed in Great Britain2 to residents of United Kingdom 1984–1992

    Country of residence

    England and Wales

    Scotland

    Northern Ireland

    1984

    893

    96

    1

    1985

    875

    117

    0

    1986

    796

    108

    0

    1987

    897

    98

    2

    1988

    735

    111

    2

    1989

    621

    82

    0

    1990

    658

    103

    2

    1991

    641

    78

    2

    1992

    695

    63

    3

    1 These figures represent the number of complications mentioned rather than the number of operations. It is not possible to distinguish the seriousness of the complications.

    2 Information on abortions performed in Scotland is based on hospital in-patient discharges. Data are given only for residents of Scotland as it is not possible to separate the remaining data by individual country of residence.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

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

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

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

    Mr. Jack
    [pursuant to his reply, 26 January 1995, c. 361.]: I am now able to provide the following assessment of the recent report published under World bank auspices under the title "EU Bananarama III". This is the work of an economist now based in Australia who formerly worked for the World bank. It does not necessarily reflect the bank's views.

    The findings in the report are based on economic modelling, not on an analysis of market data since the EU regime was introduced. The assumptions underlying the model clearly have a marked influence on the results found. In our view, they do not fully reflect economic and political realities, in particular the obligations which the EU has undertaken under the Lomé convention on maintaining access for African, Caribbean and Pacific bananas to the EU market.

    The consumer cost of the regime is obviously partly offset by the taxpayer benefit in the form of revenues from the customs tariff. The remainder of the benefits of the EU regime go to traders holding licences to import dollar bananas and, now the framework agreement with
    326
    Colombia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Venezuela is in force, to producers in those countries.

    Although the assumptions on which the calculations are based are not entirely clear, I am satisfied that the estimated consumer costs of the regime are overstated while the benefits to the ACP are understated, especially in the short term. As to consumer costs, the calculation appears to be based on a comparison with consumer costs in markets closer to the main sources of supply where retailing costs are lower. In addition, the estimate of ACP producer benefits assumes that, in the absence of the trading advantages offered by the EU regime, ACP countries would either continue to export the same volume of bananas as before, albeit at lower prices, or would benefit from their resources being switched out of banana production into more productive uses. In the case of the Windward Islands, whose economies are particularly dependent on bananas, viable alternative export crops offering comparable export opportunities and employment potential have not so far been identified, despite the effort which has gone into agricultural diversification in recent years. Were access for bananas to the EU market to be cut back, there would he immediate social and economic dislocation in the Caribbean and increased social costs.

    Since the EU banana regime came into force in July 1993, retail prices in the United Kingdom have fallen. Indeed, in 1994, they were at their lowest level for nearly a decade. French consumers also now pay less for their bananas. In Germany, the only other major member state market on which we have full price information, consumers pay significantly more. This results in part from the application of the common customs tariff. Prior to July 1993, Germany benefited from a special derogation from EU rules enabling it to import bananas free of all duties. This could clearly not be continued once the single market regime was in place.

    The economic prescription put forward in "Bananarama III" of free trade in bananas imported into the EU with aid for disadvantaged ACP producers would result in savings for EU consumers, particularly in the short term, but extra costs to the EU taxpayer.

    While recognising the need for ACP producers to continue to improve their competitiveness through restructuring and some diversification, the Government remain confident that the EU bananas regime successfully reconciles the requirements of the single market and the need for adequate supplies of good-quality bananas to our consumers with our long-standing commitments to the ACP producers to promote access to the EU market.

    Bovine Offals
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates the new rules for requiring separate vehicles for the carrying of specified bovine offals were debated by Parliament and introduced by his Department.

    Mrs. Browning
    A statutory instrument will be laid shortly introducing a requirement for a specific dye to be used to identify specified bovine offals. The Government are still considering other proposals concerning the collection and disposal of specified bovine offals.

    Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
    Mr. Hanson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish the results of the consultation on his proposals on nitrate vulnerable zones.

    Mr. Jack
    There have been over 500 responses to the consultation document on the designation of nitrate vulnerable zones in England and Wales. These have raised many issues requiring detailed technical assessment. The Government hope to be able to publish their response to the consultation, including the proposed amendments to boundaries, in about a month's time.

    Permanent Secretaries
    Mr. Milburn
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which permanent secretaries have left his Department's employment in the last five years; and

    £ million

    Year

    1985

    1986

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    1993

    Percentage change 1985–1993

    Imports

    9,482

    10,070

    10,276

    10,602

    11,420

    12,298

    12,262

    13,406

    14,105

    +49

    Exports

    4,430

    5,038

    5,166

    4,909

    5,886

    6,352

    6,827

    7,521

    8,215

    +85

    Crude trade gap1

    5,052

    5,031

    5,110

    5,693

    5,534

    5,936

    5,435

    5,886

    5,890

    +17

    Note:

    1Because of differences in valuation principles, the crude trade gap overstates the contribution of food, feed and drink to the deficit on visible trade in the balance of payment statistics by about 15 per cent.

    Chicken Feed
    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether chickens may be fed(a) meat, (b) kitchen scraps or (c) worms.

    Mrs. Browning
    Chickens may be fed meat or kitchen scraps provided they are processed in accordance with the requirements of the Diseases of Animals (Waste Food) Order 1973, as amended. There are no restrictions on the feeding of worms to chickens.

    Salmonella in Poultry (Danish Controls)
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports have been provided by the British embassy in Copenhagen on the Danish regime for monitoring and controlling salmonella in poultry, so as to enable him to make comparisons with the United Kingdom's regime.

    Mrs. Browning
    The embassy in Copenhagen has provided the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with details of the measures taken by Denmark to monitor and control salmonella in poultry. The UK has also been supplied with information on Danish controls in the EU Standing Veterinary Committee.

    Sheep Quota
    Mr. Hendry
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications were received, by each region, for sheep quota from category 3(c) of the 1993 national reserve; and how many were assessed as eligible for each region.

    Mr. Jack
    The table sets out the information requested for each of the Ministry's administrative regions:
    328
    which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

    Mr. Jack
    [holding answer 8 March 1995]: The previous permanent secretary retired in February 1993. He has subsequently been appointed chairman of the Residuary Milk Marketing Board.

    Food Balance of Trade
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the balance of trade in food in each year since 1985.

    Mr. Jack
    [holding answer 6 March 1995]: Imports and exports of food, feed and drink as recorded in the overseas trade statistics in each year since 1985 are shown in the table below. There has been a much bigger increase in exports than in imports since 1985. This has served to limit the increase in the difference between them—the crude trade gap—which has fallen by 22 per cent. in real terms.

    Category (c)applications received

    Assessed as eligible

    Anglia

    142

    0

    East Midlands

    205

    7

    North East

    243

    50

    Northern

    650

    161

    North Mercia

    136

    30

    South East

    241

    0

    South Mercia

    224

    7

    South West

    507

    64

    Wessex

    212

    15

    Total

    2,560

    334

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. David Nicholson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the cost of the common agricultural policy to UK taxpayers and consumers.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    On the basis of OECD analysis of the total cost of agricultural support within the EU, I estimate that the cost of the common agricultural policy to UK taxpayers and consumers is about £4 per person per week, if world prices are judged to be the same in the absence of the CAP. In practice, removal of agricultural support would reduce agricultural production and raise world prices. In this respect, that figure is therefore likely to overstate the true cost of the CAP.

    I have placed in the Library of the House a note setting out the calculations underlying this estimate.

    Lairaging, Coventry Airport
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what lairaging and associated facilities there are at Coventry airport for calves awaiting transport when aircraft are delayed due to(a) bad weather, (b) aircraft failure and (e) other factors;

    (2) what is the capacity of the lairage at Coventry airport; how far distant is it; how many alternative holding premises there are; and what measures are being taken to prevent the spread of infection in very young calves during these holding operations.

    Mrs. Browning
    There are no designated lairage facilities at or near Coventry airport, although in an emergency officials would require the unloading of calves into one of the hangers at the airport. Currently, the contingency plan of the exporters concerned, in the event of delays to flight plans, is to take the calves back to the premises of origin. Officials will use their powers where necessary to ensure that calves do not go for longer than 15 hours from the start of their journey without being fed and rested.

    Dangerous Wild Animals
    Mr. Galbraith
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to include American mink, Arctic fox and Racoon dog in the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Browning
    The Farm Animal Welfare Council recently recommended that consideration should be given to the inclusion of these animals in the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. Interested organisations have been consulted on this recommendation and their views will be taken into account before any conclusions are reached as to how this matter should be taken forward.

    Sickness Absenteeism
    Mr. Chidgey
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to combat sickness absenteeism in(a) the Intervention Board, (b) the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and (c) his Department.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    I am pleased to say that the rate of sickness absence in my Department is already well below the civil service average. Nevertheless, a fundamental review has been undertaken of existing arrangements for the management of sick absence in the core Department and a range of measures designed to introduce even more effective controls are now being developed.

    Responsibility for such matters within the Intervention Board and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate has been delegated to the agency chief executives and I have asked them to reply direct.

    Letter from Guy Stapleton to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 3 March 1995:
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about sick absence control measure: in the Intervention Board as this is within my operational responsibility.
    The Agency employs the full range of Civil Service procedures for dealing with staff who have problems with recurring or long-term sick leave. Where appropriate, this involves personnel action, with individual counselling and the use of informal and formal warnings aimed at resolving problems and improving attendance. Professional advice on prognoses is obtained from the Civil Service Occupational Health Service (CSOHS) at fixed trigger points or at any time when it is felt this is warranted by the circumstances. There is also input to this process from our Welfare
    330
    Officer. Following professional advice, early medical retirement may take place or, in the absence of any improvement despite advice and counselling, the inefficiency procedures may be initiated which can lead to dismissal on grounds of poor attendance.
    I commissioned a review in the Agency's Personnel Group during 1994 with the objective of achieving better overall management control of sick absence cases. Recommendations from the review for strengthening the current arrangements, in particular in respect of our approach to individual cases involving regular, short-term absences, were approved by the Agency's Management Group and will be introduced in 1995. The changes will clarify the division of responsibility between personnel and operational managements, and will give more emphasis to the devolvement to managers of the front-line control measures that need to be taken immediately following the return of any member of staff after sick leave. To help implement the new arrangements, we are planning to provide revised written guidance and a bespoke training programme for all managers in the Agency. The aim will be to ensure a consistent and effective policy for the handling of sick leave cases throughout the Agency.
    To supplement the administrative changes and improved control measures, the review also made a number of recommendations to improve the level of general staff awareness about the negative aspects of sick absence. Accordingly, we also propose to issue a booklet for circulation to all staff that describes the impact that sick absences can have on the overall level of service that we provide to our customers, as well as the cost and efficiency implications this has for the smooth running of the department. The general aim will be to heighten awareness about individual responsibility and the impact that sick leave has on the organisation, as well as the additional pressure it imposes for immediate work colleagues.
    We consider that an important factor in the success of these changes will be to achieve, as far as possible, the understanding and support of staff and the Trade Union Side. The Agency is making a clear commitment that the changes are aimed at improving the dialogue and communication that takes place when staff have sick leave problems. We have no intention of diluting or neglecting the normal duty of care that we have towards our employees and we shall continue to act reasonably and fairly towards all our staff on these issues.
    Finally, while it is somewhat difficult to forecast the impact these changes will have, we are, nevertheless, setting ourselves ambitious targets to reduce sick absence rates to less than 4.5% in 1995/96 and to under 4% in 1996/97. This represents achieving overall improvements equivalent to around 33% on the level of sick absences recorded last year and of about 40% on the 1992/93 figures.

    Letter from J. M. Rutter to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 8 March 1995:
    The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the measures being taken to combat sickness absenteeism in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
    You are aware from my earlier letters of 20 December 1994 and 30 January 1995 of the sickness absenteeism rates in the Directorate over the last 4 years. These are well below the Civil Service average. My senior managers and I receive monthly reports of sickness absence, and the same procedures for the management of such absences are applied as in core MAFF. The Minister has advised you that these have been reviewed, and a range of measures designed to introduce even more effective controls are now being developed. These will apply also to staff in the Directorate.

    Livestock Exports
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will show the number of livestock, by type, exported to(a) Spain, (b) France, (c) Italy, (d) Portugal and (e) Ireland in each year since 1990.

    Mrs. Browning
    [holding answer 6 March 1995]: The data requested are shown in the following table.
    331

    Numbers of livestock exported from the UK, to selected countries

    Type

    Spain

    France

    Italy

    Portugal

    Irish Republic

    1990

    Bovines

    0

    149,629

    592

    0

    6,377

    Goats

    0

    52

    0

    56

    0

    Poultry

    262,093

    1,785,243

    2,583,019

    103,461

    5,778,922

    Sheep

    173

    481,135

    812

    6

    93,007

    Swine

    15,468

    19,968

    8,603

    3,929

    32,640

    1991

    Bovines

    0

    201,316

    71

    0

    767

    Goats

    0

    130

    1

    0

    311

    Poultry

    192,084

    3,641,311

    3,937,640

    102,308

    7,675,012

    Sheep

    185

    713,105

    13,141

    704

    104,588

    Swine

    13,399

    24,379

    5,589

    870

    194,512

    1992

    Bovines

    128

    200,556

    0

    0

    3,753

    Goats

    0

    15

    170

    0

    4

    Poultry

    286,591

    2,358,855

    4,050,909

    60,127

    9,642,016

    Sheep

    5,341

    1,160,950

    445

    49

    65,753

    Swine

    11,173

    34,288

    5,284

    86

    287,889

    1993

    Bovines

    1,816

    161,126

    994

    0

    2,108

    Goats

    0

    12

    0

    0

    1

    Poultry

    414,665

    758,793

    2,963,058

    42,391

    6,318,894

    Sheep

    13,771

    469,098

    15,885

    0

    0

    Swine

    2,191

    7,119

    10,672

    495

    84,873

    1994 (January-September)

    Bovines

    0

    170,022

    0

    0

    1,144

    Goats

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Poultry

    374,765

    772,775

    3,368,263

    45,988

    7,865,037

    Sheep

    10,552

    440,794

    1,499

    0

    11,041

    Swine

    1.883

    6,412

    4,160

    830

    83,923

    Source:

    Central Statistical Office.

    Note:

    1993 data and that for January to September 1994, based on the new system of recording trade between EU countries (Intrastat), are provisional. They are thought to under-record the true level or exports.

    Quarantine Arrangements
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what security restrictions are applied to quarantine arrangements for imported non-human primates.

    Mrs. Browning
    The statutory requirements which apply to authorised quarantine premises are set out in the licences granted under article 9 of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974. They include details on the construction and dimension of the perimeter surrounds and the requirements for the construction of the units. These conditions are designed to ensure that full rabies security is maintained while imported animals—including non-human primates—covered by the order are in quarantine. All quarantine premises are inspected regularly by MAFF veterinary officers and at least once a week by MAFF appointed veterinary/medical supervisors to ensure that satisfactory standards are maintained.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if imported primates are always quarantined in areas without non-quarantined animals.

    Mrs. Browning
    Specific authority must be granted by this Ministry before imported primates can be quarantined in a unit with non-quarantined animals, for 332
    example at a zoo. Quarantine restrictions then apply to all the animals in the unit.

    Imported Primates
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are taken to identify cause of death in imported primates; and what security measures are taken in these circumstances.

    Mrs. Browning
    Where a primate dies in quarantine, the whole carcase is sent to the Centre of Applied Microbiology and Research, Porton Down for rabies tests and post-mortem examination under secure conditions. Strict procedures have been laid down for the packaging and conveying of carcases to CAMR.

    Where the animal has been sharing accommodation, all the survivors are kept in quarantine until the results of the tests are known.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how potentially infected materials from imported primates are disposed of and decontaminated.

    Mrs. Browning
    All quarantine premises must use an incinerator, or other means accepted as satisfactory by the Ministry, for the disposal of carcases, faeces, clippings, uneaten food and other waste. If possible, the incinerator should be within the perimeter fence, and enclosed.
    333
    Where the incinerator is outside the perimeter fence, it must have its own lockable fence and be inaccessible to animals, and all waste must be carried to it in leak-proof sealed containers.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions are placed on the movement, handling and travelling environments of non-human primates entering the United Kingdom.

    Mrs. Browning
    Under the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974, all non-human primate imports into Great Britain have to be licensed and the animals have to spend six months in authorised quarantine premises. Animals may arrive only at designated ports and airports and must be transported to their quarantine premises by carrying agents authorised by MAFF to transport monkeys. The carrying agent must, within 24 hours of the landing, inform the Ministry of the landing of the animal and its conveyance to the quarantine premises. The veterinary/medical supervisor for the quarantine premises must also confirm the arrival of the animal to the Ministry within seven days.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are taken to identify potential filovirus contamination of animals before importation into the United Kingdom.

    Mrs. Browning
    Although there is no statutory requirement to test animals for potential filovirus contamination before importation into the United Kingdom, many of the animals are tested either before or after import as part of the normal health screening by the importing companies. Since 1990, a total of about 1,000 monkeys have been tested. None has revealed any evidence of filovirus infection.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines are issued to persons handling imported non-human primates, promoting awareness of potential health risks and minimising the risks of infection.

    Mrs. Browning
    The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 require employers involved in work that might expose staff to biological agents hazardous to health to provide their employees with enough information, instruction and training for them to know what the risks are, and what precautions to take.

    To assist employers in meeting their statutory obligations, the Medical Research Council produces specific guidance on infectious hazards in simians which is entitled "The Management of Simians in Relation to Infectious Hazards to Staff'.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Unemployment
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what action he is taking to reduce unemployment in Coventry; and what(a) job creation schemes and (b) training schemes he will initiate;

    (2) what measures he proposes to tackle long-term unemployment in Coventry.

    Miss Widdecombe
    Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment 334
    Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from R. M. Phillips to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 9 March 1995:
    The Secretary of State for Employment has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your questions about the action being taken to reduce unemployment in Coventry, in particular, the measures to combat long-term unemployment through job creations schemes and training initiatives.
    Claimant unemployment in the Coventry local authority area has fallen by nearly 22% in the twelve months to January. This was the greatest percentage reduction of any authority area in the whole of the West Midlands region. The number of long-term unemployed for the Coventry local authority area also fell by 25%, the second largest fall amongst all regional authority areas.
    The number of employer vacancies notified to Jobcentres in the same area increased by 41.8% for the twelve month period ending January. This too was the largest increase in notified vacancies for any authority area in the West Midlands region. I can also report that Coventry, and the Warwickshire county, have been allocated £22.54m from the Single Regeneration Budget, calculated to lead to the creation and preservation of 2,600 new jobs, and the provision of 1,950 training places. Over 60% of funds allocated will go towards establishing projects for disadvantaged areas and groups in Coventry.
    The Employment Service (ES) actively markets and delivers its programmes and services to unemployed jobseekers, especially disadvantaged groups and the long-term unemployed, as part of its Annual Performance Agreement with the Department of Employment. In the eleven months up to February, the ES in Coventry placed 3,318 long-term unemployed people into jobs, and 1,765 people on the adult vocational Training-for-Work programme. All unemployed people who do not manage to find work within 13 weeks of their date of registration, are given a personal interview with an experienced employment adviser, where efforts to find work are reviewed and options for getting back to work, including vocational training, are explored. There are a number of active employment measures, including Job Plan Workshops, Jobclubs, Work Trials, and the Job Interview Guarantee scheme, which operate in the Coventry area, aimed specifically at long-term unemployed.
    Two years ago, an Enterprise and Advice Centre was set up in Coventry, Hillfields, to encourage local residents to access training and education opportunities. The centre is a local partnership initiative between the ES, Training and Enterprise Council, Careers Service, Jobclubs and other community based organisations. In the three months up to February, the centre assisted over 1,200 local people.
    There are also several local projects aimed at equipping ethnic minority and other disadvantaged groups with the skills needed to access training, education and job opportunities. Again, these partnership projects are funded centrally, but managed and delivered locally through community "outreach" facilities to ensure training and access provision is targeted at, and available to disadvantaged groups in areas of high and long-term unemployment.
    From April, Coventry will pilot a new employer recruitment subsidy scheme known as Workstart. This initiative, which will run for a year, is designed to test the effectiveness of encouraging employers to recruit people unemployed for two years or more by paying them a subsidy.
    With regard to more general recruitment in Coventry, Barclays Bank is creating between 500-1000 new jobs for its national telephone banking headquarters—BarclayCall, in the Walsgrave area of the city. The ES is already assisting Barclays with its vacancy filling by delivering job preparation courses for prospective employees and have so far placed 50 clients into jobs, 31% of whom were long-term unemployed jobseekers.
    I hope you will find this labour market information about the Coventry area helpful.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of public funds devoted to reducing unemployment are devoted to the long-term unemployed.
    335
    Miss Widdecombe
    The Department's forecast expenditure for 1994–95 is £3.7 billion. Of this, some £1 billion is directed specifically to helping long-term unemployed people. This includes £693 million on training for work in England and around £300 million for the range of assistance offered by the Employment Service, such as community action, jobclubs, jobplan workshops and restart.

    In addition, the Department plans to spend some £95 million more over the next three years on the measures to help long-term unemployed people find work, such as jobmatch, workstart and work trials. These measures were announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement on 29 November 1994, Official Report, column 1079.

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

    Miss Widdecombe
    Information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    European Social Fund
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the allocation of the European social fund for the current programming period to(a) Government programmes, (b) each of the objective 1, 2 and 5b regions and (c) each of the non-Government sectors, giving distinctions between England, Wales and Scotland where appropriate.

    Miss Widdecombe
    Allocations to Government and non-Government sectors under objective 3 of the

    Table 2: Objective 1, 2 and 5b regional allocations: 1994 to 1999 Objective

    £million

    Region

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    Total

    Merseyside

    35.953

    38.891

    41.690

    44.589

    48.465

    52.434

    262.023

    Highlands and Islands

    6.430

    6.740

    7.130

    7.290

    7.600

    7.600

    42.790

    Objective 2

    £million

    Region

    1994

    1995

    1996

    Total

    North-east England

    18.977

    19.791

    20.922

    59.690

    West Cumbria and Furness

    1.519

    1.589

    1.682

    4.791

    North-west England

    24.318

    25.349

    26.845

    76.512

    East midlands

    4.866

    5.074

    5.370

    15.310

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    19.692

    20.308

    21.240

    61.240

    West midlands

    22.915

    23.884

    25.295

    72.093

    Greater London

    4.558

    4.752

    5.031

    14.341

    Thanet

    0.518

    0.540

    0.571

    1.628

    Plymouth

    1.411

    1.465

    1.543

    4.419

    Industrial south Wales

    11.581

    12.078

    12.775

    36.434

    Eastern Scotland

    5.960

    6.220

    6.580

    18.760

    Western Scotland

    15.550

    16.210

    17.150

    48.910

    Gibraltar

    0.222

    0.231

    0.245

    0.698

    336
    European Community structural funds for the 1994–95 programme period are shown in table 1. The allocations in respect of Government programmes form part of the objective 3 plan agreed last year with the European Commission. Non-Government sector allocations for 1994 and 1995 were subsequently settled with the objective 3 monitoring committee. Figures for 1996 will be agreed later this year.

    Table 2 shows the European social fund components of the allocations to regions and sub-regions made under objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) of the structural funds. For the objective 1 regions, the programming period covers the years 1994 to 1999; for objective 2 the years 1994 to 1996.

    Table 1: Objective 3 sector allocations: 1994 to 1996

    £ million

    Sector

    1994

    1995

    1996

    Government

    222.000

    231.000

    244.000

    Non-Government sectors

    £million

    Sector

    1994

    1995

    Voluntary sector

    28.637

    28.984

    Training and Enterprise Councils

    18.000

    18.218

    Industrial Training Organisations

    5.403

    5.468

    Local authorities (England and Wales)

    19.825

    20.065

    Local authorities (Scotland)

    9.085

    2.753

    Further education (Scotland)

    9.085

    6.442

    Further education (England)

    43.503

    44.030

    Further education (Wales)

    2.735

    2.768

    Higher education

    21.401

    21.660

    Gibraltar

    0.720

    0.730

    Allocations are shown in 1994 prices and have been converted to sterling using an exchange rate of 1.29 ecu = £1. The allocation for Gibraltar is included in the UK's overall allocation—and funded from the Government allocation.
    337

    Objective 5(b)

    £million

    Region

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    Total

    Northern uplands

    1.496

    1.961

    2.264

    2.271

    2.279

    2.287

    12.558

    East Anglia

    1.081

    1.081

    1.081

    1.204

    1.204

    1.326

    6.977

    English marches

    0.812

    1.078

    1.247

    1.255

    1.260

    1.264

    6.916

    Devon and Cornwall

    3.030

    3.960

    4.583

    4.612

    4.629

    4.650

    25.464

    Lincolnshire

    0.724

    0.967

    1.120

    1.132

    1.132

    1.147

    6.222

    Derbyshire/Staffordshire

    0.163

    0.221

    0.178

    0.256

    0.257

    0.260

    1.335

    Rural Wales

    3.070

    4.016

    4.643

    4.674

    4.690

    4.721

    25.814

    Dumfries and Galloway

    0.630

    0.820

    0.950

    0.950

    0.960

    0.960

    5.270

    Borders

    0.550

    0.720

    0.840

    0.840

    0.850

    0.850

    4.650

    Grampian

    0.560

    0.730

    0.840

    0.850

    0.850

    0.860

    4.690

    Rural Stirling and upper Tayside

    0.590

    0.620

    0.640

    0.660

    0.670

    0.700

    3.880

    Allocations are shown in 1994 prices except for the English marches, Lincolnshire and Derbyshire/Staffordshire programmes which are shown in 1995 prices. All allocations have been converted to sterling using an exchange rate of 1.29 ecu = £1.

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the latest allocations of funds from the European social fund objective 3 for the United Kingdom.

    Miss Widdecombe
    The most recent allocations for Great Britain under objective 3 of the European Community structural funds are shown in the following table:

    Date

    Million ECU

    1994

    478

    1995

    497

    1996

    526

    Northern Ireland receives separate allocations.

    Employment Opportunities (Epileptics)
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures are being taken by his Department to improve the employment opportunities of people with epilepsy other than his Department's booklet on the subject.

    Miss Widdecombe
    The Government have introduced the Disability Discrimination Bill which, if enacted, will make it unlawful for an employer to treat a disabled person, including a person with epilepsy, less favourably because of his or her disability, without justifiable reason.

    The Department also has a wide range of initiatives and services which help enhance employment opportunities for people with disabilities, including those with epilepsy. We will continue our programme of educating and persuading employers to adopt good employment practices for disabled people. We will also continue to provide effective practical help to both employers and disabled individuals.

    Sickness Absenteeism
    Mr. Chidgey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to combat sickness absenteeism in the Employment Service.

    Miss Widdecombe
    Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
    338
    Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 9 March 1995:
    The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the measures being taken to combat sickness absenteeism in the Employment Service (ES).
    A sickness absence management initiative has been in place in the ES since 1991. This came about because of concerns about sickness levels in the organisation at that time and the need to manage it more effectively.
    The main elements of the initiative included:

    (a) the provision of a leaflet for people returning to work about sickness absence and a requirement for managers to talk to such staff, to check what the problem was, whether they were fully fit for work, and find out whether additional support and advice was needed; and

    (b) a requirement for individuals to phone in by an agreed time on the first day of their illness, to tell their manager they were ill, so that cover for their job could be arranged during their absence.

    The rationale behind the initiative was to provide more effective help to those who really needed it, and to take a firmer line with those whose absences may have been questionable. Sickness absence has fallen from around 7% in 1991 to around 4% in 1994.
    More recently, the success of this initiative has been developed further with a number of changes being made to the ES Personnel Handbook. One of the changes to the inefficiency procedure was a reduction in the number of days sickness absence which an employee can take before consideration is given to inefficiency action. Previously, the limits were 14 or 21 days in a 12 month period, depending on age. Since 31 October 1994, the new trigger point has been 12 working days for everyone irrespective of age and also includes part day sickness absences.
    A full evaluation will be conducted in the autumn, when the arrangements have been in place for a full year.
    I hope this is helpful.

    South Thames Training and Enterprise Council
    Ms Jowell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements he will make to ensure that individual contractors which submitted claims for work carried out for STTEC are reimbursed in full.

    Mr. Paice
    Whether contractors are paid for services contracted for with South Thames training and enterprise council will depend upon the source of the funding and the timing of the work done. For Government-funded programmes—excluding employer investment in people—payments will be made to providers for properly substantiated claims for work done since 7 November 1994. Employer investment in people contractors will be paid for work done after 21 December 1994—the date of the appointment of the receiver. Payment for discretionary programmes funded from TEC reserves after 21
    339
    December 1994 are a matter for the receiver. All contractors are unsecured creditors to the TEC for payments relating to work on Government programmes—excluding employer investment in people—before 7 November 1994 and all other forms of contract and employer investment in people prior to 21 December 1994.

    Ms Jowell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total amount of money which was pledged by the South Thames TEC to training providers based in the Dulwich constituency for the financial year 1994–95.

    Mr. Paice
    The information is not held by the Department.

    Ms Jowell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total amount of money owing to individual contractors which submitted claims for payment for work carried out for South Thames TEC before the appointment of the receiver.

    Mr. Paice
    The total amount of money owing to individual contractors which submitted claims for payment for work carried out for South Thames training and enterprise council, before the appointment of the receiver, is a matter for the receiver.

    Ms Jowell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements he will make to ensure that Waverley school in Dulwich receives the £75,000 it was promised by the South Thames TEC before going into receivership.

    Mr. Paice
    The £75,000 referred to in the question breaks down into six separate programmes. Two of these, compact and careers initiative, are Government-funded programmes covered by the comfort arrangements so the school will receive funding for these programmes for work undertaken since 7 November 1994. However, for any moneys owing for activities undertaken before 7 November, the school is an unsecured creditor. Investors in people is Government-funded, but comfort has not been extended to this programme as it benefits organisations rather than individuals. The school is an unsecured creditor to the training and enterprise council for this programme before 21 December, the date of the receiver's appointment. Claims for work done after 21 December should be submitted to the receiver.

    The school effectiveness pilot and the technology bid are South Thames TEC initiatives funded from the TEC's own reserves. The Government are not committed to continue to fund discretionary programmes financed from the TEC's reserves. The Waverley school is an unsecured creditor to the TEC for the two latter programmes for payments relating to work done prior to the receiver's appointment on 21 December. Whether invoices for any such work done after 21 December are paid is a matter for the receiver. The personal effectiveness programme initiative is Government funded. It offers the use of a consultancy service rather than providing funding direct to the school. This service will continue to be delivered under the normal conditions.

    Jobcentres
    Mr. Blunkett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training is given to district managers in the Employment Service on the geographic locations of jobcentres, the constituencies they fall in and the communities they serve; and if he will make a statement.
    340
    Miss Widdecombe
    I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    World Wide Web
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make provision for(a) political parties and (b) hon. Members to place material in a specifically designated section of the World Wide Web server www.open.gov.uk in order to contribute to political debate; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Horam
    The World Wide Web server, www.open.gov.uk, provides Internet access to the CCTA Government information service. This service is intended specifically for Government information to be placed there by CCTA on behalf of Departments of State. There are no plans to extend its use to include political material from either parties or individuals.
    However, the Government fully support the principle of open political debate, and the CCTA Government information service has a number of collaborative open groups that are designed to encourage such discussion, through electronic mail. Details can be found at the World Wide Web address:
    www.open.gov.uk/cogs/coglist.htm.

    Alzheimer's Disease
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those studies by the Medical Research Council into a genetic risk factor in late-onset Alzheimer's disease.

    Mr. Horam
    The details of the relevant research projects funded by the Medical Research Council are as follows:Direct support through MRC's own units:
    MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge
    Project Title: Understanding pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease.
    Indirect support through grants to researchers in higher education institutions:
    Dr. J. Xuereb and Dr. C. M. Wischik
    Dept. of Psychiatry,
    Cambridge university
    Project title: Cambridge Brain Bank's contribution to clinical/epidemiological studies of dementia and Alzheimer's disease research.
    Professor D. Brock
    Dept. of Medicine
    Edinburgh university
    Project title: Mutation analysis in Alzheimer's disease
    Professor P. Lantos and Professor C. D. Marsden
    Dept. of neuropathology,
    Institute of Psychiatry
    London
    Project title: A London brain bank for research on Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease
    Professor R. Williamson and Dr. M. Rossor
    Dept. of biochemistry and molecular genetics
    St. Mary's hospital medical school
    London
    Project title: Familial dementias and Alzheimer's disease
    341
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much research into the causes and treatment of Alzheimer's disease was funded by the Government in 1993–94; and what is the expected level of expenditure in 1994–95 and 1995–96.

    Mr. Horam
    In the last financial year for which figures are available—1993–94—the Medical Research Council, which receives its funding from my Department, spent £4.5 million on research projects directly related to Alzheimer's disease and a further £5.3 million on projects which may in part have some relevance to the condition.

    It is not possible to provide figures for the council's future funding of research proposals as this will depend on the quality and nature of research applications received. However, the council is always willing to discuss and consider sound, scientifically based proposals for research into Alzheimer's disease.

    The universities and medical schools may also be funding research into Alzheimer's disease, although this information is not held centrally.
    The Department of Health does not at present fund research specifically into the treatment of the disease.

    Epilepsy
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much money the Medical Research Council plans to spend in 1995–96 and 1996–97 on(a) research into epilepsy and (b) research which may be relevant to the condition.

    Mr. Horam
    It is not possible to provide figures for the Medical Research Council's future funding of research proposals as this will depend on the quality and nature of research applications received. The council is always willing to discuss and consider sound, scientifically based proposals for research into epilepsy.

    Security Classifications
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent changes have been made in the definitions of the security classifications "confidential" and "commercial in confidence" in the light of the Government's commitment to open government; and what guidance has been circulated to civil servants on the use of such classifications.

    Mr. Horam
    Until 3 April 1994, the definition of the classification "confidential" was:"Information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which would be damaging to the interests of the nation".

    Until the same date, "commercial in confidence" was one of a number of privacy markings and its purpose was to enable appropriate protection to be given to information relating to a commercial undertaking's processes or affairs and which may have been of commercial value to its competitors or to speculators. Following a review of protective security, the classification system and the privacy marking system were replaced by a harmonised system of protective markings.

    The new definition of "confidential" is:
    "The compromise of this information or material would be likely: materially to damage diplomatic relations—ie cause formal protest or other sanction—to prejudice individual security or liberty; to cause damage to the operational effectiveness or security of UK or allied forces or the effectiveness of valuable security or intelligence operations; to work substantially against national finances or economic and commercial interest; substantially to undermine the financial viability of
    342
    major organisations; to impede the investigation or facilitate the commission of serious crime; to impede seriously the development or operation of major government policies; to shut down or otherwise substantially disrupt significant national operations".

    Privacy markings, such as "commercial in confidence", have been abolished. They have been replaced by descriptors which can be used, normally in conjunction with any one of the four protective markings—top secret, secret, confidential, and restricted—to indicate what sort of sensitive material—commercial, staff, management, and so on—is being protected. Guidance about the use of the protective marking system has been issued to departments and agencies as part of wider guidance on protective security.

    The new protective marking system is consistent with the code of practice on access to Government information. The guidance on interpretation of the code of practice, which has been issued to all Departments and agencies subject to the code and has been placed in the Library, makes it clear that the arrangements for marking information help to ensure the physical security of information which is exempt from disclosure under the code. It also makes clear that information does not need to be protectively marked to be exempt from disclosure under the code, and that a protective marking cannot he taken, without further examination, to mean that all the information contained in a document is properly exempt from disclosure.

  DEFENCE

    Road Traffic Regulations (Exemptions)
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what exemptions his Department's vehicles and drivers are entitled to in respect of road traffic regulations.

    Mr. Freeman
    My Department's vehicles and their drivers are entitled to various exemptions under a wide variety of road traffic regulations. It is our policy, however, to comply with all regulations where operational effectiveness is not impaired.

    No central record of the exemptions is maintained and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Sickness Absenteeism
    Mr. Chidgey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to combat sickness absenteeism in his Department.

    Mr. Freeman
    My Department is aware of the need to seek positive ways to combat sickness absenteeism. At present, initiatives include: a thorough absence reporting system; procedures for dealing with excessive absence; courses and seminars on stress management; a comprehensive welfare service; and education for line managers in occupational monitoring and improving staff attendance rates.

    Albania
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what types of logistical support equipment
    343
    Albania has requested from the United Kingdom in the last five years.

    Mr. Freeman
    It is not our normal practice to make public the substance of intergovernmental discussions on potential military assistance. In the case of assistance to Albania, no decisions have yet been taken.

    Mr. Harris and Mr. Wilmott
    Mr. Jamieson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total amount of time that Messrs. Harris and Wilmott were suspended from their posts as press officers in Plymouth; and what level of pay they received during their suspension;

    (2) what was the total amount of money in dispute in the expense claims of Messrs. Harris and Wilmott which led to their suspension as press officers in Plymouth;

    (3) what was the total cost of the investigation by his Department into the expense claims of Messrs. Harris and Wilmott who are employed by his Department in Plymouth as press officers; and who was responsible for conducting the inquiry;

    (4) if he will place in the Library the report into the investigations of Messrs. Harris and Wilmott, press officers in his Department.

    Mr. Freeman
    [holding answer Thursday 2 March 1995]Mr. Harris and Mr. Wilmott were suspended from duty from 20 April 1994, until 8 November 1994 and 19 January 1995 respectively. They were paid full salaries during these periods.

    Both cases involved investigation by the Ministry of Defence police, which, until 12 January 1995, was a mandatory requirement in cases that involved alleged fraud. Since then, line management has been granted a degree of discretion on police investigation and this is no longer mandatory in minor cases of alleged fraud. It was established, following independent inquiry, that no indication to defraud had existed in these cases. The length of time taken in these cases was partly accounted for by postponements of the hearings at the request of the defendants, and partly by the need for consultation between line management and MOD personnel specialists following the hearing to ensure fair treatment for both officers.

    The total cost of the investigation could not be separately identified, but each was chaired by a member of staff outside the management structure of the officers concerned. It is not my Department's practice to make available confidential information on staff matters.

    Defence Housing Executive
    Mr. Jamieson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what dates(a) the Crown Housing Trust will cease to exist and (b) the Defence Housing Executive will commence operating;

    (2) where the Crown Housing Trust currently operates from; and where the Defence Housing Executive will be based.

    Mr. Soames
    The original proposal to set up a housing trust encountered difficulties, and the trust was therefore never formally established. The Defence Housing Executive is on course to assume responsibility for the management and maintenance of the married quarters estate from 1 April 1995. The staff initially recruited to set up the housing trust were originally accommodated in 344
    Ministry of Defence offices in London. From 1 August 1994, the staff involved, who have subsequently been working on setting up the Defence Housing Executive moved to other Government offices in central London. The Defence Housing Executive is also in the process of appointing regional and area staff throughout the country; as existing service or Ministry of Defence civilian personnel, these staff are accommodated in either Defence or common user estate property. It is expected that these arrangements will continue.

    Mr. Jamieson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) who was responsible for appointing the employees of the Crown Housing Trust; and who will be responsible for appointing the employees of the Defence Housing Executive;

    (2) if the chief executive of the Crown Housing Trust is eligible for consideration for the post of chief executive of the Defence Housing Executive.

    Mr. Soames
    The chief executive, designate, housing director, designate, and finance director, designate, of the trust were appointed by my Department following open competition and in accordance with the recommendations of an appointments board chaired by the First Civil Service Commission. Other staff of the embryo trust organisation were serving civil servants and agency support staff. Arrangements for the appointment of a chief executive for the Defence Housing Executive have yet to be finalised. The other staff of the executive are being drawn from the Department's civilian and service personnel resources; it is envisaged that a limited number of appointments will in due course be made by means of open competition where the required expertise is not available within Government personnel resources.

    Mr. Jamieson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will be setting annual targets for the Defence Housing Executive for the number of vacant dwellings among Ministry of Defence-owned properties.

    Mr. Soames
    In common with all Government Departments holding residential property, my Department agrees annually with the Department of the Environment a target for a reduction in the number of void properties it holds. Achievement of the target to be agreed for my Department for 1995–96 will be the responsibility of the Defence Housing Executive.

    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have signed contracts to work with the Defence Housing Executive.

    Mr. Soames
    Arrangements for the appointment of a chief executive for the Defence Housing Executive have yet to be finalised. The other staff of the executive are being drawn from my Department's civilian and service personnel resources; it is envisaged that a limited number of appointments will in due course be made by means of open competition where the required expertise is not available within Government personnel resources.

    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of renting office accommodation for his Department's housing trust and Defence Housing Executive; where are the offices; and for how long they have been rented.

    Mr. Soames
    The staff initially recruited to set up the housing trust were originally accommodated in Ministry of Defence offices in London. From 1 August 1994, the staff involved, who have subsequently been working on
    345
    setting up the Defence Housing Executive, moved to other Government offices in central London. The rental cost to the end of February 1995 is some £191,000. The Defence Housing Executive is also in the process of appointing regional and area staff throughout the country; as existing service or Ministry of Defence civilian personnel, these staff are accommodated in either defence or common user estate property. It is expected that these arrangements will continue.

    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will specify the total payments to date made to(a) Coopers and Lybrand, (b) NatWest Markets and (c) Savills for work carried out in respect of his Department's plans for the married quarters housing stock; and whether this work is still continuing;

    £ thousand

    Financial year 1991–92

    Financial year 1992–93

    Financial year 1993–94

    Financial year 1994–95

    Total

    Internal costs

    —

    —

    312

    857

    1,169

    External costs

    Legal advice

    —

    3

    102

    825

    930

    Other professional fees

    8

    13

    462

    2,852

    3,335

    Total

    8

    16

    876

    4,534

    5,434

    Notes

    1. All costs shown are outturn prices exclusive of VAT for external costs. VAT is refunded to the Department on "contracted-out services" such as legal advice, agency staff and other professional services.

    2. Internal costs are primarily salary costs and office accommodation, but cover also such items as office machinery, computers and stationery.

    3. External costs for financial year 1994–95 take account of invoices received to date.

    Payments to individual companies are commercially confidential. The possibility of further work for such companies depends on the outcome of the competitive selection of financial and other advisers which we are at present carrying out, and on any future need for advice which may be identified.

    Severance Payments
    Mr. Jamieson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of all cases in which employees of his Department have received severance payments in excess of(c) 100,000 after less than 12 months service for each of the last three years.

    Mr. Soames
    There have been no such cases.

    Menwith Hill Station
    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many GCHQ staff have been placed at Menwith Hill station in each year since 1992, to date and on what basis; what are their primary duties; to whom do they report; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Soames
    There is a significant GCHQ presence at Menwith Hill station. It is not Government policy however to give more detailed information on the deployment of GCHQ staff. I refer the hon. Member to the Adjournment debate of 25 March 1994 concerning Menwith Hill station,Official Report, columns 609–16.

    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about GCHQ staff at Menwith Hill station intercepting domestic and international telephone calls.
    346
    (2) if he will provide a breakdown for the total cost to date of his Department's plans for the married quarters housing stock;

    (3) what is the total annual cost of legal advice for work associated with the Defence Housing Trust and Defence Housing Executive.

    Mr. Jamieson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total amount spent on the Crown Housing Trust since its establishment.

    Mr. Soames
    The total cost to date of work on new arrangements for the married quarters estate is some £5.4 million. Much of this investment is being realised in the establishment of the Defence Housing Executive, and much of it is also relevant to any form of transfer of the married quarters estate to the private section. The breakdown of these costs is as follows:

    Mr. Soames
    None.

    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will permit right hon. and hon. Members to visit Menwith Hill station in north Yorkshire to inspect the station and to be briefed on the activities currently undertaken there; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Soames
    For operational and security reasons, such visits are not allowed.

    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the progress by the National Security Agency of America, in respect of complaints made by Ms Lindis Percy, of Bradford, about her treatment by American military personnel when detained by them at Menwith Hill station; what rights Ms Percy has to take legal action against American military personnel; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Soames
    I am unaware of any incidents at Menwith Hill station in which Ms Percy has been detained by American military personnel. It is not for my Department to advise Ms Percy on her legal rights.

    Hospitality
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what types of hospitality members of his Department have been forbidden to receive from companies bidding for defence contracts; on what date the restriction was imposed; and if he will specify the instructions provided to members of his Department concerning hospitality and receiving gifts from defence contractors.

    Mr. Freeman
    The principles of conduct which govern how members of my Department should react to offers of
    347
    gifts and hospitality have been in place for many years. They are brought to the attention of all staff in a publication which is issued annually. Staff must not accept hospitality which includes overnight accommodation, transport costs, or offers of such things as holidays and the use of vehicles. Invitations of a social kind should normally be declined unless attendance can be demonstrated to be in the interests of the Department. Trivial gifts may be retained, where they are occasional and where acceptance would not give rise to public concern.

    Western European Union
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions in the last year he has met(a) his French and (b) his German counterparts to discuss his Department's ideas for the development of the Western European Union; and what were the outcomes of these meetings.

    Mr. Soames
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has regularly met his French and German counterparts over the past year to discuss a wide range of issues that have on occasion included matters concerning the Western European Union.

    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the actions his Department are promoting to develop the Western European Union's planning and command and control capacities.

    Mr. Soames
    The actions we are promoting are those stated in the memorandum on the United Kingdom's approach to the treatment of European defence issues at the 1996 inter-governmental conference, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. These includes provisional offers of assistance in developing the handling of intelligence and the creation of a situation centre.

    Nuclear Weapons Register
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the reasons which led his Department to reject the German Government's proposals in December 1993 for a nuclear weapons register; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Soames
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 13 December 1994,Official Report, columns 621–22.

    European Procurement Collaborations
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy concerning the creation of joint project offices for European procurement collaborations.

    Mr. Freeman
    The management arrangements for each collaborative defence equipment programme are considered on their merits, with our partners, on a case by case basis. Where there is judged to be the most effective approach, a joint project office may be established.

    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy concerning the use of capability and cost to determine a country's share of work in joint European procurement collaborations.
    348
    Mr. Freeman
    In negotiations with partners in a collaborative programme, the Department takes into account a number of factors relating to workshares, on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the aim of obtaining value for money. The Department believes that this aim is best achieved by maximising competition in the programme, allowing companies in each partner nation the opportunity to win work on technical and commercial merit.

    Ship Charters
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ships were chartered by his Department in each of the last 10 years; and how many of these ships were registered in Britain in each of these years.

    Mr. Freeman
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library of the House.

    Combined Joint Task Force
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if NATO's combined joint task force initiative is now operational; and on which occasions this initiative has been put into operation.

    Mr. Soames
    NATO is continuing work, in co-ordination with the WEU, on the development and implementation of the combined joint task force concept.

    European Nuclear Deterrent
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards a European nuclear deterrent for the Western European Union; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Soames
    The independent nuclear forces of the United Kingdom are committed to NATO and already contribute to overall deterrence and security within Europe. This was recognised by all WEU members at the Noordwijk summit in November 1994.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards transparency in relation to the possession of nuclear weapons.

    Mr. Soames
    Our policy is to be as open about our nuclear deterrent as is possible without revealing information which might diminish the effectiveness of the system and so the credibility of our deterrent.

    European Defence Industry
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on the rationalisation of the European defence industry.

    Mr. Freeman
    In principle, I welcome the closer ties which many United Kingdom defence companies are forging with those in Europe and north America. Industrial rationalisation is a process which is primarily for the companies and the markets, subject of course to regulation by the relevant competition authorities. My Department considers mergers which may be of interest to it on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the possible
    349
    effects on future competition and any security considerations.

    Operation Granby
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the cost of fraud incurred by Britain during Operation Granby.

    Mr. Soames
    There are no proven cases of fraud associated with Operation Granby. A number of suspected cases concerned with the supply of shipping have been investigated, some of which remain the subject of civil or criminal action.

    Compulsory Drug Testing
    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have been tested under the new compulsory drug testing procedures in(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy including the Royal Marines and (c) the Royal Air force; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Soames
    The Army is the only service to have introduced a compulsory drug testing programme. Tests began in January, and by 1 March 436 Army personnel had been tested. The Royal Navy has recently completed an anonymous trial to determine whether there is a need for compulsory drug testing of naval personnel, including the Royal Marines, and a report will be submitted to the Admiralty Board shortly. The RAF does not consider that there is a need to introduce compulsory drug testing at present, but is keeping its position under review.

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

    Mr. Freeman
    In addition to those placed by the central contracts branches, consultancy contracts may be placed as part of a larger project and by individual budget holders where the overall value of the contract is low. Such contracts are placed under delegated contractual authority without reference to the central contracts branches and so cannot be identified centrally.

    In view of this and the fact that the Department's central contracts branches have placed in excess of 500 contracts with consultants in each of the last few years, an answer to the hon. Gentleman's question could only be provided at disproportionate cost and effort.

    Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of those service personnel who have served in Northern Ireland since 1969 are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Soames
    The information requested is not available, as medical data in the services are not recorded in a way which allows episodes of illness or injury to be linked with operational deployment.

    Mr. Foulkes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the date, location and circumstances of each incident involving inadvertent release of weaponry from 350
    military aircraft outside weapons range areas in the United Kingdom over the last three years.

    Mr. Soames
    The information requested is shown. All four occurrences involved inadvertent release of inert practice weapons into areas where public access is controlled because of known military activity.

    Date

    Location

    Circumstances

    Royal Air Force

    25 January 1993

    RAF Marham

    Practice bomb fell from a Tornado GR1 during take-off and landed on the runway.

    Fleet Air Arm

    6 October 1992

    English Channel (Portland Exercise Area)

    Drill missile released from a Lynx in error during simulated attack.

    30 March 1993

    English Channel (Plymouth Exercise Area)

    Drill missile released from a Lynx in error during simulated attack.

    19 May 1994

    Firth of Clyde (Clyde Exercise Area)

    Practice torpedo slipped from recovery equipment during transit by Sea King to beaching site.

    Golf Course, Wyton
    Mr. Wilson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the involvement of his Department in the creation of a golf course at Wyton; and what estimate he has made of the cost of this project.

    Mr. Soames
    It is understood that the Royal Air Force Golf Association, which is a non-public body, is examining the possibility of constructing a golf course on surplus land at RAF Wyton in Cambridgeshire. Should the association decide to proceed with this proposal, the costs, including the purchase of land from my Department, would be met by it.

    Helicopter Flying Training
    Mr. Butler
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of helicopter flying training in the three services.

    Mr. Soames
    Proposals for a defence helicopter flying school were issued on 8 December in a consultation document. During the consultation period, my Department received 14 responses to our proposals.

    All these responses have received careful and sympathetic scrutiny. There have been understandable local concerns but widespread general support for the main thrust of the proposals. No significant new defence related arguments have, however, emerged, nor have any new suggestions been made which have caused us to alter our original proposals.

    I can therefore confirm that we shall now move to develop our plans along the lines indicated in the consultative document. We shall establish a single tri-service school to provide pre-operational helicopter flying training at Shawbury with effect from April 1997.

    Training undertaken by 705 Naval Air Squadron at Culdrose will move to the joint school in 1997. However,

    351
    I am pleased to announce that the Royal Navy's fleet requirement and air direction unit will move to Culdrose in December this year when the existing contract at Yeovilton comes to an end. This will help to ensure that Culdrose continues to operate at a very high capacity and its long-term future remains assured as the main operating base of the Merlin anti-submarine warfare helicopter.

    I am also pleased to confirm that Middle Wallop will remain the home of Army aviation with responsibility for operational training on all Army aircraft. Moving the Army basic helicopter training to the defence helicopter flying school has released space at Middle Wallop. I can
    352
    therefore confirm that, in line with our policy of consolidating defence activities, Army activity at Netheravon will be relocated with all Army Air Corps flying moving to Middle Wallop. Netheravon itself will remain in the defence estate and possible alternative uses are being considered.

    Much work needs to be done in order to establish the defence helicopter flying school at Shawbury in 1997 and we have therefore put in place a team to effect all elements of the implementation process. We shall continue to consult the trades unions on the details of our plans as they unfold.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Roborough Lord Roborough—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father

Education: Promotion Prospects for Women
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the number and percentage of women holding headships in (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools; and what is the number and percentage of women holding posts in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of schools.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, provisional information for March 1993 shows that in England and Wales there were some 10,700 headmistresses in primary schools and 1,000 in secondary schools. On the basis of those figures, women account for 50 per cent. of headteachers in primary schools and just under 22 per cent. in secondary schools. In February 1995, 63 women held posts in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of schools, accounting for 29 per cent. of HMI.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, first I wish to comment that the information which the noble Lord gave us is two years out of date. I thought that the Department for Education could do better than that. In any case, do not those figures demonstrate what has been shown all this week in your Lordships' House and the other place that equal opportunities do not exist for women with equal qualifications?
The noble Lord did not mention that in primary schools 80 per cent. of the teachers are women, but headships are held by only 50 per cent. In secondary schools, the position speaks for itself, not only from what we read in the records but from what the noble Lord said. Is he aware that the ludicrous decision of the Government to privatise the inspection of schools has also led to a deterioration in the number of women taking part in that important work? Is it not time for a full review of the situation?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, most unusually, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, is talking complete rubbish. As I am sure many noble Lords are aware, the situation is that entry into the teaching profession is on the basis of equal opportunity. There is no bar on entry in any way at all. Promotion at all stages throughout the teaching profession gives equal opportunities. Equal numbers of men and women relative to the numbers at each level in the profession are promoted every year. Indeed, equal numbers of women who have returned to the profession are promoted every year, compared with people who have stayed in the profession.
394
There is no remaining sexual discrimination in the education service. Clearly, historically a large number of men were promoted to be headteachers in days when perhaps those conditions did not apply. I shall be fascinated, when the noble Lord comes to ask me a Question from the Opposition Front Bench, to learn whether it will be Labour Party policy to sack the excess headteachers or to refuse promotion to men.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, if women teachers are doing so well under this Government, can the Minister explain why in 1979—and I invite him to take note of that date—female teachers' earnings were 86.9 per cent. of male teachers' earnings but in 1994, they were still 86.9 per cent. of male teachers' earnings?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if I were to take a guess at the reason for that, based on the statistics I have, it would be because so many more women have entered teaching over the past 15 years that the lower ranks of teaching now contain many more women than they used to. If we are considering the global average for teachers, then women teachers' pay may well have decreased because so many more women are in the junior ranks of the profession.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not the case that many more schools are being inspected now than ever before, with much more regularity, and that teacher training institutions are also subject to inspection? All those are considerable advances in the system which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, failed to note.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am afraid that that happens quite often.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister mentioned promotion. It seems to me that exactly the same unsatisfactory situation applies to higher education. Does the Minister agree that the situation is unsatisfactory since there are only three women vice-chancellors, only 5 per cent. women professors—only 3 per cent. at Oxford—and only 4 per cent. women chairs of TECs? Does the Minister believe that it is a good image for women students and women wishing to be promoted in the future?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, of course, universities are totally autonomous institutions and I cannot answer for them.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is most important that the monitoring to which he referred should continue to take place? There is no doubt that it will encourage good practice and the situation shows considerable improvement over the years.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we publish the figures every year as part of our evidence to the teachers' pay review body.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, can the Minister say whether, in recruiting the new lay element into the inspectorate, as is being done at present, there is an even

395
balance between men and women? Can the noble Lord say what the figures are for men and women in that element?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cannot give an answer to the second part of that question because we have not yet reached that stage. As regards the first element, we shall keep an even balance as regards quality.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, a large element of the inspectorate is being recruited now. Can the noble Lord tell us how many men and women there are?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall be happy to answer that question when the final figures are received.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how much better matters are now in HM Inspectorate than they were 20 years ago? When I joined the inspectorate it was known universally as the "brotherhood". There were very few women and the senior chief inspector of the day in the year in which I was recruited promised the HMI association that the number of married women in the inspectorate would never be more than the fingers on his one hand.
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords, there is now fortunately a large number of excellent women in HMI.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a certain similarity between the education service and the health service? Both rely partly on national and partly on local policy makers and the implementation of policy at local and national level. Given that that is so, will the Government consider introducing some kind of equal opportunity policy in the education service, with the same targets and objectives as they have introduced in the health service?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we have no plans to do so. At present, there is no evidence of any need to do so.

London Travelcard: Future
3.10 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to alter or scrap the present Travelcard arrangements for public transport in London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, no, the Government have no such plans.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving that assurance. Nevertheless, what will happen to the Travelcard when privatisation hits public transport in London? Will he give an assurance that whatever the scope of privatisation—which I personally regret—the Travelcard will remain for the use of Londoners on all modes of travel for which it is currently available?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Transport has instructed the franchise director to take all appropriate steps to provide for the participation by
396
franchisees in multi-modal travel schemes. The privatisation of British Rail will not affect the Travelcard. The Travelcard will continue.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, when the Minister says that the Secretary of State has given instructions to the franchise director, is he saying that in this case—unlike others where only guidance can be given—the franchise director is obliged to act on the instructions of the Secretary of State?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in this case it is a matter of instructions, not guidance.

UK Industry: Competence in Languages
3.12 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
How satisfied they are with the progress of their efforts to make British industry more responsive to the need for staff competence in foreign languages.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we have made a good start. This is a long-term effort, since a change in public attitude and business culture is required. There has nonetheless been a discernible positive shift in awareness since the Government launched a three-year National Languages for Export campaign in October 1993.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, any progress in this area is good news and I am grateful to the Minister for the crumbs of comfort that he has been able to offer. But may I ask him whether, in view of the fact that it is not just the exporting industry but the promoters of tourism in this country who need to be shedding their complacency, he can assure us that they also are heeding the DTI's warnings that not all foreigners are equally comfortable in the English language?
Further, could I just ask, given the fact that it has long been easier to persuade, say, Spanish people to learn English than it has been to persuade English speakers to learn, say, Spanish, how come that other English speaking countries are so much more accommodating and enterprising than our own country?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, there are two aspects to this question. On the business side, we live in a world of international trading. Perhaps we in Britain have been slower than some other nations to appreciate that language skills and the ability to deal with people in languages that we do not ourselves speak is an essential business tool. Clearly, against that background we want to see improved skills throughout. Efforts are being made to bring that about—and not only at the educational level through the national curriculum. That seems a good basis on which to build.
Lord RentonMy Lords, bearing in mind the obvious expansion that is taking place in business and trade in the Far East, will the Government do all that they can to encourage the learning of the languages of the Far East?
Lord Inglewood: Yes, my Lords. Historically in this country the learning of languages, particularly at higher

397
levels, has been perceived as disqualifying people for careers in business. Therefore we very much welcome the advent of mixed degree courses which provide business skills and language skills together. We believe that that will be important.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the Minister says that there is evidence of improvement in relation to this very important issue. Will he give the evidence, indicate the percentage, and give whatever other statistics he has at his disposal?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I cannot helpfully quantify this matter. Suffice it to say that the response to the National Languages for Export campaign has been good. Activity is taking place on the ground, and we are confident that the campaign will not only raise awareness of the problem but that it will also lead to better language skills.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, given the fact that we live, or will live, in an English speaking world, is it not the Minister's first duty to see that all our own children can speak very good English?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The primary duty of the education system in this country is to ensure that all our citizens can read and write and are properly equipped in their own language. However, we must not be seduced by the fact that there is a very considerable use and knowledge of English elsewhere around the globe. If we are trying to sell things to people, we must remember that the customer is always right. If the customer wants to deal in his own language, he is entirely entitled to do so. It is for us to try to ensure that we deal with him on that basis where appropriate.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does the Minister therefore agree that good relationships are essential in today's tough business environment and that languages play an important part in that? Can he say how many telephone operators at the DTI speak a foreign language so that inquiries from abroad do not fall at the first hurdle?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am afraid that I am not immediately in a position to give him the reply that he seeks. Had the noble Lord rung up the DTI himself, he might have been able to gain the answer that he seeks at first hand.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, after English, to which my noble friend Lord Eccles referred, the second most internationally spoken language is Spanish? Is he further aware that there are today in the United Kingdom a large number of public and private institutions teaching that language—I must declare an interest in that I am associated with two of them—and that the facility to learn Spanish is now widely available?
Lord Inglewood: Yes, my Lords. But it is interesting that, now, most of our exports go to German speaking countries.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are the Government aware that the best time for a person to learn a language
398
is in the early years in primary school? Can the Government advise the House as to what financial assistance they provide to primary schools to ensure that foreign languages can be taught?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, clearly, the noble Lord is right: the best place to start acquiring a knowledge of languages is in school. That is why we made it mandatory under the national curriculum in 1992 that languages should be a part of what every child is taught. The appropriate way to deal with this is through the education budget.
Lord Quirk: Nonetheless, my Lords, to what extent does the Minister agree that until employers show, perhaps through their job ads, that language skills are valued in the job market, schoolchildren will not take up the option of learning foreign languages?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It is crucial that people realise that if they want a good job, one of the best ways to get it is to have these skills which are very valuable to business.

Oxford and Cambridge Undergraduate Fees: Funding Level
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering any change in the arrangements for funding the fees charged to students by the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge.
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords, we have no such plans.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which will give great pleasure to the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, and I hope to others as well. However, in the light of the statement that was made earlier this week by the Labour Party spokesman on higher education that his party, if elected, would abolish the funding for Oxford and Cambridge fees, can my noble friend assure the House that this Government are not committed to going down the route of giving equal funding to all, regardless of quality, but that they will continue to reward academic excellence in those universities which are capable of attracting the brightest and most able students and the brightest and best staff?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am very happy to give my noble friend the assurance that she requires. Of course, I do not have any inside track on Labour Party education policy. It has occasionally seemed to me that those sitting opposite do not have one either. However, it appears sometimes that some members of the Labour Party do not believe in excellence in education except where their own children are concerned.
Lord Desai: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how much Oxbridge costs additionally compared with other

399
universities? Has he any measure of value added that Oxbridge gives to its students compared with other less well known universities?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in 1994–95 the average cost for a student at Oxbridge was £4,852. That compares with the next most expensive university, which is Imperial College, London, at £4,465. I shall be happy to supply the noble Lord with extensive information on value added but we do not have any particular index to offer.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the Minister may be aware that on 1st March his honourable friend in another place, announcing that the HEFC had been asked to advise on the annual increase of the average college fee at Oxford and Cambridge, said:
"The Council has been asked to base its advice on the annual movement in public funding at universities with a similar mission".—[Official Report, 1/3/95; col. 614]
Can the Minister tell the House who decided, and when and how it was decided, which universities have a "similar mission" to Oxford and Cambridge?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the subject was decided in agreement with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. In fact, the practice has been followed for some years. What has happened this year is that the responsibility for determining the final figures has been transferred to the Higher Education Funding Council.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon. People were talking and I did not quite catch the beauty of his opening sentence. Did I hear him correctly or incorrectly? Did he say that this matter had been decided in consultation with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and no one else—for example, not with the Universities of Wales or London, which are collegiate universities, or with Sheffield University, which works on halls of residence?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it was a matter for decision by the Government. The Government consulted Oxford and Cambridge. I do not see that it is a matter for any other university.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, how do the Government justify the enormous differential between the funding of Oxford and Cambridge colleges and the funding of colleges in provincial collegiate universities—for example, Durham?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not want to go into a long discussion of exactly how the higher education funding formula works. I should be very happy to write to the noble Lord if he has a particular question to ask. But the basic answer to the question is that it is on the basis of excellence.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the tuition in Oxford and Cambridge is better than the tuition in Durham? Is he really saying that? If he is, he ought not to be doing that job.
Lord Phillips of Ellesmere: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there has long been a dispute between
400
the research councils and the British Academy on the one hand, and the collegiate universities on the other hand, as to whether those bodies should pay postgraduate fees to the colleges in those universities? To many people that seems a rather strange situation. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have any plans to change it?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not aware of any plans to change it but I shall happily write to the noble Lord and confirm what I have said.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.25 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.
Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 59 [Duty of certain bodies and persons to have regard to the purposes for which National Parks are designated] :
Lord Vinson Lord Vinson moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 65, line 23, leave out from ("have") to end of line 25 and insert ("a duty to work with and sustain local communities within the National Park and to have regard to their economic and social well being.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to give to the House the apologies of my noble friend Lord Derwent, who has been called abroad unavoidably.
I believe that this new amendment, which appears to have wide support, brings together the threads of a major concern raised at the Committee stage; namely, that the Bill as currently framed gives insufficient weight to the duty of care that we believe the national park authority ought to have for the interests of those who live and work in the park, without whose co-operation the daily management of our national parks would be virtually impossible.
There are two main constituents to the national park. First, there is the visiting public and, secondly, those who are visited—those who actually live and work there and on whom, certainly in the case of upland farmers, the national park depends for its overall appearance and attractiveness. Out of season and in inclement weather it is those people who populate the national park and sustain both its economic and environmental fabric. Many of us believe that the Bill must make more central and positive the recognition of their importance and purpose. We fear that unless that is done, little will prevent a divergence of attitudes developing between them the park wardens and the general public, which will be greatly to the detriment of the good working relationships that are needed.
The full impact of public access falls on the residents of the park. They are the people who repeatedly have to deal with the daily problems of the park, such as gates being left open, livestock escaping, picking up litter that

401
has been discarded, lost ramblers wanting to use their telephone and their lavatories and drivers whose cars are stuck and need to use a tractor for recovery. Often they find that it is a pleasure to help such people; but on occasion they meet with downright rudeness. They are the unpaid custodians of the park. Their good will is essential.
Let us imagine an upland farmer talking to a park warden today. As things stand he could easily and rightly say to that warden, "You don't care a damn about me and my lot. You never do anything for us. So why should I do anything for you?" How much better if, on the other hand, the warden could reply, "On the contrary, my authority cares deeply about your welfare and you know that we shall do everything we can within reason to sustain you." If, as a consequence of the new section, he can truthfully reply that the interests of those who live and work in the park really do concern him, how much more likely is it that a constructive and agreeable working relationship will be built up between the administrators and the administrated, the visitors and the visited, to the benefit of all? Surely that is the kind of practical working relationship that we should wish to foster if we wish to see the national park arrangements working out satisfactorily on the ground.
I understand that, not surprisingly, the Association of National Parks, with the chairmen and chief officers of the parks, favour this amendment, as it will facilitate its work if the inhabitants feel that they are on the same side. Clearly they recognise its difficult but important task of balancing interests.
At Committee stage, in an amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Derwent, it was proposed that the parks should foster economic and social well-being. However, we recognise that "foster" is perhaps too proactive a word. We feel that the revised wording of this amendment accurately reflects what is needed. In so doing, it does no more than take the wording from the new guidance to the national parks:
"to work for and with local communities".
But it introduces those words nearer the heart of the Bill, which will give them a greater degree of force—certainly far greater force than being left in the guidelines per se, where they could easily be overlooked.
Noble Lords will notice, however, that the wording of the amendment has been carefully chosen. The word "for" has been deleted and "sustain" has been substituted for it. The word "sustain" has been chosen because it carries no economic commitment but only a moral one. In no way do we seek—nor indeed would it be proper—for the national parks to be obliged to give economic support. But this new clause gives that authority an obligation. It is not an overriding obligation, but an obligation to work with and sustain local communities within the park and to have regard to their economic and social well-being. What is proposed in no way overrides the clear remit of the authority to manage the parks with the environment as its paramount consideration but it gives that authority a duty of care—a duty to care—for the inhabitants of the park, the
402
unpaid custodians, the unpaid wardens, to preserve it and maintain it. Without their co-operation the parks would be virtually unworkable.
This amendment remains subordinate to the main clauses of the Bill. It has the support of the officers of the Association of National Parks and I believe that its general thrust will be acceptable to the Government. I hope the House will find in its favour. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I do not think anyone would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, that the well-being of local communities in the parks is a matter of concern. But the question posed by this amendment is: what is the role of the national park authorities; and how should that be reflected on the face of the Bill, if indeed it should be reflected on the face of the Bill at all? In other words, should there be a third purpose?
The Bill as drafted strikes the right balance between the statutory purposes of the parks, which are conservation and recreation, and the social and economic responsibilities of the park authorities. The drafting as it stands reflects the recommendation of the Edwards Report and provides the right legal framework for the guidance that may follow which may indeed refer in rather more detail to what the national parks should be doing. It is in that circular that all the constructive recommendations which Edwards made on working in partnership with local communities are best set out in detail. Those should not be on the face of the Bill. To try to insert this kind of detail into the Bill would distract from and would rather muddy the primary legislative framework which describes the vital relationship between park purposes—why the parks are designated at all—and the importance of having regard to the social and economic matters in pursuing those purposes.
It is our belief that the local communities within the parks are best served by the national park authorities doing what they are empowered to do under the Bill and by the local authorities, which are, after all, representative of local communities, providing the help, sustenance, economic development and so on. The two should not trespass one on the other. The national park authorities should not be burdened with any more than is in the Bill at the moment. Although I understand that the noble Lord's amendment is moved with the purest, best and right motives, I have to say that we shall not be supporting him if he decides to press it to a vote.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Vinson has moved a very important amendment. The words "shall have regard to" are interpreted in various ways, not only by the courts but by those responsible for "having regard" where Parliament has said that they shall do so. Sometimes it is regarded in a purely negative way. In other words, "we shall not do anything to upset". But the amendment has the virtue of making the obligation positive. I believe it is an obligation that should be positive.
Of course, the national park authority, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, has the primary duty of conservation within the national park but we have to remember that activities go on which must be allowed

403
to flourish. In most national parks there is forestry; fanning; the tourist trade; transport, including the maintenance of roads, footpaths and bridges. The people living in the national park—generally there are several thousand of them—have to have their village shops and the ordinary services that people need in their every-day lives. There must be schools for the young people. With the growth of local craftsmanship we must make sure that such activities are given the chance to flourish. They will not interfere with the conservation duty on any scale. Very often in national parks there are important and quite large buildings, ancient and otherwise, which have to be maintained. There must be people capable of maintaining them. We really must ensure that all these other activities flourish in a national park so that the national park as a whole can be successful and serve the public as we all wish.
The Government have wisely anticipated that there could occasionally be a conflict between the activities of the national park authority and other bodies. That is dealt with in subsection (2) of new Section 11A which is to go into the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. We need not worry about what will happen if there is a conflict because that is taken care of in subsection (2) with the help of the definitions of the bodies concerned in subsections (3) and (4). Therefore, I do not go along with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in his fears about the way in which the amendment would work. The placing of a really positive duty upon the national park authority in the way my noble friend has suggested and the way I have ventured to suggest also can only lead to a strengthening of what we all have in mind.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I support the amendment. There seems to be an idea that one can just stop everything in the countryside and have no progress and no change. It does not work like that. For example, a moor may revert from heather to grass for various reasons. Farming methods change, which again brings a change of need, and so on. One has to have progress in the uplands just as much as in the downlands. At the moment there is an enormous assumption against planning permits for anything in the way of industry. There are many places where quarries can be opened up to the great advantage in terms of work of the people in the area. They would not be visible because they are dug into the ground. They do a lot of good for the local economy. Control could come in to ensure that such developments were not visible, that the architecture was appropriate and the siting was such that they were not intrusive.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I very much support the amendment. As always, I declare my interest as a farmer in a national park. I take the point made so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, that it is not satisfactory to leave this matter wholly to guidelines. We know from experience that the provisions of Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 have not been strong enough. The formula of words there was,
"to have due regard to",
404
the social and economic needs of rural areas. But over time that has effectively meant that those very interests have been sidelined.
Several national park authorities seem to believe that they have no direct responsibility for social and economic activity in their area and that they should act as an enabling authority to facilitate the Rural Development Commission and others to deal with that. But we are dealing with a new situation where national park authorities will have planning and development control powers and will determine housing and other policies, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, so eloquently put it. In due course, they may indeed become highway authorities if amendments to that effect are agreed to. No other authority has those kinds of powers and they are at the heart of implementing any sort of social and economic momentum and keeping it going. Therefore, I do not believe it is satisfactory that we should have a process which my children would recognise as "pass the parcel". The effect is that the parcel never stops anywhere and nobody takes responsibility for these matters at all.
I hope that that is a partial answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. He appeared to advocate split responsibilities. I am not sure that I can accept that idea in national parks. I am interested in integrated responsibilities. I thought that we were getting close to the concept of multi-purpose authorities for national parks. As I see it, the amendment does no more than integrate social and economic factors with all the other duties, but it does not pre-empt those other duties and neither does it give any kind of priority. It makes sure that this particular duty is stated overtly in legislation and the reason for that is because in the past it has been sidelined.
The amendment refers to "local communities" and that picks up a thread which appears elsewhere in the Bill. I would like to be sure that the Government mean that all composite parts of local communities are included in that description, which includes individual land managers, and that their interests are given not pre-emptive but due weight. The Minister gave an indication that that might be so in an answer he gave earlier to his noble friend Lord Onslow in debates on this Bill, but he answered in rather negative terms. I should like to encourage the Minister to make the same comment but in more positive terms if he will be kind enough to reply to that point.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I support this extremely good and important amendment for those who live in the national parks. I farm myself, but I do not have the misfortune, if that is the word, to farm in a national park. I know that if I did I would be much happier with the terms of this amendment than simply being told that the national park authority will have due regard for my needs as a farmer. As my noble friend Lord Vinson said, I should like to have my interests looked after by the national parks and work together in a positive way rather than feel that I am being sidelined and being duly regarded; but not as manager of the land as I would be as a farmer in a national park. It is very

405
important that the individuals there who look after the landscape work positively and closely with the authorities. I support the amendment most strongly.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, as I said in Committee on a similar amendment—and though the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, believes that the word "foster" was stronger—I cannot see the difference between "foster" and "sustain". It seems to me to have the same implication.
However, I feel that on this occasion the Government have got it right. I hope the Minister will resist this amendment. The amendment would imply a positive economic role for the park authorities and that was rejected by the Minister at Committee stage. It would not be in accordance with the recommendations of the Edwards Report on which so much of this legislation is based and to which the Government have given their complete support and approval in the past.
Park authorities are well aware of the importance of working in partnership with local communities and they have a very good record of doing so. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was concerned about planning opportunities which might come to park authorities under the new Bill. They have had planning functions before and in the Peak District in particular that has worked extremely well.
The Bill as it stands makes the relationship clear between the parks and the other agencies which have the duty and the means to sustain local communities. The park authorities cannot and should not blur the lines of responsibility. I believe that great disquiet and resentment may be caused within those other agencies if this amendment is passed.
The first duty of the national parks which is not mentioned in the amendment—I may have felt more kindly towards it if it had—is to further national park purposes. That must not be lost sight of. But all park authorities know that the economic and social well-being of local communities is essential to the well-being of the parks. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, implied that landowners and fanners were not members of the community. I would be the last to suggest that that was so. I hope that they are members of their local communities.
The knowledge that they have to work with the local communities is part of the consideration which national parks give to every decision. I hope the Minister will reject this amendment because it appears to me as the thin edge of a very sharp wedge which could be driven in further at a later stage of the Bill. I should like to see this amendment rejected.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I am sure that we all agree that the social and economic well being of communities in the parks is important. Indeed, it is essential to the achievement of national park purposes and I wish to make that clear at the outset. However, I am not persuaded that this amendment is the right way forward. The Edwards Review Panel dedicated much of its thinking to the role of national park authorities in relation to the economic and social well-being of local
406
communities. It is interesting to note that many panel members apparently set out in the belief hat national park authorities should be given a third socio-economic purpose. However, following their exhaustive fact-finding tour, consultations and deliberations, they came to a different conclusion which merits very careful scrutiny. They concluded that,
"National Park Authorities should be able to assist the appropriate agencies in fostering the social and economic well-being of the communities in the National Parks in ways which are compatible with National Park purposes".
I believe that the Government have correctly interpreted the recommendations of the Edwards Review Panel in drafting Clause 59(1) of the Bill. The Countryside Commission, the Council for National Parks and the CPRE support that view.
The new duty to have regard to the economic and social well-being of local communities in the Bill as drafted means that park authorities will be statutorily required to take full account of the socio-economic needs of local communities. The guidance already makes it clear that they should work closely with park communities to achieve that. The addition of a duty to sustain local communities is at first seductive, but I suggest that, on closer inspection, that presents many difficulties and is unnecessary. I shall expand on that in three respects.
First, let us take the relation with other bodies. As both the Edwards Report and the Government's policy statement on national parks made clear, there are numerous other bodies working in the parks whose prime role is to sustain local communities. These bodies include local authorities, the Rural Development Commission and the Welsh Development Agency. Rather than giving yet another body a duty to sustain local communities, I prefer the approach suggested by the clause as drafted and by the Edwards Report. That is that national park authorities should, mandated by their new socio-economic duty, work in partnership with those other agencies with prime responsibility for sustaining local communities.
I fear that the amendment could result in a confusion of roles, duplication of effort and a blurring of the distinction between a national park authority and a local authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, we should not forget that local communities in the parks are served by local authorities as well as by national park authorities. There is a danger of suggesting that national park authorities should almost completely take over their role.
Secondly, there is the matter of resources. Fulfilling a duty to sustain local communities would, I suggest, have resource implications. I am concerned that such a duty would place expectations on national park authorities that they would not have the resources to deliver because the relevant funding is channelled to other bodies. Surely the crucial point is that Clause 59 should be strengthened so that the public bodies which are given funding to sustain local communities use those funds in ways that are sympathetic to park purposes.
Thirdly, there is the potential for conflict with park purposes. To what end, and in what way, the park communities should be sustained is not adequately

407
qualified in the amendment. It does not capture the Edwards Report's intention that activity by the park authorities in this sphere should be such that,
"the environmental quality of the parks is sustained and, where possible, enhanced".
It is important to remember that often, in matters relating to sustaining local communities, park authorities are rightly in the position of needing to respond to the suggestions of others rather than initiating projects themselves. There may be instances where the objective of sustaining local communities gives rise to projects that conflict to some degree with national park purposes. A "have regard to" duty avoids any conflict of interest arising. Balancing is required, yet the proposed duty of the national park authorities does not specify that the requirement to sustain local communities should be in ways compatible with or furthering national park purposes.
Although it is a real brain-teaser, I put it to the House that sustaining local communities while in pursuit of national park purposes is not the same as sustaining local communities in ways compatible with or furthering national park purposes. That point was recognised by the Edwards Review Panel which included both those cross-references to "national park purposes" in its recommendations on work with local communities.
I hope that the Government will look carefully at the advice from the Countryside Commission in its Report stage briefing on the matter. The commission supports the Bill as drafted and expresses the wish that the guidance emphasise that,
"the National Park Authorities will be expected to work positively with local communities to foster these forms of economic and social development that contribute to the achievement of National Park purposes by supporting the agencies responsible for social and economic development".
Lord Shuttleworth: My Lords, I support the amendment most comprehensively moved by my noble friend Lord Vinson. In doing so, I must declare my interest as chairman of the Rural Development Commission, which has already been mentioned twice in this short debate.
I do not think that it has been emphasised enough that local support and commitment is important in the national parks both in terms of the environment and for national park purposes generally. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that too often we hear grumbles from national park residents and businessmen that the park authorities seem more interested in the landscape and the visitors than in the inhabitants and their livelihoods. As we have heard, the Association of National Parks Officers is anxious to see the original wording strengthened, which is what the amendment would achieve.
The amendment offers a real opportunity to address the concerns of those who live and work in the parks. That is really important for park purposes. The amendment makes it abundantly clear that the national park authorities must undertake their work with, and not in spite of, local people.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, as a result of listening to the arguments which have been deployed I feel that I
408
must register my support for the amendment. I had not intended to intervene at this stage, but I feel that it is important to put on record the view of the Snowdonia park authority that there should be an integrated third socio-economic objective within the activities of the national parks and that that is not in conflict with the activity of the local authorities or of the other development agencies.
The use of the word "sustain" in the amendment brings me to another favoured concept of your Lordships—sustainable development. It seems to me that the amendment as drafted is precisely in line with government and, indeed, international thinking on the whole issue of sustainable development in that it is an attempt to link the sustainability of local communities and their economic and social well-being with the broad conservation objectives of the park authorities. Noble Lords have argued that there is a conflict in that. Of course there is a conflict, but the whole point of sustainable development strategy and of placing an obligation on the park authorities to have a clear duty to sustain local communities is to resolve those conflicts within a lead agency.
Where there is a unitary authority, as is the case in Snowdonia and as certainly will be the case following the reorganisation of local government—I am a resident of that covering Sir Gaemarfon A Meirionnydd—it will be almost coterminous with the national park boundaries. Therefore, it seems to me that to give that park authority a duty to sustain local communities enables it to work more effectively with other agencies. Indeed, given that the Welsh Office in particular is reducing the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales in mid-Wales, the southern part of the Snowdonia park; that the Welsh Development Agency is under pressure; and that other local European initiatives, such as the Leader programme, are active in economic development and diversification in the area, the park authority could become the agency that brings together those activities in a coherent national park plan. Under the Bill, the authorities will have to have such plans—but they already have them. It seems to me, therefore, that having a cross-reference of powers is positive rather than negative.
Other noble Lords have touched on the issue of park residents being able to identify with the park authority. As I have said previously on national park issues, I have lived in and around Snowdonia for most of my life and despite the activity of the warden service and the way in which the park authority has promoted the local community, there is still the feeling that the park does not belong to those of us who live and work there. The placing of the duty on the park authorities will help to change that perception. It will help to create a more progressive relationship between park authorities and local residents. If we do not do that, there is the danger that people will say once again, "Here we have a designated area which is designated contrary to the wishes of the population of that area".
Involving the population more actively and helping them to identify with the park authorities is a positive development. It is absolutely in line with current conservation thinking. You cannot conserve any

409
community with outsiders working against the interests of those who live in that community. I know that there are people in certain parts of the national park movement generally who feel that local residents cannot be trusted with looking after their environment. I believe that people who think that should be involved in re-educating the local community rather than in denying that local community the opportunity of economic regeneration within a mode of sustainable development.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I support the amendment because the one thing we should never allow the national parks to become is a sort of Disneyland where tourists from Manchester and Liverpool are taken around in lorries to see twee walls and Welsh farmers trotting out their sheep solely for the benefit of those tourists. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, suggested, that is the quickest way to ruin a national park. A national park must be a living and growing entity in which the people living in it are seriously interested in looking after it themselves and in having a decent living and a decent way of life in it. That is why I support the amendment.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I agree with the need to keep national park communities healthy. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I believe that the best way to do that is suggested in the clause as drafted. It accurately reflects the National Parks Review Panel's recommendations. As my noble friend Lord Addison said, the panel put a lot of effort into them.
The Minister helpfully clarified in Committee that the new duty with respect to the economic and social needs of local communities will ensure that the park authorities have to be seen to be taking those responsibilities seriously. I am sure that the new authorities will want to do that. Therefore, I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary because the new duty already provides the framework to implement all the recommendations of the Edwards Report.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Vinson. I have listened carefully to all the points that have been made in support of the amendment, but for me the clinching point was raised after I made some inquiries at Committee stage. The people who live and work in these national parks are part of what national parks should be. The people living and working in them perceived, fairly or perhaps unfairly, that the balance was either neutral or swinging ever so slightly towards the more twee aspects of the national park, as foreseen by my noble friend Lord Onslow. The amendment may push the balance back.
There is not much difference in the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, let alone by my noble friend Lord Nome. But it is the perception by the people living and working in the national park, who support the life in the national parks, of the duties of the national park authority that is important, and that is why I support the amendment.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, I did not intend to intervene in this discussion; and, like him, I do not know whether I have seen a light on the road to somewhere in North Wales.
This is a question of a balance. There is a fine division between the two sides of the argument. I was particularly struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as always, and those of my noble friend Lord Lytton when he referred to integration.
The landscapes of our national parks are entirely man-made, even in the uplands where the farmers keep the sheep. As I stated previously, they are like lawn-mowers. Therefore, care should be taken by our national parks, as opposed to what happens in some other countries, of the health of the local communities and therefore the economics of the area. Our national parks are not just about tourism. Tourism would go away if we wrecked the national parks. On balance, I come down on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson—I do not know whether it is the side of the angels.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I strongly support the sentiments and intentions behind the amendment of my noble friend Lord Vinson. Park authorities should work with and sustain local communities within the national parks and have regard to their economic and social well-being. I could hardly say otherwise, having had the honour of serving for eight years on the Royal Development Commission, six years under my noble friend Lord Vinson and six years under my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth. I also had the opportunity of serving for 12 years on the Countryside Commission under the noble Lord, Lord Barber, who, sadly, is not with us today. I am now chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
Having stated my strong belief that there should be the appropriate economic development which my noble friend would like to see in national parks, I should like to point out that the objective of creating national parks in 1949 was that they should remain as national parks. That is why we have national parks of which we can be so proud today.
The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the means of looking after the parks. The communities within them must be looked after; that is an indivisible part of the remit. My noble friend Lord Vinson and I took part, over 10 years ago, in a study on the need to look after the economic and social welfare of the uplands of this country. Therefore I am very well aware of the needs. However, the words in the Bill as drafted by the Government, that regard should be given to the economic and social well-being of communities within the national parks, are the right ones, because, whatever else they are, national park authorities are not, were never intended to be and I believe should not become development agencies in any form.
The Rural Development Commission has that specific role, and I hope it will continue for many years. If we muddle the role for which the national park authorities were set up, if we take their eye off the ball of ensuring that the national parks survive for at least another 50 years, there is a risk of undesirable development.

411
I do not trust local authorities in regard to development of sensitive areas. The reason why I am such a tremendous supporter of the noble Lord's National Trust is Operation Neptune. Half of the local authorities with precious coastlines would sell them for caravan sites at a stroke because they would be receiving all of the so-called economic benefits; and they would be lost for ever.
The national parks are so precious that the primary remit of the national park authority must be to ensure their survival. I have seen in the Peak District and in Dartmoor that one can have sensible economic development as well, and I believe that that situation will be cherished by the Bill.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, the arguments have been stated very well from all sides of the House, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said, it is a question of balance. As a regular visitor to the national parks, which I love, I know many people who live in them and are custodians of them. The national parks were created in 1949 partly because they are in remote parts of the countryside where not many people live, and they are very beautiful. They would not amount to very much if a thriving community did not live in them. I do not think that the public would find much sustenance if there were only a few people living there, making a living out of them.
The balance, however it is achieved, is absolutely vital. I do not think that the amendment, which I support, does anything but try to achieve a better balance than at present.
Can the Minister confirm that the word "communities" in its legal sense embraces individuals and individual households such as those of upland farmers and others who live in the national parks?
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, this is a very seductive amendment and the arguments that have been put forward in favour of it have also been very seductive.
None of us would disagree with the need to sustain local communities within the national parks. However, as the noble lord, Lord Marlesford, stated, the national parks were created in 1949 for an entirely different purpose. They were not created as development agencies to develop rural communities. It is essential that our rural communities are developed and that we should have the appropriate machinery for doing so; however, the national park machinery is not what is required.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in his very seductive speech, talked about local people not being able to identify with the national parks authorities and that it was essential for the community to be able to do so. However, the national parks were not only created for the local communities; they were created for the nation, and the local communities are part of the parks. It is our duty as a Parliament to ensure that the local communities are well looked after but it should not be through the machinery of the Bill.
I hope that noble Lords and the Minister will adhere to the wording in the Bill.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I have said previously to my noble friend Lord Vinson, we are all in agreement that the well-being of local communities is vital for the continued success of the national parks as living, working landscapes. My noble friend spoke warmly of the unpaid custodians and wardens. However, I accept that them is a feeling that the interests of local communities, and the contribution they make to the continued success of the parks, are not always given sufficient weight in the park authorities' deliberations. That that may be the case is a matter of regret.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Annaly expressed their concern that the term "local communities" does not include farmers and managers in the parks who may not live in small towns, villages or hamlets in the parks. I am happy to assure noble Lords that we regard those people as very much a part of the park community, and that their specific interests are those to which the national park authorities will need to pay close attention, as they will for those who live within their settlements.
The duty that we have introduced in Clause 59 with respect to the economic and social needs of local communities underlines the importance which we attach to that issue. It will ensure that the new authorities will have to take into account the economic and social well-being of their local communities as they carry out their functions and duties in pursuit of park purposes. Furthermore, the new duty will ensure that the park authorities have to be seen to be taking those responsibilities seriously.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is good of my noble friend to give way because this point is important. The words "shall have regard to", which are the words upon which he relies to fulfil the purpose which he is now describing, are somewhat ambiguous. At times they have been interpreted to mean a very specific duty, but at other times they have been regarded, as I said, in a purely negative way. How does my noble friend anticipate that those words will be interpreted and applied?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if my noble friend will contain himself for a moment, I shall go on to explain what I believe to be the right balance.
We do not believe that national park authorities should themselves assume the role of promoting economic and social development. A number of noble Lords have acknowledged that point this afternoon. In fact, I do not believe that anyone said that they should have that role. We all recognise that there are already agencies which are properly charged with the specific task of promoting economic and social development in rural areas—the Rural Development Commission in England (I am glad that we heard from my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth today); the Welsh Development Agency; and the Development Board for Rural Wales—and the national park authorities will be expected to work in the closest co-operation with them. That is made clear in the draft guidance which we issued shortly before the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was right to indicate that the draft guidance gives us the opportunity to develop that.

413
I acknowledge that, in tabling Amendment No. 180, my noble friends Lord Derwent and Lord Vinson, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, do not wish to place the national park authorities in competition with those other agencies. What I believe they and other noble Lords are seeking is to reflect on the face of the Bill a means of encouraging a positive attitude—my noble friend Lord Renton called it making positive the obligation of "having regard to"; I think those were his sentiments, even if they were not his words—among the national park authorities towards their local communities.
My noble friend Lord Vinson indicated also that the Association of National Parks Officers supported his views. That is an important consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, made an interesting point—that somehow sustainable development created a tension and that in some way the amendment would help to relieve the tension. I agree that sustainable development does impose a tension and that we should be working positively to resolve the matter.
If that is the intention of the amendment, I support it strongly. I recognise that the amendment draws on words in the draft guidance, but I should like the opportunity to look more closely at an appropriate wording for an amended Clause 59 which will achieve that purpose. I therefore ask my noble friend Lord Vinson to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I undertake further to consider the issue and to bring back an amendment on Third Reading.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the wide support that the amendment has received and for the sensible and balanced comments that have come from all sides of the House. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Marlesford was not in his seat when I moved the amendment as he would then have realised that we are trying to forge a sense of common purpose between the individuals on the ground—the individual park officers—and the people who live and work there. Only through engendering a sense of common purpose will we achieve the right atmosphere in the national parks and will the whole project really work. That being said, and with the positive assurance given by my noble friend the Minister, while at the same time reserving my position, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Addison Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 65, line 28, after ("to") insert ("and, wherever practicable, further").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment addresses an issue of great importance. It is relevant to the debate on park communities that we have just had. Our national parks are not depopulated areas of state-owned land run single-handedly by national park departments of central government. As we have discussed, they are lived-in and worked-in communities. The land is in many hands, from tens of thousands of private individuals to a host of public bodies and utility companies. What happens in a park is influenced greatly by the activities and policies of many public bodies,
414
with their various land management policies, development proposals, service charges and grants to the public.
The way in which those public bodies conduct themselves in the parks is therefore vital to making our lived-in and worked-in model of national parks work. That is why one of the most important recommendations in the Edwards Report was that public bodies should have a duty to further national park purposes in the exercise of their duties as they affect national parks.
In their response to the Edwards Report, the Government agreed to consider that point. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister agreed that public bodies should be expected to demonstrate that they have taken park purposes properly into account. However, he was concerned for the legitimate reason that it might not always be possible for them to further park purposes. The wording of the new amendment recognises that concern by using the words, "wherever practicable, further". I move this new amendment in the hope that the Government will find the new form of words helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I put my name to the amendment, which has the support of the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales. It would provide the necessary positive incentive to encourage public bodies to engage in environmentally friendly practices. If we cannot achieve such an approach in national parks, where the Government are committed to the highest status of the protection of landscape and scenic beauty, where on earth can we achieve it?
I wish to refer briefly to the guidance on this matter because it is most relevant. I am worried that the guidance makes only the briefest reference to this subsection of Clause 59 and to the role of public bodies. The guidance does not treat the new duty as an important opportunity to ensure that national park purposes are afforded greater weight in all areas of public life. That was, after all, seen as a national responsibility by the National Parks Review Panel. Nor does the draft circular expand upon how the various public bodies should interpret their responsibilities. That reinforces my fear that the role of public bodies in national parks will not be given the priority it deserves by the clause as drafted.
The amendment gives the necessary boost to the idea that national parks are a shared responsibility; that is to say, by government departments and all public bodies. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will find that we can overcome the concerns expressed in Committee and will agree to give the suggested wording careful consideration.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the Government in their strategy document on sustainable development, This Common Inheritance, reaffirm their commitment to national parks, calling them,
"the jewel in the countryside's crown".
They also promised to,
"ensure that their special needs and priorities are reflected in policies affecting agriculture, forestry, transport, industry and minerals".

415
It appears therefore to make perfect sense that public bodies should be required wherever they can to further national park purposes in their work. Many public bodies carry out activities in the parks; for example, the Forestry Commission owns and therefore works directly on 10.7 per cent. of all national park land. It also offers grants and issues licences to other forestry operators. Water companies own 5.1 per cent. of the parks. They are also responsible for managing the demand for water, which in turn determines the need for new infrastructure.
Therefore, what those public bodies do in national parks could have an important bearing on the special qualities of the parks. I welcome the amendment, which would give a positive incentive to all public bodies in relation to national park purposes. I hope that the Government will find it acceptable.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I too support my noble friends' amendment. In Committee, I mentioned the fact that the National Parks Review Panel was quite clear that a "have regard to" duty in this context would not provide the incentive necessary for public bodies to pursue their activities in ways that are entirely sympathetic to park purposes.
I also suggested in Committee that the Minister might be concerned that not all government departments would be able to further the park purposes because of the conflict inherent in their activities. I believe that this amendment strikes the right balance.
The Edwards Report stated:
"experience over the years shows that government departments have tended to regard National Park designation as a hindrance or an obstacle to their ends: certainly there has not been consistent evidence that they feel bound by the implications of designation".
The report continues:
"As a result, sectoral policies have sometimes worked against the purposes of National Parks and they have rarely worked positively to help achieve these purposes".
The report therefore specifically recommended a duty that was stronger than the "have regard to" duty of the Countryside Act. The amendment seeks to achieve that. I hope that the Minister will heed the advice of the National Parks Review Panel and agree to look again at the clause. It requires co-operation throughout Whitehall but if we cannot achieve this for the national parks what hope have we of giving greater priority to the environment in any aspect of public life?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, during the Committee stage, my noble friends Lord Nome, Lord Wise and Lord Addison, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, moved an amendment (No. 256) which was very similar to the one before us today, only on that occasion the resulting duty on relevant bodies would have been simply "to further" national park purposes rather than to have regard to and "wherever practicable, further" national park purposes.
In Committee, I explained to your Lordships the practical difficulties in attempting to apply such an amendment because of the numerous agencies operating
416
within the parks whose activities cannot be overridden; for example the supply of electricity or clean water to park communities.
While I understand that this amendment is intended to overcome that objection, I believe that the insertion of the proviso "wherever practicable" does not ease matters. What is meant by the term "practicable"? At which point is an authority expected to decide that it is not practicable to further national park purposes but instead to have regard to park purposes as it goes about its business in the parks? I therefore believe that the term is so vague that its application would bring no tangible benefits but would instead confuse and thereby inhibit the effective implementation of the duty.
I therefore ask my noble friend Lord Addison to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I wish to explore further with him how many public bodies which have an influence on our parks can be encouraged to play a more positive role. In Committee, the amendment received much support from all sides of the House and I hope that the Minister will give the matter further consideration. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 65, line 30, after ("purposes") insert ("that cannot be reconciled through management").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the "Sandford principle". The principle originates from the Sandford Report of 1974, which stated that, where there is an "irreconcilable conflict" between the two national parks purposes of conservation and recreation, conservation be given priority.
There appears to be overwhelming support for the intention that the Sandford principle should be enshrined in legislation. The Minister made it clear in his helpful reply to an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell in Committee that it is most certainly the Government's intention to achieve this. Indeed, the Minister made a most spirited defence of it, for which I am most grateful.
The question before us is, therefore: does subsection (2) of Clause 59 implement the Sandford principle in legislation? My concern is that as currently drafted, it does not. The crucial difference is that the Sandford principle includes the word "irreconcilable"; this means that reconciliation should be attempted before giving priority to conservation. By contrast, the clause as presently drafted simply states that where there appears to be a conflict conservation shall be given more weight. I suggest that the omission of any reference to the need to attempt reconciliation significantly alters the meaning.
I have studied the Minister's response to this issue in Committee very carefully and I am also most grateful to him for meeting my noble friend Lord Addison and myself to discuss the point. We understand that there may potentially be difficulties in using the word "irreconcilable" in legislation. Our hope is that the Government will be able to find an alternative form of

417
words. These should capture the agreed intention that reconciliation through management should be attempted before giving conservation priority.
It is in that spirit that I move this amendment and I sincerely hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to help. I beg to move.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, the amendment avoids using the word "irreconcilable". It uses instead the expression "that cannot be reconciled through management", which was the suggestion that I made in Committee following the Minister's speech. In this way, we hope to make explicit the desire for management options to be explored. In contrast to the amendment tabled in Committee, this amendment no longer requires the park authority to deem that there is an irreconcilable conflict. We believe that by so doing we have met the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Peel and referred to by the Minister that proving that a conflict is irreconcilable and may lead to such protracted debate that conservation may never be given priority.
We believe that our new amendment strikes the right balance. It has the support of the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Council for Wales, and the Council for National Parks. It endeavours to fulfil one of the important recommendations of the Edwards Report. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment or on Third Reading bring forward his own within the same spirit.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I too support the amendment, which has evolved from the amendment moved in Committee. I hope that the Minister will not apply to this amendment the formula that he applied to the previous amendment; that the Committee version was too strong but that today's version is too weak. The present form of words should be acceptable to the Minister.
I suggest that it is helpful for us all to remember that the Sandford principle is not "conservation has priority over recreation"; it is that, "where those two purposes cannot be reconciled conservation should come first".
The guidance in the circular makes it clear that the true Sandford principle is what the Government desire. I share the concern that at present, the legislation captures only part of the Sandford principle, thereby changing its meaning. The guidance and the legislation are at odds with each other. I hope that this is a drafting point and not a disagreement about objectives, and I hope also that the Minister will agree to change the legislation accordingly.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I warmly support the amendment and I agree with everything that has been said. I may have been the first to raise the question on Second Reading. Since that time, I am delighted to see that it has gathered support from all sides of the House. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept the amendment. It is important that the Sandford principle should be enshrined in the Bill.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I support the amendment because it is in general sympathy with a matter which I
418
raised earlier, in the sense that, as I read it, its intention is that any differences should be reconciled on the ground in a sensible one-to-one manner before being blown up into a major conflict between the two parties.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in Committee, I explained that the Sandford principle, now enshrined in Clause 59, has been policy for over 20 years and that we believe that it continues o stand the parks in good stead. I am not aware that the application of the principle, set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 7, has caused any great difficulties or undue concern among those who have to live with its consequences.
I believe that every opportunity should be taken for negotiation and mediation before the Sandford principle is applied. Managing the parks, and accommodating the many different interests which are reflected in them, is an ongoing process. I appreciate the wish of some of your Lordships that the principle should not come into play too soon—that was the spirit of the intervention made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol—in the process of accommodation; but neither should it come in so late in the day that all the participants have exhausted themselves in seeking to find an accommodation where none is to be found.
If Amendment No. 182, introduced by my noble friend Lord Nome, were to be accepted, how would the parties involved demonstrate that an issue cannot be reconciled with a little bit more management? If only they had had another meeting, a further discussion, an extra site visit, perhaps they might have reached an accommodation. Who decides when the point has been reached when a particular issue cannot be reconciled through management? Although I understand and sympathise with the intention underlying this amendment, I fear that it could lead to the premature abandonment of the negotiating process and I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am afraid that I am not persuaded by his arguments. I still believe that the clause as drafted represents a significant change to the Sandford principle but I shall study carefully the Minister's words and seek to return to the matter at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 183:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause:
National Park authorities in Wales
(" .—(1) Where a National Park planning board has been constituted for the area of any particular existing National Park in Wales, the Secretary of State may exercise his power under section 60 above to establish a National Park authority in relation to that National Park by making an order under that section designating for the body corporate constituted as that board a date earlier than 31st March 1997 on which that body—

(a) shall cease to be a National Park planning board, and

(b) shall be constituted the National Park authority in relation to that National Park,

without affecting its corporate status (and an order made under or by virtue of that section may make provision re-naming that body accordingly).
(2) Any order under—

(a) paragraph 3A of Schedule 17 to the 1972 Act (special planning boards), or

(b) section 2(1B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (joint planning boards),

relating to the body corporate constituted as the National Park planning board in question shall have effect on and after the designated date for that body as an order under section 60 above relating to that body in its capacity as the National Park authority in relation to the National Park in question.
(3) For the purposes of any order establishing a National Park authority under section 60 above by virtue of subsection (I) above, or any order which, by virtue of subsection (2) above, has effect as an order under that section—

(a) the requirements of paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 7 to this Act with respect to consultation with councils for principal areas shall, by virtue of the establishment of the National Park planning board, be deemed to have been complied with as respects any provision of the order;

(b) in the case of any member of the National Park planning board immediately before the designated date who was holding that office by virtue of his appointment as such by the Secretary of State under and in accordance with paragraph II of Schedule 17 to the 1972 Act (which requires prior consultation), the appointment shall, on and after the designated date, have effect for the remainder of the period for which it was made as an appointment as a member of the National Park authority made by the Secretary of State in accordance with paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 7 to this Act;

(c) in the case of any other member of the National Park planning board immediately before the designated date who is on that date a member of a principal council for an area which includes the whole or any part of the National Park in question, his appointment as a member of that board shall, on and after the designated date, have effect for the remainder of the period for which it was made as an appointment as a local authority member of the National Park authority made in accordance with paragraph 2 of that Schedule; and

(d) any other requirement, whether statutory or otherwise, which must be complied with in connection with the establishment of a National Park authority shall be deemed to have been complied with by virtue of the establishment of the National Park planning board;

and, except as provided by paragraphs (b) and (c) above, no person who is a member of the National Park planning board immediately before the designated date shall, by virtue of the order, become a member of the National Park authority.
(4) The functions of a National Park planning board shall include the duty to take such steps as it considers necessary to enable it (that is to say, the body corporate constituted as that board) on being constituted the National Park authority in relation to the National Park in question by an order made by virtue of subsection (I) above, to perform its functions as a National Park authority on and after the designated date; and the functions conferred on such a board by this subsection—

(a) shall be exercisable before (as well as on or after) 1st April 1996; and

(b) are in addition to any other functions which are exercisable by such a board before that date by virtue of paragraph 13 of Schedule 17 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.

(5) The functions of a principal council for an area which includes the whole or any part of the area of a National Park planning board shall include the duty to take such steps as it considers necessary to enable the body corporate constituted as that board, on being constituted the National Park authority in relation to the National Park in question by an order made by virtue of subsection (1) above,
420
to perform those functions which would, apart from the order, be exercisable by a principal council but which will become functions of that body, as the National Park authority, on the designated date.
(6) Where the Secretary of State—

(a) has taken any steps with a view to, or otherwise in connection with, the establishment of a National Park planning board for the area of an existing National Park in Wales ("the proposed board"), but

(b) decides not to proceed with the establishment of the proposed board and to establish instead a National Park authority in relation to that National Park ("the proposed authority"), and

(c) the proposed authority is, or is to be, established before 31st March 1997,

the doing of anything by or in relation to the Secretary of State (other than the making by the Secretary of State of an instrument of a legislative character) with a view to, or otherwise in connection with, establishing the proposed board shall be treated, as respects the proposed authority, as the doing of any corresponding or reasonably similar thing falling to be done for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, the establishment of that authority.
(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6) above, in any case falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection—

(a) any consultation with a principal council after 15th December 1994 by the Secretary of State as respects the proposed board (whether or not required by or under any enactment) shall be deemed, as respects the proposed authority, to have been carried out for the purposes of the consultation with councils for principal areas required by paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 7 to this Act;

(b) anything done by or in relation to the Secretary of State for the purposes of the consultation required by paragraph 11 of Schedule 17 to the 1972 Act (appointment of members by Secretary of State) preparatory to the appointment of a person as a member of the proposed board shall be deemed, as respects the proposed authority, to have been done for the purposes of the consultation required by paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 7 to this Act preparatory to the appointment of that person as a member of that authority;

(c) anything done by or in relation to the Secretary of State (other than the making by the Secretary of State of an instrument of a legislative character) for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, any other requirement, whether statutory or otherwise, of a consultative or procedural nature—

(i) which relates to a National Park planning board, and

(ii) for which there is a corresponding or reasonably similar requirement which relates to a National Park authority,

shall be treated, as respects the proposed authority, as done for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, that other corresponding or reasonably similar requirement.
(8) Section 54 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 (powers to make incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provision) shall have effect as if this Part were contained in that Act, except that subsection (2) (e) of that section shall have effect as if this Part were contained in an Act passed in the same Session as that Act.
(9) In this section—
"the designated date", in the case of any body corporate constituted as a National Park planning board which becomes, or is to become, a National Park authority by virtue of this section, means the date designated by virtue of subsection (I) above in the order relating to that body;
"existing National Park" means a National Park in respect of which there was in force on 15th ecember 1994 an order under section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (designation of areas as National Parks);
"National Park planning board" means—

(a) a special planning board constituted by order under paragraph 3A of Schedule 17 to the 1972 Act to discharge, as respects the area of a National Park in Wales, the functions to which Part I of that Schedule applies, or

(b) a joint planning board constituted by order under subsection (1B) of section 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a united district comprising the area of a National Park in Wales.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 183, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 192, 193, 194, 206, 221, 268 and 289A in my name.
The amendments introduce the conversion power in respect of the national parks in Wales which I confirmed in Committee to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would be introduced at this stage of the Bill.
The establishing of national park authorities in Wales will take place in the context of the comprehensive reorganisation of local government at 1st April 1996, under the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, which will itself require the establishment of new national park bodies. For that reason, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales included in the 1994 Act provisions for the establishment of planning boards for the Welsh national parks. Consultation about the establishment of those boards has already started. My right honourable friend has, however, confirmed that, if this Bill is successful, national park authorities will be established to keep the Welsh parks in line with those in England.
My right honourable friend proposes to establish national park authorities in Wales during the autumn of 1995 to enable them to prepare for taking up their responsibilities in the following April. However, depending on the timing of Royal Assent for this Bill, it may be necessary first to establish planning boards and to convert them to national park authorities before 1st April 1996. In practice, it is likely that conversion will be effected some months before that date in order to enable a levy to be issued to the new constituent local authorities. The amendments allow that conversion to take place without affecting the corporate status of the bodies concerned.
The planning boards are in many ways similar to the national park authorities which we are now discussing. The amendments allow the work now being carried out for their preparation to count as though it was being done in preparation for the establishment of national park authorities. That will be so whether my right honourable friend is able to proceed directly with establishing a national park authority or whether he has to establish a planning board first and to convert it at a later date to a national park authority.
The amendments are limited to the three existing national parks in Wales and are further limited to cases where a national park authority is established for those parks prior to 31st March 1997. They will avoid the duplication of work and unnecessary upheaval for the parks themselves.
The amendments vest certain order making powers in my right honourable friend to facilitate the conversion arrangements outlined in these amendments. I have
422
written to my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham, in his role as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee on Delegated Legislation, explaining fully the powers sought and the reasons for them. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I welcome these amendments and I welcome the fact that they mean that the procedure can take place in a timely and orderly manner. I wish the new Welsh national parks well in their collaboration with local authorities and in pursuit of the objective of sustainable development. But I would say that, wouldn't I?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as a matter of clarification, Amendment No. 183 uses the expression:
"The Secretary of State may exercise".
Does the Secretary of State have any discretion not to exercise his power? I hear what the noble Viscount says about what the Secretary of State proposes to do but does he have discretion not to do it if he so chooses? It seems to me that he has. Would it not be better to have "shall" rather than "may"?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, because we are working on a parallel track it may not be necessary to use the power. That is why the word "may" is used rather than "shall".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [National Park authorities]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 139, line 37, at end insert ("; and, in appointing local authority members of a National Park authority, a principal council shall have regard to the desirability of appointing members of the council who represent wards, or (in Wales) electoral divisions, situated wholly or partly within the relevant Park").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 184 gives effect to the intention of Amendment No. 258AA in the name of my noble friend Lord Derwent on the subject of membership, which he moved in Committee. At that time, I offered to look carefully at what my noble friend had said. Having given the matter further consideration, we have decided that it would be appropriate for there to be provision on the face of the Bill for local authorities to have regard to the desirability of appointing members to the national park authorities who represent wards in England, and electoral divisions in Wales, in the parks, which I believe will be in the best interests of the people who live in the parks.
Amendment No. 188 is of a minor and technical nature, to add the shorthand, marginal description of the provisions in question; namely, Sections 15 to 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
Amendment No. 191 gives effect to the intention of Amendment No. 258EB of my noble friend, Lord Derwent on liaison with parish and community councils which he moved during Committee stage. At that time I offered to look carefully at what my noble friend said and, having given the matter further consideration, we are persuaded by my noble friend's argument that it would be appropriate to include on the face of the Bill provision to give parish and community councils the fullest opportunity to comment on and contribute to park

423
policies. This amendment reflects the special importance which we attach to ensuring that the views of local people in the parks are heard.
Amendments Nos. 196, 197 and 198 give effect to the intention of Amendments Nos. 258EX, 258EY and 258EZ which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook moved in Committee. Having given further consideration to the issue, we are persuaded by my noble friend's argument that the Nature Conservancy Council for England should be added to the list of bodies which the national park authorities must notify when proposing to publish, adopt or review their national park management plans.
My noble friend also moved Amendment No. 252B to amend the first national park purpose to include a reference to natural features. At the time I assured him that we regard the characteristic natural features of the parks as an integral part of their natural beauty for which they have been designated as special areas. However, to remove any possible doubt, Amendment No. 209 alters the definition of "natural beauty" in Section 114(2) of the 1949 Act, which includes natural features, flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features, to make it refer on its face to conservation as well as preservation. That will match, and govern, the wording of the first of the revised national park purposes. I understand that my noble friend welcomes the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Feversham: My Lords, I should very much like to welcome the amendments, especially those which, as the Minister said, were prompted by the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in Committee. In particular, I welcome Amendment No. 191 which relates to a duty for national parks to consider and inform parish councils within the national parks. My welcome will come as no surprise to noble Lords because I am president of the National Association of Local Councils.
The amendments are especially welcome because although the Minister agreed in Committee to take them away and consider them, I thought that he did so with considerable reluctance. However, perhaps I am being a little unfair. I am absolutely delighted that he has brought forward such amendments. On these issues at least, the Minister smells of new mown hay if not even of roses. I hope that the noble Viscount does not find that too disconcerting.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the amendments, especially Amendment No.184, are certainly the product of a fairly lengthy discussion that we had in Committee. There is just one point I should like to raise with the Minister. Let us suppose, for example, that the local authorities which are part of the national park authority have a particular party in control. Let us further suppose that the members of the council who represent wards or electoral divisions in Wales and who are to be appointed to the national park authority belong to the minority party in the council. Would that not create the rather odd situation of a council controlled by one party but obliged to appoint members of the opposition to the national parks authority?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 188 strives to overcome the problem of political balance as
424
regards membership. I understand that it may be difficult always to comply with the requirements of Amendment No. 184. However, it is an attempt, perhaps a duty, to ensure that councils have regard to the desirability of appointing; I put it no higher than that. I believe that Amendment No. 188 attaches the concept of political balance. I should add how pleased I am that the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, also welcomes the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 139, line 39, leave out ("in respect") and insert ("by virtue").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 190, 208, 258 and 314 tabled in my name. They are all technical amendments seeking to clarify various provisions in the Bill.
Amendment No. 185 is a technical amendment to clarify that a local authority appointee to a national park authority holds appointment by virtue of being a member of a principal council with land in the appropriate national park. Amendment No. 190 is a consequential amendment to paragraph 2(7) of Schedule 7 to the Bill as a result of Amendment No. 185,
Amendment No. 208 puts it beyond doubt that the Secretaries of State for Wales and for England can operate the order-making powers within Part III of the Bill differently within the two countries. The matter was also referred to in the memorandum that I sent to my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham.
Amendment No. 258 is a technical amendment to Clause 105(3) of the Bill making clear that the repeal of paragraph 22(1) of Schedule 10 to the Bill will only come into force in accordance with paragraph 22(7). Paragraph 22(1) is a transitional provision defining relevant authority with regard to Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Amendment No. 314 is also a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 139, line 45, at end insert ("(political balance)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 189 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 190, 191 and 192:
Page 140, line 3, leave out ("in respect") and insert ("by virtue").
Page 144, line 29, at end insert:
("Liaison with parish and community councils
A National Park authority shall make arrangements—

(a) in the case of a National Park in England, with each parish council the area of which is comprised wholly or partly within the Park, or

(b) in the case of a National Park in Wales, with each community council the area of which is so comprised,

for the purpose of informing and consulting that council about the authority's discharge of its functions.").
Page 145, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert ("means—

(a) the order under section 60 of this Act establishing that authority;

(b) any order under that section relating to that authority; or

(c) any order made in relation to that authority in exercise of the power to amend an order under that section.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 61 [General purposes and powers]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 193 and 194:
Page 67, line 28, after ("period") insert ("(if any)").
Page 67, line 33, at end insert:
("() In the application of subsection (3) above in the case of a National Park authority established in relation to a National Park in Wales, the reference to any existing authority for that Park shall have effect as respects consultation carried out during so much of that period as falls before 1st April 1996 as including a reference to any principal council whose area is wholly or partly comprised in that Park.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Supplemental and incidental powers of authorities]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 149, line 16, after ("a") insert ("new").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 199, 200, 204, 210 to 220, 222, 223 and 294 to 312. When speaking to Amendment No. 183, I explained the interaction between the national park provisions in the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and those in Part III of the Bill and the circumstances in which either planning boards or national park authorities will be established for the national parks in Wales. The 1994 Act contained various provisions relating to national parks which it is necessary to amend to reflect the provisions of the Bill. Other amendments are required to the Bill to reflect the particular circumstances of Wales, irrespective of whether national park authorities or planning boards are established. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [National Park Management Plans] :
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 196, 197 and 198:
Page 68, line 43, leave out ("or") and insert ("and the Nature Conservancy Council for England or to").
Page 68, line 45, leave out ("such principal council and to that Commission or Council;") and insert ("body to which notice of the proposal is required to be given by paragraph (a) above;").
Page 69, line 1, leave out ("principal council or by that Commission or Council") and insert ("body").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 64 [Planning authority functions under National Parks legislation etc.] :
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 199 and 200:
Page 71, line 7, after ("authority") insert ("(or, in relation to Wales, a local planning authority)").
Page 72, line 10, after ("Park") insert ("in England").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 195. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 199 and 200.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Miscellaneous statutory functions of authorities] :
Lord Wise Lord Wise moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 151, line 40, at end insert:
("Public rights of way
.—(1) In a National Park for which a National Park authority is the local planning authority, the authority shall be the highway authority for any public right of way for which the Minister is not the highway authority; and references in the Highways Act 1980 to highway authorities shall be construed accordingly.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above, "public rights of way" means any highway which is a right of way to which Part III of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 applies (as defined in section 66 of that Act) or which is a way shown as a road used as a public path in a definitive map and statement prepared under that Part of that Act.
(3) Section 42 of the Highways Act 1980 (power of district councils to maintain certain highways) shall not apply to any highway for which a National Park authority is, by virtue of sub-paragraph (I) above, the highway authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 201 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 202 and 203. These amendments were ably moved by my noble friend Lord Derwent in Committee and I do not propose to attempt to repeat the detail of his arguments now. I simply begin by reminding the House that the effect of these proposed amendments would be to make national park authorities responsible for the management of the public rights of way network within the national parks. Each national park authority would be responsible for the maintenance of these public rights of way, for tackling any problems on them, and for keeping the definitive map of public rights of way in its area up to date.
The amendments would also give the authority a power to make traffic regulation orders to control use of those rights of way; for example, to restrict or perhaps prohibit, as the case may be, the use of four-wheel drive vehicles on byways, or the use of mountain bikes on footpaths. These amendments received the overwhelming support of the House in Committee and they are also widely supported by an impressive number of outside organisations ranging from the Country Landowners' Association to the Association of County Councils and the Ramblers' Association.
In its 1992 policy statement on national parks, the Government said that they expect,
"national park authorities to be leaders in the field of rights of way",
thereby endorsing a key recommendation in the Edwards Report. The 11,000 miles of rights of way in the national parks are arguably the single most important resource that the parks possess to enable the millions of visitors to enjoy their special qualities. They are vital for the achievement of the parks' recreational purposes.
However, the Government's laudable expectation cannot and will not he met unless national park authorities are given the tools for the job. The authorities

427
do not have the tools at present. The Bill as presently drafted fails to supply them. The amendments seek to remedy that deficiency.
I wish to comment on four concerns raised in Committee by my noble friend the Minister. I am firmly of the belief that these can all be fully addressed. First, my noble friend noted that the amendments would result in a division of responsibility, which is most certainly true. However, I should like to point out that that responsibility is, of course, already split. The Secretary of State is the highway authority for trunk roads. For example, therefore, in the Lake District the A590 and the A66 roads are the responsibility of the Secretary of State, not Cumbria County Council. In addition, Section 42 of the Highways Act 1980 gives district councils the power to claim the right to maintain footpaths, bridleways and urban roads. In the Lake District, Allerdale, Copeland, Eden and South Lakeland district councils could all choose to take the maintenance of footpaths and bridleways away from Cumbria County Council and prevent any agreement being made between the county council and the Lake District National Park. Surely the question is whether a particular division of responsibility is logical. I suggest the division proposed by these amendments would be so, and would greatly increase effectiveness.
Secondly, I wish to address potential problems of defining byways. A byway is a particular type of carriageway: one which has escaped being covered with tarmac, and thus today is used mainly by walkers and riders of horses and pedal cycles, including mountain bikes. Because, in law, byways are a sub-group of carriageways, and because there is as yet no definitive list of those carriageways which are byways, there are inevitably some whose status is not immediately clear. It must be noted, however, that these problems of definition have not stopped Parliament from legislating to give different treatment to byways on several occasions since 1981, most recently in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. There has been recognition on those occasions that separate treatment for byways is justified, and the same applies now.
Thirdly, Amendment No. 202 includes a provision that a national park authority with responsibility for the definitive map would have power to merge the various definitive maps it inherited from the existing authorities and produce a single new map for the whole of the park area. The Minister questioned the appropriateness of including in Amendment No. 202 such a provision for a national park authority. I suggest that this provision is needed in the interests of efficient working. For example, staff in the Yorkshire Dales National Park currently have to work with three different maps which use three different combinations of scale and notation. The national park would like to have a single map for the whole area using the same modern scale throughout.
Fourthly, I turn to the benefits of giving the park authorities the power to make traffic regulation orders, which would be a useful tool for management purposes and would be available to control the use of rights of way where necessary. The amendment has been deliberately worded so that a residual power is retained
428
by the main traffic authority—be it the county council or unitary authority—in case there is a need, which could be an urgent one, to make an order to regulate use both of a road and an adjacent right of way. I hope I have reassured the Minister with these replies.
Your Lordships may recall from the Committee stage debate that at present some parks have some right of way powers delegated to them, but that is not the case with all powers or all parks. In those national parks where the national park authority is a county council committee, in any arrangement whereby rights of way work is carried out by the park authority it is currently a matter of internal delegation rather than formal agreement. That situation will inevitably change with the creation of independent national park authorities. Formal agreements will have to be entered into, and highway authorities may be less willing to do so. This could apply particularly where the highway authority has itself been affected by local government reorganisation. This will be true of all the Welsh national parks and may also be the case in many English parks, depending on the final outcome of local government reorganisation in England.
In the debate at Committee stage my noble friend Lord Onslow asked the Minister what would happen if a highway authority's response to the invitation to enter into an agency agreement with a national park authority were to be, "no". My noble friend the Minister has since, in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Derwent, made the position crystal clear. If the highway authority chooses not to enter into an agreement, that is the end of the matter. The Secretary of State has no powers of direction. I put it to noble Lords that these amendments are both timely and necessary. I hope my noble friend the Minister can look favourably upon them. I beg to move.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I should like to give my wholehearted support to Amendments Nos. 201, 202 and 203. What is at issue, as my noble friend Lord Wise said, is whether national park authorities are given the powers to manage the most important recreational resource in their areas: the rights of way.
I regret to have to say that I simply do not believe that the delegation approach being advocated in the guidance will work. My doubts are based on the fact that ever since 1976, when a circular in response to the Sandford Report was published, the Government have been asking that,
"National Park Authorities should be enabled to exercise all the functions relating to footpaths and bridleways now vested in highway authorities".
That has been widely ignored.
Since, in the future, highway authorities will be asked to delegate not to their own park sub-committees but to independent park authorities, they are even less likely to delegate voluntarily. Furthermore, because of local government reorganisation a number of highway authorities will be brand new local authorities. They are not likely to accord priority to giving away powers they have just received. I therefore believe that the difficulties referred to by my noble friend Lord Derwent in Committee will get worse.

429
Recreational public rights of way are fundamental to the execution of one of the two statutory purposes of national parks, yet responsibility for them remains with bodies with whom the recreational part of the rights of way network is less fundamental. Indeed, national park officers question whether they will be able to carry out their statutory purposes effectively if they have no control of the public rights of way network.
Control of the public rights of way network is necessary not only to ensure that the network can be used by pedestrians or riders, but also to allow proper management of the park resources as a whole. For example, a park might wish to spend money on particular paths in order to encourage movement away from an over-used "honey pot" area.
I illustrate my support for the amendments by referring to a couple of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Wise. On the matter of divided responsibility, it is my understanding that in the Peak District the national park authority has to deal not only with seven highway authorities but also with district councils which have agency agreements with some of those authorities. For example, Derbyshire County Council has an agency agreement with Derbyshire Dales District Council for the removal of obstructions from public paths, and a separate and different agency agreement with High Peak Borough Council, this time for the maintenance of the surface of public paths. This seems a very confusing state of affairs which would benefit immensely from the national park authority receiving responsibility for the management of the rights of way network.
My noble friend Lord Wise spoke of the appropriateness of merging definitive maps. Your Lordships may be interested to note that the Welsh Office appears recently to have accepted that it needs to make provision, as part of local government reorganisation in Wales, for the new councils which are being created to be able to merge the maps they will inherit. Therefore, the principle that there is merit in creating new unified maps for new authorities is clearly established.
Surely, the primary responsibility for management of different rights of way ought to lie with the agency with responsibilities to the particular users. Thus motorways are of national importance and are the responsibility of government. Other metalled roads are of more local or regional importance and are the responsibility of local highway authorities. Footpaths and bridleways are of either recreational or very local importance and in national parks should be the responsibility of those charged with promoting recreation, namely, the national park authorities. I support the amendments.
5 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we too support the amendments. The case for them has been made out by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and the objections of the Minister have been accommodated.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, mentioned that the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, spoke of his wish to issue invitations to authorities to delegate their rights of way responsibilities to the national park authorities. In the
430
usual helpful way in which he injects little barbs into debates, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, cast the noble Viscount in the role of Hotspur as one who would call up spirits from the vasty deep and ask the very difficult question:
"But will they come when you do call for them?"
The noble Viscount has admitted that they will not necessarily come when he calls them. Therefore, there is a genuine reason for writing this provision on to the face of the Bill.
Lord Feversham: My Lords, I support the amendments. The case for them has been made very well. It is an important group of amendments. After all, national parks are responsible for encouraging people to walk in the countryside. How can they do that effectively unless they control the public rights of way across which all those people will travel?
I have some input to make, from a parish council point of view. When people redraw or look again at definitive maps of rights of way they always have to turn to the parish councils to find out where they run. If people want to alter rights of way they nearly always have to ask the advice of parish councils on how that can best be done.
I am extremely suspicious of any legislation which advises local authorities of the advantage of delegating their powers to somebody else. That is wishful thinking. These amendments are extremely important. I support them wholeheartedly.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I should like to express my strong support for the amendments. The case for them has been made thoroughly by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. If we are setting up independent authorities to run the national parks it is essential that they should be able to control rights of way in particular. If they cannot do that, they cannot run the national parks effectively. I hope very much that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendments.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I recognise the support which my noble friend Lord Wise has again secured for Amendments Nos. 201, 202 and 203. I have every sympathy with what he is trying to achieve.
I recognise the importance of the rights of way network to national parks as elements in securing the promotion of enjoyment of the parks, as the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, said. We are all agreed on that. Where we differ is on the best means of achieving that objective.
I appreciate the strength of feeling among your Lordships that the Government should look again at their policy that the integrity of the highway network and its management should be maintained and that that should be through the mechanism of a common highway authority. Clearly, highway authorities and national park authorities will need to work together in close co-operation to ensure that the network is well maintained, available for use and appropriately publicised.

431
However, footpaths and bridleways are public highways in the same way as public carriageways, and it does not make sense to fragment legal responsibilities in this way. It is therefore not our policy that national park authorities should be given formal responsibility for the rights of way network in their areas. Highway authorities and national park authorities will have to work in close partnership so as to determine which parts of the network are best dealt with by the highway authority and which by the national park authority. Therefore, we intend to continue to invite highway authorities to enter into agency agreements with the national park authorities so that the new authorities will have day-to-day responsibility for the management of rights of way in their areas. As I indicated in Committee, we will write to each relevant highway authority asking it to consider positively its relationship to the new national park authorities and to enter into agency agreements to delegate rights of way work where it has not already done so.
Those agreements will enable the national park authorities to continue to protect and promote recreational rights of way in a way which can be tailored to meet the particular circumstances of the park. In approaching the issue in this way, rather than through statutory procedures which are the subject of Amendment Nos. 201, 202 and 203 the national park authorities will be able to contribute fully to the day-to-day maintenance and improvement of rights of way in their areas. Many of them do so already.
I believe that that relationship reflects the most appropriate manner to resource this important function. The new authorities will be confident that the constituent county councils, with their more substantial resources, will be standing behind them when unforeseen circumstances arise which require the rapid injection of large sums of money. For example, this may be because a bridge needs urgent repair to make it safe, or that a large section of footpath needs urgent treatment to prevent it falling into a river. Such expenditure, arising at short notice and requiring urgent action, could well be large in terms of the national park authorities' own budgets but small in terms of the resources which are available to the highway authorities. Thus the highway authorities will be better placed to absorb any such expenditure.
In addition, our proposed arrangements will enable the national park authorities and the highway authorities to come to sensible agreements on dealing with those rights of way which would under the statutory scheme in the amendments fall to the national park authorities but where, on practical grounds, there is general agreement that they should remain with the highway authority. I have in mind tarmacadamed or surfaced footpaths in small towns in the parks for which it is sensible that responsibility should rest with the highway authorities rather than with the national park authorities, even under agency agreements.
Some national parks have significant urban areas, and it makes little sense for the national park authorities to be statutorily responsible for the maintenance of connecting and linking footpaths in towns. Nor does it
432
make sense that they should be statutorily responsible for byways which, under Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980, have to be maintained to a suitable standard having regard to the use traditionally made of them. In many cases, this will make the national park authority responsible for rights of way with significant motorised use, the maintenance of which must be integrated with the wider highway network. These activities would unnecessarily deplete the resources of the national park authorities. We are also clearly some way from defining precisely the routes which meet the definition of byway open to all traffic. To require highway authorities and national park authorities to define these immediately would deflect resources from other important areas of work.
Also, we do not consider it appropriate to amend the provisions regarding the preparation of definitive maps on a piecemeal basis. This is a specialised area of work in which the highway authorities already have considerable expertise. I believe that there would be significant diseconomies of scale if each national park authority has to take this role on in its own area.
We have, therefore, no plans for the time being to redistribute statutory responsibilities for the rights of way network to national park authorities, nor do we have any plans to give them the same powers as a traffic authority. With that comprehensive explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendments. I also thank the Minister for his comprehensive explanation in reply. I was a little disappointed from time to time, but I can understand the point of his arguments. I wish to discuss them with my noble friend Lord Derwent to see what he thinks when he has read my noble friend's reply. I reserve the right to return at Third Reading, and meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 152, line 21, after ("council") insert ("or county borough council").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 204 with Amendment No. 195. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 [National Park authorities to be levying bodies]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 74, line 16, at end insert:
("() Before determining the total expenditure to be incurred by it in any financial year, a National Park Authority shall consult with every council by whom the local authority members of that authority fall to be appointed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the names of my noble friend Lady Hilton and myself. Clause 67 provides for the new national park authorities to issue annual levies to the local authorities

433
who appoint members to them. The total of the levies, as I understand it, is to equal the difference between the authority's total budgeted revenue expenditure for the year and the income it expects to receive from other sources—mainly the national parks supplementary grant from the Department of the Environment or possibly the Welsh Office.
In theory, the local authority representatives have a two-thirds representation on the national park authority and they will be able to control its budget and therefore ensure that the levy will be kept at a level which the funding local authorities (which, after all, have to provide the money) find acceptable. However, if there are several funding local authorities, it is possible that a majority of the national park authority members might approve a budget which a minority of the funding local authority found unacceptable. As I was mentioning when the noble Viscount moved the government amendment about representation from local authorities on national park authorities, it is particularly likely to be the case if representatives from funding local authorities on national park authorities belong to minority parties in their own local authorities. They may do so simply because they happen to represent wards which fall within the national park. So there could be a conflict between the national park authority and the local authorities which are the source of the funds.
The proposed amendment would require the national park authority to consult formally with the funding authorities before settling its own budget. That happens in most cases at the moment, and would do no more than existing best practice requires, whereby a national park authority with multiple funding local authorities holds an annual consultative meeting to which it invites representatives of all those authorities before settling its own budget. That happens in best practice at the moment. Because of the new nature of the national park authorities and because of the problem introduced by the amendment which the Government put forward, I believe it is right that a consultative process of that nature should be built into the Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we place great emphasis on the importance of the new authorities having regular contacts with their constituent local authorities in matters which impinge on their responsibilities and working closely with them. I would expect that, in financial affairs, as in other issues in which they have an interest, the national park authorities will consult fully with their constituent local authorities.
I believe that it will be particularly important for the NPA5 to be in close consultation with the constituent local authorities as their financial plans are developed. Our guidance will be very clear on this issue. I am also confident that the local authority members on the new authorities will make sure that there is full consultation and the interests of their constituent local authorities are properly represented and fully considered and that due weight is given to them,
I appreciate the sentiment behind the noble Lord's amendment, but perhaps with my reassurance he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Viscount has answered the point which I made. It is that members from funding local authorities who are on national park authorities could, as a result of the Government's amendment, be of a minority party within the funding local authority. There could therefore be a conflict between those who are members of a national park authority and those who are not members of a national park authority but control the council concerned and are responsible for setting the council tax rate.
I do not feel that the reply is other than disappointing. I understand that the noble Viscount expects close co-operation between the national park authorities and funding local authorities. He says it is important and it will be in the guidance. All that is fine, but we seek a cast-iron assurance that it will actually happen. It is a matter of worry that the national park authority could set a budget, when the national park authority itself is composed of people who do not control the budget of the local authority which funds it. That is the point that I was trying to stress. I do not think that the noble Viscount has given me an encouraging reply and I am sorry for that because there is a real problem. I shall have to examine the matter, consult with advisers and decide what to do. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 [Powers to make Orders]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 75, line 15, after ("instrument") insert ("; and, except in the case of a statutory instrument made by virtue of section (National Park authorities in Wales)above which only—

(a) designates a date,

(b) renames a body,

(c) makes provision under paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 7 to this Act for excluding a council from the councils by whom the local authority members of a National Park authority are to be appointed, or

(d) makes provision under section 60(2) above any such statutory instrument shall be").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 183. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 75, line 17, leave out ("include") and insert ("comprise").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks clarification of the terminology used in subsection (3) of Clause 70. Clause 70 refers to all the powers that the Secretary of State has under this part of the Bill. Subsection (3) states that the powers in question,
"shall, in each case, include",
and then lists certain powers:
"to make …incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision",
within the discretion of the Secretary of State.
At the last stage I queried the use of the term "include" and asked what was not actually set out in the subsection on the face of the Bill, since my understanding of the word "include" is that there must be something that is not spelt out. I therefore propose in

435
this amendment that the term "include" be changed to "comprise" to make it quite clear that there is no other power. I did so, having heard from the Minister; I thank him for his letter containing reassurance that the word "include" does not carry with it any more powers than those that are listed. I was glad to have his reassurance, and I do not doubt that reassurance. However, I feel that the word "comprise" would be very much clearer in the context. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the effect of subsection (3) of Clause 70, read together with subsection (1), is that the enabling powers to make orders which are contained in the earlier provisions of Part III of the Bill (of which Clause 60 is perhaps the most important) include power to make incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision, as mentioned. The same result could have been arrived at by putting in Clause 60 itself a provision saying that "an order under this section may include" the further provision in question, and then repeating the formula for Clause 63, but that would have been unnecessarily repetitive and clumsy.
I believe that the word "comprise" contains within it the terms: "include, contain; extend to, encompass; consist of, be made up of'. Therefore to change "include" to "comprise" in accordance with the amendment would either keep the meaning of the provision as it is, if one were to select the definition "include, contain; extend to, encompass", or make the provision nonsensical, if one were to select "consist of, be made up of".
I therefore ask the noble Baroness to consider perhaps that the words on the face of the Bill are correct, and to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down (he almost has done) I wonder whether he can at any rate repeat the reassurance that he gave me in writing that the word "include" does not carry any more powers than those that are listed, Did I miss that point in his reply?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am happy to give that reassurance.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I would quite enjoy continuing to discuss semantics, but perhaps it would tax further the patience of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 76, line 16, after first ("different") insert ("areas or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 185. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Minor and consequential amendments relating to National Parks]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 154, line 16, at end insert:
("() In section 114(2) of that Act (construction of references to the preservation of the natural beauty of an area) after the word "preservation"—

(a) in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words ", or the conservation,", and

(b) in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the conservation".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Schedule 10, my noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 209 with Amendment No. 184. In addition, he spoke to Amendments Nos. 210 to 220 with Amendment No. 195. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 210 to 220:
Page 156, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert:
("() In section 184 of the 1972 Act (functions under countryside legislation) in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), for the words "subsections (6) to (8) below" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (7) and (8) below".
() In subsection (4) of that section—").
Page 157, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 19.
Page 157, leave out lines 22 to 26.
Page 157, line 46, leave out ("after "situated" there shall be inserted "and") and insert ("the word "and" immediately preceding sub-paragraph (ii) shall be omitted and after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted ("and
(iii)") .
Page 157, line 48, after ("land") insert (", or any part of the land,").
Page 158, line 19, leave out from ("Wales"") to end of line 26.
Page 160, line 18, leave out paragraph 30 and insert:
(".—(1) Paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989 (definition of "relevant planning authority" for the purposes of consents under that Act) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In this paragraph "the 1994 amendment" means the omission of the words "and Wales" in paragraph (a) of the said paragraph 2(6) by paragraph 22 of Schedule 6 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.
(3) If the 1994 amendment comes into force after this paragraph, then—

(a) in paragraph (a) of the said paragraph 2(6), for the words "England and Wales" there shall be substituted the words "land in England and Wales which is not in a National Park for which a National Park authority is the local planning authority";

(b) after that paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(aa) in relation to land in England and Wales which is in a National Park for which a National Park authority is the local planning authority, means that National Park authority; and"; and
(c) the 1994 amendment shall have effect in relation to the said paragraph (a) as amended by paragraph (a) above, and on the coming into force of the 1994 amendment the words "and Wales" shall also be omitted from the paragraph (aa) inserted by paragraph (b) above.
(4) If the 1994 amendment comes into force before this paragraph, then—

(a) in paragraph (a) of the said paragraph 2(6), for the word "England" there shall be substituted the words "land in England which is not in a National Park for which a National Park authority is the local planning authority"; and

(b) after that paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(aa) in relation to land in England which is in a National Park for which a National Park authority is the local planning authority, means that National Park authority; and".
(5) If the 1994 amendment comes into force on the same day as this paragraph, the 1994 amendment shall be deemed to have come into force immediately before this paragraph (and sub-paragraph (4) above shall have effect accordingly).
(6) The paragraph (aa) inserted by paragraph 22 of Schedule 6 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 shall be re-numbered "(ab)".").
Page 160, leave out lines 29 to 31 and insert:
(" .—(1) In section 21(1) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (interpretation of Part I) the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (m) shall be omitted and after that paragraph there shall be added "and
(n) a joint planning board constituted for an area in Wales outside a National Park by an order under section 2(1 B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990."
(2) In section 39(1) of that Act (application of Part IV), after paragraph (h) there shall be inserted—
"(hh) a joint planning board constituted for an area in Wales outside a National Park by an order under section 2(1B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;".
(3) In section 67(3) of that Act (local authorities for the purposes of Part V) the word "and" at the end of paragraph (o) shall be omitted and after that paragraph there shall be inserted—
"(oo) a joint planning board constituted for an area in Wales outside a National Park by an order under section 2(IB) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and".
(4) In section 152(2) of that Act (relevant authorities for the purposes of imposing certain charges) the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (1) shall be omitted and after that paragraph there shall be added "and
(m) a joint planning board constituted for an area in Wales outside a National Park by an order under section 2(1B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990."
(5) In paragraph 2(1) (b) of Schedule I to that Act (bodies to which appointments are made taking account of political balance) for "paragraphs (k) and (m)" there shall be substituted "paragraphs (k), (m) and (n)".").
Page 164, line 4, at end insert:
("The Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14)
In section 35 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (definition of "special items") in subsection (5) (expenses of a billing authority not to be special expenses if they are expenses of meeting a levy from a National Park planning board) paragraphs (a) and (b) shall be omitted and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the words "or
(c) a National Park authority in relation to a National Park in Wales."").
Page 164, line 4, at end insert:
("The Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (c. 25)
In section 1(10) of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (certain bodies on which powers are conferred by the Act), at the end there shall be added—
"(h) a joint planning board constituted for an area in Wales outside a National Park by an order under section 2(IB) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.".
Page 164, line 9, at end insert:
("The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 (c. 19)
In Schedule 6 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 (minor and consequential amendments relating to planning) in paragraph 2, for the words "paragraphs 3 to 14" there shall be substituted the words "paragraphs 13 and 14".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 74 [Interpretation of Part III]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 77, line 22, after ("Act") insert ("or constituted by an order under paragraph 3A of that Schedule or section 2(IB) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 221 with Amendment No. 183. In addition, he spoke to Amendments Nos. 222 and 223 with Amendment No. 195. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 222 and 223:
Page 77, line 32, leave out ("or").
Page 77, line 33, at end insert (", any joint authority established under section 34 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 or the Residuary Body for Wales established by section 39 of that Act").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bancroft Lord Bancroft moved Amendment No. 224:
Before Clause 75, insert the following new clause:
("Joint planning arrangements for sustainable development
After section 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 there shall be inserted—
"Joint planning arrangements for sustainable development.
2A.—(I) Subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this section, where the Secretary of State at any time considers it expedient so to do in respect of any relevant area, he shall direct the local planning authorities for that area to integrate the principles of sustainable development into their strategic planning functions and to establish and maintain joint arrangements for the discharge of those functions.
(2) Before deciding whether to issue a direction under subsection (1) of this section in respect of any area, the Secretary of State shall consult with every local planning authority and with persons or bodies representative of business. industry and other relevant interests within that area.
(3) Without prejudice to his powers so to do at any other time, the Secretary of State shall, in every area in respect of which he makes an order under section 17 of the Local Government Act 1992, forthwith consult with the persons mentioned in subsection (2) of this section for the whole of that area.
(4) If in the light of any consultation under subsection (3) of this section it appears to him expedient so to do in respect of all or part of the area, the Secretary of State shall issue a direction under subsection (1) of this section which shall come into force on the same day as the relevant order under the Local Government Act 1992.
(5) In this section—
"relevant area" means any non-metropolitan area in respect of which an order is made under section 17 of the Local Government Act 1992 replacing the two principal tiers of local government with two or more single tier authorities, or any part of any such area; and
"strategic planning functions" means the functions of a local planning authority in relation to the structure plan or unitary plan, to the winning and working of minerals and ancillary operations specified in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule I to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to the disposal, treatment, storage or processing of refuse or waste materials.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment standing in my name and those of other noble Lords, I acknowledge straight away that this is not a planning Bill. But the town and country planning system is one of the most important instruments available to promote sustainable development, and sustainable development is at the heart of this Bill. Its Long Title is broad, and it therefore seems proper to use this opportunity to prevent a possible weakening of the planning system's capacity to deliver sustainable development in certain areas. This weakening may well result from the reorganisation of the bodies that are chiefly responsible for planning decisions; namely, the local authorities.
Orders have been recently approved by this House, as we all know, and in another place to abolish the Avon, Cleveland and Humberside county councils and to vest their powers in new and considerably smaller unitary authorities. An order has also been approved to create a new unitary authority for York within the area that is presently administered by North Yorkshire County Council. Orders designed to change the local government structure in some other counties—albeit generally only in certain districts of those counties—are likely to be put before your Lordships in due course. The recent announcement by the Secretary of State has, I am bound to say, increased and prolonged the uncertainty about the ultimate extent of this process.
All the orders approved so far provide for the new authorities jointly to inherit the respective county structure plans. But thereafter this and other county planning functions—notably those in respect of minerals and waste—are to be discharged by the new unitary authorities with no provision whatsoever to secure joint working.
These are all subjects which require to be tackled strategically over wide areas. That is self-evident in the case of structure planning. But in addition, a small authority naturally tends to resist mineral and waste developments on principle in its own area. But it will not be able to defend those decisions on appeal or on call-in by reference to a broader, coherent balance between economic and environmental factors.
In Cleveland there is relatively little scope for mineral extraction. But there is an intense concentration of industries producing wastes, quite often of types needing particularly careful treatment. Elsewhere, mineral extraction will generally be equally, or even more, important.
There are existing powers to set up joint planning authorities, but none of these fits the present case. Section 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a joint county planning authority to be set up for more than one county, or a joint district planning authority for more than one district. But it does not enable a joint authority to be set up to exercise county planning powers within a single former county.
Earlier this week, on Monday 6th March, at col. 107 of Hansard, the noble Viscount the Minister kindly reminded me of Section 21 of the Local Government Act 1992 when I glancingly raised an analogous point on the Humberside and North Yorkshire orders. But in
440
my respectful submission, Section 21 of the 1992 Act will not meet the case. This section contains default powers to set up a joint authority within a recognised area but only if it is found that the constituent authorities are failing to do so.
In reality, failure will not manifest itself until the authorities have been trying for some time to make the planning system work, according to their own lights, and bad decisions have been taken and implemented. That will be too late.
The new clause would empower the Secretary of State to direct the new authorities to set up joint arrangements to carry out these vitally important planning functions in any area where two or more single tier authorities take over the functions at present exercised by a county council. The use of his powers of direction would, one hopes, be a matter of last resort; for it would grieve me deeply to see yet more powers migrate from the localities to the north tower of the Marsham Street toast rack. I remember it well, although it is nearly a quarter of a century since I first moved in there with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Many authorities will gladly collaborate over joint arrangements. To assume that all authorities will be so disposed may be a hallucination—pigs might fly. But the mere existence of that power would act as a deterrent to non-collaboration. The process is a simple one. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to exercise the power of direction if it appeared expedient after consultation with the local authorities and other interests —business, industry and organisations with an interest in the local environment and economy. That could happen at any time, but in particular the clause would require him to go through that consultation process whenever he made an order reorganising the local authorities in any area and have any necessary new joint planning arrangements in place from the start.
I repeat, it is always preferable that local authorities, as responsible, accountable bodies, should be allowed to settle their own affairs. But equally in a matter as important as the present one, a last resort should be available in time to prevent serious and perhaps irreparable damage. Existing powers do not provide for that but the new clause does. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like briefly to say how delighted I am to support the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. In that dreadful building in Marsham Street he contributed, with his considerable intelligence, something in sharp contrast to the building which housed him. I would share to the full the grief that he would feel at the departure of any more powers from the localities concerned to Marsham Street. I hope that it will not happen. The new clause, to which I have put my name, is intended more to explore the mind of the Government than to confer yet more powers upon the Secretary of State.
I have three questions which I should like to put to my noble friend. First, how does the Secretary of State propose to use the powers that he already has to promote sustainable development? Secondly, what role does he see for the local authorities in that same task?

441
I ask my third question against the background of a certain bewilderment. It may be that other noble Lords are absolutely clear, since the developments last week, about what the Government have in mind for the future of the local government commission and the proposals which emanate from it. For myself, I must confess to a certain confusion of mind. Therefore, I particularly ask my noble friend what view he takes of the capacity of small unitary local authorities to take a full part in strategic planning and sustainable development. There will be repercussions from what has happened in authorities such as Avon and Cleveland or, as the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, mentioned, a larger authority, such as York, where there have been very considerable changes. How will either the small size of an authority or the extent of change which is visited upon an authority affect its capacity to play an effective role in strategic planning?
My underlying fear is that the Secretary of State or his successor will feel a terrible temptation to say that the local authorities do not have the capacity to do such things and therefore that he (or his successor) will take over their duty more and more. I have some very great fears on that score. For that reason, I am pleased to support the new clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. I shall be particularly interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about it. I hope that he will be able to allay the anxieties which the noble Lord expressed and which I share.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too support the amendment for all the reasons that have been expressed—I shall not repeat them—and for an additional reason. When the GLC was abolished, it was your Lordships' concern for strategic planning in London that led to the constitution of an advisory committee—admittedly it was advisory—to deal with planning across the whole of London. I chaired that body for the first eight years of its existence. Having been forced into an association, which probably the boroughs would have reached, eventually a great deal of time was saved and some very good work was done and continues to be done. Noble Lords showed their concern for strategic planning at that time and I hope that they will do so now.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I too want briefly to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. In this country, we have been arguing about the level at which planning decisions should be made for at least a quarter of a century and certainly since the 1972 reforms. At that time, many noble Lords felt that the move of planning responsibilities from counties to districts had certain risks. Certainly I believe that planning should be done at the lowest possible level. In certain cases, for example, where district councils operate on the "parish council up" base, it works extremely well.
Having said that, it is becoming more and more necessary that there should be a true strategic dimension to the kind of planning that we want. From my point of view, I see it as absolutely crucial in terms of sustainable development and the protection of the countryside. I believe that the amendment of the noble
442
Lord, Lord Bancroft, would enable strategic planning to be done at as local a level as might be appropriate and not raised back to Marsham Street, or whatever successor it might have. I strongly support the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, let no one doubt the strength of the Government's commitment to sustainable development. The sustainable development strategy which we published last year sets it at the centre of our thinking. The strategy made clear our intention to work towards ensuring that development and growth are sustainable, and to continue to develop policies consistent with the concept of sustainable development.
We are at one with the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, over the importance of the planning system's contribution to sustainable development. The sum total of decisions in the planning system, as elsewhere, should not deny future generations the best of today's environment. This should be expressed through the policies adopted in development plans.
We have taken significant steps to embody sustainable development in the planning system. Where there are issues which apply across regions or parts of regions and need to be considered on a scale wider than the area of a single authority, regional planning guidance sets broad strategic policies for land use and development. It provides for the implementation of policies for sustainable development across regions. That is the answer to the first question of my noble friend Lord Peyton. The primary function of regional guidance is to provide the necessary framework for the preparation of structure plans in which county councils set out key strategic policies as a framework for local planning by district councils.
Our planning policy guidance requires local authorities to take sustainable development into account in preparing their development plans. By law, local authorities must have regard to national policies such as this, and to environmental, social and economic considerations, in formulating their development plan policies, including their involvement in Local Agenda 21. That is the answer to my noble friend's second question.
Our guidance also requires local authorities to conduct environmental appraisals of their development plans. A systematic environmental appraisal is the most effective way to demonstrate how a plan takes account of the environment in its widest sense and how it works towards the Government's goal of ensuring that development and growth are sustainable. We have published a good practice guide to assist local authorities in this task of environmental appraisal. We will supplement it with a guide to good practice in applying the principles of sustainable development through the planning system.
On the matter of joint arrangements for strategic planning, we consider that the existing statutory provisions are more closely aligned with the general thrust of planning practice and procedures in this country than those of the noble Lord. The essence of our practice is that local authorities should have considerable discretion and responsibility in the exercise

443
of their planning functions within the general boundaries of national policies. We have endeavoured to reflect this in our approach to joint working.
Current legislation makes each local planning authority wholly responsible for the exercise of its development plan functions within its own administrative area. Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 enables an authority to carry out any of its functions jointly with other authorities. There are provisions in the planning legislation to facilitate this without removing the individual authority's discretionary role to decide planning matters for its area. We are satisfied that where joint working on strategic planning is desirable, it can be achieved through voluntary arrangements based on these existing provisions. Clearly, however, there may be occasions when such voluntary arrangements fail, Although, given the long experience of local authorities in planning matters, and the fact that they have a tradition of liaison on, for example, regional planning, we expect such failures to be few.
The only difference between this concept and the concept of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, is that the noble Lord anticipates failure of voluntary arrangements even before a local government order is made. His amendment indicates that the Secretary of State should direct and that the direction should come into force on the same day as the relevant order, so the noble Lord is already anticipating failure. That is not the way the Government think.
However, as I indicated—the noble Lord was good enough to remind the House—when we were talking about the North Yorkshire and Humberside borders, should these voluntary arrangements fail, the Secretary of State already has a reserve power under Section 21 of the Local Government Act 1992. Where he considers that joint working is desirable following a structural or boundary change but such arrangements fail to emerge, he is able to establish a statutory joint authority explicitly charged with preparing a structure plan for the combined local authority areas in place of the unitary authorities themselves.
The noble Lord's amendment, by contrast, does not explicitly recognise the desirability of voluntary joint working. Furthermore, it would allow the Secretary of State a much wider range of discretion to intervene if he chose to do so. This is not a power that my right honourable friend wishes to have and I would be surprised if many local authorities were anxious that he should have a wide-ranging power. I would therefore prefer to remain with the existing provisions. They provide a clearer indication of the occasions on which the Secretary of State would feel it necessary to intervene.
We are keen to further the objectives of sustainable development through the planning system, and the planning system currently provides the means to do this both across regions through the framework of structure plans and within local planning authority areas through local development plans. We do not believe that the provisions in the amendment are desirable or necessary.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask one question. My fear is that the proposals of the Local Government Commission, particularly where they result in small unitary authorities, will make strategic planning for sustainable development more difficult. Is my noble friend really saying that my fear is groundless?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot banish all the fear in my noble friend's mind. But what I do say is that we are working up proposals that the local authorities should form joint working arrangements so that the strategic planning concept is not just based on the identity of the unitary district or authority. That is not the concept. I agree that it is done on a voluntary basis, and that is what we should certainly like to take forward. The noble Lord is indicating in his amendment that unless, after consultation, he is absolutely assured that this is going to happen, the Secretary of State would direct it. I believe that that power of direction acts much too early in the whole process.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, this has been a very short but interesting debate. It has demonstrated the concern felt in various parts of the House about the future of strategic planning and sustainable development in the wake of the latest round of local government reorganisation.
I listened to the noble Viscount's remarks. I think that he misinterpreted a little. The purpose of the amendment is that the Secretary of State should consult; but he should not direct unless there is no voluntary co-operation coming in sight from the local authorities. The powers of direction are very much a last resort, to be sparingly if ever used. That having been said, I should like to study the noble Viscount's remarks with care to decide whether I wish to take the issue further. I thank him. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 225:
Before Clause 75, insert the following new clause:
("Vehicle exhaust emissions
.—a) An authorised officer of a local authority may test a motor vehicle on a road in the local authority area in which he is authorised for the purpose of ascertaining whether the requirements imposed by law as to the prevention or reduction of the emission of smoke, fumes, or vapour are complied with as respects the vehicle.
(2) The authorised officer must produce his authority to act for the purposes of this section if required to do so.
(3) The authorised officer may operate the vehicle for the purpose of testing it.
(4) If there is a defect in the vehicle by reason of which the vehicle does not comply with any construction and use requirements applicable to the vehicle relating to the prevention or reduction of the emission of smoke, fumes or vapour, the authorised officer may serve on the owner of the vehicle a notice requiring him to—

(a) pay a penalty charge to the local authority, and

(b) produce to the local authority within 56 days a certificate signed by a person having power to carry out examinations at a vehicle testing station under section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 confirming that in his opinion the vehicle complies with the relevant construction and use requirements.

(5) The owner of a vehicle served with a notice under subsection (4) above shall have the right of appeal against the service of the notice to the local authority in the first instance and thereafter, to an adjudicator appointed by the local authority.
(6) The amount of the penalty charge payable under subsection (4) (b) above shall be set at a level which would allow the local authority to recover the reasonable costs of the enforcement of the provisions of this section.
(7) Before enforcing the provisions of this section, a local authority shall make and thereafter maintain and have regard to a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I believe that it will be for the convenience of all noble Lords if we discuss Amendments Nos. 226 and 227 at the same time. It will be within the recollection of the House that, four weeks ago exactly to the day, I moved the same group of amendments dealing with vehicle emissions. I was greatly encouraged by the support which I received from all parts of the House. Indeed, these amendments are in the names of Members from all parts of the House. Since then my noble friend on the Front Bench has been kind enough to receive a delegation from the London Boroughs Association. We had what I hope was a useful and productive discussion.
Perhaps I may remind the House that the amendments deal with three particular situations where there is pollution of the atmosphere by vehicles and equipment. The first amendment gives power to local authorities to carry out kerbside testing of vehicles which have polluting exhausts. If they are found to be offending under the construction and use regulations, the local authorities have power to take the vehicles off the road. They have powers to fine and to require the owners to take remedial action. These powers exist at the moment in one form or another with the Vehicles Inspectorate and the police. But I believe that it is everybody's experience that the powers are very infrequently used. Enforcement is the real problem here and the key is to give local authorities the necessary powers to test but not to stop, because I believe that that would not be right. The only people who should stop a vehicle are the uniformed police. That is the first power.
The second provision is to give powers to local authorities to deal with machinery and equipment. Examples of these are tar boilers, cement mixers, air compressors and so on, which are used, for instance, in the construction industry. Local authorities have powers to deal with them if that machinery or equipment pollutes on a building site, because the machine can be closed down but, if the contractor just moves the machinery out into the street, then the only people who can deal with it are the police. It is quite unrealistic to expect the police, with all the pressures on them, to deal with equipment of that kind and in those circumstances.
The third power which aroused a certain amount of interest in your Lordships' House when I moved the amendment in Committee is the power as regards stationary vehicles. One sees them all the time, vehicles such as coaches, buses and lorries, standing for hours with their engines switched on and their exhausts puffing into the atmosphere. There is a need for a power to allow local authorities to have the engines switched off.
The origin of these powers lay in the London Local Authorities Bill, promoted by the London Boroughs Association. That Bill is currently before the House and contains much more detailed legislation than I have included in these amendments. I did not want to weary the House with 25 pages of detailed legislation which I suspect few of your Lordships would want to read.
There has been a great deal of consultation on this matter by the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities. When the Government published their document Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge, they actually welcomed the proposals which were being put forward by the London boroughs. The Government said that they welcomed the initiative,
"in bringing forward proposals in the London Local Authorities Bill to extend kerbside emission testing powers to London local authorities".
They went on to say,
"The proposals may present an opportunity to increase the level of roadside emissions testing in London, supplementing testing already carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate, and may provide a blueprint for future initiatives elsewhere in the country".
So what is being proposed here is something which in principle the Government have already accepted. However, when we came to discuss the amendments, my noble friend made some general welcoming noises about the first of the three amendments concerning the roadside testing of vehicles, but, having now studied what he said, the reasons do not appear convincing. He was much less enthusiastic about the other two amendments.
This has all been discussed against the background of two very important factors. The first is the Government's very welcome intention to legislate by introducing provisions in another place into this Bill to deal with their strategic air pollution policy along the lines of the amendment which was moved by the noble Lords, Lord Lewis of Newnham and Lord Nathan. I believe that there was a very general welcome in all parts of the House. We look forward to seeing that legislation when the Bill returns from the other place. It will provide a comprehensive new policy to combat air pollution.
My noble friend also undertook to introduce general powers in the Bill for a national strategic plan and to have local air quality management powers for local authorities. It is already clear that it is local authorities which will have to play a very important role in this. So we are to have legislation.
The second point is that, since we debated these matters in this House on 9th February, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Dr. Brian Mawhinney, has announced what his press release was pleased to call,
"A major new programme of action to cut vehicle pollution in city streets".
It achieved wide publicity and was widely welcomed by the press and the other media when he made that announcement. The press release continues,
"In a five-pronged initiative he announced new resources for a major national blitz of polluting vehicles across 23 cities and towns over the next two months; the speeding up of tighter MOT test emission standards; a prosecutions crackdown on offending vehicles

447
with fines of up to £2,500; automatic prosecution for motorists and operators who exceed limits by neglecting vehicle maintenance; and an urgent study into the possibility of roadside checks for engines burning too much oil".
That is only one of the particular problems, but it is an important one.
We are to have a national strategy. We are to have local air quality initiatives with local authorities involved. There is to be a blitz on polluting vehicles and we have had a warm welcome from the Government for the provisions in the London Bill, saying that they welcome local authorities having powers to test.
But we need to have those powers in this Bill. Why should these provisions be confined to London? Why should we have to wait for the vagaries of the London Local Authorities Bill in order for them to become law? Why should the provisions not be equally applicable to other parts of the country?
When we debated these matters earlier the Committee wanted to see these provisions in this Bill. When we met my noble friend we were given a number of answers. I do not wish to be in the least unkind to him because he was very helpful. At a time when he was extremely busy he and his officials gave us a great deal of their time. But my noble friend did not appear to me to be convincing.
Much of this work has been done. There has already been a great deal of consultation. Two factors have figured in the petitions against the private Bill—first, the power to stop by local authorities, which is not in my amendments and not in these proposals. The second objection has been to the proposition that these measures should apply only to London and not nationally. The London local authorities cannot promote national legislation, but we have it here in front of us.
The obstacles which my noble friend has put up can be overcome. Those of us who have had responsibilities in these matters are very familiar with being put under this kind of pressure by colleagues in either House. He should tell his officials to get on with it. There is no reason why they cannot now produce the clauses which are all there in draft. They have been very widely discussed with all the relevant interests. This afternoon we hope that my noble friend will say that these provisions should be added to this Bill in another place. If we miss this opportunity, how long shall we have to wait before we can propose these measures again? I ask my noble friend to give that assurance.
There are two other points. As regards stationary vehicles, my noble friend said that it was difficult because there are already powers if the vehicle makes a noise, but emissions would be very difficult to prove. That is not right. We are not going to have to prove the emissions. All that we shall have to prove is that the vehicle is sitting there with its engine on for no good reason. The local authority can then say, "Would you mind turning that off because you are polluting the atmosphere?" Therefore, I do not think that the parallel with the noise power has any relevance.
On the question of stationary equipment, it is absurd that local authorities can deal with such problems on a building site but not if the machinery is on the road.
448
Again, it is not enough to say that the police can deal with it. I hope that the police are doing more important crime prevention work than stopping tar boilers puffing out black smoke. I think that the House is entitled to ask that these provisions should be introduced in another place in this Bill—not necessarily these new clauses, but provisions along their lines. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, I should point out that there should be a small amendment to subsection (6), where, to correct a printing error, the words "subsection (4) (b)" should read "subsection (4) (a)".
6 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has dealt with the amendment extremely comprehensively. We have so much business to get through that I do not intend to detain the House other than to support warmly and wholeheartedly both the amendment and the noble Lord's supporting arguments. However, I should like to add one point. I join the noble Lord in thanking the Minister for receiving the delegation. Doing so on Tuesday morning must have been extremely inconvenient for him.
Local authorities understand the need to take such steps and, in understanding that need, they also understand that they may not be desperately popular with those individuals against whom the steps are taken. However, as I said, they recognise the overall need and understand the loud call which is now coming from city centres and the suburbs—indeed, throughout the country—for steps to be taken urgently to improve our air quality. As the noble Lord said, this is not a matter that applies only to London.
It will not be that easy for the local authorities to introduce the measures. As the Government know, such steps tend to provoke hurt and outrage among those who are caught out. As a local councillor, I am sure that my 'phone will ring with people saying, "How dare you!" Well, the local authorities do dare and would like to be given the powers to dare.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I too urge the Government to be courageous about the amendments. I was in Austria last year where such provisions are strictly enforced. All tourist coaches turn off their engines when stationary. They are not allowed to lurk in the centres of towns. There are extremely strict controls on vehicle emissions. It can be done. It is not just a question of health, asthma and the carcinogens that are pumped out with diesel fumes; it is also a question of the greenhouse effect. I note that the Secretary of State admitted yesterday that the greenhouse effect is a reality and that we are faced with global warming. It would be a small but urgent contribution to controlling vehicle emissions if the new clauses could be inserted in the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, during his speech of only a few minutes I believe that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding produced an absolutely unanswerable case. I do not intend to repeat any of his arguments, except to say that the idea that pollution and

449
bad smells have to be dealt with in London but not elsewhere in the country seems far-fetched and unreasonable even by the standards of modem legislation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I spoke briefly in Committee to support the principle of the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, and I should like to do so again this evening. I should also like to make a few suggestions about how the provisions might be put into force. First, as my noble friend said, it is an offence at the moment under the construction and use regulations to do what the amendment seeks to stop. It would be strange to have two sets of offences for that—one under the construction and use regulations and one under the provisions to be given to local authorities. I believe that the current construction and use offence should be decriminalised and that local authorities should be permitted to carry out the enforcements.
Secondly, I believe that the funds raised from fixed penalty notices should be ring-fenced for further enforcement, as happens to local authorities with parking enforcements. That is the precedent. Furthermore, the police should be reimbursed for stopping vehicles. Treasury rules should be changed to allow that funding to be additional to the core Home Office funding. I suggest also that the fixed penalty charge, which the amendment suggests, should be set at a fairly low level to begin with as drivers are often unaware that they are committing an offence. The existence of a penalty would act as an incentive to motorists to check that their emissions are in order, but I believe that it would be unfair to penalise such motorists unduly because they will face the additional cost of rectifying the vehicle. The penalties for non-compliance with a rectification notice should, however, be harsh. If people do not obey such a notice, they should be penalised.
My only other observation in support of the amendment is that the training requirements of the authorised officers in the local authorities should be the same as those of the Department of Transport's Vehicles Inspectorate. That should be included in the code of practice to which subsection (7) of my noble friend's amendment refers.
Having made those observations, I am anxious to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say, and particularly whether he can expand on what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport said between the last stage of the Bill and today.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I support the principle of the amendment and ask for the forgiveness of the House if I raise what may appear to be a minor point. I am interested in the apparent justice of any provision which contains within it a penalty. Your Lordships will observe that the amendment allows a penalty to be charged by a notice served by an authorised officer of a local authority. The right of appeal against that penalty, which is payable to the local authority, is in the first instance to the local authority. The appeal from the local authority is to an adjudicator appointed by the local authority.
450
Your Lordships may feel that that chain of appeal does not include any independent person upon whom the driver can rely. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin—or the Government if, as I hope, the amendment is accepted—might not think it proper that at least the last person in the chain of appeal—namely, the adjudicator appointed by the local authority—should be an adjudicator appointed by the ministry.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said almost exactly verbatim what I was going to say. I agree totally with what is proposed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. All that I would add is that the appeal thereafter should be to the local magistrates. We have had them for 600 years and they are quite capable of doing that. It seems the simple way of dealing with the matter. Apart from those words, I am in complete agreement with my noble friend Lord Jenkin.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there is another small technical point to which I feel obliged to draw your Lordships' attention. I have great sympathy with the main purpose of my noble friend Lord Jenkin, but I draw your Lordships' attention to the top of page 13 of the Marshalled List and to subsection (6) which states:
"The amount of the penalty charge payable under subsection (4) (b) above shall be set at a level which would allow the local authority to recover the reasonable costs of the enforcement of the provisions of this section".
But if we look back to subsection (4) (b)—
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend should understand that the noble Lord who is in the Chair made a correction to that. It should read "subsection (4) (a)" not "subsection (4) (b)".
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not know that. Indeed, had I known it I would not have made that point. I thank my noble friend.
Lord Burnham: My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, in proposing the amendment, talked about a motor vehicle on a road. He talked about tar boilers and other similar vehicles which may not be motor driven or are unlikely to be motor driven. Will the Minister consider whether in this context it would be right to use another definition to include tar boilers and similar vehicles?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, these amendments seek to increase the powers of local authorities to deal with emissions from vehicles in the street. Amendment No. 225 aims to give local authorities the power to carry out vehicle emission testing and to impose a penalty charge on the owner of a vehicle failing to comply with emission standards as laid down by appropriate construction and use regulations. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will note the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, when he considers whether his amendment is correct.
The noble Lord brought forward this amendment in Committee and was gracious enough to withdraw it on the basis of an assurance that government would, without commitment, consider whether they could bring

451
forward their own provisions at a later stage in the Bill. I am afraid that I can add little to the assurance I gave then. Ministers are sympathetic to the noble Lord's aims and are actively considering the matter. The noble Lord will appreciate, however, that his proposals raise a number of complex issues in relation both to the charging regime and the use of police resources. I am afraid therefore that I can give no commitment as to the likelihood of government bringing forward provisions at a later stage of the Bill.
Although we support wholeheartedly the principle underlying the noble Lord's amendment, the Government's priority within the Bill is to move forward with the main legislative base for its proposals for air quality management. These were set out in Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge, the statement of the Government's strategic policies in this area published in January by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment. We will be bringing forward amendments establishing that framework in another place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, urged me to be courageous about these amendments: I believe that we are being courageous about those amendments but perhaps not about these amendments. These are likely to be similar in effect, if not form, to those brought forward by the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Lewis in Committee.
The Government are giving detailed consideration to the kinds of new powers and tools that may be needed by local authorities to carry out their new responsibilities in the area of air quality management in addition to the planning, transport planning, and local air pollution responsibilities they already possess. This week we commenced formal discussions with local authorities and local authority associations, including the LBA, on implementation of the Government's air quality management proposals. We expect to cover in depth the issue of additional powers and tools and how best they might be framed. Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge explicitly recognises that the power to test vehicle emissions may well prove useful to local authorities in, for instance, air quality management areas.
In that context, I appreciate the helpful intent with which my noble friend brings forward his amendments. However, it is important that we do not move ahead of ourselves. Of paramount importance is establishing the legislative framework for air quality management within which the provision of further powers can be considered. As I indicated, we hope to do that in another place. Once that is established, we shall better be able to consider the new tools that local government may need and how best they might be framed. We would hope to bring forward such provisions at a future legislative opportunity, although again I am unable to give any assurances in relation to the specific powers sought by my noble friend. The Government are, however, fully committed to increasing resources available for vehicle emission testing. Only last month the Secretary of State for Transport announced a programme of further measures to address vehicle
452
pollution. This includes a further Vehicle Inspectorate emissions testing blitz, building on the considerable success of a similar exercise at the end of last year. It is hoped that more blitzes may take place later in the year. The Secretary of State has also announced a prosecution crackdown on offending vehicles with fines of up to £2,500, and he will be bringing forward the date of introduction of tighter MOT emissions standards for older, more polluting vehicles.
Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge highlights the importance of partnership between central and local government in securing sustainable improvements in air quality. To that end, future Vehicle Inspectorate-operated emission testing blitzes will be subject to consultation with local authorities. This is critical to ensuring the most effective use of resources for emission testing.
Amendment No. 226 seeks to extend the statutory nuisance controls in Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to include smoke, fumes or gases emitted from any vehicle, machinery or equipment in the street, excepting those emitted from vehicle exhaust systems. As I indicated in Committee to my noble friend, although again I cannot find fault with his intentions, the Government believe that there are already sufficient powers available to the police, vehicle inspectors and others to control these emissions. These include the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and a variety of provisions under health and safety legislation. The Government therefore feel that the amendment would be an unnecessary duplication of existing controls, which was also a fear of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. The Government oppose the amendment.
Amendment No. 227 seeks to deal with motorists who leave their engines running unnecessarily when parked. Again, I am forced to repeat myself. When the noble Lord brought forward this amendment in Committee, I stated that it sounded attractive and that I was very much in sympathy with the intent behind it. Any noble Lord walking around Whitehall or St. James's during the height of the tourist season cannot fail to notice the unpleasant emissions from tourist coaches idling their engines while waiting for their passengers to embark. However, there are difficulties with the approach suggested by my noble friend and it is not clear that his amendment is the answer. A similar offence to the one he proposes already exists in relation to noise emanating from stationary vehicles. I refer to Regulation 98 of the Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. This requires that drivers should take appropriate action to prevent unnecessary noise by switching off their engines when stationary. In practice, however, the offence is very difficult to prosecute and difficult to prove. The Government would not wish to duplicate those difficulties in respect of emissions.
I have indicated that the Government are moving forward on this front. My noble friend wishes me to go further and faster. However I hope that in the light of what I have said he will not press the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, when I heard the dreaded words "future legislative opportunity" my heart

453
sank. I cannot think why Parliament should have to wait for future legislative opportunity to do something for which such widespread support has been expressed in the House. I shall not repeat my arguments, particularly those about the second and third amendments, except to say to my noble friend Lord Burnham that tar boilers are within the definition of subsection (2) of Amendment No. 226 which refers to smoke, fumes or gases emitted from machinery or equipment in the street.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend Lord Onslow have a good point. Anyone wishing to look at this legislation, as I hope they will in another place, will recognise the wisdom of going down that road so far as there is an external appeal.
I was grateful to have the support of noble Lords, and in particular that of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, because I am aware of the interests that he is so eloquent in supporting and defending in the House. To have his support for this group of amendments is valuable. We should not wait for a "future legislative opportunity". It would greatly encourage the Government and their officials to produce suitable legislation in another place if we had put these amendments into the Bill. I think that I want to test the opinion of the House.
6.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.225) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 89.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L

Bancroft, L.

Kennet, L

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilbracken, L

Blackstone, B.

Kilmarnock, L

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lawrence, L

Carnock, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Chorley, L.

Lytton, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McNair, L

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Meston, L

Craigavon, V.

Mishcon, L

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Monkswell, L

Dormand of Easington, L.

Moran, L

Dubs, L.

Nelson, E.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Nicol, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Onslow, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L

Glenmara, L.

Redesdale, L

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

[Teller.]

Shannon, E.

Hamwee, B.

Strabolgi, L

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Harrowby, E.

Tordoff, L

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Walpole, L

Hertford, M.

Wharton, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L

Young of Dartington, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L

Birdwood, L

Addison, V.

Blaker, L

Astor of Hever, L

Blanch, B.

Astor, V.

Blyth, L

454

Braine of Wheatley, L

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L [Lord Chancellor.]

Brougham and Vaux, L

Butterworth, L

Mancroft, L

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marlesford. L

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mersey, V.

Chesham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cork and Orrey, E.

Moyne, L.

Courtown, E.

Munster, E.

Craborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cross, V.

Northeask, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Orkney, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Donegall, M.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dudley, E.

Renwick, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elles, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Erroll, E.

Sharpless, B.

Flather, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L

Halsbury, E.

Skidelsky, L

Hayhoe, L

St Davids, V.

Henley, L

Stewartby, L

HolmPatrick, L

Stockton, E

Hooper, B.

Strathcarron, L

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L [Teller]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Suffield, L.

Inglewood, L [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L

Kingsland, L

Trumpington, B.

Lane of Horsell, L

Ullswater, V.

Leigh, L

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Weatherill, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Willoughby de Broke, L

Long, V.

Wise, L

Lucas, L

Wynford, L

Lyell

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 226 and 227 not moved.]
6.28 p.m.
Clause 75 [National waste strategy]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 78, line 28, at end insert ("and (iv) suitable disposal sites or installations.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment, which was suggested to me by Earth Rights, the environmental law and resources centre, is to comply with EC directive 75/442, as amended, so as to ensure that suitable disposal sites or installations are mentioned specifically, and included within the national waste strategy. We have now had the benefit of seeing the Government's draft of their waste management plan on the import and export of waste. This is a DoE, Welsh Office, Scottish Office, and DoE (Northern Ireland) joint document. Paragraph 11 states:
"It is the Government's aim to facilitate and enhance a network of disposal and recovery facilities within the United Kingdom through its National Waste Strategy".
Therefore, it is surprising that there is no reference in the Bill to the issue of sites.
The new EPA Section 44A, which arises at Clause 75, provides for that national waste strategy for England and Wales. However, that strategy contains the

455
Government's policy on waste recovery and disposal as required by the EC directive to which I referred. That strategy is to be drawn up by the Secretary of State; it is not a strategy which is to be considered by this House.
One of the essential requirements of the directive has, in my view and in the view of Earth Rights, not being included. Article 7 of the directive requires four particular matters to be included within the strategy and in waste management plans. The first is the type, quantity and origin of the waste to be recovered or disposed. The second is the technical requirements that generally apply. The third is any special arrangements for particular wastes and the fourth is suitable disposal sites or installations. The section requires only the first three of those matters to he included within the strategy. Therefore, the requirement relating to suitable disposable sites has not been included. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 228 would require the national waste strategy for England and Wales to include provisions relating to suitable disposal sites and installations.
The amendment is well intended. It aims to ensure that we meet fully the requirements of the amended EC framework directive on waste, Article 7 of which does indeed require waste management plans to relate to suitable disposal sites or installations. However, the omission of this requirement from the list of provisions which the national waste strategy must cover is deliberate, and reflects the existing arrangements for implementing Article 7 of this directive, which will be partly superseded by the provisions of Clause 75.
At present, Article 7 is implemented jointly by waste disposal plans drawn up by waste regulation authorities under Section 50 of the Environmental Protection Act, and by development plans drawn up by local planning authorities. The precise arrangements for implementing the directive are contained in Schedule 4 to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. Paragraph 7 specifically requires the waste policies in development plans to include policies in respect of suitable disposal sites or installations. That is because the siting—and criteria for siting—new waste facilities is a matter for the planning rather than the waste regulation authority.
In drawing up the waste strategy provisions, we have been careful to retain this distinction and the waste strategy accordingly must relate to type, quantity and origin of waste, general technical requirements and special arrangements for particular waste. But it is not required to relate to suitable disposal sites or installations, which rightly remain the responsibility of local planning authorities and for which the latter will continue to be required to make provision in their development plans.
I should add that neither the strategy nor development plans need be confined to the matters set out in the directive and I have no doubt that there are other matters which the Secretary of State will wish to include in his strategy, including information about existing facilities which will be obtained through the national waste survey. However, we believe it important to maintain
456
the distinction between the role of the planning authority and the role of the Secretary of State in determining the location of new facilities.
I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that, in reference to yesterday's debate, this is some kind of subsidiarity in relation to the national waste strategy and local planning authorities. He has clearly pointed out that the installations and suitable sites are regarded as planning matters.
I shall study what he said. I am grateful to him in particular for noting that there may be further guidance from the Secretaries of State on this matter. For those reasons, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, I must inform the House that, if Amendment No. 229 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 230.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 78, line 30, leave out from ("State") to ("may") in line 37 and insert:
("(a) shall consult the Environment Agency,
(b) shall consult—

(i) such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government, and

(ii) such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry,

as he may consider appropriate, and (c)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 229, 231 and 233, which are tabled in my name, respond to concerns expressed by noble Lords during Committee—in particular my noble friends Lord Wade and Lord Lucas and, among others, Lord Mottistone—about the need to consult industry on the national waste strategies and on the waste surveys carried out by the agencies. We accept that industry should have an opportunity to make known its views on the scope and conduct of the survey and on the content of the strategy in advance of any decisions on these matters. These amendments will ensure that such consultation takes place. I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling these amendments in response to our discussions in Committee. They make redundant my two amendments and I am sure that my noble friend's amendments are more efficient than mine. I support them.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful that my noble friend has indicated his assent to my amendments, thereby indicating that he will not move his amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 230 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, I must inform the House that, if Amendment No. 231 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 232.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 79, line 28, leave out from ("consult") to ("it") in line 30 and insert:
("(i) such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of local planning authorities, and
(ii) such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry,
as").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 233:
Page 81, line 7, leave out from ("consult") to ("it") in line 8 and insert:
("(i) such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of planning authorities, and
(ii) such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry, as").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Producer responsibility: general]:
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 82, line 40, after ("but") insert (", other than in respect of packaging waste,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment follows on from the discussion that we had in Committee about a multipoint or a single point scheme for the disposal of packaging waste. The purpose of the amendment is to refer only to packaging waste. The amendment that I tabled in Committee sought to delete a whole sentence from the Bill but my noble friend pointed out that there were a number of waste streams and it would be appropriate for some to be dealt with in one way and some in another.
Amendment No. 234 seeks to ensure that the Government will not place a single point system on the handling of packaging waste. The Producer Responsibility Group, which the Secretary of State asked to report on the matter, came forward with a detailed report. It acknowledged that the responsibility for packaging is shared between all parts of the packaging chain; that is packaging manufacture, packer/filler, distribution and retailing. We must ensure that the individual requirements of those various sections of the chain are adequately met and ensure the satisfaction of the final consumer. We must remember that the final consumer is probably completely unaware of the complex nature of the supply chain and the various parts of the packaging and the materials involved. The PRG concluded in its report that its proposals could achieve a recovery level of 58 per cent. of packaging waste by the year 2000, which was in line with the Government's requirements.
The packaging and associated recycling industries are extremely complex. No single element should be organised or controlled in isolation. I speak on behalf
458
of all sectors of the packaging industry and they have indicated to me their anxiety about this matter. They believe very strongly that the legal obligation should be placed on the whole packaging chain and not just on a specific part of it; in other words, it should be a multi-point obligation.
There is reason to believe that at this stage officials favour a single-point option because they feel that such a system would be easier to police and would be easier to control by government. But the industry believes very strongly that such a solution would create more problems than it would solve. The system would be extremely unfair. If that system were used, it is extremely unlikely that the requirements and targets would be met. The industry believes strongly that no single part of the chain has the ability to deliver what the Government seek, when one considers the responsibilities in relation to the delivery aspect and, importantly, the recycling aspects of the industry.
I must emphasise that every stage of the chain is involved with the handling of packaging and packaging materials which are passed down the distribution chain. But that also generates further waste for which each part of the chain has further responsibility. I cannot emphasise too strongly that whatever is achieved can be achieved only with the industry co-operating fully with the scheme. At the end of the day it is the packaging industry and all the different parts of it which can deliver what the Government want. The industry has considered all aspects of the matter in great detail and it is strongly of the view that only through a multi-point scheme can there be any possibility of achieving what the Government want.
The first of the packaging proposals was put into effect in Germany and German industry decided upon a single-point system, which the Government now appear to favour. It would be fair to point out that industry costs are running at between 6 billion and 8 billion deutschmarks per annum; that is something in the order of £3 billion to £4 billion. That is far higher than anybody ever expected. The situation is so complicated that there are now reckoned to be some 320 plants in Germany, many of which have to separate the various packaging materials by hand. That is why the costs are so high.
I hope that the Government will make some very encouraging remarks on this matter. The industry eagerly awaits a positive response and hopes that the Government will support its strong view that the multi-point scheme will be most effective in delivering what the Government want and what we all want from this legislation. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, on the packaging industry but I do not believe that it would be a very good idea to single out the packaging industry and leave other waste streams to be dealt with perhaps by a single-point scheme.
There are many other waste streams to be considered. The British Retail Consortium is extremely anxious that if we make a definite commitment, we should remember

459
those other streams; for example, newspapers, batteries, electronic goods, tyres and motor vehicles. In all those cases, it would be extremely difficult for the industry concerned if a single-point scheme were introduced. Putting an express power of that kind into the Bill now would seem to indicate that the Government are not taking very seriously the consultation process which they have promised on this issue.
Therefore, although I am extremely sympathetic towards the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I should not wish to see a specific commitment made at this stage unless we are assured that genuine consultations will take place at the same time with the rest of the industry.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I spoke on this subject in Committee and I support what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said. The arguments for a multi-point scheme are overwhelming, and I shall not repeat what I said at an earlier stage.
I have a good deal of sympathy for the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. It is important that other waste streams, which at the moment are being considered by other producer responsibility groups, should be borne in mind. I too was briefed by the British Retail Consortium and I am impressed when it says that:
"There seems no evidence to suggest that a single-point responsibility would be effective or fair for these goods".
It seems to me that a single-point responsibility is not satisfactory for the packaging industry. It is extremely important to be fair and to pay attention to the many firms concerned, all of which seem unanimous in their view that a fair system must apply to each stage along the chain and not to one single point simply for the sake of convenience.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wade. Whether it will affect only one part of the waste system at this stage I should not like to guess. It may be possible to change the amendment and widen its scope.
However, it is extremely important that we should have the multi-point option which the producer responsibility group recommended after taking immense trouble to get the thing right. I am slightly fearful that the Government might feel that because the Germans have adopted a particular line, that must be right. I have not always found that to be a necessary conclusion.
Also, the Government might think that the single-point approach will make it easier for them. I am not sure that it will. Certainly they could not have taken the same trouble as have the people who form the producer responsibility group. Those people are the experts and they know about this matter; officials serving the Government do not. They have to accept advice. Some departments—I am not saying that my noble friend's department is one of them —may jump to conclusions and, therefore, not pay proper regard to the views of the group.
It may be that the wording of the amendment could be improved or that we need to make amendments to another part of the Bill. But I hope that the Minister will
460
give us some sort of encouragement and say that before the Bill leaves both Houses of Parliament, it will provide that it is not essential that the single-point solution to the problem is the only solution that can be adopted.
The multi-point option must operate if we can set up the necessary machinery for that. That must not be kept out of the Bill as it stands. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give that encouragement.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Clauses 76 to 78 of the Bill concern the policy area of producer responsibility for waste. Before I turn to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wade, I should just like to clarify the position on an amendment that he laid in Committee and which I said I would consider. The amendment was to clarify that the term "recovery" encompassed "energy recovery". We have always used the term recovery to denote "value" recovery in the broadest sense. That would indeed encompass energy recovery, but I agreed that I would consider whether we should clarify that on the face of the Bill.
We are still in discussion on whether that would be appropriate and, if so, how it might be done. If we conclude that it is necessary, we will bring forward an amendment to achieve that effect. I apologise to the House that those discussions have not concluded in time for me to let my noble friend have a final view at this stage, but I will inform him of the outcome as soon as I am able to do so.
I now turn to Amendment No. 234. The purpose of the amendment is to limit the options for producer responsibility for packaging waste by removing the possibility of an obligation placed at one stage in the production process for this wast stream alone.
I know that there was considerable interest in the issue in Committee. I considered the issue thoroughly then and gave my reasons for refusing the amendments at that time. I have returned to the issue once again in response to my noble friend's amendment and have looked hard at the whole issue of where the obligation should fall. Again, my conclusion has been that to limit our options on the face of the Bill now would not be appropriate. Let me explain why I have come to that view.
The clauses that we are discussing here have been brought forward in response to a request from the packaging industry that we should provide framework legislation to prevent companies which refused to participate in recovery and recycling operations gaining a market advantage. The task of legislating places a responsibility on government to ensure that the systems put in place are workable and effective. Government will also have a legitimate interest in the extent to which the proposals are consistent with a broad range of policies. In line with that, we will always try to reflect the wishes of industry, particularly in cases such as this where we have worked closely and fruitfully with the interested parties.
I am aware that some elements of the packaging industry have been vocal in their view of where the producer responsibility obligation should fall. But they are not the only parties who have a legitimate interest in these issues. In fact, a number of different models

461
have been promoted as part of the debate on the relative merits of "single point" and "multi-point" options for the statutory obligation. Industry has put forward options based on both the single and multi-point model. Although those favouring the multi-point systems have captured rather more interest, I do not think that that should blind us to the range of options which have been proposed by other sections of industry during our discussions.
We are continuing to hear as many views as possible and to promote useful and proper debate. But we have yet to consult formally on the available options, as the legislation will require us to do. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was quite right to remind the House of that requirement in the Bill.
There is a much wider constituency which deserves a hearing. We should not take action based on informal discussions when we fully intend to carry out public consultation. That is not to say that the different forms of model which industry propose should not be part of the consultation. I hope that a number of them will be. But I am very keen at this stage that nothing is ruled out. I must make clear that no final decisions have been taken, and we will not do so until after the consultation process is complete.
It is essential, therefore, that we do not pre-empt the consultation in any way. We must listen to the views of those who are most concerned but we must not make premature and permanent judgments. It is conceivable that the proposed amendment might remove the flexibility to deliver what industry requires.
Therefore, the next step in that process must be the preparation and publication of a consultation paper on those issues. The document has been delayed as a result of the thorough process of informal consultation which must necessarily inform its contents. That process is drawing to a close and we shall endeavour to publish the consultation paper before the clauses are considered in detail in another place.
We anticipate that the consultation paper will discuss a number of possible approaches. The options to be included will need to perform well against the series of tests for the legislative option which we published on 2nd February. Prior to publication, we will do what we can to improve the performance of the different models against the tests. The multi-point model, to which my noble friend referred, has already been improved in that respect. I am not yet able to say with any finality that we will include that or any other model proposed by industry in the consultation paper, but both we and industry have worked intensely on these issues and it is our aim to reflect its wishes in that respect. Although I understand my noble friend's wish to put forward these views strongly now, they would more appropriately be put as part of the consultation process.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was right to point out that, of course, the provisions in the Bill are there to cover a number of waste streams, not just the one which is the subject of the amendment now before us. In Committee, I indicated that we did not want to have our options reduced; that there may be
462
certain waste streams which would either go through the multi-point system or the single-point system and that we needed to provide that framework in legislation.
I believe that I have indicated to my noble friend that we have thoroughly considered the issue and, as a matter of principle and to avoid curtailing or pre-empting what will be a full and thorough consultation process, I have concluded that I cannot accept the amendment. However, with the assurance that I have given, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I should like first to thank my noble friend the Minister for his comments on energy. I am delighted that he is still looking at that issue. It is to be hoped that we shall receive some helpful comments on that matter at a later stage. As regards packaging waste, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his detailed and comprehensive reply to my amendment. Obviously I am disappointed that he could not be a little firmer. However, I believe that my noble friend understands that there is very clear feeling from all sides of the House on the issue. Indeed, I am most grateful for the support that I have received. I shall read what my noble friend said and clearly, when the consultation period comes along, he should have no doubt that there will be very strong representation on the multi-point system. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 234ZA:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause:
("Conservation of natural resources: combined heat and power
.—(1) For the purposes of promoting or securing the conservation of natural resources and the efficient management of waste the Secretary of State may develop a strategy and take such steps as he considers appropriate to encourage the use of local combined heat and power schemes.
(2) In this section "combined heat and power" means the incineration of waste to generate electricity and to supply premises in the surrounding area with heat produced in association with that electricity and steam from and air and water heated by such heat.
(3) In subsection (2) of section 32 of the Electricity Act 1989 (electricity from non-fossil fuel sources), at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "including generating stations which supply to any premises heat produced in association with electricity and steam produced from, and air and water heated by, such heat.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to the importance of combined heat and power in achieving the Government's sustainable development objectives. The amendment arises from the recommendations of a number of parliamentary and other committees which expressed the view that there should be a stronger role for high efficiency combined heat and power systems in the options before waste disposal authorities.
At this stage, I should like to add that, last week, the Combined Heat and Power National Conference took place in Nottingham at which Professor Stephen Littlechild—if it is permissible to mention his name on this occasion—spoke. As noble Lords will know, he is renowned for being the regulator of the electricity industry. The professor expressed the view that

463
arrangements should now be put in place to bring combined heat and power within the scope of technologies supported by the Government's non-fossil fuel obligation. It is important to note that, at present, the non-fossil fuel obligation is an economic hurdle to the development of combined heat and power because the arrangements for NFFO do not specifically recognise the existence of combined heat and power.
Quite clearly, many of the issues that we have discussed depend very strongly upon the efficient use of waste and the efficient use and handling of many of the by-products from waste. It is important that we use such materials in the most energy-efficient way possible. As a result of my amendment, I hope that the Government will agree to look a little more closely at the importance of CHP in achieving what the Bill sets out to do. It is to be hoped that, at some stage, they can place either directly in the Bill, or at least in the guidance, some responsibility on the agency to promote and support energy-efficient activities, to which this very important technology can now make such a very important contribution.
As my noble friend and the House will be aware, the Government have established certain targets. They have doubled the target to five gigawatts of power from the use of CHP by the year 2000. I think my noble friend will agree that in order to achieve that there will have to be a clear and positive programme to make it happen. I hope that my noble friend and the House will support that view. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am glad to support the amendment. I am aware that the option of CHP for waste disposal is not favoured by some organisations involved with recycling, but I believe that in waste disposal as in many other environmental considerations we have to seek more than one solution to every problem. I consider this particular option an extremely helpful one in a number of ways.
There is a growing acceptance of the value of CHP. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about Professor Littlechild, and the report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution on the incineration of municipal solid waste drew attention to the benefits of electricity produced in this way. I understand there is a consultation paper from the DoE on a proposed waste management strategy which also features the option we are discussing. All of those bodies have taken account of the high efficiency of CHP systems. Waste plants which produce only electricity are just 20 per cent. energy efficient while CHP is 60 per cent. energy efficient. That is a considerable advance. With the growing difficulties and the growing costs of landfill, and the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, the CHP option is becoming ever more attractive in environmental and in market terms. I am glad to support the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend's amendment would give the Secretary of State powers to develop a strategy and take such steps as he considers
464
appropriate to encourage the use of local combined heat and power (CHP) schemes which are fuelled by incinerating waste. It would provide vires to identify such CHP schemes as a specific group in future non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) orders. This would ensure that such CHP schemes were able to compete effectively with other forms of renewable energy for subsidy under the fossil fuel levy.
The Government attach great importance to the efficient use of energy and to the use of combined heat and power schemes to help to carry forward their energy efficiency policies. CHP is very efficient and cost effective, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, indicated. It helps us to carry forward our sustainable development policy, changing people's culture by promoting realistic ways of achieving development at lower cost to the environment. Hence we share my noble friend's concern that CHP should be encouraged wherever possible. It should not suffer from unnecessary disadvantages in comparison to other methods of generating electricity and heat.
We fully understand the intentions behind my noble friend's amendment. I am concerned whether, in this technical and complex area, the amendment as drafted achieves precisely the effect my noble friend is looking for. It might be helpful if his advisers and mine were to have some discussion about the thinking behind the amendment, although my noble friend will understand that I can give no assurances about the way forward. I hope that on that basis my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I am most grateful for those very helpful comments from my noble friend. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. With my noble friend's assurance that we can meet to discuss this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begins again no earlier than five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Enforcement of External Orders) Order 1995
7.4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blotch)The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blotch) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the first order of its kind to be made under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It marks a small but important improvement in our ability to co-operate internationally against terrorism. The order is the final piece of

465
subordinate legislation needed to enable us to implement a bilateral agreement which we have signed with India. That agreement is a wide-ranging one, aimed at encouraging judicial co-operation between our countries in tracing, freezing and confiscating the proceeds and instruments of crime, including terrorist funds.
In compliance with our obligations under the agreement, the order designates India under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In doing so, it enables the courts in the United Kingdom to enforce orders made by the Indian courts for the restraint or forfeiture of terrorist funds. In a moment I shall elaborate on the form that the order takes and on how it will work in practice. First, I should like to say a few words about the circumstances in which the order is brought before the House.
None of us would disagree that terrorism is a uniquely grave form of criminal activity. It is one of the most serious threats to public security with which we have been faced in modern times. The police, the security services and indeed the Government have, for many years, been investing great effort into defeating terrorism within the rule of the law. In recent months we have seen an enormous improvement in the overall terrorist situation within the United Kingdom. That does not mean we can afford to be complacent about the terrorist threat. Last July we sadly saw the return of Middle Eastern terrorism to the streets of London. Foreign-based terrorist groups are still active. They have proved themselves willing and able to operate across national boundaries. And many of them are keen to exploit differences in national laws to evade justice in their own countries.
International co-operation remains an essential part of the strategy against such terrorist groups. We have attached great importance to the work which has been done within government and by the police and other agencies to forge links with other countries which are also committed to eliminating terrorism. The links which this country has with India are long standing. Our respective enforcement agencies are already working together to tackle common problems. The bilateral agreement, which we have concluded with India, is a welcome opportunity to extend that co-operation into new areas. It demonstrates clearly our willingness to help the Indian authorities in their efforts to stem the flow of tainted money or property in and out of their country. It also gives a clear message to criminal organisations in India and around the world that we are not willing to see our financial systems abused for their unsavoury purposes.
We have already, with your Lordships' permission and approval, implemented another 23 similar bilateral agreements. This is the first to extend to terrorist funds. The order before the House is therefore somewhat novel in character. I shall explain briefly what it aims to do.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act, as your Lordships will know, created in UK law a system of offences, penalties and investigative powers aimed at tackling those who provide financial support for terrorist activity. It included a scheme enabling the courts to order the restraint or forfeiture of money or property belonging to those convicted of financial offences under the Act which the courts believe is destined to finance further
466
terrorist activity. The Act paved the way for international judicial co-operation by allowing orders such as the present one to be made to enable our courts to enforce restraint and forfeiture orders similar to our own made by specified overseas countries.
The types of restraint and forfeiture orders which may be enforced under this Order in Council are defined in Article 2 at the top of page 2. This makes it clear, for example, that forfeiture orders must fit a description given in the Prevention of Terrorism Act itself. Essentially this means for present purposes that they must be in respect of funds destined for acts which we would recognise as serious terrorist offences or the proceeds of such acts or activities engaged in the furtherance of them.
Article 4 of the order makes the necessary provision to enable our courts to accept documentary evidence from overseas. Among other things it provides for the admissibility here of a certificate issued by the Indian courts giving certain information about the proceedings in that country which have led, or may lead, to the making of a forfeiture order.
Parts II, III, and IV of the order contain the schemes which enable our courts to register and enforce external restraint and confiscation orders. Your Lordships will have seen that there are separate arrangements in respect of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These are all virtually identical.
In order for an external restraint or forfeiture order to be enforced here, it must first be registered in the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session. That court must be satisfied that the correct procedures have been followed in making the order.
The order incorporates a number of safeguards to ensure that the powers it creates are not used unfairly. A forfeiture order will be registered and enforced only if the High Court is satisfied that it is in force and not subject to appeal, that the subject of the order appeared in the proceedings in which it was made or was given the opportunity to contest it, and that its enforcement would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Similar safeguards apply in respect of restraint orders.
Before an order reaches the courts it will receive careful scrutiny. Requests from India for the restraint or forfeiture of funds will be sent, in the first instance, to the United Kingdom central authority, which is in the Home Office. The central authority is experienced in dealing with requests under our existing confiscation and forfeiture agreements, which I mentioned earlier. The central authority will check whether the request falls within the terms of our agreement with India. It will then pass the request to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which will take any necessary action in conjunction with the police and prosecutors here. If there are any doubts about a request, further information may be obtained from the Indian authorities before an application is put to the High Court or Court of Session.
Once an order has been registered in the High Court or Court of Session it may be enforced as if it were a domestic order. These procedures ensure that anyone affected by an order has an opportunity to be heard before any property is taken from them permanently.
The investigation and prosecution of illegal fund-raising activity is a singularly complex and lengthy process. It is important therefore to ensure that the right powers are put in place so that the police can take action when they need to do so. Such powers are also valuable as a deterrent. They send a clear signal that the illicit assets of terrorist organisations are not beyond the reach of the law. This will make a modest but useful contribution to countering international terrorism. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey has asked me to apologise for his absence and to say that the order has his full approval. We on these Benches are content.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, we on these Benches are also content with the order. We shall support anything which gives a clear and unequivocal message that we will play our part in combating international terrorism. We may regret the need for such orders but we should support them while scrutinising them for safeguards.
There is one question I should like to ask the Minister relating to the remarks of her colleague Mr. David Maclean in the discussion in the Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments on 2nd March. At col. 6 of the report he refers to the alternative of a free-standing restraint power and says:
"A free-standing restraint power would in some circumstances be a quicker and more flexible way to proceed. We intend to take the earliest opportunity to amend the enabling power in schedule 4 [of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989]. When that has been done, I shall introduce a further order under the prevention of terrorism Act creating a free-standing restraint power in respect of terrorist funds".
Will the Minister explain to the House what is meant by "the earliest opportunity" and whether we may anticipate an amendment within the present parliamentary Session or at some other future date? Can she also clarify the further statement by Mr. Maclean that the present method contained in the order is a suitable and practical alternative to a free-standing restraint power? It is not clear to me why, if this is a suitable and practical alternative to a free-standing restraint power, the Government intend to take the earliest opportunity to amend the enabling power to make it a free-standing restraint power. I merely seek an explanation.
We support fully the objective of the order and will play our part in ensuring that international terrorism is combated in all its forms.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome accorded the order. I shall try to deal with the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. If I am not able to do so sufficiently fully I shall write to the noble Lord following the debate.
The Order in Council enables the High Court to restrain property in this country at an early stage by registering a restraint order made in India. This is a
468
practical and effective way of proceeding. A free-standing restraint power is desirable as an additional measure because it will enable the court to restrain property without an order from the Indian courts provided that certain conditions, which we shall lay down in the Order in Council, are satisfied. In certain circumstances that may be a more flexible method,
As regards the introduction of the amendments, I understand that that will take place as soon as possible. The change is needed to allow the High Court more flexibility in the way it acts by enabling it to restrain property with or without a restraint order made by the Indian courts. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

US Counter-proliferation Initiative
7.15 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what discussion, whether in NATO or otherwise, the Ministry of Defence has had with the US Defense Department about the US Defense Counter-proliferation Initiative; and what is their attitude to the initiative.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised the counter-proliferation initiative (CPI) in the defence debate on the Queen's Speech and asked some specific questions which were not answered at the end of the debate. I consequently wrote to both the Foreign Office and defence ministry Ministers, including the noble Lord who is to answer today, and I asked for an answer. The Ministry of Defence referred me to the Foreign Office, but I have had no reply. That is why I am asking this Question today. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand.
What is the CPI? It is an American programme of military procurement, brought about by industrial momentum and accompanied by the usual justificatory doctrines and assumptions. Last month the House of Representatives threw out the Republicans' idea of reviving the old strategic defense initiative (SDI)—President Reagan's star wars. But that leaves untouched this other, more comprehensive, initiative.
The end of the Cold War did not stop defence people producing brilliant technologies. The momentum is still colossal. President Reagan, a Republican who was far from believing in balanced budgets, had invested so much talent and wealth in the now defunct SDI that ever smarter weapons and systems are now arriving just as if it had not been abandoned. Moreover, interest payments on the US budget deficit are increasingly absorbing the country's revenue, so weapon sales abroad look more and more useful.
Last May, John Deutch, the US Deputy Secretary for Defense, listed 16 "areas for progress" that needed more money. Among them were the following: capability to detect, locate and disarm, with a high degree of assurance and in a timely fashion, outside the United States weapons of mass destruction hidden by a hostile state or terrorist in a confined area; real-time detection and characterisation of bacterial and chemical weapon agents; detection and characterisation of underground structures; and hard underground target defeat including

469
advanced non-nuclear weapons (lethal and non-lethal) capable of holding counterforce targets at risk with low collateral effects. These last include a rather new class of weapons, smart burrowing munitions. They burrow into the ground and only go off when they find a space—a chamber.
To carry forward this procurement and the sales of it abroad, there has to be a military doctrine about what to do with the weapons. This is much the same problem as faced Kennedy in 1961 when, having won the election on a missile gap with the Soviet Union which reconnaissance had already shown did not exist, he still had to order vast numbers of Minutemen, many times what his predecessor, Eisenhower, who was a soldier, had ordered. Then Kennedy had to find a military doctrine to fit the numbers. That was the second strike counterforce doctrine, which was the fuse that lit the Cuba crisis because the Russians, not surprisingly, understood it to comprise a first-strike counterforce threat as well.
The doctrine was then, and is now, that possession of a counterforce system will deter attack, but the reality is that, if it works at all, it works both defensively and aggressively. While a second counterforce strike would not be unlawful—the US would already have been attacked—a pre-emptive first counterforce strike in the absence of war would be aggression and therefore very unlawful indeed.
The prototype operation for the CPI is Israel's 1981 strike on Iraq's nuclear facility—Osirak—which, of course, triggered many of the current arms races in the Middle East. Our Government have always made clear that that attack was wholly unlawful. The Reagan administration unfortunately found it quite tolerable and Israeli officials have recently been suggesting that they could do the same to Iran. I have seen no objection to that unlawful suggestion from the American Administration, which is, of course, funding the local anti-missile missile programme to shield Israel from Iranian retaliation. All that, at the very time the United States has apparently agreed not to press Israel on the non-proliferation treaty, while still pressing all the Arab states to sign up.
But a military doctrine for the new purchase is not enough. There must also be a political doctrine. This goes more or less as follows: we have seen, have we not, that neither diplomacy nor treaties can stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Out there in the big world there are these rogues, states and terrorists, who, given half a chance, will get these weapons—nuclear, chemical and biological—and missiles to put them on, so we had better be able to see what they are doing in real time. Then we had better be able to shoot them down before they can land on us and our friends. Even better still, we had better be able to identify and destroy them before they leave the ground, or even under the ground. That, sure as hell, will deter them.
Well, probably not. Elsewhere in the world, nations have long been obtaining weapons of mass destruction, not for fun and because nothing prevents them, but for very real fears, which they usually articulate quite clearly and we usually fail to listen to.
To halt and roll back proliferation, it is useless just to cry out against it and its effects; we have carefully to remove its causes. North Korea was being goaded into proliferation by the nuclear sabre-rattling and vast military exercises being ceaselessly conducted all around its borders. Iraq's programme was redoubled, not weakened, by Israel's attack. Iran's, if it has one, will be redoubled by Israel's threats.
The counter-proliferation initiative stands also on a political assumption: the world so needs American leadership that the United States - the sole hegemon, as Mr. Gingrich encouragingly puts it—must accumulate and deploy weapons to meet that need. Part of the assumption is that the world agrees and will want to give house room to American infrastructure. We could allow the use of Diego Garcia and Ascension Island, perhaps, as well as bits of the UK. There have been discussions with Namibia. At this very moment, the highest tech weapons are being offered to Poland and the Czech Republic, who surely have better things to spend international aid on, and military agreements are being reached with Armenia, Albania, and several others.
The CPI implies also a faith in boundless technological capability. It is ill-founded. One serving US intelligence general has already warned about this programme of multi-sensor surveillance: do believe there are things we cannot know. Identifying the contents of underground chambers, in real time, from space; distinguishing a harmless bio-engineered pesticide from a military biological or chemical process or weapon, and then rendering them all harmless will not happen. And of course no one will ever know that, as well as ordinary technical bugs in the system, there is not a bright young hacker in it for the fun or because he disagrees with the idea.
So what is our attitude? That is what we hope to hear from the Government tonight.
To sum up, we have a strongly motivated procurement of the new generation of precision-guided munitions, including burrowing munitions, which would be launched from unmanned platforms—supersonic stealth cruise missiles, perhaps, unmanned aerial vehicles and so on—which are to be controlled and re-targeted in flight by space-based sensors and computers that can unfailingly identify and therefore trigger attack on whatever they have been programmed to identify as unacceptable. A globally operational, computer-led identification system and a globally operational, computer-led attack system, both under the political control of a single sovereign state? There would be no way in which the international community could ensure that such a system would not be misused. If it can be used unilaterally, it can be misused unilaterally.
What we need is European eyes in space. Strategy begins with geography, which we have in common with Europe, not the United States. Nor can we go on depending on information handed down to us in spoonfuls by the American intelligence apparatus. As we have learned in Bosnia, we do not know what we do not get. Iraq and North Korea and co. can just say of US intelligence: "They would say that, wouldn't they?" We do not know who is right. We—and this goes for the

471
whole United Nations—must have more than a single, nationally controlled, source of intelligence about whose quality and context we know next to nothing although probably we know more than any other country. The Treasury accountants, who seem not to know much history, believe it has to be cheaper to depend on another government's intelligence services. One can only say, "Wake up!"
Britain needs to join up with Helios as soon as possible. Probably we should not be buying US cruise missiles with their built-in permissive links.
The Russians are being consulted about the CPI because some of what is already being tested in the United States requires the bilateral ABM Treaty to be re-interpreted. Even the old system of global protection against limited strikes—and the CPI is far more ambitious than little old G-PALS—cuts across the indefinite and concept-derived limits of the ABM Treaty. "Tactical" to the United States is "strategic" to us. Such words measure nothing.
Certainly the Russians see some charm in participating in a very expensive scheme in which others might want to pay them for what they can contribute, but they do not intend to see any such apparatus put into the sole hands of the US. Anything like that, they say, has to be right inside a Security Council system. But unfortunately it cannot be; not if it is intended to perform automatically in real time. Nor will the Chinese, nor the Japanese, nor the Indians, nor the Koreans in the slightly longer term accept this kind of American hegemony. Nor, I think, will we in Western Europe.
If the new version of the Atlantic Assembly that Mr. Rifkind proposed in his thoughtful Chatham House speech last month were already in place, the CPI would probably not have got as far as it has. Mr. Rifkind's wish to get the United States Congress rooted more closely and democratically into the world we all share is warmly to be commended.
I say that it might not have got so far as it has, but of course we do not know how far it has got. The American chiefs of staff were supposed to be taking a decision on it at the end of January, I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us to some degree about what is going on and what is our own attitude to it.
The world remains unchanged in certain all-important respects which affect all countries. That is that scientific and technological predominance does not guarantee political predominance unless it is put into military terms. If it is put into military terms, it guarantees the political rejection of the country which does so, and in any case, in all the advanced countries there is a continuing danger of the political apparatus and wisdom of those countries falling permanent hostage, half unconsciously, to the pressures of technological development and of industrial profit.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord for missing the beginning of his speech. Indeed, I have to say that I had only the minimum notice that this debate was being rescheduled this evening.
472
However, I congratulate the noble Lord very warmly on raising this matter, and on doing so in an extraordinarily well-informed and well argued speech, every word of which I heartily endorse.
Perhaps the project that he criticised is more formal and more official than he realises. I recall its being expounded, not by the Assistant Secretary of Defense, six months ago, but by Mr. Les Aspin, the United States Secretary of Defense, a couple of years ago. It certainly deserves all the arguments against it that the noble Lord deployed so well. It is based, of course, on the precedent of the Israeli attack on Baghdad in 1981. It is argued now that that delayed Saddam Hussein's nuclear programme for a few years. That may well be true. But it also inflamed still more the hostility and distrust of Israel in the region. It undoubtedly prompted the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, not only in Iraq but in Iran and Libya. If a scheme such as the noble Lord describes is practicable; if it is technically feasible and can be afforded; if the Americans really have the outrageous arrogance to take into their own hands the whole question of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, it will certainly produce the same results. There will be an increase in hostility, distrust and tension, and there will be increased manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. It is a mad scheme. I should be surprised if the United States Government discussed it with Her Majesty's Government. I look forward to hearing from the Minister at what point, if at all, we were consulted about this. We ask for an assurance that, if they were consulted, Her Majesty's Government did their utmost possible to dissuade the Americans from this provocative and ill-judged scheme.
Another feature of the scheme is that it undermines the world's efforts to secure a successful non-proliferation treaty. This is a plan which assumes the collapse of the non-proliferation treaty; otherwise there would be no point in the project at all. This plan will have an impact on the conference on non-proliferation which takes place next month, to be attended by 161 member states. They will be deeply shocked at the lack of faith shown by the United States in this approach to non-proliferation. There is the assumption that only the United States has the right to prevent proliferation, and to prevent it in the most extreme and aggressive military way—an illegal way—in which this plan has been designed.
It is my wish that, at the non-proliferation conference the British Government will show more faith in the concepts of agreed non-proliferation. The fact is that so far the conference has not gone very well. As we warned from these Benches, the fact that the five excepted nuclear nations have failed to implement their obligations under Article 6 of the treaty has put them on the defensive. The British Government, too, have not fulfilled their obligations under this article. For example, I believe that they still have reservations about the comprehensive test ban treaty. They have been pushed and pushed in the direction of supporting such a treaty. But as I understand it, the French and British Governments still maintain the need for tests that are excepted from the treaty. Perhaps the Minister will confirm or deny that.

473
As we on these Benches have constantly pointed out, the British Government also maintain a nuclear potential, with the number of nuclear warheads well in excess of what could possibly be required for a minimum deterrent. And they are keeping the numbers secret. Here again, the Government are inviting criticism and suspicion from the non-nuclear members of the non-proliferation treaty. Why do they not tell the world how many nuclear warheads they possess? The Russians do that, as do the Americans. Only the British Government arrogate to themselves the right, not only to possess nuclear weapons when the rest of the world, with five exceptions, is supposed not to have them, but to keep quiet about it. The British Government assume the right to insist that everybody else in the world subject themselves to intensive, intrusive inspection of their civilian nuclear capability, while reserving the right to conceal from the world the number of nuclear warheads that Britain possesses.
I am bound to say that the Government have ignored the warnings given from these Benches that, by taking this line, they would soon find themselves hopelessly on the defensive against the non-nuclear members of the conference; that they would find that when they asked for an indefinite extension of the treaty they would be met with the perfectly reasonable argument, "Why should we indefinitely extend the treaty before the five recognised nuclear powers fulfil their obligations under the treaty?". We said that they would say it, and so they are. I predict that there will be a great deal of opposition to an indefinite extension of the treaty while the five nuclear powers fail to fulfil their obligations under Article 6. That is the way that the wind will blow.
I therefore ask the Government, these questions. First, were they consulted about this illegal and provocative American project? If so, what comment did the Government make? Will the Government now put their whole weight behind negotiating a successful non-proliferation treaty? Will they take the lead by fulfilling their own obligations under Article 6 of the treaty?
7.39 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for raising this important Question. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is certainly one of the major challenges to national security in the modern age. This is a particularly appropriate time to be debating proliferation issues. On 17th April, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, pointed out, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty extension conference will convene in New York. At that conference the parties to the treaty will decide how much longer, and in what way, the treaty should continue after 25 years in force.
The NPT, along with other control mechanisms, such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Missile Technology Control Regime, constitute part of our non-proliferation policy and our efforts to prevent proliferation happening. But the subject of today's debate concerns counter-proliferation. How do we respond to proliferation if our non-proliferation policies fail to prevent it? How do we tackle new proliferants?
474
At its 1994 summit, NATO decided to seek to develop a comprehensive approach to proliferation, the primary focus of which will remain prevention. But it will also include consideration of developing the military means to deal with proliferation should prevention fail. I understand that the work is in hand but has not advanced very far yet. Perhaps when the Minister comes to reply he will be able to comment on that.
In the meantime, the United States itself has launched a counter-proliferation initiative, the purpose of which seems—I use the word advisedly—to be to enable the United States to tackle a regional adversary who is armed with weapons of mass destruction by using advanced conventional capabilities rather than nuclear ones. I understand that the Pentagon has identified a number of future capabilities which will be required to support the counter-proliferation mission area, including theatre missile defences and interdiction to deal with extant weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
I understand that so far as the British Government are concerned, a consortium led by British Aerospace has been awarded a contract by the Ministry of Defence for what is called a pre-feasibility study to examine our national options and help inform future policy decisions, including whether the UK has a requirement for ballistic missile defence. Quite why a contract of that nature has been given to a private firm—and an arms supplier at that—is beyond my comprehension. No doubt the Minister will explain why our defence policy seems now to be determined by the private sector.
Given the counter-proliferation initiative, a number of political and technological questions arise. The political risk, which my noble friend Lord Kennet spelt out very clearly, is as follows. The development of these capabilities in themselves might tempt some to use them pre-emptively rather than in response to a regional conflict initiated by a future proliferant state. A country that was merely suspected of developing nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction might find itself the subject of an attack launched in order to take out that country's suspected capability. Of course, that would be highly dangerous, because, first, if unprovoked, it would be contrary to international law and thereby could destroy completely the international non-proliferation regime; and secondly, there is no guarantee of success. Instead, it is likely to make that state more determined and antagonistic and could spark a regional war. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, gave an example of how that had happened in the past.
There are also technical problems with such an initiative. For example, theatre ballistic missiles and missile defences are as yet unproven. The performance of the Patriot against the Scuds in the Gulf War fell rather short of the hype provided by the manufacturers at the time. Obviously, it would take only one single nuclear warhead to penetrate one's defences for those defences to have been judged a failure. We should also be aware that ballistic missile defence is no panacea for dealing with attack by weapons of mass destruction, even if those defences work perfectly. Are there other ways to deliver such weapons—by artillery shell, free-fall bomb or low flying cruise missile; or possibly even in a suitcase?

475
Any development of theatre ballistic missiles will also need to pay close attention to the terms and restrictions of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which bans strategic missile defences almost completely. I understand that the United States and Russia are each allowed to deploy 100 launchers around a single site. Russia chose Moscow; the United States has not exercised the option. A continuation of that treaty is crucial to existing nuclear disarmament agreements remaining in place and future negotiations taking place. We should do nothing and the United States should do nothing to undermine it.
Further, there are the cost implications of any such initiative. We must be wary of being sucked into an expenditure black hole in pursuit of a technological quick fix. At every stage we must ask ourselves whether money spent on counter-proliferation might not be spent better on proliferation prevention, for example by increasing what we regard as the inadequate budget of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the NPT's own watchdog.
I have no doubt that the Ministry of Defence will bear those factors in mind during the quaint pre-feasibility study on which it is engaged and will weigh them very carefully before proceeding further. It is probably right to examine whether or not certain defensive counter-proliferation options are cost effective and therefore worthy of investment of scarce defence resources. But we should not let that distract us from our central focus—here I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—on trying to prevent proliferation through an enhancement of more traditional methods of international treaties, export controls and diplomacy.
7.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, perhaps I may start with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I understood that he had been informed about the revised time of the debate when it was changed from last Monday. I offer him my sincere apologies. Obviously the message failed to get through. I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for writing to me and setting out some of his ideas. I believe he knows that his letter went to his noble friend Lord Healey but eventually it reached me. The letter which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, addressed to me also went to the noble Lord, Lord Healey, and reached me this morning. I am not aware whether the letters of the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Mayhew, who also wrote to me, went to the noble Lord, Lord Healey. Perhaps I might ask the noble Lord, Lord Healey, to answer these debates on other occasions.
The noble Lord has given me a welcome opportunity to set out our approach to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which is of crucial importance to our security interests. I would rather not follow him in what I believe was almost an attempt to drive a wedge between the United Kingdom and the United States in this important area, as I suspect he was doing. I hope that he will bear that in mind as he listens to what I have to say.
476
The US counter-proliferation initiative describes the American attitude towards proliferation. It was launched following President Clinton's address to the UN General Assembly in 1993 when he drew attention to the risks posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. But, as both my noble friend Lady Chalker and I have made clear to the noble Lord in letters dated 3rd and 4th February this year, the counter-proliferation initiative is very much a national US initiative, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, rightly stressed. Therefore, I cannot comment on it directly. The United Kingdom has been briefed about it both bilaterally and within NATO. We are certainly very interested in US thinking in this field. But we are not directly involved—and should not expect to be directly involved—in what is a distinct national US matter. Nor, despite our close relationship—I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—is the United States obliged to consult Her Majesty's Government on all its initiatives.
Therefore, it is not my responsibility to defend the counter-proliferation initiative against its detractors. However, I cannot let what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said pass entirely without comment. In particular, I should correct his implication that the United States has given up all attempts to prevent proliferation and instead is concentrating simply on military approaches. That is a misrepresentation of what we understand the American position to be. Last year, the NATO Foreign Ministers stated:
"The principal non-proliferation goal of the alliance and its members is to prevent proliferation occurring or, should it occur, to reverse it through diplomatic means".
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for yielding. I said nothing to imply that the United States had given up on the political search for non-proliferation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for stressing that. However, I think it is worth my stressing on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that all NATO states had committed themselves to that goal. The mere fact that the Americans might be pursuing the particular policy which the noble Lord states they are pursuing does not rule them out of pursuing the policy of non-proliferation by means of prevention rather than by the military means I think he was suggesting.
Like us, our American allies recognise that those military measures have a role in dealing with proliferation, but, like us, they recognise that they could never be the whole answer. Nevertheless, we in the United Kingdom have not ignored an aspect of the US counter-proliferation initiative which seems to be causing the noble Lord particular concern; namely, ballistic missile defence. We have recently embarked upon a programme of studies to examine this subject in more detail and a contract for this work was placed with the consortium, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, led by British Aerospace in October 1994. I fail to understand the noble Lord's objections to our use of the private sector in this field. It certainly has the technical expertise to provide us with advice on options and the way forward. It will, in time, provide us with information on those options: on performance criteria,

477
technical risk and cost, which again the noble Lord was right to stress. We have also invested in technology demonstrator programmes which could have missile defence applications.
These studies will enable us to make informed decisions about the way forward, including whether we have a national requirement for ballistic missile defence. As part of our examination of that, we naturally consult allies in NATO, including the United States, and co-operate with them on a range of associated technical issues. But it would be wrong to interpret those discussions as either United Kingdom or NATO involvement in the United States counter-proliferation initiative.
The proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery is a major security concern. The acquisition of such weapons by states like Iraq not only threatens already unstable regions but also increases the risk of the United Kingdom, or our forces engaged on missions around the world, being confronted by weapons of mass destruction. It is right that the United Kingdom should keep all responses under review and should do so in concert with our allies. I shall therefore take this opportunity to set out our overall approach to non-proliferation.
Our efforts to control proliferation embrace several complementary strands. First, we seek strong and verifiable international treaties, such as the non-proliferation treaty—I shall say a little more about that later—which will bind states to various controls on the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Next, we aim to ensure that anyone breaching the treaties is held to account. It is also important for us to have, and to encourage others to have, rigorous export controls to hinder would-be proliferators. And we must also ensure that our Armed Forces have effective protection against possible attack.
At the alliance level, the United Kingdom is also participating actively in work under way to develop a NATO policy towards proliferation. This work is intended to reinforce the treaties and regimes and therefore has both political and defence dimensions. The senior politico-military group on proliferation deals with the political dimension by providing a forum for regular consultations among NATO members, and others, on proliferation and examining ways in which the alliance can contribute to the implementation and strengthening of international non-proliferation agreements.
Military implications are dealt with by the senior defence group on proliferation. The group has already produced a risk assessment and is now into the next phase of work in an analysis of the implications of these risks and the capabilities which might be necessary to combat them. The final phase of work will be to assess current alliance capabilities and identify any areas in which these might need to be improved. The work may include an examination of ballistic missile defence, but the alliance will be looking at the whole spectrum of possible responses and capabilities and not just this aspect. As your Lordships would expect, the United Kingdom has been playing an active part and will continue to do so.
478
I said that I would say more about the non-proliferation treaty. I can give an assurance to the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Williams, that we are committed to securing unconditional and indefinite extension of the treaty at the conference of states parties which starts in April of this year. We take very seriously our obligation under the non-proliferation treaty to work towards nuclear disarmament in the context of complete and general disarmament. One ought to stress on these occasions that once Trident is fully in service the explosive power of the United Kingdom's operational nuclear inventory will be some 25 per cent. lower than in 1990. As both noble Lords will be aware, we have already disposed of a considerable quantity of our nuclear weaponry. I do not think that I need elaborate on that this evening.
Perhaps I may deal with one or two other points. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked why the United States is not pressing Israel to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty but is pressing the Arab states to do so. I cannot answer for the United States but I can say that Her Majesty's Government wish to see the non-proliferation treaty universally supported and will continue to encourage Israel to accede to it. We hope that Israel will take that on board.
To conclude, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses a serious threat to international security. The Government view the consideration being given in NATO and other multilateral fora to this problem as of great importance. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has provided an opportunity to remind ourselves of the dangers in this area. I believe, though, that he is wrong to imply that the United States, let alone the United Kingdom, has lost sight of the central importance of preventing proliferation from occurring in the first place, and reversing it if it has happened, by diplomatic means. We are examining both nationally and within NATO what role military means might have as a part of our general non-proliferation efforts. It is prudent for us so to do. But we are not being driven—I must stress this—towards any predetermined outcome. The need to reach the right conclusions is too important.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.57 to 8.5 p.m.]

Environment Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed. Clause 79 [Hedgerows]:
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 234A:
Page 87, line 17, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall by 1st July 1996").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are back to hedges. As far as I can make out, there are three separate groups of amendments about hedges. In moving this amendment, perhaps I may say one or two things about

479
the other amendments in the group. We have had discussions already as to whether details of hedgerow legislation should be in the Bill. The Government have decided to stick with the original plan that it should be primarily by regulation. I am happy with that perfectly fair decision. I would have preferred to have had more on the face of the Bill, but I recognise the Government's point.
However, I shall be very concerned if the regulations are just left with no date and no idea when they might come into effect. I know that a great deal of consultation is needed as to exactly what the regulations should say. I am very glad to hear that the Department of the Environment has asked ADAS to consult on the criteria. Once that has happened it would be useful to have some idea as to when the regulations may be inserted. I am suggesting the date of 1st July 1996.
Given the Government's commitment to introduce protection for hedgerows, it is clearly desirable that it should be in this Parliament. That is why I have suggested the date of 1st July 1996. If my noble friend is unable to accept that particular date, I hope that he will give an indication as a discipline for all of us when we can expect the undertaking to be fulfilled.
Perhaps I may say something about the other amendments in the grouping so I do not have to inflict myself on your Lordships again on this matter. I very much like Amendment No. 235 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, concerning stone walls. However, I recognise that at the moment we are talking about getting hedges into the legislation. I am quite sure that in due course stone walls should receive some statutory protection. Like everyone, I suppose, I am quite keen on ponds and have dug a few myself in my time.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe my noble friend is addressing the next group of amendments. It would be better if we stuck to the present group before entertaining speeches concerning the next group.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I apologise. I now refer to Amendments Nos. 239B to 239E. Amendment No. 239B of my noble friend Lord Stanley is extremely sensible because there should be a proper right of appeal for anyone who wishes to uproot hedges. As regards Amendment No. 239C, I do not believe that the idea of planting a hedgerow is enough to justify taking up a hedgerow. What we are really concerned about is the quality of the hedgerows and often their antiquity. Therefore, planting a hedgerow is not a substitute or an excuse for uprooting. That is why I am not very happy about Amendment No. 239C.
On Amendment No. 239D, I should have thought that the decision as to the importance of a hedgerow would be taken at the appeal stage, which is provided for in Amendment No. 239B. In other words, I regard Amendment No. 239D as an alternative to, and less good than, Amendment No. 239B because, if there is to be an appeal against the appropriate Minister's refusal of consent, it would be at that stage that any considerations such as those referred to in Amendment No. 239D would be appropriate.
480
Amendment No. 239E, which stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, refers to the provision of a "management agreement". I am sure that we all recognise the need to provide financial support where hedges have to be maintained in the public interest, but I do not think that that should be achieved by a linkage under the Bill. I would expect that hedges which are regarded as sufficiently important to be subject to an order preventing their removal would also be seen as sufficiently important to receive some financial assistance under whatever other schemes already exist. We discussed that in Committee and it seems to me to be a much more sensible approach than direct linkage.
Perhaps I may use the analogy of listed buildings. A decision to list a building does not automatically mean that one gets a management grant or any other sort of grant in connection with it. One may be eligible for such a grant, but that is a separate point that is judged according to separate criteria. That is why I would not be happy if any direct linkage were provided under the Bill. Having said that, I beg to move Amendment No. 234A.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 239B, 239C, 239D and 240A. I should like to speak to Amendment No. 239E at its point in the Marshalled List so I shall not be speaking to that amendment with this group of amendments, but after the group which starts with Amendment No. 239, which is where I believe that Amendment No. 239E logically stands. Having disaggregated Amendment No. 239E, I shall cover the other amendments in the order in which they appear in the Marshalled List.
The purpose of Amendment No. 2398 is to provide for a right of appeal. I hope that that is clear. The miles of natural justice apply here and I feel strongly that there should be adequate safeguards for those who are affected by hedgerow protection orders. Many designations of one sort or another are capable of challenge at some stage. The designation of sites of special scientific interest may be challenged when one wishes to carry out certain types of work. There are similar provisions for listed building consents and for tree preservation orders. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I believe that he thought that this was of necessity a right of appeal against a designation. I am seeking merely to ensure that there is some form of right of appeal in the regulations. It matters less to me at what point it appears than that it is there somewhere. I hope that that puts the noble Lord's mind at rest.
As drafted, Clause 79 provides no right of appeal, except possibly the normal default line through the heavy-handed and expensive route of judicial review which is available for many instances where there is thought to be an over-zealous use of power.
I have received today a copy of the project description for the identification of important hedgerows. It is obviously framed widely and does not of itself identify what might be described as "most important hedgerows"—nor does it set out how they might be identified. I hope that that is merely to leave the way clear for a free hand to be given to the contractor to

481
investigate that side of the issue. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that; otherwise, on the face of it, there appears to be a shift of emphasis. I hope that that is not intended. In my view, if there is such a shift of emphasis, a right of appeal is indispensable.
The purpose of Amendment No. 239C is to ensure that in considering whether to exercise its powers, an authority should have regard to the manner in which hedgerow management and restoration are already occurring on the holding in question. I believe that that would have the following effects. First, it would go some way towards procuring good conduct because land managers would realise that future treatment of any application that they might make to remove an important hedgerow might well depend on their past conduct. I see nothing wrong with that.
Secondly, it would ensure that an authority could not unreasonably penalise someone who was making a genuine effort on their holding and take a narrow view on a particular hedgerow without considering other factors. In many holdings, land management (from the land manager's standpoint) is very much a function that is integrated with all his other functions. The degree to which he is prepared to devote time and resources to good hedgerow management is derived directly from the nature of that basket of activities, which often includes diversification. I would hate to think that hedgerow protection would become another issue that stands in the way of an otherwise good scheme which, taken in the round, would be a net contributor to the environmental benefits that we all want to see.
I hope that what I have said answers some of the points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I do not think that it is a question simply of uprooting and substitution. That would be too simplistic a model. This is an important issue that needs to be taken in the round. That is the thought-process that I should like to encourage.
Amendment No. 239D would ensure that an authority would have to consider the effects on the business of the landowner or land manager of any exercise of its powers. That follows on from what I have just said. Clearly, it would be manifest bad practice if an authority was minded to deny the facility to do to a hedgerow something that was necessary regardless of its impact on the agricultural or business interest. To do that would be to put nature conservation in direct confrontation with the integrated approach to management and maintenance which land managers try to adopt. That would send a negative message, and must be avoided. My amendment would help to avoid what might turn into an entirely counterproductive response by land managers. It would enable the economic interest (which ultimately provides the resources for hedgerow maintenance) to be demonstrated as relevant. I take the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that it may be an appeal stage procedure. However, I feel that it should be built into the whole process and not necessarily attached to a specific element of it.
Amendment No. 240A probes the intended meaning of the word "protection". The amendment seeks to identify the nature of the owner's responsibility. I have
482
assumed that the intention behind the whole concept of hedgerow protection is to protect from wilful and unlawful uprooting or destruction. I hope that I have got that right. However, I should like to be clear on that point and should be grateful if the Minister could indicate what is in his mind on that issue.
I want to ensure normal management by cutting and laying. That is something which has to be done and which may produce quite substantial changes in appearance, but it is part of an essential management process. I am hoping that that will not be circumscribed, and that is another aspect on which I should like to have some reassurance.
Those matters go to the heart of my wish to ensure that hedgerow protection orders are not seen as negative obstructions imposed by faceless bureaucrats but are measures that are relevant to land management, as well as other factors. Therefore, I commend the three amendments to the House.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I should like to support Amendment No. 234A. It is very important that we make reasonably rapid progress with this problem. It has been five years since the commitment to bring in legislation about hedgerows was made in 1990 in the White Paper on the Environment. The amendment is entirely right.
Amendment No. 239B concerning the right of appeal is fair and it is one that I support. However, I have some doubts about the other amendments. Amendment No. 239C requires an authority administering the regulations to take into account any planting and restoration of other hedgerows. That amendment comes up against the difficulty, as the Government acknowledged at Committee stage, that a new hedge is not of the same value as an important old hedge and, therefore, it is not compensated for. The real way to secure fairness is to have increased resources for management as is the case in environmentally sensitive areas.
Amendment No. 239D concerns the impact on business. It is right that the question of the economic effects of any decision to prevent the removal of a hedgerow should be taken into account. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, it should be done on appeal. Again the answer is to provide proper resources for management and not to reduce statutory protection.
In regard to Amendment No. 240A, I should be interested to know what the Government think about defining protection. The wording in the amendment excludes damage which could significantly impair the quality of imported hedgerows. Therefore that amendment appears to be defective.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I shall confine myself to speaking about Amendment No. 234A. It is a very important amendment. Hedgerow protection is now urgently needed in East Anglia and elsewhere. Conditions may be somewhat different in the estate in the West Country of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, but, as I said at Committee stage, nearly 2,000 miles of hedgerows have disappeared from Huntingdonshire over the last 50 years.

483
It has become notorious that enabling powers in statues are often long delayed before they are used, and sometimes they are never used at all; and putting them into the Bill is a piece of eyewash. I hope that this will not turn out to be a piece of eyewash: it would be very regrettable if it did.
My noble friend Lord Ullswater, who has shown such wisdom and tolerance during the piloting of the Bill, should be persuaded to accept the amendment or something like it. That does not mean that the matter has to be rushed: there is plenty of time between now and 1st July 1996 for all concerned to get their negotiations completed and for a perfectly simple regulation to be drafted.
I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in this very important matter.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment that was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I shall begin by declaring an interest, in that I have been involved in farming and have been endeavouring to remove hedges in a sensitive manner for some time. I have done so without too much in the way of protest. I shall not at this stage make a speech about the economic importance of field size, but I should like to mention that matter. I do not have any brief for the creation of the 100 acre-plus prairies that my noble friend Lord Renton mentioned in regard to the eastern counties.
I should like to suggest to noble Lords what my reactions would be if I were faced with taking over a tract of land of perhaps 200 acres. Let us suppose that it is not in the eastern counties. It is pretty dilapidated land. Maybe a dairy herd has just gone and all the quota has been sold off. It has fields of an average size of 10 acres or maybe only seven. The hedges are all too big and gone at the bottom, probably planted originally on banks which are now filled with rabbit-holes. Those rabbit-holes are very difficult to get at and there is probably woodland in the vicinity, also with rabbits—rabbits everywhere. What is to be done? What is this fellow to do when he takes the land over? The land may become unviable in the near future, in which case the hedges will be totally neglected. I do not know whether that is the kind of vision that we want. It is not the sort of thing that I want to see, large areas of totally neglected hedges where nothing is to be done.
The occupant is wondering how he is placed under Clause 79. He has a great fear that there will be a great deal of bureaucracy. He does not know how a historic hedge will be defined, although he may have an idea. He does not know what an important hedge is. He also has fears that local authorities may have different interpretations. He does not know whether or not permission is required for everything that he is going to remove. He hopes that he will be able to do a certain amount with fields of not more than 20 acres, without controls. I do not know what size that should be or what is contemplated. If he cannot do that, how will he maintain more hedges with less labour? That is one of the questions very much at the forefront of his mind. So of course, he wants an appeals procedure. Many people
484
would like taken into account their past attitude towards hedge management. Those who have tried to do a good job definitely now need recognition. The implications for the business of the person who is taking over the extra land, or the new young farmer starting, are of great importance.
If my noble friend cannot accept the amendments, I hope that he will indicate that they can be included in regulations. Whatever help is available should be better than that available for listed buildings. Old hedges will not last for ever. Although I understand the views of the proponents of the preservation of old hedges, there comes a time when, like trees, it is not possible to preserve them any longer.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 234A seeks to impose a requirement on Ministers to bring forward hedgerows regulations by 1st July 1996. A similar amendment, with a deadline of 1st January 1996, was tabled in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. It is our intention that we should have the hedgerows regulations in place by July 1996, but we must ensure that they are the subject of proper consultation outside Parliament. Following the outcome of consultation, we must also secure the approval of both Houses of Parliament to the regulations under the affirmative resolution procedure. Those arrangements are given formal status in the amendments I intend to move later. While I foresee no difficulties in bringing forward regulations within the timescale provided by this amendment, I am afraid that I cannot agree with my noble friends Lord Marlesford and Lord Renton that it is desirable to bind Ministers to what is, in effect, a statutory deadline.
Three amendments in this group tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seek to ensure that the regulations made under this clause include certain provisions. Amendment No. 239B concerns a right of appeal to Ministers for anyone refused consent to uproot a hedgerow. Under Amendment No. 239C the authority responsible for determining a proposal to uproot a hedgerow would have to take into account any planting, restoration and management of other hedgerows carried out on the land. Amendment No. 239D would require such an authority to consider the business implications of its decision.
When I outlined on Second Reading our proposed framework for a protection scheme, I explained that we would expect to incorporate an appeals mechanism in the regulations. I also made clear that such details should be settled in the light of the consultation exercise which I have already mentioned. However, there appears to be a clear consensus that rights of appeal should be an essential part of the arrangements. In the light of this, I shall reflect further on whether some provision on appeals should be included on the face of the Bill at a later stage.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 239C and 239D. The arguments for and against the proposition that an authority should consider matters other than the quality of the hedgerow are more finely balanced. I have listened carefully to the views expressed by the noble

485
Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton. We shall take those into account when formulating detailed provisions; but on those issues I do not consider it appropriate to pre-empt the outcome of consultation. I hesitate to comment upon the content of the speech of the noble Earl because I believe that the details of his points are those which should be taken into account in consultation; including, of course, the economics of farming or land management spoken to by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton.
Amendment No. 240A provides a definition of what is meant in Clause 79 by the "protection" of important hedgerows. The amendment limits the activities which will be subject to those controls to "unlawful uprooting or destruction". Again, I do not consider it appropriate to include such a provision at this stage because we must first consult.
For the reasons I have given, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendments.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his unequivocal reassurance of intention with regard to my amendment. I can think of no noble Lord whose word I would be more happy to accept on such a matter, especially as it is buttressed by the firm commitment of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to introduce the legislation. I am therefore happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 87, line 18, after ("hedgerows") insert ("and existing dry stone walls").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I support also some of the other amendments in the group such as that tabled by my noble friend Lady Hilton relating to the addition of ponds, and in particular the amendment which refers to other types of boundaries. I am a little puzzled by Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, because I am not sure what is the subtle difference between them. No doubt he will enlighten me when the time comes.
My limited amendment is moved in the hope that the minimalist approach might find more favour with the Minister. It differs from my amendment in Committee in that it refers only to "important and existing dry stone walls", rather than the wider approach that I used earlier.
The Countryside Commission describes dry stone walls and ponds as characteristic and valuable features of many parts of the English countryside. I am sure that opinion in Wales supports that view, but of course the Countryside Commission cannot speak for Wales and I have had no representation from Wales other than from those people to whom I have spoken who share our anxieties.
The Countryside Commission gives some alarming statistics. Between 1984 and 1990 England lost 4,000 kilometres of dry stone walls and 10,000 ponds. The figure for remaining walls has to be viewed with
486
concern as the amount of deterioration is so great. I should like to quote directly from the briefing that I have had from the Countryside Commission which states:
"Of the estimated 112,500 km of dry stone walls in England in 1994, only 4,500 km could be categorised as 'in excellent condition', 42,700 km have 'major signs of advancing or potential deterioration'; and 36,700 km are 'derelict or in the early stages of dereliction'."
So there is an urgency about including dry stone walls in the protected legislation. I have had considerable support for the amendment from the Dry Stone Wall Association, the CPRE, the Council for National Parks, and the World Wide Fund for Nature, and others. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, but I speak especially to Amendment No. 236. As various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Renton, have pointed out, this is enabling legislation, and adding the word "ponds" would merely allow a Minister, should he wish, to bring in regulations protecting important ponds.
I am talking about ponds rather than lakes and fens. Although they are small, they are extremely important ecosystems. It is not a question of digging new ponds but of protecting the wide variety of invertebrates and other species which live in fresh water. Some 3,500 British invertebra live in fresh water, half of which can be found in ponds. There are 300 British fresh-water invertebrate species in the British red data book and more than two-thirds of those are found in ponds. All Britain's amphibians, including those which are becoming increasingly rare, such as the great crested newt and the natterjack toad, require ponds as breeding habitats. Both those species are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act.
I agree that the decline in the number of ponds is slow—4 per cent. during the past six years—but there has been a decline in these essential breeding places for amphibians. They are also valuable habitats for many birds, in particular waders.
The majority of ponds have suffered from changes in land use practice—for instance, the introduction of intensive farming—as have hedges. A large majority have also been lost as a result of pollution and run-off from agriculture and drainage. Large numbers of ponds have been recreated but it is important to remember that, although that helps, it does not replace old-established ecosystems in traditional ponds. It takes a long time for ecosystems to build up as do the communities of animals, insects and invertebra which are interdependent and dependent on each other.
In Committee, it was suggested that important ponds are already protected by the SSSI designation. However, by tabling a Written Question to the Minister, I established that no ponds are specifically protected as such. They may be protected under SSSIs but there is no specific record of ponds. Whether they are currently protected is entirely haphazard and it would be

487
extremely useful if this enabling power were written into the Bill, in particular if there is a further catastrophic decline in this form of habitat.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 237, 238 and 242. I am not seeking to complicate the provision to protect important hedgerows. I seek a complementary but distinct provision to enable the Secretary of State to introduce a last resort power to protect other traditional field boundaries. The amendment defines those to include dry stone walls, earth banks, slate fences and ditches. I suggest that that will enable the Government to carry forward an earlier commitment and an important Edwards Report recommendation that there should be a last resort power to protect landscaped features just as there is to protect wildlife.
My amendments are confined to traditional field boundaries because I believe the last resort power to protect these to be a priority and straightforward to implement. Field boundaries other than hedgerows play an important role in creating local distinctiveness. For example, the dry stone walls of the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales and the raised banks of Pembrokeshire are important features within the landscape of those areas.
I appreciate that the management and upkeep of such field boundaries entails financial costs. Goodness knows, having farmed for many years, I know that only too well. It is not always easy to find the necessary wherewithal and one is sometimes tempted to fall back on a cheaper form of filling the gaps. However, as the Minister made clear in Committee, substantial grants are available for the management of such field boundaries. All the national park authorities top up Ministry of Agriculture grants to generous levels for the management of such features. Assistance is available under the countryside stewardship, Tyr Cumen and environmentally sensitive area schemes. I therefore suggest that the positive incentive—that is, the carrot—is in place and my proposal would provide the option of a genuine last resort power to act as a failsafe in the instances where incentives fail.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, in Committee I spoke in favour of the protection afforded to hedgerows being extended to dry stone walls and traditional field boundaries. I strongly support what has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol and Lady Hilton, and the noble Lord, Lord Wise. I believe that the noble Lord's amendment is the most comprehensive in referring to all field boundaries. The dry stone walls of the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales, and the raised banks of Pembrokeshire are important features which should certainly be protected.
My noble friend Lord Chorley has unfortunately had to leave the Chamber but I wish to say a few words on his behalf. Had he been able to be present he would have concentrated on the historical importance of some field boundaries, in particular dry stone walls. He points out that in the Lake District—for example, in
488
Borrowdale and Wasdale—the National Trust's researches show that the history of enclosures and farming systems can be established from the dry stone walls. They can establish a great deal about the farming system as early as the 13th century. In West Penrith in Cornwall many of the field boundaries are pre-Roman—some are walls and some are not—and they too are of considerable historical importance.
Those in National Trust ownership are, of course, in safe hands but others are not in National Trust ownership and it is important that they should be protected. In some cases, but not in all, my noble friend Lord Chorley believes that scheduling may be appropriate. He pointed out that in Committee the Minister drew attention to the availability of grants and that financial incentives are important and a necessary condition of preservation. However, they are not a sufficient condition. The Minister also said in Committee that the removal of dry stone walls was currently on a downward trend. My noble friend Lord Chorley said that that may be so—he has no up-to-date information—but he believes that it might be short-sighted to base policy on what is thought to have happened in the past three or four years.
As a result of the importance of field boundaries to the landscape and their historical value—field boundaries of all kinds are important to the environment and to our heritage—they are as important as ancient hedgerows and should be protected. I hope that the Minister will look with favour on the amendments put forward in this respect.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we must accept that dry stone walls are not necessarily for the conservation of wildlife. They are sometimes of historical interest and they are part of the landscape as we know it. Sometimes they are of aesthetic value. I know of some dry stone walls which no longer serve any useful purpose. They have been allowed to fall into disrepair and sometimes stones are taken from them in order to rebuild or raise the height of stone walls that are needed. And many stone walls are really needed. If farmers and landowners need them, they will be preserved. It is not necessary for us to write anything about stone walls into the Bill.
As regards ponds, I have quite a lot of experience both in East Anglia and south west Scotland. I do not wish to repeat all that I said at some length in Committee but perhaps I may mention it again to this extent. In days gone by, when there was no piped water supply—most farmers now have a piped water supply—any kind of pond was of value for cattle on the farm. Even though the ponds often dried up in the summer, they became useful again when the rains started in the autumn. In modem farming, farmers have been anxious to level the fields. That has enabled cultivation to be carried out more cheaply. It has meant getting away with dew ponds and smaller ponds.
The larger ponds remain and always will. They have harboured the wildlife which it is our duty to try to preserve, as referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hilton and Lady Nicol. It would be extremely difficult to define in the Bill or in regulations made under it the kinds of ponds which should and will be preserved and

489
the kind of ponds which it is not practical for us to keep. Therefore, I do not favour Amendment No. 236 but I support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Wise about Amendments Nos. 237 and 238.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, as a farmer—I say "as a farmer", and not a landowner—perhaps I may make a few comments. My noble friend Lord Renton has made a very good point as regards stone walls. After all, agriculture and farming have evolved over the years. Systems change. They have changed rapidly under the CAP and no doubt they will continue to change. The work of farming must be taken into account when framing the rules.
I hope that these amendments will not be accepted. They impose unnecessary constraints on farming business—and farming is a business. My noble friend Lord Monk Bretton confessed to a certain amount of hedgerow uprooting. I believe that most—and I say most but not all—farmers now would accept constraints on hedgerow removal with the safeguards put forward in the amended Clause 79. However, to carry that through to stone walls, ponds and other forms of field boundaries is going too far. Those amendments would be more suited to a clause dealing with national parks and not Clause 79 which is principally to do with hedgerows. I hope that the amendments will be rejected.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. I am a landowner but principally a farmer. I am extremely worried about the preservation of ponds. They are far more fragile than hedges and can disappear far more quickly. I take issue with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said about dew ponds disappearing and how it is so much easier to plough through the middle of them. Of course it is, and that is why they are disappearing. That is why, as the noble Baroness pointed out, small ecosystems are disappearing all over the country. If one flies over East Anglia, one can see that almost all the fields have dew ponds. They are disappearing, I believe that they need more protection than hedgerows.
There is considerable confusion about the number of ponds and the number that are disappearing. I own 16 sheets of water, in one way or another. In the past two dry summers, we were down to six. Ten dried out completely. That is no good for the greater crested newts and other species which are trying to survive around us. I believe that the protection of ponds is as important, if not more important, because of their fragility, as the protection of hedgerows and field boundaries which are, after all, a little more robust.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, at the risk of overdoing things from these Benches, I wish to add a word of caution and to support what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others have said. There is no doubt that certain field features and ponds are important. The difficulty is identifying which are important and which are capable of being maintained in the context of the farming or land ownership enterprise.
I rather liked the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton. I know that my father sold one of the farms from the estate. Going from memory, I believe
490
it was 350 acres. There were over 200 fields, more than 300 gateways and several miles of hedge and bank. It was a farm which had a good deal more in common with rural serfdom from the time of the enclosures than anything to do with modern competitive agriculture. I flag that as regards Exmoor at any rate the situation must be looked at with great care. Although I understand the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, I am concerned that the fragile economic environment of national parks—I speak with Exmoor in particular in mind—should not be threatened by an overweight scatter-gun effect of more designations.
On my holdings I already have to deal with sites of special scientific interest, the principles of environmental sensitive areas—I apologise to noble Lords who have heard this list before but it bears repeating—and Section 3 of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act. That is in addition to listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments. They all create paperwork. It may be that in due course TPOs will be added and I have no doubt that hedge protection orders will be served upon me. I should be extremely anxious if walls and ponds were to be added to all that without extremely careful consideration.
The question of funding has been mentioned. I am rather concerned that we may be losing sight of the difficulty of targeting a single feature on a holding. For example, I believe that I am right in saying that environmentally sensitive area schemes are whole farm schemes. It is all or nothing. I am not sure to what extent a single feature could be targeted accurately by other environmental schemes. I suspect that most of them require a good deal more commitment than that. Therefore, that will not be suitable for somebody who has an extensive arable operation but who has an important feature which an authority wishes to protect and which needs the incorporation of a larger area long since managed in a manner not according with any of the standard schemes. I am fearful that those one-off situations will drop through the net of financial assistance.
In many respects, I have sympathy with the intention behind the amendments. Such features are important in our landscape. But it is important to make sure that they do not have a wholly negative impact on the holdings where they are situated.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we debated at length in Committee the merits or otherwise of extending the scope of the clause as proposed. I made clear at the time that Clause 79 is intended to honour the Government's long-standing commitment to bring forward legislation to deal with hedgerows.
We are taking action to protect important hedgerows. Those hedgerows will be highly valued by historic landscape or wildlife interests. For example, hedgerows may mark ancient parish or community boundaries. They can make a unique contribution to the landscape. Of course, dry stone walls can have a striking effect on the landscape, especially in the upland areas, but hedgerows can also support an extremely rich range of wildlife. I tend to agree with my noble friend Lord

491
Renton in that respect. The 1990 Countryside Survey recorded over 300 plant and shrub species in the hedgerows surveyed, many of which are absent or rare in the surrounding landscape. Hedgerows make an important contribution, therefore, to plant diversity. But hedgerows can also be important for animals, birds and insects, some of which are directly dependent upon the plants found in hedgerows. I could continue. But I think that the point is made: it is their collective landscape, wildlife and historic contributions to the countryside that made hedgerows such a key feature, distinguishing them from the other features with which the amendments are concerned.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, was mostly concerned about ponds. Between 1984 and 1990, England lost 8 per cent. of the total length of walls and about 6 per cent. of ponds. The comparable figures for hedgerow loss are 22 per cent. of total hedgerow length. Therefore, the scale of the problem in relation to hedgerows is that much more severe. Moreover, management grants are available to help land managers restore neglected countryside features. Countryside Stewardship in England and the equivalent scheme in Wales, for example, offer assistance for the restoration of boundary features such as stone walls, earth banks and stone-faced hedge banks as well as hedgerows.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, mentioned the stone-faced banks in West Penrith in Cornwall. I believe that generous grants are now available up to the rate of 80 per cent. for restoration of the Cornish banks and walls within the West Penrith environmentally sensitive area. Those are just some of a range of initiatives which encourage the creation of new countryside features and the management of existing ones. Environmentally sensitive areas and the farm and conservation grant scheme are others.
In addition, the action that we are taking on hedgerows is underpinned by current scientific evidence. Government research, carried out in 1993 and published last year, indicates that significant numbers of hedges in England and Wales continue to be removed each year. The most recent figures we have on losses of walls and banks come from the 1990 Countryside Survey, which is now somewhat out of date. They were, in any event, and as I said, lower than the comparable figures for hedgerows. As for ponds, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside announced in December that further research was necessary to consider recent trends. The Government do not, therefore, consider it justified to go beyond their stated commitment to legislate on hedgerows by imposing the burden of new regulations to protect drystone walls, other traditional field boundaries and ponds. We must take into account the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke in that respect.
I understand that we are discussing sensitive matters. I hope that I have indicated that we are trying to develop a good scheme for hedgerows. However, it is not justified to broaden it in the way suggested by the
492
amendment. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
9 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I understand why the Government have brought forward the clause on hedgerows, but I also hope that the Minister will understand that there is little likelihood of them being another opportunity to discuss drystone walls. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I believe that stone walls do provide some wild life facilities, although, I admit, not to the same extent as hedgerows. However, in certain parts of the country they are very valuable habitats for certain small mammals, for lichens and also in other respects, quite apart from their sheltering facility for livestock. Of course, they are, beyond doubt, a wonderful archaeological and landscape feature of the countryside. However, I can recognise defeat when I see it: I am a realist. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 236 to 238 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 87, line 22, at end insert:
("() Before making any regulations under this section the appropriate Ministers shall consult—

(a) such bodies appearing to them to be representative of persons whose business interests are likely to be affected by the proposed regulations,

(b) such bodies appearing to them to be representative of the interests of owners or occupiers of land,

(c) such bodies appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local authorities,

(d) such bodies whose statutory functions include the provision to Ministers of the Crown of advice concerning matters relating to environmental conservation, and

(e) such bodies not falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) above,

as the appropriate Ministers may consider appropriate.
() No statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 240, 241 and 243. The amendments give statutory force to our intentions for a wide-ranging public consultation on the detailed arrangements for hedgerow protection and make the regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. They are brought forward in response to amendments tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lord Wade, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.
Amendment No. 239A, which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Marlesford, seeks to include a specific requirement to consult non-statutory bodies representative of environmental interests. Although not expressly mentioned in my amendments, I can assure my noble friend that organisations representative of environmental interests, such as the Councils for the Protection of Rural England and Rural Wales and the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, as well as organisations representative of more specific interests

493
such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and others, will be included in the consultation. On that basis, I hope that, when my noble friend speaks to his amendment, he will indicate that he does not intend to press it. I beg to move.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 239, Amendment No. 239A:
Line 13, at end insert:
("(da) such non-statutory bodies appearing to them to be representative of environmental interests;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that I was not very convinced by my noble friend's response because, quite frankly, while I welcome Amendment No. 239—and totally support what lies behind it—it strikes me as being a little odd to have in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that amendment two specific sub-groups which both represent non-public interests—for example, those,
"whose business interests are likely to be affected by the proposed regulations"—
as well as farmers and landowners. Of course, it is absolutely right that they should be included. But I imagine that it was a moment when Homer was nodding and that it was just a slip of the pen that resulted in non-statutory bodies representing environmental interests not being included. Indeed, it is so obvious that they should be that I hope my noble friend will assure me that, on reflection, he will not have difficulty in meeting the concern of such bodies as he has mentioned to have the right to be consulted under the statute just as, correctly, the farmers and landowners have that right. I beg to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 239, Amendment No. 239A.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I wish to say how much I appreciate the amendments tabled by the noble Viscount. They are very much a direct response to the concerns of a number of noble Lords. I thank him in particular for the item about the affirmative resolution procedure, which is something that I asked for in Committee. I am very grateful that he has included that provision.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in connection with Amendment No. 239A, I would offer the following advice to the Minister, "Try keeping them out!" That is all I can say at this juncture.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in strong support of what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has said. I entirely agree with the inclusion of the bodies listed in Amendment No. 239. However, I believe that the importance of the non-governmental organisations concerned with environmental matters can hardly be exaggerated these days. They do an immense amount of work. I believe they should be consulted as of right and not just at the whim of the Government. What the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said about that is entirely right.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am sorry that my words did not find favour with my noble friend, but I can reassure him that those non-statutory environmental organisations will be consulted. I believe that paragraph (e) in my Amendment No. 239 gives those bodies—as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said—every right to come
494
banging on our door. Certainly we would want to hear their views. I do not believe that it is necessarily right to specify them because I believe we have covered them on the face of the Bill in paragraph (e) without having to go into any more detail.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, my noble friend has made a good argument as to why the bodies we are discussing should be in the clause, but he has not given any reason why they should not be included. Obviously I would not expect at this stage of the evening to test the opinion of the House, but I believe that the bodies I have referred to should be included in the Bill. I hope that, either at Third Reading or perhaps in another place, the logic of his position will be followed through in this harmless amendment. If a body asks to be included in the Bill and there is no reason why it should not be included, that seems to me a good reason to include it. I beg leave to withdraw, as an amendment to Amendment No. 239, Amendment No. 239A.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 239 agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 239B:
Page 87, line 22, at end insert:
("() Any regulations which may be made under this section shall provide for a right of appeal to the appropriate Ministers by any person refused consent to uproot or destroy a hedgerow.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have already discussed this matter. I shall read with care what the Minister has said. For the time being I shall not move this amendment or the following two amendments.
[Amendment No. 239B not moved.]
[Amendments No. 239C and 239D not moved.]
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 239E:
Page 87, line 22, at end insert:
("() The future management of any important hedgerows shall be secured through the provision of a management agreement.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have disaggregated this amendment from the others because I felt it dealt with a quantifiably different matter. It is intended to probe the Government's intentions as to the manner in which important hedgerows are to be protected in practice. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has done in connection with Amendment No. 239 and the others grouped with it. However, Amendment No. 239E is intended to deal with one outstanding issue, and to ask whether those important hedgerows which attract a protection order will also attract the advice and assistance, including financial assistance, which will enable positive and good management to take place.
The noble Viscount has said that stewardship, environmentally sensitive areas and other such provisions will cover important hedgerows. I posed a question earlier as to whether those schemes could be accurately targeted on hedgerows alone. I am not sure that they can be. In Committee, and indeed today, we have heard a great deal about hedgerow loss. Poor management and the neglect of hedgerows are a major cause of a shift from full hedgerow status to relict hedgerow or other categories. I am informed that a mature, well-managed hedgerow is the best and most

495
diverse habitat of all which declines—towards youth or towards age—where it is converted to woodland or rows of single trees. My whole purpose is to motivate people to take appropriate management action. I feel that the only way in which Clause 79 can operate in practice is by achieving this. Protection orders generate paperwork, but not a single hedgerow has ever been planted as a result of regulation alone. It requires people who are prepared to commit their time and resources. That goes well beyond orders issued by local authorities. I feel that management orders should cover both the methodology and financial assistance.
My amendment has industry-wide support from farmers and landowners. If accepted, it would be a signal to them that, far from conveying only disbenefits, hedgerow protection orders will have tangible positive benefits through some of the burdens being shouldered by the public agencies. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I should like to put on record my support for the proposal that advice and financial assistance should be available to farmers or landowners who wish to protect important hedges. The noble Earl is quite right that one cannot place this obligation on them without some form of back-up. I hesitate to say that it should be a management agreement because I do not know enough about the various types of finance and advice that might be available. However, I believe that the principle is right.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, again. It is no good trying to protect hedges if they cannot be maintained. That is the crux of the problem now. Those people who have done their best for the countryside in relation to hedgerows will not be able to continue without help. For those reasons I support the amendment.
The countryside stewardship scheme has been mentioned. However, it is not available everywhere. I seem to remember inquiring about it and finding that it was not available to me.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, may be under a misapprehension because, not only in this amendment but in relation to previous amendments, he has spoken as if the scheme would take the form of a hedgerow protection order placed on hedgerows. The scheme that we shall bring forward is not on the face of the Bill. It will evolve through the process of consultation. Therefore, the noble Earl is anticipating the result and trying to construct a scheme that would fit in with what he expects.
The Government provide for the management of important hedgerows using a two-pronged approach. On the one hand, we promote the planting and management of hedgerows through a range of incentives, including countryside stewardship, which now incorporates the hedgerow incentive scheme launched by the present Government in 1992, and environmentally sensitive areas. On the other hand, we are committed to
496
introducing controls over the removal of the most important hedgerows for which no amount of replanting can substitute.
There is no direct link between the two elements, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford indicated in a debate on a previous amendment. Nor do we believe that there should be such a link. We have no plans to place requirements on land managers to maintain hedgerows which may be protected under the regulations, but in so far as they satisfy the eligibility requirements of available grant schemes land managers will be entitled to seek assistance for management works. Refusal of a proposal to remove a hedgerow will not automatically trigger entitlement to such help.
I understand entirely the motive behind the noble Earl's amendment. However, perhaps he should wait to see what happens in relation to the scheme and what emerges at the end of the consultation process. On that basis, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, obviously I do not intend to press the amendment. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, for their support.
I am sorry if the Minister thought that I was on a speculative fishing expedition as to what might come out of the consultation process. That was not my intention. However, I believe that to some extent we need to know what will emerge from that process before we can make a reasoned comment.
All I can do at this juncture is to keep my powder dry, thank the noble Viscount for his comments and indicate that I shall consider the matter further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 87, line 27, at end insert:
(""environmental conservation" means conservation—

(a) of the natural beauty or amenity, or flora or fauna, of England or Wales; or

(b) of features of archaeological or historic interest in England or Wales;

"local authority"means

(a) the council of a county, county borough, district, London borough, parish or community;

(b) the Common Council of the City of London;

(c) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 240A not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 241:
Page 87, line 29, at end insert:
(""statutory functions" means functions conferred or imposed by or under any enactment.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 242 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 243:
Page 87, line 30, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 243 with Amendment No. 239. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 243A:
Before Clause 80, insert the following new clause:
("Integration of environmental protection requirements into
agriculture policy
.—(1) The appropriate Minister shall integrate requirements for environmental protection into agriculture policy mechanisms.
(2) Requirements for environmental protection can be anything which in the opinion of the Minister is conducive to—

(a) the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty or amenity of the countryside (including its flora and fauna and geological and physiological features) or of any features of archaeological interest there; or

(b) the promotion of the enjoyment of the countryside by the public; or

(c) the protection of buildings or other objects of archaeological, architectural, cultural or historic interest; or

(d) the fulfilment of any other environmental objective the Minister believes to be appropriate.

(3) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and a statutory instrument containing any such regulations shall be subject to annulment pursuant to a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to any other powers of the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
(5) In this section "the appropriate Minister" means—

(a) as respects England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food;

(b) as respects Wales, the Secretary of State;

(c) as respects Scotland, the Secretary of State.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to put a duty on the Government to integrate environmental protection requirements into all agriculture policy measures. I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the useful and helpful meeting which the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, and I had with him. It helped us to understand a great deal more about the Government's intentions.
The amendment is in line with the Government's stated policy to put environmental thinking into every department. We all know that farming can cause significant environmental damage. The Government's own countryside survey in 1990 showed that. Current agriculture policy does not address that worry.
Most public financial support to farmers is allocated in the form of direct support or compensation payments. I understand that £125 million was paid to farmers last year through the set-aside scheme out of a total of £759 million for the arable area payment scheme. Direct payments to livestock and arable farmers combined last year were estimated by the CPRE to be over £1 billion. So it does not seem unreasonable to expect agreement on certain environmental standards.
I welcome the Government's commitment in their Sustainable Development Strategy to integrate environmental consideration into the CAP, but only about 1 per cent. of CAP expenditure is allocated to green farming schemes. The majority of farmers ate not able to benefit from green farming payments. What is needed is for all agricultural policy mechanisms to be designed with environmental considerations in mind.
Many farmers manage their land in that way and we are all appreciative of that; but many do not. The amendment would give the Government the means of designing a more sustainable approach to farming generally. I beg to move.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, the amendment is very much in line with what your Lordships' Sub-Committee D recommended after its consideration of the common agricultural policy. Money should not just be dished out to the farmer for doing nothing; it should be dished out for helpful activities towards protecting or improving the environment.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to require the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales to integrate environmental protection requirements into agriculture policy mechanisms. I have a great deal of sympathy with the idea behind the amendment. The need for a better integration of environmental considerations into agriculture policy is something that the Government have accepted and have been promoting for some years. There are a number of ways in which we are working to achieve that.
We are, for example, greatly expanding the range of voluntary incentive schemes to promote environmentally sensitive farming. Many of the new schemes are now getting under way and by next year we shall be spending over £100 million on them in the UK. We also provide advice to farmers on how to make the most of conservation opportunities on their land both as an integral part of our incentive schemes and separately through free advisory visits from ADAS and Farming and Wildlife Advisory Groups.
We have also made progress in integrating environmental aspects into other payments under the common agricultural policy. For example, permanent grassland, moorland and heathland are excluded from eligibility for arable area payments, reducing the incentive to plough up those valuable habitats. We have developed management rules for set-aside land designed to help maximise its environmental potential; and we have attached conditions to the main livestock support schemes to discourage over-grazing.
However, much as I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, I do have problems with it in practice. The general duty on Ministers in relation to existing powers proposed in subsection (1) is broadly similar to the statutory duty that is already in place under Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 which requires the relevant Ministers to endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between conservation, public enjoyment of the countryside and other interests in exercising any functions connected with agriculture.
The power to make regulations in subsection (3) would introduce a new element. However, this would not be an effective means of achieving the integration of environmental considerations that we want to see. The overwhelming majority of the relevant policy

499
mechanisms form part of the common agricultural policy and are therefore not susceptible to unilateral amendment by statutory instrument.
It is in the Council of Ministers when the relevant Community laws are made that we have to argue the case for integration of environmental concerns. There is already a general duty on the Community institutions under Article 130r of the treaty to integrate environmental protection requirements into the definition and implementation of other Community policies such as the CAP. We need to ensure that this is put into practice. That is not always an easy task, but we are continuing to press the case.
The Government remain committed to working for further improvements in the CAP and, in particular, for further reductions in support levels; a higher proportion of EC expenditure on direct payments to farmers to be applied to encouraging more environmentally sensitive farming; the application wherever appropriate of environmental conditions to support payments; and for the EC to give more attention to environmental considerations in deciding how to implement the various support mechanisms.
Although further progress is needed, we have had some notable successes in recent years, most recently in persuading the European Commission to propose that arable land taken out of production under forestry and environmental schemes should be allowed to count towards farmers' set-aside requirements.
Therefore the noble Baroness and the Government are moving forward very much in the same spirit. I have given a fairly full reply in order to demonstrate the scope of the Government's commitment to the principles underlying this amendment and the goals towards which we are working. I hope that that has been of sufficient reassurance to enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am greatly encouraged by the Minister's reply. I appreciate the constraints that are on a lot of government action. But if one is convinced that the spirit is fair within our own agricultural policies, then I think one can feel more hopeful about the future. I thank the Minister for his full reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81 [Consultation before making or modifying certain subordinate legislation for England]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 88, leave out from beginning of line 32 to ("or") in line 33.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment arises from a matter that I mentioned very briefly at the last stage. Subsection (1) (b) of Clause 81 provides for a consultation when the Minister is about to do certain things, including what is set out in paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) refers to his,
"modifying any such legislation in a way which changes the purpose of the legislation".
It occurred to me rather late at Committee stage what a curious notion this was. It is perhaps not as extensive as at first sight it appeared, but I felt that it was necessary
500
to understand what the Government have in mind. Opportunity for the Minister to change the purpose of legislation is slipped in, and I am sure that the Government do not intend it to be as extensive as the wording might suggest. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the noble Baroness indicated, as currently drafted Clause 81 includes a requirement for the Minister of Agriculture to consult the specified persons and bodies when modifying any environmental land management legislation in a way which changes its purpose.
It might be helpful to the noble Baroness if I illustrate the kind of situations in which that might apply. For example, it might happen where we proposed to add a new option to an existing conservation scheme. That could change the purpose of the scheme in the sense of adding a new purpose to the existing ones. An example occurred last year when we added a new public access tier to all English environmentally sensitive areas, thereby widening the objectives of the scheme.
Many of the schemes covered by this clause have been launched only in the past year. Therefore, we have no plans to alter their purposes at the moment. However, they will all have to be evaluated in due course and we may wish to add new objectives in the light of that evaluation.
We believe it right that the advice of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the three countryside agencies should be sought on a statutory basis under such circumstances. Clause 81(1) (b) provides for that.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured by the explanation of the kinds of circumstances in which we might seek to change the purposes of the relevant legislation. I am sure she is aware that the practical effect of the amendment as it stands would be to restrict significantly the scope of the consultation arrangements, which clearly is not her wish. I hope that what I have said will be sufficiently reassuring to enable her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, clearly, I shall do so. I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 245 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 88, line 41, at end insert ("for England").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this a technical amendment to correct an error in Clause 81. The amendment will add "for England" to the reference to,
"the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
It will give the body, which is more popularly known as English Heritage, its correct title. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Walpole Lord Walpole moved Amendment No. 246A:
Page 88, line 41, at end insert:
(" (e) the Forestry Commission;
(f) such bodies or persons appearing to the Minister to be representative of the interests of local authorities;
(g) such non-statutory bodies or persons appearing to the Minister to be representative of environmental interests;
(h) such bodies or persons appearing to the Minister to be representative of the interests of owners or occupiers of land.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I should like to thank the Minister for seeing us the other day and for being incredibly helpful.
This amendment is similar in content to the one put forward at Committee stage. It puts a duty on the Minister to develop schemes with expert advice not only from his statutory agencies but also from the relevant non-statutory organisations, such as environmental and farming groups. Those organisations have a wealth of knowledge. They know about schemes that have worked in the past and how schemes could work in the future. In fact, the Minister consults those bodies at the present time on an ad hoc basis. This amendment puts into statute what the Minister in fact does anyway.
The amendment also includes local authorities in the formal consultation process. An increasing number of county and district councils now run countryside management schemes. I believe that it makes them bodies which should be consulted in this particular case.
With regard to the Forestry Commission, I accept that it is not particularly relevant in this case as it comes under either the Scottish Office or the Ministry of Agriculture and therefore would be consulted. But I can assure the Minister that should the Forestry Commission be privatised, quango-ised or restructurised at any time in the near future, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and I, who will be watching the legislation like hawks, will make sure that the Forestry Commission is one of the bodies that is consulted under Clause 81 of the Bill.
We had been promised a ministerial Statement on consultation. Perhaps that will appear now. If the DoE is prepared to be so consultative under Amendment No. 239, which we have just agreed to, will the Ministry of Agriculture also become equally consultative? I wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. I believe that consultation, however time consuming it may be, is the basis for good legislation and for legislation which it is to be hoped will receive a much smoother passage as a result of it. I wish to ask one question. I am sorry to spring it on the Minister but I do so as a result of information I received only today from the Countryside Council for Wales. The council is very concerned that in the consultation parts of the Bill it seems to have been left out. The council quotes at length from the Minister's reply at the Committee stage explaining the purposes of Clause 81 and the consultation process. The council states:
"The Countryside Council for Wales believes that all of these arguments are equally valid for Wales (and Scotland). Experience of recent agri-environment legislation, particularly the Habitat Scheme, has clearly shown the importance of expert conservation advice which is specific to Wales".
502
I wonder whether the Countryside Council for Wales has been left out for a particular reason or whether it was an omission. Perhaps the noble Earl can find an answer to that question.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, is there a need for the agency to be specified as a statutory consultee under Clause 81? The reason I ask that question is that I believe that the agency might well need to have an input into some of the statutory instruments outlined in subsection (4); namely, the Habitat (Water Fringe) Regulations and also the Nitrate Sensitive Areas Regulations.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I support very strongly what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said about Wales. The same applies to Scotland. This point was mentioned at an earlier stage by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. He could not understand why Wales had been left out. I do not think any of us can understand why it has been left out. If the Minister in England has a responsibility to consult, there should surely be an equal responsibility for the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland. I hope that the Minister will take steps to correct that.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said about consultation making for good legislation. As it has been put to me, it is important that the Government should make use of the advice of those who are at the sharp end of countryside management.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, the purpose of the amendment is, first, to extend the list of statutory organisations which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is required to consult to include the Forestry Commission and representatives of local authority interests; and, secondly, to add to that list non-statutory representatives of environmental interests and the interests of land managers.
The consultation arrangements set out in Clause 81 are designed to build on and extend the approach which already operates well in setting up new environmentally sensitive areas. In that case the advice of the Department of the Environment and the countryside agencies must be sought on any plans to designate a new ESA. However, that is not to say that the views of a wide range of other bodies are not sought on proposals for new ESAs. They are. But that is a different order of consultation from seeking the advice of bodies specifically set up by statute to advise the Government on their environmental policies. It is because of that statutory role that it is appropriate to put their advice to us on the development of our environmental schemes on a statutory footing.
The Forestry Commission and local authorities certainly have environmental responsibilities, but those are not their only role, or even their principal role. Not all the schemes covered by Clause 81 are relevant to forestry, and it would not be appropriate to include a statutory requirement to consult the Forestry Commission on all the schemes. There is also a wealth

503
of knowledge and experience about the management of land and the countryside among land managers and the voluntary conservation bodies.
I should like to pay tribute to the quality of the advice which the Ministry receives from bodies representing those interests. We consult all of those interests because we value their views and their help. However, we remain of the opinion that public consultation with the large number of bodies with an interest in the environmental schemes which are the subject of this clause is best left on an ad hoc basis so that the level of consultation can be matched to the nature of the proposal in each case rather than being written into the primary legislation.
The Government's view is therefore not in any way opposed to the principle of wide consultation which lies behind this amendment, but only to what seems to us a rather heavy-handed mechanism for triggering it. Indeed, I am anxious to reassure the noble Lord, the noble Baroness, and others with an interest, that we will continue to consult both land managers and voluntary conservation bodies as well as the many other business, professional and local authority bodies whose views we seek. We shall continue to listen carefully to what they say to us and take full account of their views.
In addition to that, I give the noble Lord and the noble Baroness the further assurance that it is our intention that less formal channels of communication will remain open at working level and that the Ministry will continue to work with farming and conservation interests, including local authorities where appropriate, as well as with statutory bodies as we developed our environmental schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, asked when the Government will be making their promised statement on consultation arrangements for environmental land management schemes. During the debate on 14th February, in reply to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, I said that the Ministry of Agriculture, the Department of the Environment and the countryside agencies were considering how existing informal contacts and consultations on non-legislative aspects of our conservation schemes might be developed further. I promised a further statement on that from the Government during the passage of the Bill. The discussions I referred to then are continuing so I cannot make that further statement today. It may be that it will not be made until the Bill reaches another place. However, I can confirm that the Government will make a statement on this matter as soon as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked about the situation as it pertains to Wales. I am aware that a group of amendments which has been tabled, and Amendment No. 246B specifically, covers Wales. I am not sure whether the intention is to move them. I understand from sign language from the Benches opposite that that is the case. If the noble Baroness will allow, I shall defer comment until we reach that group of amendments. In
504
the light of the reassurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what in fact was a very helpful reply. We shall certainly note it. I am sure that many of the local authorities, advisory people, land managers, local societies, wildlife groups and the rest will read in Hansard what he said. I am sure that they will be delighted with the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 246B::
After Clause 81, insert the following new clause:
("Consultation before making or modifying certain subordinate legislation of Wales
.—(I) The Secretary of State for Wales shall consult the bodies and persons specified in subsection (2) below before—

(a) making any legislation to which this section applies (other than a modification of any such legislation);

(b) modifying any such legislation in a way which changes the purpose of the legislation in question; or

(c) modifying any such legislation in a way which modifies, in a respect which he considers material, any conditions subject to which grants or other payments are payable under that legislation.

(2) The bodies and persons mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

(a) the Countryside Council for Wales;

(b) CADW.

(3) The legislation to which this section applies is—

(a) any order under section 18 of the Agriculture Act 1986 (orders establishing environmentally sensitive areas);

(b) any regulations under section 80 above;

(c) any statutory instrument which concerns the management of land and whose primary purpose is the promotion of—

(i) the conservation or enhancement of the natural beauty or amenity of the countryside (including its flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features) or of any features of archaeological interest there; or

(ii) the enjoyment of the countryside by the public.

(4) This section applies in relation to any legislation only so far as relating to land in Wales.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not intend to go over the arguments again about the importance of consultation which we have been discussing in relation to the previous amendment. This amendment was put forward at Committee stage. As regards what was said at that time, the Minister pointed out that CADW was an executive agency and not a separate statutory body. Therefore, it is perhaps not appropriate that CADW should be part of the consultation mechanism. But that does not apply to the Countryside Council for Wales which is, like English Nature and the Countryside Commission, a separate statutory body. Therefore, it is appropriate that it is consulted.
In view of the recent criticism of the Secretary of State for Wales as regards his response to environmental matters, I should have thought that at least it would be a tactful point to include this provision on the face of the Bill in order to make it clear that in future the

505
Countryside Council for Wales at least will be consulted before there are changes to legislation under this particular part of the Bill. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, for moving this amendment which, as she said, seeks to impose upon my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales a requirement to consult the Countryside Council and Cadw before making or modifying certain subordinate legislation. It intends to mirror the consultation requirements imposed on my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the existing Clause 81.
The subordinate legislation to which the consultation requirements would apply would be orders establishing environmentally sensitive areas; regulations under Clause 80 of the Bill allowing grants to be made for purposes conducive to conservation; and statutory instruments concerning the management of land with the primary purpose of conservation of the countryside or enjoyment of the countryside.
The Government do not consider that consultation arrangements similar to those in Clause 81 need to be extended to Wales, because institutional arrangements are different from those in England. The Countryside Council for Wales is already defined as the statutory adviser to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. It is funded by the Welsh Office and, as a consequence, the two organisations work closely together. If the Secretary of State were to fail to consult the Countryside Council for Wales, it would draw that to the department's attention. Whatever the informal arrangements that might be made, CCW will still have the formal right to offer advice to the Secretary of State. There is accordingly no need for a specific statutory provision requiring such consultation to be undertaken.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, Cadw is an executive agency of the Welsh Office and a requirement for my right honourable friend to consult Cadw would not make sense because it would, in effect, mean his having to consult himself. I hope that that explanation is helpful and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he has not fully covered the point that English Nature and the Countryside Commission are exactly on all fours with the Countryside Council for Wales, in that they also have a statutory duty to advise the Minister. However, it is being laid down that the Minister should consult them before changing the legislation. That is exactly on all fours with what is being suggested here for Wales. I do not understand the Minister's explanation as to why Wales should be treated differently from England.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. My advice is that the institutional arrangements between the two departments are different, in that the Secretary of State for Wales is both an
506
Agriculture Minister and an Environment Minister at the same time. Therefore, the two situations are not exactly parallel.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. We shall have to look carefully at this before Third Reading and consider whether it will be necessary to table another amendment. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 247:
After Clause 81, insert the following new clause:
("Deposit of radioactive waste
. Where the Secretary of State varies his directions under section 23 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 to allow the Chief Inspector to grant an application to authorise a contractor to deposit radioactive waste at a site licensed under section 36 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, in granting the application the Chief Inspector shall have regard to the principles underlying section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as though the radioactive waste were controlled, and to the effect the deposit would have on determinations made by the licensing authority under section 39(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is intended to be essentially a probing amendment to ascertain how the Secretary of State intends to use his powers under the Radioactive Substances Act in relation to the use of licensed landfill sites for radioactive waste. Radioactive waste is not a controlled waste as defined in the Environmental Protection Act and therefore falls outside the ambit of local authority waste regulation powers. The control is exercised by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. That body has, on the whole, a rather poorer record of control than local authority waste regulators, as it has fewer staff, more remote offices and generally does not have such an all-inclusive 24-hour call-out service. Furthermore, it is not locally accountable to directly elected local councillors.
The purpose of the amendment is to ascertain the Government's intentions and in what way the Secretary of State intends to use his powers under the Radioactive Substances Act. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am most grateful for the considerable thought that has gone into Amendment No. 247, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. I am very willing to look at the policy in relation to the burial of low-level radioactive waste. I should emphasise to the House that we are talking about low-level waste of limited toxicity. Nevertheless, the amendment reflects the level of interest in a subject about which there is, as I am well aware, much concern.
Disposal of low level radioactive waste to landfill is regulated by means of authorisations granted under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. These place a legal duty on the person authorised to ensure that disposal takes place in accordance with the limitations and conditions set out in the authorisation.
Any waste producer intending to dispose of radioactive waste to landfill must therefore obtain an authorisation from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of

507
Pollution which stipulates the nature of the waste for disposal, limits on levels of radioactivity, the name of the site and the operator to which it is to be sent, and other conditions placed on its disposal. Those conditions apply, among other things, to the detailed methods of containment and burial that are to be used. Contravention of conditions is a criminal offence. The terms under which authorisations are granted constrain the person responsible for creating the waste, rather than merely the person hired to take it away. That is clearly the right way to ensure that they are effective.
The conditions applied by the authorisations are carefully considered by HMIP in order to ensure that were disposal by each producer to occur at the maximum authorised limits, there would be no adverse impact on man or the environment. However, the physical disposal of the waste is still in the hands of the operator of the landfill site. In response to concerns raised by noble Lords and to make quite sure that there is effective regulation of radioactive waste from creation to disposal I will, therefore, be considering the case for separate authorisation of the landfill operator under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.
This will also help to meet the concerns expressed in the amendment. The Environment Agency will eventually have to consider whether the condition of the site, and any risk of pollution it may or may not pose, warrants surrender of the site licence. It will, by that time, have on its records the authorisation certificates granted to the operator and the records of disposal of radioactive waste.
The background to this matter is that officials are considering all the responses to the preliminary conclusions of the Government's review of radioactive waste policy, some of them addressing this issue. The Government aim to be in a position to announce any change in policy, together with any new legislation which may be needed, as early as possible in another place. It would be premature to make any change in the legislation until that point is reached.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment, but I hope I have managed to reassure her that we are looking at the problem that she has identified and that she will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am grateful for the detailed response given by the Minister and the attention that has been clearly paid to this important matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 [Meaning of "drainage" in certain enactments]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 247A:
Page 89, line 32, leave out (", other than spray irrigation").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have been asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, to move the amendment on his behalf. He is unable to be here this evening and apologises for the fact that he cannot speak to the amendment.
I moved a similar amendment at Committee stage. This is a subject which is not within my direct personal knowledge but I understand that the purpose of the amendment is to add a further aspect of water level management to the activities of internal drainage boards. We do not have those on Exmoor as far as I know.
The amendment seeks to enable the boards to be able to move water around drainage networks in order to facilitate extraction of water for spray irrigation. Such a power would be subject to the other environmental duties of the boards. The conditions attached to any extraction licence would have to be observed.
At Committee stage the Minister recognised that there might be merit in amending the definition of drainage in this way provided any adverse repercussions on water extraction provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991 could be avoided. Since that time I understand that there have been informal discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The purpose of moving the amendment is merely to inquire whether the Minister has been able to give any further consideration to the issue. I beg to move.
Earl Howe:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for introducing the amendment. While the Government cannot accept the amendment, mainly because we believe that it could cause problems for the management of water resources by the Environment Agency, we see the force of the underlying objective behind the amendment and are considering ways of addressing the issue.
I hope that it may be possible to bring forward a suitable Government amendment and that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, will be extremely grateful to the Minister for his reply, knowing that the matter is under discussion and that there is some sympathy with what lies behind the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 [Fixed penalty system for certain fisheries offences]:
Viscount Mills Viscount Mills moved Amendment No. 247B:
Page 94, line t9, at end insert:
("() the monetary amount of the fixed cost which shall be paid;").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I put forward an almost identical set of amendments in Committee. The purpose is to enable the agency to recover costs—not the fines themselves—under the new fixed penalty scheme for fisheries offences. In his response, my noble friend undertook to look more closely at what was proposed before Report stage. I put down the amendment solely to elicit what my noble friend considers can be done. I shall be most grateful to hear his response. I beg to move.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. It is extremely important that the NRA should be able to recover its costs. If it cannot, those costs would obviously fall on the NRA's fisheries

509
account and would be paid by legitimate anglers who already suffer from a substantial reduction in grant-in-aid from the Government. That would have a bad effect on fisheries. I hope that the Government will be able to meet what the noble Viscount said.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I fully recognise the importance which my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, attach to amendments which provide for the cost of administering the fixed penalty system, provided for in Clause 86, to be met by a fixed cost, payable by offenders, in addition to the fixed penalty. Your Lordships may recall that when I agreed to consider the amendments in Committee, I made the point that there could be implications for other fixed penalty schemes, which the Government would need to consider with care. I regret to say that we are not yet in a position to take a decision on the issue. However, I can assure the House that the proposal is being pursued actively and that if it is decided that an amendment should be made, we would aim to introduce it in another place. I recognise that that represents a limited reassurance only, but I hope that in the light of it my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I think that he recognises the importance of the matter, and I hope that an amendment will be brought forward in another place. With that hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 247C to 247F not moved.]
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 248:
After Clause 87, insert the following new clause:
("Pollution of water: defences
.—(1) After subsection (6) of section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991 there shall be inserted—
"(7) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
(8) In any proceedings where a person wishes to rely on the defence provided in subsection (7) of this section, it shall be for him to prove that defence.
(9) A person charged with an offence under this section shall not, without leave of the Court, be entitled to rely on the defence provided in subsection (7) of this section unless at least 28 clear days before the hearing he has served on the Prosecutor a notice in writing setting out the evidence he wishes to rely on to establish that defence."
(2) After subsection (3) of section 4 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 there shall be inserted—
"(4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
(5) In any proceedings where a person wishes to rely on the defence provided in subsection (4) of this section, it shall be for him to prove that defence.
(6) A person charged with an offence under this section shall not, without leave of the Court, be entitled to rely on the defence provided in subsection (4) of this section unless at least 28 clear days before the hearing he has served on the Prosecutor a notice in writing setting out the evidence he wishes to rely on to establish that defence.".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, first, I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to give his apologies to the House. He is not here because he has suffered a bereavement, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding is going to watch some heavily subsidised entertainment of the Royal Ballet.
I return to the point of an innocent man being prosecuted for polluting the water when he has no knowledge or possible ability to stop it. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Ullswater said that that would impose an intolerable burden upon the NRA. So, with the amendment, we have tried to relieve the NRA of that burden. We have said that one can only get off the charge if one proves beyond peradventure that one has made every possible and reasonable effort to ensure that nothing happened or could go wrong, and that one is not at fault; furthermore, such a person would have to give 28 days' advance notice to the NRA that he was going to run that defence. The NRA would have, as in the case of alibis, the duty to ensure that the defence was real or not real, so it could not be sprung upon it. If that were the case, I am sure that almost invariably the defence would be run only in genuine cases. Were the defence rim in non-genuine cases, the defendant would be lumbered with extra costs in addition to the costs already incurred by the pollution offence.
On Tuesday, when talking about seepage from underground mines, my noble friend Lord Ullswater went to considerable effort to point out that:
"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".—[Official Report, 7/3/95; col. 238]
I thought that he was going a little down the way towards what I am trying to suggest tonight.
I do not believe that I am going to get anywhere with the amendment; in fact, I have already been told that I am not. Therefore, I hope that no other noble Lord will speak in favour of the amendment because everyone wants to get home to bed. However, I should like the Government to answer one question: why not? Secondly, I warned the Government that they must hope that no one will take the matter to the European Court. If someone does so, the Government will be seriously embarrassed. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, prior to the Committee stage I was approached by the solicitors Clifford Chance, who asked whether I would support this general provision. I told them that I was afraid that I could not do so because it appeared to me to be designed to make life easier for polluters and I was on the other side of the fence. Even as modified, the proposal will seriously weaken the ability of the NRA to prosecute serious polluters. In many cases, it will make it impossible for the authority to produce sufficient evidence to overcome the due diligence defence and to show also that the defendant caused or knowingly permitted the pollution. The NRA's current powers have helped towards halving the number of serious pollution incidents in controlled

511
waters. That is most important and it ought to continue while the NRA exists and in the new agency, and it should not be weakened on any account.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I had prepared a long speech in relation to this amendment because I believe that the issue is crucially important. However, it is clear that the House is not keen to have a long debate on the issue at this time of night. Therefore, I shall keep my speech extremely short and say merely that at the end of the day the function of the environment agency is to protect and enhance the environment. I believe that the addition of a due diligence defence would greatly reduce its ability to do so.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I warmly support the amendment, despite what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about no one speaking in its defence. I believe that the test in law should be culpable neglect and there is no substitute for that. I am sorry to disappoint noble Lords who believe that there should be strict liability in every case because I do not think that that is satisfactory. I support the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we are all at one on the need to protect the environment from pollution. We all welcome the very considerable improvement in the quality of our inland waters that has been secured in recent years following the establishment of the National Rivers Authority and its use of powers available under the Water Act 1989 and the Water Resources Act 1991. There is no doubt that the NRA has done so to good effect. Our presumption is therefore that the same powers should be available to the agency unless there are very strong arguments to the contrary.
The protection of the environment requires strict and effective controls to be exercised. It is a very long-standing principle that those who perform potentially polluting activities must be obliged to meet the high standards that the public expect. The issue is one of public policy. Legislation and regulation must strike a balance between the powers that are necessary to protect the environment from pollution and reasonable safeguards for those undertaking potentially polluting activities.
The offences with which we are concerned are offences of pollution to water. Very often, once such offences have taken place it is too late to act before serious damage has been done to the environment, and that is one reason why both the courts and Parliament have been ready to see strict liability attach to such offences. Our legislation has therefore been drafted to place responsibility for pollution directly on the polluter. I should, however, make clear that offences under Section 85 are not absolute offences; rather they are ones of strict liability. The prosecution is required to demonstrate that the defendant caused or knowingly permitted polluting matter to enter the water.
It is important to stress that this is not some novel proposition thought up for this Bill or for the Water Resources Act 1991. Section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991 is based on Section 107 of the Water Act 1989. That in turn reflects similar provisions in the
512
Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts of 1961, 1951 and 1876. We would, however, also expect the regulators to adopt a sensible prosecution policy, bringing cases to court only where it is in the public interest to do so. A major element of policy is to try to prevent pollution incidents in the first place. But prosecution, and the threat of prosecution, remains an effective and necessary sanction.
In our judgment, the amendment would significantly increase the time and expense of prosecutions, with implications not only for the regulators—who would have to obtain all the necessary evidence—and for the courts. It would also mean that many prosecutions could not be brought or would fail with potentially severe consequences for the protection of the environment.
If our primary aim is to protect the environment, I fear that the availability of a defence of this kind would potentially hobble the ability of the agency to do so. The agency must be able to carry out its functions effectively. Polluters must be under no illusions that the agency, like the NRA, will, where it is appropriate to do so, bring cases to court. If the responsibility of dischargers and other potential polluters to prevent pollution incidents is diluted, and the risk of appearances in court reduced, it seems to me perfectly arguable that potential polluters would in fact not take all the steps that they might currently feel are necessary or prudent to prevent incidents occurring.
The practical effects of all of that should not be underestimated. They were spelled out in Committee by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, reiterated this evening by my noble friend Lord Mills. I believe that we really should think long and hard before setting real obstacles in the way of practical enforcement of some of the most important provisions in our environmental law. I therefore hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I regret to say that that is one of the most depressing speeches I have heard from the Government Front Bench. To say that pollution control would be hobbled by being able to prove that you had taken every single measure needed to stop that pollution is living in cloud cuckoo land. Your Lordships will consider that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 allows that defence if you are maiming or marring human beings. Therefore, it seems very odd that the defence is not allowed when maiming or marring fish.
Having said that, I am obviously going to get nowhere. If and when my noble friend is hauled up before the European Court of Human Rights, I shall have immense pleasure in jumping up and down, saying, "I told you so." Having said that, I have enormous pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 12 [Minor and consequential amendments relating to fisheries]:
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 248A:
Page 168, line 24, at end insert:
(" . In section 14 of that Act there shall be added after the word "mill", so often as it appears, the words "or fish farm".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was to have moved this amendment in Committee; in my absence, it was kindly moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Mills. It deals with gratings on fish farms to protect wild salmonids. I have tabled the amendment again because I understand that the Government may have plans to meet the substance of the amendment. It would be helpful if they could tell the House what those plans are. I beg to move.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said, I moved the amendment on his behalf in Committee. Therefore, I strongly support it. I hope that my noble friend Lord Howe will give us some encouraging news with respect to the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for re-tabling the amendment, which would have the effect of requiring the water intakes and outfalls of fish farms to be fitted with gratings to prevent salmon and migratory trout from becoming trapped. Noble Lords may recall that, when the amendment was originally moved during Committee stage, I expressed some sympathy with its aims and agreed to consider it. Since then we have looked carefully at the implications of what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, proposed and have been discussing these with interested parties, with a view to the possibility of the Government tabling their own amendment. However, I am sorry to say that we are not yet in a position to do so, though I hope that it will be possible to bring forward an amendment in another place. Unfortunately, that is as far as I can go at present. But I hope, nevertheless, that I have said enough to enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and am encouraged by his response. When the amendment is introduced in another place, I hope that it will solve the problem. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 249 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 250:
After Clause 89, insert the following new clause:
("Environmental information
.—(I) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any person ("the information holder") who—

(a) carries out any process or activity in connection with which he holds or is required to hold an environmental licence; and

(b) has relevant environmental information,

shall make that information available to any person requesting it ("the applicant") as soon as possible and at the latest within 20 days from the date of the request.
(2) It shall be the duty of the information holder—

(a) to secure that the information requested may be inspected by the applicant free of charge at such time and place as may be reasonable, and to provide facilities for taking copies of such information so inspected on payment of reasonable charges; or

(b) to provide copies of the information requested on payment of reasonable charges,

provided that this subsection shall not entitle any person to enter any premises owned or occupied by the information holder without his consent.
(3) The provisions of this section shall apply whether or not the information requested may be held by any other person whomsoever (including the Agency), whether or not the information holder may be required to furnish such information to any person under the terms of any environmental licence, and whether or not the applicant may be entitled or able to have that information made available to him by any other person.
(4) In subsection (1) above "relevant environmental information" means any information relating to—

(a) the release into any environmental medium of any substances from the process or activity in question; and

(b) the state of the environment in the vicinity of the premises from which the process or activity is carried on, including information on background levels of any substances (whether of a kind released therefrom or not).").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the above amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 253. Both amendments deal with the question of environmental information. My starting point is an item in the preamble to the relevant European Community directive—Directive 90/313/EEC—which says that,
"access to information on the environment held by public authorities will improve environmental protection".
I agree with that. My stance is that all information should be freely available unless there is a good reason for that not being the case.
Before I speak to the detail of the two amendments, I should like to thank the Minister for providing today the new Government publication Environment Facts—A Guide to Using Public Registers and Environmental Information. I welcome the collation, although I do not believe that it takes public rights further forward. However, it is certainly an important starting point to know what rights exist.
I was struck by two particular items when I looked briefly through the document earlier today. I refer to the numerous references to the ability to inspect things during normal office hours—that is, 9.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.—on Monday to Friday. I look forward to seeing the extension of those arrangements by public bodies which I hope may begin to meet the needs of members of the public who do not always find it convenient to take days off from work to go and inspect such documents. I also note that most of the charges are referred to as being "small". I believe that the impression is given that they are perhaps lower than may always be the case, as we discussed on a previous occasion.
I turn now to my two amendments. Amendment No. 250 seeks more fully to implement the EC directive than I believe is the case in the environment protection regulations which have been published by the Government. The directive and the regulations require that information should be supplied as soon as possible with a longstop date of two months. In practice, that deadline is often used and becomes the time that is allowed rather than the limit of the time available. A two-month or, indeed, a longer lapse can considerably affect the usefulness of information obtained. Therefore, part of the amendment seeks to ensure that information

515
would be made available at the latest within 20 days from the date of the request; in other words, within a shorter time period.
Secondly, I turn to the matter of charges. Article 5 of the directive states that the charge may not exceed a reasonable cost; in other words, the reasonableness relates to the overall cost. In Regulation 34A this provision has been transposed and the provision refers to the costs reasonably attributable to the supply of information. I think that goes further than was intended by the directive. In other words, some leeway has been used. As we have already discussed, there is a trend for the level of charges which some organisations levy for the supply of information to go up. Clearly, the charges are important because high prices effectively mean that information is not accessible.
As regards those to whom the provisions should apply, there is currently no general direct access right to environmental information from the polluter. To take one example, residents of a housing estate near a waste incineration plant have no right to see information which the operator may have about emissions from the plant or indeed about the general state of the environment around the plant affecting the estate. The provision in this amendment is based on a recommendation from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in its 17th report on the incineration of waste. That makes a recommendation very much along the lines picked up in this amendment.
As regards the appeals tribunal—the subject of Amendment No. 253—the directive states that it must be possible for someone applying for environmental information to appeal against a decision. That must be so in all common sense. Our information regulations of 1992 make no provision for an appeal. The White Paper on open government, Cmnd. 2290 of 1993, discusses a right of access to other information—health and safety information. It states:
"For an access right to be meaningful, a member of the public must have a clear and effective means of challenging the refusal of an organisation to disclose information".
It raised the possibility—because of the similarities between the two matters—of one tribunal to deal both with health and safety and with environmental legislation. A body along the lines of an industrial tribunal is what is proposed in this amendment. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 250 would insert a new clause after Clause 89 placing a duty on any person holding an environmental licence to make available environmental information on request. I am afraid that this provision would place an unnecessary and unfair burden on the many private sector bodies holding such licences.
It would place an unnecessary burden on such bodies because information about the details of licences, consents and authorisations and monitoring data is already available on many statutory registers to which the public have a right of access. My department has this week published a booklet—the noble Baroness
516
confirmed it by quoting from the document —giving details of the registers in England and Wales. Copies are being placed in the Library.
I suggest that the amendment is unfair. It would duplicate existing arrangements and would require many companies to set up special arrangements—a place where documents could be inspected and facilities for photocopying—for dealing with requests. These arrangements would be required despite the fact that much information is available from the regulatory authorities and will be available direct from the new agencies, either as keepers of registers or under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 which implement in Great Britain Directive 90/313 on the freedom of access to information on the environment. There also appears to be no possibility for companies to protect commercially sensitive information, The public have a right to check facts for themselves. Equally, I believe companies need to protect commercially sensitive information.
Amendment No. 253 would insert a new clause after Clause 95 to provide a power by regulations to establish a tribunal to hear appeals from any person dissatisfied with the way his request for environmental information had been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992. I fully agree with the wish of the noble Baroness to make sure that people have adequate rights of redress under the regulations. Indeed, that is specifically required of member states by the directive.
We have implemented that requirement in our regulations by including provision in Regulation 3(6) to the effect that failure of any body subject to the regulations to comply with the requirements of the regulations will be a breach of statutory duty owed to the person making the request. That is quite apart from the possibility of aggrieved persons applying for judicial review and any internal review procedures which bodies may have.
We do not, however, reject the idea of a tribunal broadly along the lines suggested by the amendment. In our July 1993 White Paper Open Government (Cm 2290) we said that there was a case for an independent tribunal to hear disputes not only under the proposed new access right to health and safety information but under the environmental information regulations as well.
Powers to create such a dual purpose tribunal would be included in legislation to create the health and safety access right, when parliamentary time is available. I appreciate that the purpose of the amendment is to create a short cut to introduce half the measure, but this is not an instance in which a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Setting up a new body and then doubling its functions after what might be a very short interval is not likely to be the most effective way of proceeding.
I hope that, with that reassurance, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is a pity that we have reached this amendment so late because there is a lot of meat in the subject.

517
On the question of the provision of information being an unnecessary burden on companies because they have to supply the information for registers elsewhere, these matters are very much a question of balance. It seems to me to be only a small additional burden on companies to retain the information and make it available in response to direct requests.
I welcome what the Minister had to say about the appeals tribunal. Pursuing a claim for a breach of a statutory duty is more complicated and no doubt more expensive than going to a specialised tribunal. The mechanism of judicial review is a major issue. It is beginning to clog up the courts unacceptably and making the pursuit of civil claims on matters unrelated to the Executive very much more difficult because claims concerning the Executive are taking up the time of the courts. However, this is not the time to pursue that argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 14 [Statutory nuisances: Scotland]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 250A:
Page 175, line 2, leave out from ("authority"") to ("in") in line 4 and insert (", before the word "outside" in paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "in England and Wales", the word "and" after paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect, and after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted "and
(d)".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment Nos. 250A and 309A are technical amendments. They will ensure that the existing definition of local authorities outside Greater London in Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will not conflict with the definition of Scottish local authorities to be inserted by the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Supplemental provisions with respect to powers of entry]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 178, line 8, leave out ("relevant power,") and insert ("power conferred by section 90(2) (a) or (b) or (3) of this Act,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 251 is a technical government amendment. It is intended to correct an unintentional effect of the drafting of paragraph 6 of Schedule 15, which could have made enforcing authorities exercising powers of entry for pollution control and related powers subject to compensation claims far wider than any claims which may currently be made against the existing organisations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 93 [Evidence in connection with certain pollution offences]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 251A:
Page 102, line 13, at beginning insert:
("Subject to subsections (1A) to (1C) below,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, takes a particular interest in Amendments Nos. 251A and 251B and the consequential Amendment No. 309B. Unfortunately he cannot be here this evening. Like his sheep, he is hefted to his hill, but I know that he supports the amendment strongly. This series of
518
amendments has industry-wide support. In particular, the Confederation of British Industry and the National Farmers' Union strongly support the amendments.
I moved amendments in Committee which attracted a certain amount of criticism, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. He felt that I was adding to the administrative burdens of the NRA. That was not the intention and in view of the hour I shall cut short the points that I would normally have made more extensively. In these amendments I have attempted to overcome the administrative difficulties that were suggested and to respond to that criticism.
The focus is on effluent. In dealing with it, I have tried to overcome the problems which I acknowledge of dividing samples of material which are difficult, if not impossible, to tripartite. Noble Lords will remember that the principle already exists of dividing samples taken into three parts so that the operator who might be accused of a pollution incident will have one of the samples.
The final words of subsection (IA) of the amendment are critical because they show that the "tripartiting" of the samples relates to prime samples of effluent and not to other samples that are taken upstream or downstream. I hope that that will overcome some of the difficulties.
The issue is whether it is appropriate—as I believe it is—to retain the tripartite sampling requirement, where it is reasonably practical to do so. That is particularly in relation to samples of effluent which will be used in evidence in legal proceedings. Noble Lords will remember that there was a discourse between the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and me at Committee stage. I suggested that he was confusing the monitoring function of sampling and the prosecution function. The prosecution function demanded a reasonable standard of sampling which would satisfy the principles of natural justice and give reasonable safeguards to the accused. I have tried to deal with the problem by reducing it to its essential elements.
The second subsection is to provide for a statutory code of practice to give guidance and promote good practices,
"in relation to the taking, service, preservation, carriage, and analysis of samples".
The courts would obviously have discretion to refuse to admit evidence which had been gathered in contravention of the code. That would be down to the courts on a case-by-case basis.
At an earlier stage we discussed the whole question of whether it would be possible to procure a prosecution if "tripartiting" and the giving of reasonable facilities to the person accused to defend themselves had not been complied with. I believe that those are an important safeguard. I am sorry to cover them with such brevity but the late hour calls for it. I beg to move.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I do not intend to rehearse once again all the arguments that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell put forward at the Committee stage. However, I know that the NRA still supports the measures to remove the statutory requirement for taking tripartite samples as set out in the Bill.

519
I am concerned, however, about subsections (1B) and (1C) of Amendment No. 251B. As drafted, the code of practice would have to be issued as secondary legislation via the Secretary of State. I believe that that would be a cumbersome, lengthy and inflexible process. In addition, it could be a lawyer's paradise. Potentially endless time, effort and money could be spent in trying to prove whether or not the agency had complied with all the details of the code of practice.
Surely voluntary guidelines are needed, certainly developed in consultation with others but which can be modified as necessary in response to changes both in technology and the law. I am convinced that we do not need a statutory code of practice. I therefore cannot support the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Clause 93 repeals the requirement for tripartite sampling in legislation applying both to England and Wales, and to Scotland. Amendments Nos. 251A and 251B seek to disapply these repeals—thereby retaining the tripartite procedure—in cases where the samples in question are of effluent rather than any other matter. There would be an exception where it was not reasonably practical to comply with existing requirements. Amendment No. 309B would delete repeals, in Schedule 20, of provisions which require a sample taken by the NRA to be tripartite sampled in order to be admissible in legal proceedings—thereby retaining the tripartite procedure for all samples taken by the NRA.
One of the reasons for removing tripartite sampling is the unintended practical difficulties which the NRA has experienced in applying the present procedure. I appreciate that Amendments Nos. 251A and 251B address this point by seeking to retain the tripartite procedure only for samples of effluent.
This was not the only reason for our proposal to remove the tripartite requirement. We are seeking, in setting up the agencies, to achieve a degree of consistency in the measures that will be used to control different kinds of pollution and to remove some existing anomalies. Removal of tripartite sampling will put scientific evidence in water pollution cases on the same footing as evidence brought by HMIP and waste regulation authorities in other pollution cases.
I know that there is some concern that the removal of tripartite sampling will mean that a discharger will not be able to question evidence used in legal proceedings. This is not the case. The general law on the admissibility of evidence is extensive. There will—and this is important—be nothing to prevent dischargers from challenging scientific evidence brought against them. We simply wish to remove an additional layer of procedures which applies only in water pollution cases and which is presently a precondition to the admission of any of the NRA's samples.
Amendment No. 251B also proposes that the Secretary of State should issue a code of practice on the taking, handling and analysis of samples. It has always been our view that the water regulatory bodies should
520
have discretion in the way they exercise their powers, and the same should apply for the agencies. It will be for the agencies to develop their own procedures for the collection and handling of samples. If the agency so wished, it could of course take samples on a tripartite basis in cases where it was considered to be appropriate. The overriding consideration is that sample evidence must be of sufficient quality to satisfy the courts.
I hope that with these remarks the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, clearly, this is not an amendment that I propose to press this evening. I must say that I have some reservations. The noble Viscount said that it was open for a person accused of a pollution incident to challenge the evidence given. It is a little difficult to conceive how he could be protected if he does not have the sample or part of the sample. I can only suppose that natural justice and the due process of law—I am afraid that I do not have any direct knowledge in this area—would mean that a court would perhaps look askance if the regulatory authority had not adopted best practice in making information available to the fullest extent to the person accused. I think there is an important point that I shall have to consider further; but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 251B not moved.]
Clause 95 [Power of Secretary of State to delegate his functions of determining, or to refer matters involved in, appeals]:
[Amendment No. 252 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 253 not moved.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 253A:
After Clause 95, insert the following new clause,
("Application for waste management licence: advertisement
.—(1) Subject to subsection (4), below—

(a) an application to an enforcing authority for—

(i) waste management licence under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; or

(ii) an authorisation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993; or

(iii) a variation of an existing waste management licence or authorisation; and

(b) an appeal in connection with such an application,

must be advertised, in each case in such manner as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2) The regulations shall provide that—

(a) the advertisement shall explain that any person may make representations in writing to the enforcing authority or party considering the appeal in response to the advertisement; and

(b) any representations so made shall be considered by the enforcing authority or the party considering the appeal in determining the application or appeal.

(3) The regulations shall provide for—

(a) when the advertisement is to be placed;

(b) for what period or periods;

(c) in what publication or publications circulating in—

(i) the location where the licensed or authorised activity would occur; and

(ii) the location which is likely to be affected by the activity;

(d) what information the advertisement shall contain regarding—

(i) the application;

(ii) the applicant;

(iii) the enforcing authority or the party considering the appeal;

(iv) the availability of further information;

(v) the matters referred to in subsection (2) above; and

(vi) the timetable for dealing with the application or appeal and in particular the period allowed for making representations; and

(e) who is to place the advertisement.

(4) In the case of an application for an authorisation referred to in subsection (1) (a) (ii) above the regulations may provide that an enforcing authority shall be entitled to disregard the requirements of the regulations if it proposes to give the authorisation applied for and considers that the action proposed to be authorised will have no appreciable effect on the environment.
(5) In this section "enforcement authority" means those authorities identified in section 90(a), (b) and (c), and "the environment" has the meaning referred to in section 53.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the same amendment as that discussed in Committee, but I wanted to explore some of the arguments that were put by the Minister at that stage.
The amendment relates to advertising of waste management licences applications and is, again, about keeping the public involved and informed about environmental matters as the Government have promised to do with their commitment under the Rio conventions.
In Committee the Minister said that the planning stage was the most appropriate one for inviting and considering public representations, and that it would be unnecessarily regulatory to require further advertising. He said that it would be unusual to have this two-stage consultation with the public. But there are numerous other examples in this area which require public awareness, both at the planning and the pollution control consent stage. Thus, for example, it happens in relation to waste incinerators where the plant is designed to incinerate waste at less than 50 kg. an hour. In addition to the planning permission stage, the omission of air pollutants from the process also requires authorisation from the local authority and advertisements to the public. Also, for waste incinerators and landfill sites which make discharges to controlled waters, in addition to the planning stage of inviting public comment, it must be advertised at the stage when the discharge consent is being applied for.
Similarly, in relation to the storing of hazardous substances on site, in addition to the planning stage any further application for storage of hazardous substances
522
must also be advertised. For chemical waste incinerators, disposal also requires public consultation both at the planning stage and at the stage when the specific application for the authorisation is made. So this amendment will be on all fours with those controls in that the public should be made aware of what is happening both at the planning stage and when a specific application for a licence is made.
It seems illogical that when pollution control and waste disposal are undertaken by incineration the public is required to be informed by means of advertisement, but when the waste disposal is by means of a landfill—as we discussed earlier, that could include low level radioactive waste—there is apparently no requirement for the public to be made aware of what is about to be undertaken in their neighbourhood.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider that what is suggested in this amendment is on all fours with other aspects of pollution control. The public should be made aware of what may be about to happen in their area and should be consulted. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, suggested that the new waste management licensing regime introduced under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 made no improvement to the waste regulation information available to the public and hence to their opportunity to participate in related environmental decisions. I believe that that was the gist of the discussion at Committee stage.
That is simply not true. The public have every opportunity to comment on the siting of waste facilities at the planning stage, when the land use and amenity impact of the development will be considered. Planning applications must be advertised and anyone likely to be affected by the development must be informed. In addition, many waste facilities will require an environmental assessment, and if they go to appeal they may be subject to a full public inquiry.
If the process of seeking permission to operate a waste facility (say, a landfill site) is considered as a two-stage process—planning permission followed by a waste management licence—then it can be seen that this permitting system is open to proper scrutiny in which the public is able to participate.
In the amendment there was also a focus on the need for the public to be informed about the disposal of low level radioactive waste to landfill sites. On an earlier amendment I indicated that officials are considering carefully all the responses to the preliminary conclusions of my department's review of radioactive waste policy. I indicated that the Government will be in a position to announce any change to policy, together with any new controls required, in another place. I said that I thought that we were moving in the right direction on that particular policy.
The Environmental Protection Act has also greatly improved the range of information which is now required to be made available on public registers. That includes, for instance, documents submitted by applicants in support of licence applications and written representations on applications from statutory

523
consultees. That has given the public full access to information about licence applications should they wish to see it. I do not think that in these circumstances it is necessary or desirable to advertise applications for waste management licences.
In the circumstances of that reassurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am not sure that that is a complete answer to what I was suggesting about this perhaps being seen on all fours with other forms of pollution control. However, this is clearly a technical matter and I shall need to seek advice about it. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 17 [Application of certain other enactments to the Crown]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 254:
Page 182, line 17, leave out (""by virtue of subsection (1) (b) above"") and insert (—making provision, by virtue of subsection (I) (b) above, for the modification of section 156 below in relation to fisheries in an area"").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to correct a minor defect in the Bill as currently drafted. It will provide that the consent of the appropriate authority—in this case the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Duchy of Lancaster or of Cornwall or a government department—to the making of an order under Section 115 of the Water Resources Act 1991 will be required only where such an order will modify Section 156 of the 1991 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 103 [Directions]:
[Amendments Nos. 255 and 256 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 257:
After Clause 103, insert the following new clause:
Service of documents
(" .—(1) Without prejudice to paragraph 15(2) (d) of Schedule 7 to this Act, any notice required or authorised by or under this Act to be served (whether the expression "serve" or the expression "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) on any person may be served by delivering it to him, or by leaving it at his proper address, or by sending it by post to him at that address.
(2) Any such notice may—

(a) in the case of a body corporate, be served on the secretary or clerk of that body;

(b) in the case of a partnership, be served on a partner or a person having the control or management of the partnership business.

(3) For the purposes of this section and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (service of documents by post) in its application to this section, the proper address of any person on or to whom any such notice is to be served shall be his last known address, except that—

(a) in the case of a body corporate or their secretary or clerk, it shall be the address of the registered or principal office of that body;

(b) in the case of a partnership or person having the control or the management of the partnership business, it shall be the principal office of the partnership;

and for the purposes of this subsection the principal office of a company registered outside the United Kingdom or of a partnership carrying on business outside the United Kingdom shall be their principal office within the United Kingdom.
(4) If the person to be served with any such notice has specified an address in the United Kingdom other than his proper address within the meaning of subsection (3) above as the one at which he or someone on his behalf will accept notices of the same description as that notice, that address shall also be treated for the purposes of this section and section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 as his proper address.
(5) Where under any provision of this Act any notice is required to be served on a person who is, or appears to be, in occupation of any premises then—

(a) if the name or address of such a person cannot after reasonable inquiry be ascertained, or

(b) if the premises appear to be or are unoccupied,

that notice may be served either by leaving it in the hands of a person who is or appears to be resident or employed on the premises or by leaving it conspicuously affixed to some building or object on the premises.
(6) This section shall not apply to any notice in relation to the service of which provision is made by rules of court.
(7) The preceding provisions of this section shall apply to the service of a document as they apply to the service of a notice.
(8) In this section—
"premises" includes any land, vehicle, vessel or mobile plant;
"serve" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1) above.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to address Amendment No. 288. They are minor and technical government amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 105 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 258:
Page 113, line 10, after ("Act)") insert ("and the repeal of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 22 of Schedule 10 to this Act (which comes into force in accordance with sub-paragraph (7) of that paragraph)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 185. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 259 to 267:
Page 187, line 40, at end insert ("other than section 2(2) (accounting requirements in relation to local authority agreements entered into in pursuance of section 1)").
Page 192, leave out line 18.
Page 192, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("and").
Page 193, line 14, at end insert:
("() Section 31D (powers of entry in relation to agreements under section 31B) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 193, line 36, at end insert:
("() In section 36 (provisions supplementary to sections 34 and 35)—

(a) in subsection (1), after the word "shall" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to subsections (2A) and (2B) below,"; and

525

(b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(2A) A person who proposes to make, or has made, an application to SEPA for consent in pursuance of section 34 of this Act may apply to the Secretary of State within a prescribed period for a certificate providing that subsection (1) above shall not apply to that application.
(2B) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that—

(a) it would be contrary to the interests of national security; or

(b) it would prejudice to an unreasonable degree the commercial interests of any person,

not to issue a certificate applied for under subsection (2A) above, he may issue the certificate and, if he does so, subsection (I) above shall not apply to the application specified in the certificate.".").
Page 197, line 30, at end insert:
("() Any person who fails to comply with any requirement imposed by an enforcement notice shall be guilty of an offence and liable

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding £20,000 or to both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.").

Page 197, line 36, leave out ("301(4) (a)") and insert ("301(5) (a), 34").
Page 198, line 17, at end insert:
("() Section 91(5) (a) (application of that section to Scotland) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 198, line 19, at end insert:
("() In section 98 (interpretation of Part V), for paragraph (b) of the definition of "relevant authority" there shall be substituted—
"(b) in Scotland—

(i) as respects sections 91 and 92, a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994; and

(ii) as respects this Part other than those sections, the Secretary of State, SEPA or a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments are, on the whole, technical in nature. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 268:
Page 202, line 37, at end insert:
("The Town and Country Planning Act 1990
. In section 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (joint planning boards for National Parks and other areas) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
"(6A) Section 241 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall be taken to authorise the application to a joint planning board, subject to any necessary modifications, of any provisions of Part III (accounts and audit) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 (as well as of any provisions of the Local Government Act 1972) by such an order as is mentioned in subsection (6) above.".
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 268 with Amendment No. 183. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 269:
age 208, line 24, at end insert:
("() In subsection (4), after the words "or do the thing and" there shall be added the words "subject to subsections (4A) to (4C) below".
() After subsection (4), there shall be inserted—
"(4A) No person shall be required to grant rights in relation to any land in accordance with subsection (4) above unless—
(a) the person whose consent is required—

(i) has been given notice of the application for a waste management licence and the full details of the proposed condition which will require the grant of the rights, and

(ii) has been given the opportunity to make objections and to have those objections heard by a person appointed on behalf of the waste regulation authority; and

(b) the waste regulation authority is satisfied—

(i) that the holder of the licence gave details of the person whose consent is required in accordance with subsection (4B) (b) below,

(ii) that there is no practical alternative to the imposition or the condition in a form which requires the grant of rights in the land,

(iii) that the applicant has sought to negotiate with the person whose consent is required and that person has been unreasonable, and

(iv) that it is reasonable in all the circumstances, taking full account of the objections made by the person whose consent is required, to impose the condition.

(4B) The waste regulation authority shall require the person who has applied for a licence—

(a) to certify that there is no other person who has an interest in any land to which the proposed licence or any condition relates, at the time the application is made, and at any time thereafter if additional land is to be affected by a proposed condition, or

(b) to specify the names and addresses of each person who has an interest in any relevant land and that he has served notice of the application of the proposed condition on each person in such form as may be prescribed.

(4C) Where a person is required to grant consent, the holder of the licence shall make a payment equal to the amount which would be paid for the grant of the necessary rights in the land after negotiation between a prudent and willing owner with power to grant the rights and a prudent and willing holder of the relevant licence having regard to the burdens and benefits and all other relevant matters.".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for moving this amendment so late at night but it involves an important issue and I feel I must raise the point. The amendment was debated late on the final day of the Committee stage. It is supported by the Association of County Councils. I considered what the Minister said on that occasion, as has the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and I have to say that we still have very great reservations about the situation.
In his reply, the Minister relied on the argument that the powers of landfill operators to go on to neighbouring land without the consent of the owner or the occupier are justified in the public interest. It always seems to be the case that compulsory powers are justified in the eyes of Ministers as being in the public interest. But that cuts very little ice with me. The Minister will recall the debate on compulsory powers during the proceedings on

527
the Coal Industry Bill last year. These powers are subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. But the Government eventually accepted that the fact that compulsory powers were granted in the public interest should not provide a charter for private sector operators to behave unreasonably in their dealings with individual property owners. By that I mean householders, businesses, farmers and landowners.
So I have question which I should like the Minister to take away and consider, because he probably will not be in a position to give me an answer tonight. Is it right that private sector coal operators should have to contact and negotiate with property owners before assuming that they have powers of access over the land of others? If that is the case, why should not the same approach be applied here? If it was all right for the Coal Industry Bill, it ought to be all right in this Bill.
I am not denying the right of access, if necessary, where owners prove to be unreasonable. There is a perfectly satisfactory reason for overriding the situation there. But the Government seem to have forgotten what they accepted during the proceedings on the Coal Industry Bill.
I do not intend to press the amendment this evening, but I should like to know how the Government justify this departure from the principles agreed last year. If natural justice prevailed then, why should it not now?
Local authorities granting licences must, by all proper standards of conduct, have regard to the interests of third parties. The Bill does not require them to. I have been informed that there is currently a case where a landfill operator is considering resorting to these very powers, where the neighbouring owner affected has reason to believe that the operator can carry out the work necessary on his own land therefore making it unnecessary for access to be gained to somebody else's land. This is an important issue. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should say one or two words on this amendment. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, will realise, given the number of noble Lords now sitting in the House, if there were to be a Division on any of these amendments the House would be automatically adjourned. My noble friends and I have no intention of doing that—
A Noble Lord: For the moment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: For the moment. But I must say to the noble Viscount that there have been constant complaints about late sittings on this and other Bills, The Government so far have indicated no interest in dealing with this problem, despite the Procedure Committee Report. If the Government maintain this position and on this and on other Bills decline to listen to the views of the Procedure Committee, I tell the House quite bluntly that we shall force a Division on some occasion and the House will be adjourned. We have no desire to do that. I hope that the noble Viscount will discuss the matter with the Government Chief Whip
528
to ensure that the views of the Procedure Committee are listened to seriously and that the Government take them into account in terms of timetabling their legislation.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course I take very seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has just said. I shall indeed bring his remarks to the attention of my noble friend the Chief Whip.
I shall now revert to the amendment. Amendment No. 269 would amend Section 35 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to place certain obligations on the holders of waste management licences where conditions of the licence require access and rights over adjacent land. At present, Section 35(4) of that Act gives licence holders such rights in relation to any land as would enable them to comply with the requirements of the licence. The provision of such rights is sometimes necessary in order to enable licence holders to monitor gas and leachate, and, if necessary, take remedial action to prevent pollution. Such monitoring will normally be necessary many years after the disposal of waste has ceased. Without such rights a licence holder may not be able to comply with his licence conditions.
The amendment tabled, as the noble Earl indicated, is identical to one which he tabled in Committee. I said at that time that we had received no evidence that this provision had caused difficulties. Nevertheless, I understand the noble Earl's concern, and I have given further thought to what he said on the matter in Committee.
In those circumstances I should like to take further advice. I understand that it is a matter which the Country Landowners' Association is concerned with, but there are also others who have interests, including the waste regulation authorities and the waste industry. I would like to consult all those who may have an interest in this question.
The Government will consider the need for any further action in the light of these comments and considerations. I am sorry that I am unable to offer the noble Earl any more definite assurance than that. I hope that he will recognise that this is a complex issue and that we need to give further thought to it. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for that response. I shall consider his words very carefully. I am particularly glad that he feels that there may now be merit in considering this matter further. It is a crucially important issue and a matter of fundamental legal propriety is at stake. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No.269A:
Page 208, line 44, at end insert:
("() In subsection (11), the words "or its surrender is accepted" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 269A, which is a paving amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 270A and 270B.
Following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hams, perhaps I may preface my speech by saying that I was minded earlier this evening to do exactly what he was suggesting because it is unfortunate that this is the third occasion on which I have attempted to move a serious amendment at this time of the night. Indeed, I gave notice to my noble friends on the Front Bench that I was so minded. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Hams, said in reminding your Lordships of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee—the noble Lord may very well raise the matter not only through the usual channels but through the Procedure Committee—I think that I can best serve your Lordships by desisting from temptation and awaiting the further deliberations of the Procedure Committee. However, having said that, I am not going to be browbeaten by the time of night into curtailing my remarks on what I consider to be a serious matter. I apologise to your Lordships who may have to suffer the burden of my remarks.
The amendments return to a matter that I raised in Committee and relate to the new arrangements for contaminated land in Clause 54. In Committee, I sought to ensure that operators of licensed landfills who had been subject to very prescriptive and stringent control both during the operations and for decades after, and who had eventually been granted—or rather earned—a certificate of completion stating that the site was,
"unlikely to cause further pollution or harm",
should no longer be liable for the cost of remedial works at the site if problems subsequently occurred. Indeed, that is the position that would have obtained if the Government had implemented Section 61 of the Environmental Protection Act. I shall not quote those provisions.
However, at that time my amendments were firmly rejected. My noble friend the Minister stated that there had been a change in government policy since the 1990 Act was brought into force in November 1990. He said then that Section 61 would be repealed and that in future the waste management industry would be treated no differently from any other industry or person who causes contamination. On the face of it, that seems fair and not unreasonable.
But the waste management industry has been treated very differently in this Bill from other industries and persons who may cause contamination. The new system of waste management licensing, which was introduced only in May 1994, placed a long-term responsibility for a site on the operator. That was strongly supported by the industry and by all responsible operators. However, there was another part of the package—the transfer of liability, through Section 61, to which I have referred, to the local authority once the certificate of completion had been obtained.
In view of that—and no doubt because of the potential burden on the public purse—the Government have introduced a "belt and braces" approach to regulation. That is understandable but, I believe,
530
unnecessary. In simple terms, that means that the industry can expect to pay perhaps up to £100 million a year for some decades to ensure that its sites are eventually granted certificates of completion but, in addition, (by virtue of this Bill) future certificates of completion, although costly—some cost up to £5,000 notwithstanding the subsistence payments made on the way—would be quite worthless because of the enduring liability which is now imposed in Clause 54.
The twofold approach cannot be justified. I admit that the amendments that I have set down may be inadequately drafted but they would abolish certificates of completion and by virtue of that they would enable an operator to choose which belt or which pair of braces he wished to use to maintain the site as he determined necessary. It would enable him to bring into play new technologies, the fruits of scientific advancement, which may not, in the immediacy, find their way into guidelines.
If the operator chooses wrongly, he will have to pay for his mistake by virtue of the Clause 54 remediation powers that the agency would have. That would be an ongoing situation. In other words the operator pays his money and takes his choice; he has to find the money; he has to put his money where his mouth is. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
This set of amendments does not amount to any kind of deregulation of the waste industry. My noble friend the Minister will know that the industry successfully campaigned against that last year. I am arguing for a sensible level of regulation.
In conclusion, I should like to remind my noble friend that the Government in their policy statement in Circular 11/94 stated that the regulations should be goal based, should not serve as an end in themselves and should not be over prescriptive. I suggest that in this area the legislation and the policy contained in that document are very far apart.
At this time of night perhaps I cannot expect a long debate or a total acceptance of the amendment. I invite my noble friend to consider whether the argument that I have deployed has logic and sense and is practical and fair to everybody at the end of the day: that you pay once and not twice for your sins if sins are going to be committed.
I hope that my noble friend will deal with this matter sympathetically. I look forward to his answer. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 270A is the principal amendment in this group. It would remove the provisions in Section 39 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which allow a licence holder to surrender a waste management licence only if the waste regulation authority is satisfied that the condition of the land is unlikely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. Amendment No. 270A would instead allow the surrender of the licence to be made at the wish of the holder provided that four years have elapsed since the cessation of disposal activities. The other amendments in the group are consequential upon this change.

531
These proposals would demolish one of the principal features of the new waste management licensing system introduced by Part II the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which has been in operation for less than a year. The purpose of this system is to ensure that licensed activities do not cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. I can see no justification whatever for my noble friend's proposals.
The surrender provisions in Section 39 are designed to encourage licence holders to operate their sites responsibly and with due regard for the impact they may have on the environment both now and in the future. Under that system, responsibility for the consequences of depositing waste rests with the person who profited from that business. It exemplifies the principle that the polluter pays. The proposed amendments would allow the holder to avoid responsibility for pollution from the site after the licence is surrendered.
Amendment No. 270A suggests that a licence could in all cases be surrendered as early as four years after the site had ceased to operate. In the case of landfill sites, however, the release of harmful quantities of pollutants in the form of landfill gas or leachate may occur many years after a deposit of waste has taken place. Monitoring and containment measures may be needed for decades in some cases. The present system allows post-closure conditions to be attached to licences, ensuring that they are cared for after the deposit of waste until emissions of gases and leachate are no longer likely to cause pollution or harm to human health. Of course, not all sites used for licensed activities are landfill sites. In fact, the particular conditions at each site will vary, making any universal cut-off point—even for a longer period—inappropriate.
I ask your Lordships to consider who is to become responsible for preventing pollution from landfill sites after the four-year period has expired and the licence has been surrendered, and who would be responsible for cleaning up any pollution that subsequently occurs. We are already having to make provision in Clause 54 to deal with the legacy of contaminated land which has resulted from closed landfill sites from which operators were able to walk away under the old provisions of the Control of Pollution Act. The surrender provisions in Section 39 of the 1990 Act aim to prevent those problems from occurring in the future.
The surrender provisions should not affect an operator's liability under the contaminated land provisions. My noble friend has argued that closed landfills should be treated in the same way as other contaminated land, and I can see no justification for giving special treatment to closed landfills by removing liability because a certificate of completion had been granted.
In May last year we took a major step forward when we introduced the new waste management licensing system. The amendments represent a step backwards,
532
and for that reason I cannot accept them. I hope that after considering those words my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response which, of course, I find disappointing. He asked who would be responsible. The operator is responsible under the terms of Clause 54. If he is to be bound again by having to maintain a site before he can obtain a certificate of completion, what is the value of such a certificate other than to enable the authority to impose its own directions with regard to post-closure monitoring and the various protocols currently involved, which are set out in guidelines? It gives the operator no incentive to introduce more advanced and technically capable monitoring, and other procedures. Why should he go to that expense when he is paying through the subsistence—I call it "subsistence—payments which derive from the post-closure obligation?
That is where the unfairness lies. If my noble friend and his officials look at the proposals carefully they will see that there is no suggestion that any operator should be able to evade his responsibilities. Indeed, when we discussed Clause 54, to which the Committee agreed in the end, there was no question of releasing landfill operators from their obligations.
I believe that the Government are wrong. They have burdened the industry with unnecessary and unwarranted dual expense, of which I fear the industry will not think too kindly. There is nothing that I can do here. I doubt whether I shall pursue this matter at the next stage, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 270 to 272 not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 273:
Page 211, leave out from beginning of line 51 to end of line 17 on page 212.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised this matter at an earlier stage when I opposed the introduction of a sweeping new power for the agency in respect of waste management licences. I remind the House that under the present regulatory system in the EPA 1990, operators of waste facilities who breach the conditions of their licence may be tackled by the enforcing authority in a number of ways. The Government now propose to extend the regulator's powers. The existing powers have been enjoyed for less than 12 months; they came into force in May 1994.
In Committee, I asked my noble friend what new events had taken place which gave rise to the Government believing that additional regulations are necessary. At that time, my noble friend was unable to provide me with an answer. As the Bill stands, we are left with the regulators being allowed to issue enforcement notices to be served when they believe—only when they believe—that a breach of a licence may occur. That is what I previously described as the crystal-ball approach.
I wondered what problems had arisen to necessitate the provision. The misuse of the new crystal-ball-gazing power could have serious consequences for the industry. I shall take the liberty of describing two examples. It is a statutory requirement for enforcement notices to be entered on the public register. Whatever the facts of the matter, there will be a public record which may—only may—give a false picture of a company's performance and which will, without doubt, increase opposition to future activities which are fairly unpopular with the public. I suggest that that unpopularity is largely the result of a misunderstanding and a false perception of the industry's operations with regard to landfill.
In addition, failure to comply with the enforcement notice, no matter how reasonable its requirement, may lead to a licence revocation or a suspension. At worst, that might result in a loss of livelihood. I must ask my noble friend what safeguards there are for an operator when a regulator misreads his crystal ball. I suppose that the operator might seek a judicial review. That will be a long and costly process, a point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred when discussing Amendment No. 250. I shall not go further than she did.
Even so, that will not prevent matters taking their course in the meantime. The operator might rely on the agency acting reasonably. But if it does not, or if he believes that it does not, the operator might ask the Secretary of State to act swiftly and use his powers of direction under Section 42. Let us be practical about the matter. The Secretary of State will not be able to move that swiftly to offset the effects of a misreading of the crystal bail. It could take some little while. Meanwhile, the operator has no safeguard whatever. Therefore, this amendment seeks to find a solution which might commend itself to the Government.
I note that the new power in respect of waste regulation is paralleled in new Section 90B of the Water Resources Act 1991 and in Section 13(1) and (2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
If one scrutinises the small print of the schedules to the Bill and cross-refers them to other legislation, it appears to me that the parallel is only partial. Whereas the powers in the Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act bring with them a right of appeal for operators, that is not echoed in the amended waste management licensing system that obtains in the Bill before us.
Were a similar appeals procedure introduced, operators would be able to seek redress if the agency failed to discharge properly its responsibilities. Why has it not been thought reasonable to introduce an appeals procedure for an operator whose very livelihood may be threatened by a misreading of the crystal ball? That is what lies behind the amendment. If my noble friend will assure me that he will consider the introduction of an appeals procedure, I could go away happy. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: Of course, I would like nothing better than to make my noble friend go away happy. I hope that in the words which I shall use he will find the comfort which he seeks.
534
My noble friend put forward a similar amendment in Committee, but this time he has drafted the amendment in order to eliminate entirely the new enforcement notice procedure which paragraph 61 also provides. I am surprised that my noble friend should prefer the more general provision currently made by Section 42(5) of the 1990 Act, which simply enables the authority to require the licence holder to comply with the licence conditions within a specified time and may take enforcement action such as suspension or revocation of the licence if he does not. The new enforcement notice procedure will require the agency to specify the steps which the licence holder must take to remedy any non-compliance with a licence condition, or to prevent any non-compliance from occurring in the first place. This is a much more precise requirement, and ensures that the operator knows what he is expected to do.
My noble friend referred to it as being "crystal ball gazing". I believe that the agency will be able to work with its technical knowledge so that it will not act in the manner which he suggests.
My noble friend is concerned that the new provisions in the Bill will enable the agencies to take enforcement action before a licence condition has actually been breached—where such a breach is likely to occur. There are two issues here. The first is whether the agency should have to await the breach of a licence condition before taking enforcement action. Where environmental damage is in prospect, I cannot see that there would be any point in waiting for it to occur before taking action.
It is nevertheless reasonable to ask in these circumstances what safeguards there will be to prevent an agency acting prematurely, especially when failure to comply with an enforcement notice could result in the revocation or suspension of the licence. The agency's enforcement powers do indeed need to be used in a way which gives the operator of a licensed site a clear understanding of the remedial action required and a proper opportunity to take it, without the imposition of sanctions disproportionate to the breach. The new provision is designed to meet this concern by requiring the agency to serve an enforcement notice. This will tell the licence holder what he has to do and by when, giving him the opportunity to correct a problem, and so to avert the need for further enforcement action.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend said about the lack of an appeal provision against an enforcement notice. I accept that that is different from the Part I provisions and those which will apply under the Water Resources Act and Part II of the Control of Pollution Act, as my noble friend identified. However, those other provisions also include an offence for not complying with an enforcement notice for which the penalty on conviction on indictment is up to two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine. In such circumstances, an appeal provision is essential.
In the case of waste management, the penalty against an enforcement licence is suspension or revocation of the licence. It is at that stage that the legislation provides for an appeal to the Secretary of State under Section 43 of the 1990 Act. Further, if the waste regulation authority does not permit the continuation of the licensed activities pending determination of the appeal,

535
then, under Section 43(7), if the Secretary of State considers that it acted unreasonably, the authority is required to pay compensation to the licence holder. I hope that my noble friend will agree that those provisions provide adequate safeguards for the licence holder. Having said that, I also hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, oh dear! I am sorry to say that I am not a happy man. Of course, I understand the penalties that will apply if there is non-compliance with the licensing conditions. Indeed, that goes without saying. Moreover, I can accept— just—that there is an argument for the agency or the authority to what I call "crystal-ball gaze" at a situation if it is felt that a breach is likely.
However, any enforcement notice under those conditions will impose directions as to the action to be taken and will also impose a time limit on compliance. That notice is not to be suspended pending an appeal to the Secretary of State, which is open to the operator pending the Secretary of State's decision on whether or not to issue a direction. Therefore, the safeguard to which my noble friend the Minister referred —namely, that of the powers of direction that the Secretary of State has—is really not a sufficiently adequate safeguard. It would be far better if a formal appeals mechanism applied, as provided under other regulatory regimes. I accept that there are conditions which make such an appeals mechanism more necessary, but it seems to me that what is right for Peter is also right for Paul.
I wish to consider most carefully what has been said. I believe that I may well wish to pursue the matter at a later stage of the proceedings in the hope that I may be able to persuade other noble Lords of the rightness of my case. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 273A and 273B not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 274:
Page 214, line 9, at end insert (" "; provided that such places as may be prescribed shall include the local authority of the area to which the particulars on the register relate."
() In subsection (8) (definitions)—

(a) after the words "In this section", there shall be inserted "(a)";

(b) after the paragraph (a) so formed, there shall be added the words—

" 'local authority' shall have the same meaning as that set out in section 78A(11) below".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 275. Amendment No. 274 refers to registers kept by waste regulation authorities and is intended to extend the prescriptions relating to them, as set out in the schedule, so as to ensure that they are kept locally. That is shorthand for the local authority of the area to which the particulars on the register relate. It is intended to be convenient for those who wish to inspect.
Amendment No. 275 deals with registers of special or hazardous waste. I understand that the Government's consultation on waste management licensing under the EPA 1990 included provision for copies of special waste consignment notes to be placed on public registers. That was followed by a response from the waste disposal industry body, the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, who said that the inclusion of special waste consignment notes on the register was objectionable on commercial grounds.
As there are public registers for details about emissions to air or controlled waters, the companies that dispose of waste in solid form in fact have an advantage over their competitors as they avoid public scrutiny through not having this requirement for registration. The documentation has to be produced anyway and the waste regulatory authority functions of the agency will require public registers to be kept of other documentation. So I do not believe that there will be anything more than a negligible additional burden to be placed on industry and on the agency. As I have said before, these things are always a matter of balance. I do not believe that the public interest should come second to what I think are not very strong objections. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the concerns which lie behind both of these amendments regarding public access to environmental information, but I hope I can show your Lordships that these amendments are unnecessary.
Amendment No. 274 seeks to ensure that when the Secretary of State makes regulations prescribing places where agency waste regulation registers are to be available for public inspection, these include local authority offices. The reason for giving the Secretary of State this power to prescribe where registers are to be located is to ensure that the public have easy access to information about licensed sites and facilities in their area, and do not have to travel long distances; for instance, to a headquarters office in order to find out what is going on locally. However, before decisions are made about precisely where these places will be, we will need to have discussions with the agency, consult interested parties and consider the different possibilities. That is why the details ought to be left to the regulations and are not included on the face of the Bill.
I should, however, point out to your Lordships that Section 64(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended by this Bill) already requires certain key information about waste management licences to be available at the offices of every waste collection authority in England and Wales. This information must be supplied by the environment agency. We may wish to prescribe in the regulations to which I have referred that other information from registers should be available at local authority offices, but that is not something which needs to be decided now. However, in any case provision is already made for the key information from the register to be available at local authority offices, and I hope that the noble Baroness will consider that this makes adequate provision.

537
Amendment No, 275 would require the waste regulation registers maintained by each agency under Section 64 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to include copies of the consignment notes which waste producers and disposers furnish under the special waste regulations. The consignment note system enables regulators to exercise supervision over the movements of the most dangerous wastes. One copy of the consignment note is sent to them by the wasteholder before waste can be removed from premises, and another copy is sent when the waste is safely received for disposal or recycling. The detailed requirements for the waste regulation registers under Section 64 are currently set out in regulation 10 of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. When proposals for these new regulations were issued for public consultation in 1992, they included a suggestion that individual special waste consignment notes would be included on the registers. However, as a result of the consultation and further consideration, it became clear that the registers would be quickly overloaded and unmanageable if every individual consignment note received by the WRA was included, even if a time limit was specified for retention of each note on the register. The environment agency is expected to receive up to 300,000 notes per year.
It was therefore decided to limit the register to any summary prepared by the regulatory authority of special waste produced or disposed of in its area. This is a much more manageable arrangement than placing a copy of every individual consignment note on the register. Anyone who wishes to have access to such material can, of course, exercise his rights under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992. In addition, the register contains full details of all current local waste management licences, which will give a good picture of the range of waste, including any special waste, that any site is able to receive.
The Government fully support the principle of public access to information about local waste management activities, and I hope that in the circumstance, the noble Baroness will agree that these amendments are unnecessary and will see fit to withdraw them.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to the amendments. I should like to think further about the second amendment in particular. I cannot help feeling that in these days of advanced technology there must be ways of storing bulk information which were not available even a very few years ago. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 275 not moved.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No, 275A:
Page 215, line 26, leave out from ("(a)") to ("not") and insert ("above does").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 275A and to speak to Amendments Nos. 275B and 275C. These are intended to be helpful amendments rather than combative.
Amendment No. 275A seeks to retain the definition of "harm" in relation to contaminated land which is at present applied under the Environmental Protection Act, where it can include offence to man's senses. It can include noxious smells as well as poisonous wastes. It is therefore suggested that this nuisance power should continue in relation to the abatement of fumes and gases from contaminated land where they smell extremely unpleasant as well as being poisonous or dangerous in themselves.
Amendment No. 275B seeks to deal with an increasing nuisance, namely high intensity lighting, which in recent years has been used for such purposes as burglar lights, which flash on and off when cats enter people's front gardens, and various forms of floodlighting, including the floodlighting of the decoration of buildings and structures. If that could be included within the definition of a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act, it would be possible to restrict the use of such lighting. Local authorities might welcome such a power. They report an increasing number of complaints of disturbance from light intrusion.
Amendment No. 275C is also intended to be helpful to local authorities, in that they would be able to seek injunctions against statutory nuisances in county courts rather than the High Court. At present they need to seek injunctions in the High Court in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which can be an extremely expensive and time-consuming matter. Both they and defendants may find access to the High Court difficult. It would be very much simpler for all parties if an injunction was available from the county court. This is a procedure which applies well in relation to planning legislation.
These are intended to be helpful suggestions to the Government. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 275A concerns the potential overlap between the statutory nuisance provisions in Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the proposed contaminated land provisions set out in Clause 54 of the Bill, which will form Part IIA of that 1990 Act.
As presently provided in paragraph 75 of Schedule 18, the statutory nuisance provisions would be disapplied in respect of a wide range of the existing definitions of statutory nuisance where the premises concerned were also contaminated land for the purposes of the new Part IIA. The amendment, by contrast, would restrict the categories of possible statutory nuisance where that disapplication occurred.
The Government's intention is to ensure, so far as is possible, that any single environmental problem can be dealt with under only one of these sets of powers and is not subject to dual regulation. Local authorities and those who might be subject to any regulatory action should be clear as to which provisions would apply in any individual case. However, the Government are also concerned that in amending the statutory nuisance powers we do not create the situation where things that are currently subject to control under the statutory nuisance provisions would fall within neither the revised

539
definitions of statutory nuisance nor the definition of contaminated land. It appears that this may be the result of the existing drafting of paragraph 75 of Schedule 18. The Government are therefore looking again at this question and intend to bring forward their own amendment at a later stage to resolve this potential problem.
However, we would not wish to accept Amendment No. 275A as it would leave in place a clear overlap between the two sets of powers. For example, a site on which landfill gas was being generated would clearly qualify as contaminated land. But the same problem could also remain within the definitions of statutory nuisance under the terms of Section 79(1) (c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which refers to
"fumes or gases emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance".
I hope that with the assurance that the Government are looking further at this detailed issue, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment No. 275B aims to extend the statutory nuisance controls in Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to include light emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or the environment. We have for some time been aware of the potential problems which can be caused by the inappropriate design and use of some lighting schemes and have considered this issue before. Nuisance is a wide-ranging concept defined by the courts and I believe that there is no reason why in an extreme case courts should not judge that excessive light can constitute a nuisance. However, that is very different from saying that every case of excessive lighting from all types of premises should be subject to a legal penalty.
We believe that the most appropriate way to tackle the problems is by education and guidance, such as that which, as I mentioned at Committee stage, is in DoE circular 5/94, Planning out Crime on the planning aspects of security lighting.
We will continue to look for appropriate opportunities to press home the importance of the sensitive location and use of lighting and will keep under review whether other measures might usefully be taken to minimise its excessive use. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press that amendment.
We now come to an amendment seeking to change the provision for a local authority to take action in relation to any statutory nuisance in the High Court where in its opinion magistrates' court proceedings for an offence under the statutory nuisance provisions would provide an inadequate remedy. In practical terms, this allows a local authority to obtain injunctive relief to remedy serious statutory nuisances.
Amendment No. 275C would mean that such action would have to be taken in the county court rather than in the High Court. Last October the Government announced the establishment of a working party to review the existing controls over neighbour noise, which is largely regulated under the statutory nuisance provisions. The House will be interested to know that one of the issues under consideration by the working
540
group was the possibility of altering the existing provision to allow action to be taken through either the county court or the High Court.
The Government's view was that there was no merit in confining action to the county court alone. There is evidence that cases are dealt with much more quickly in the High Court and this factor will be crucial to the remedy of a serious statutory nuisance. The issue of whether to provide for a choice of court is, however, still under consideration and the Government will shortly consult fully on the conclusions and recommendations of the working group. I hope that with that assurance the noble Baroness will feel able not to press that amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am grateful for a generally encouraging answer to what were intended to be helpful and constructive suggestions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 275B and 275C not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 215, line 37, at end insert:
(" . In section 161 of that Act (regulations and orders) in subsection (4) (which specifies the orders under that Act which are not subject to negative resolution procedure under subsection (3)) after the words "does not apply to" there shall be inserted the words "a statutory instrument—

(a) which contains an order under section 78H(3) above, or

(b) by reason only that it contains"").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 276 with Amendment No. 140. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 277:
Page 218, line 37, leave out from beginning to second ("this") in line 38 and insert:
("() In section 24—
(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the words "a river purification authority" there shall be substituted the words "SEPA"; and

(ii) in paragraph (a), after the word "on" there shall be inserted the words "SEPA or"; and

(b) in subsection (9)—

(i) for the words "a river purification authority or" there shall be substituted the words "SEPA or a"; and

(ii) in paragraph (a), after the word "by" where it second occurs there shall be inserted the words "SEPA or".

() After section 26 there shall be inserted—
"Meaning of SEPA. 26A. In").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lindsay spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 259. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 278 to 280A not moved.]
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 281:
Page 224, leave out from beginning of line 46 to end of line 5 on page 225 and insert:
("90A.—(1) Where an application is made in accordance with this section the Agency shall—
(a) publish notice of the application, at least once in each of two successive weeks, in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in—

(i) the locality or localities in which the places are situated at which it is proposed in the application that the discharges should be made; and

(ii) the locality or localities appearing to the Agency to be in the vicinity of any controlled waters which the Agency considers likely to be affected by the proposed discharges;

(b) publish a copy of that notice in an edition of the London Gazette published no earlier than the day after the publication of the last of the notices to be published by virtue of paragraph (a) above.
(c) send a copy of the application to every local authority or water undertaker within whose area any of the proposed discharges is to occur; and
(d) in the case of an application which relates to proposed discharges into coastal waters, relevant territorial waters or waters outside the seaward limits of relevant territorial waters, serve a copy of the application on each of the Ministers.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak as briefly as I can to Amendment No. 281 and to Amendment No. 287 which is grouped with it. First, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for meeting me and members of the Salmon & Trout Association and for a very helpful discussion of these two amendments and Amendment No. 283.
The purpose of my Amendment No. 281 is to restore the existing regime for the advertisement of applications made for consents to discharge. At present, subject to the National Rivers Authority's right to waive the requirement for minor applications where it believes that there will be no significant impact on the receiving water, there is an obligation on the authority, at the applicant's expense, to advertise all applications in a local newspaper and in the London Gazette.
Through these advertising provisions, the Salmon & Trout Association at present monitors, for the protection of all riparian interests, all such applications made to the NRA. Copies of these notices go to their 52 branch water resources officers concerned, who cover the whole country, and to the Anglers' Conservation Association, the National Federation of Anglers and the Welsh Salmon & Trout Angling Association among others. These regulations of where and how to advertise are on the face of existing legislation; namely, the Water Resources Act 1991.
It would appear that new Section 90A(1) proposes to abolish the current provisions so far as discharges are concerned and to leave the advertising requirements to the Secretary of State to decide from time to time. I have recently been advised—rather late in the day, I fear—that a further clause, Clause 143, substitutes a new Schedule 10 to the Water Resources Act and similarly places at risk the work of the Salmon & Trout Association in this field. I have it in mind therefore to propose an amendment to that clause at Third Reading.
The Salmon & Trout Association is concerned that, should the obligation to advertise applications in the London Gazette be removed, there will be no practical way in which the association's service to angling and riparian interests can remain effective without
542
knowledge of these discharge applications. The regulations for advertising have not yet been published and, even if they contain similar provisions to the existing regime, there is nothing to prevent the Minister at a later date publishing amended regulations that would dilute them.
It is, in my view, extremely important that riparian interests should have the opportunity to object to applications that affect them and the environment generally. I am sure it is right that this important part of the checks and balances on which the protection of the environment depends, and which has worked well up till now, is not lost in the rush to deregulate everything. It is essential that this right is protected in primary legislation.
I turn to the second amendment, Amendment No. 287. Since the Water Act 1989, the National Rivers Authority has had the power to review a consent to discharge effluent not less than two years after it has been granted. This power is a discretionary one, and in the vast majority of cases reviews are not carried out for considerably longer periods.
The Government propose in the Bill that this protected period should be extended from two to four years. There are inevitably cases where consents are granted but, because of a change in prevailing circumstances that might not have been anticipated when the grant was made, result in the discharge having a damaging environmental effect. If that is the case, a four-year period before a review can be carried out seems too long. I am not aware of any prejudice to agriculture or industry, or financial burden that has been placed on them, during the past six years when the two-year rule has applied. At present, the status quo is being changed, seemingly for the worse. That would be put right by this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 285, 286 and 287, which are grouped with the original amendment. The purpose of these three amendments is to retain the existing regime rather than vary it as proposed in the Bill. Amendment No. 285 would retain the present right of established objectors to appear before hearings set up by the Secretary of State in respect of controlled water discharge consents.
Amendment No. 286 would give the agency the duty rather than the power to review discharge consents, in the same way as is currently an obligation upon the National Rivers Authority. Amendment No. 287, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has already spoken, would retain the present two-year cycle for reviews of discharge consents to controlled waters.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 281 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, would introduce on the face of the Bill detailed requirements for the procedures to be followed in respect of advertising applications for consents under Sections 89 and 90 of the Water Resources Act 1991. However, I believe that the noble Lord may have intended to deal with consents under Section 88 of the 1991 Act.
So far as consents under Sections 89 and 90 are concerned, we have not previously laid down any procedures for making applications. New Section 90A

543
does so, including provision for advertising of applications in accordance with regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. The Bill, therefore, represents a development on previous legislation.
As regards applications for consents under Section 88, we have replaced the old Schedule 10 of the Water Resources Act 1991 with new provisions. These include a requirement for applications to be advertised in accordance with the provisions of regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. Thus, the provisions relating to consents under Sections 88, 89 and 90 are closely aligned.
I appreciate that the purpose of the amendment is to retain the current provisions specifying certain detailed provisions relating to advertising of applications and that such notification of applications is important. However, I should be reluctant to lose the flexibility in these matters afforded by the power in the Bill to defer them to detailed regulations, which would, of course, be subject to the normal parliamentary scrutiny. That being said, and while I cannot pre-empt the Secretary of State's consideration of the regulations, I should say to the noble Lord that the provisions that have been in force to date would be very much in the forefront of our mind in framing those regulations.
Amendment No. 285, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, would give objectors to an application the opportunity to appear at any hearing held into that application. The provision which this amendment seeks to reinstate is repealed under the Bill as one of a number of measures to speed up the granting of consents once decisions have been reached. We have recognised the need to notify objectors that a consent has been granted. Objectors also retain the right to make written representations to the Secretary of State at any time. However, we consider that streamlining these procedures will remove unnecessary delays and bring them into line with standard practice in relation to planning applications.
Amendment No. 286, also spoken to by the noble Baroness, would impose on the agency the current duty on the NRA to review discharge consents. We have specifically proposed that this should become a power, so that the agency could perform such reviews when it considers such action to he warranted in the light of its responsibilities for river management and pollution control. We remain of the view that it is preferable for the agency to be able to set its own priorities rather than be required to undertake reviews, which in many cases will be unnecessary.
Amendment No. 287 specifies the minimum period for review of consents as two years. We have proposed a minimum period of four years—which, as regards the majority of consents, has in practice been the minimum—with the aim of enhancing stability for dischargers, allowing them greater security in investment planning and potentially reducing the cost of that investment as well as administrative costs. The Secretary of State does, of course, retain the power to direct the agency to review a discharge consent at any time.
544
With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I should like to study carefully what he said about Amendment No. 281, I am sorry that he is not prepared to shift his ground on Amendment No. 287. I shall study carefully in Hansard what he said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 282 not moved.]
11.45 p.m.
Viscount Mills Viscount Mills moved Amendment No. 282A:
Page 227, line 27, at end insert:
("() In section 110 of that Act (applications for consents and approvals under section 109) there shall be inserted at the end—
"() An Order made by Ministers under subsection (1) above may provide for different fees to be payable according to—

(a) the description of the consented activity in question;

(b) the scale of the consented activity in question;

and may make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances or localities.".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment which proposed that the agency would be able to charge for pre-application advice relating to land drainage consents. In his response, the Minister did not accept my amendment but, in relation to the cost of processing land drainage consents, indicated that there is already a provision in both the Land Drainage Act and the Water Resources Act to specify by order sums other than the sum of £50 which is currently charged. I also pointed out that a scale of charges might be appropriate, given the wide variation in the amount of work involved. The example I gave was a comparison between the introduction of a few rocks to provide a habitat for fish and a major barrage scheme. However, I have been advised that the introduction of a scale of charges would not be possible under the existing legislation. Therefore, this amendment seeks to introduce a very basic charging scheme which would get round the problem.
As I explained in Committee, such a scheme would be more consistent with other charging schemes within the Bill as well as being fairer, both to the agency and its customers. I accept that the drafting of the amendment may be technically incorrect but I hope that my noble friend the Minister will at least accept the principle of the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this amendment. Legal advice is that it would probably not be possible to prescribe a scale of fees for drainage consents under existing provisions in the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Act 1991. The amendment deals only with fees chargeable by the agency under the Water Resources Act, but we believe that further consideration should be given to whether amendments to both Acts could be introduced to provide for scales of fees—as the agency will have powers under both—and the precise form of words. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend

545
will feel comfortable in withdrawing his amendment at this stage. We need to look at the matter further and with due care.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response which I find encouraging. I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 283 I must remind the House that should it be agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 284.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 283:
Page 230, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 31 on page 232.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government are proposing to add a new Section 191B to the Water Resources Act. The new clause would provide a procedure whereby an individual or business could object to information being placed on public registers set up under the Water Resources Act on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. Public registers were first set up under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, although they did not actually come into existence until 1985. Since that time they have operated as an efficient source of environmental information.
There has, to the best of my knowledge, been no prejudice to any business as a result of inclusion of any information on registers. If that is correct, one might ask what need there is to set up the regime proposed in new Section 191B. I do not believe that the regime is necessary. Moreover, the decision as to whether information should be kept off the register will be in the hands of the agency, subject to regulations issued by the Secretary of State. Those who may be affected by the exclusion of information from the registers have, as I see it, no opportunity to make any representations of their own. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 284, which is grouped with Amendment No. 283, which seeks to cover exactly the same area of concern as the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. Discharges to waters are genuine matters of public concern and should be in the public domain. This amendment seeks to remove the exemption on the grounds of commercial confidentiality and to retain the release or escape of substances into rivers within the public domain so that people know what has happened to water and rivers. There is no excuse for retaining secrecy on a matter of genuine public concern and which should be in the public domain.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I said in Committee, I fully appreciate the concerns which lie behind these amendments. Of course, I agree that the public should have easy access to environmental information, including that held by the agencies, and that exclusions from environmental registers should be kept to the absolute minimum. But I do not think that it is right to remove the opportunity for exclusion on the grounds of genuine commercial confidentiality.
546
Amendment No. 283 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, seeks to delete from the Water Resources Act 1991 the new Section 191B. The effect of this would be that no information could be excluded from a water discharge register on grounds of commercial confidentiality. I sympathise with the noble Lord's motives in wishing to ensure that all the relevant information about discharges should be available for public scrutiny. But the commercial needs of industry must also be taken into account. There are cases in which a company's business would be prejudiced if certain information were made public. These new provisions are based on similar provisions in other legislation; for example, Section 22 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. They thus help achieve consistency with other regimes under which the agencies will be operating.
Amendment No. 284, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, makes another attempt to limit the exclusion for commercial confidentiality in the disclosure of public records. As I said, I can understand her concern. However, if all emissions were required to be declared, a company's business competitors might be able to use these details to obtain complex information about specific processes being carried on. We are setting up the agencies to regulate environmental pollution, not to cause unnecessary damage to legitimate business interests.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, herself accepts that trade secrets must be excluded from public registers. This is, in fact, the effect of the provision as it stands. Information is considered to be commercially confidential only if its being included in the register
"would prejudice to an unreasonable degree"
the relevant commercial interests. The new Section 191B of the Water Resources Act 1991 will thus be brought into line with Section 22 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In practice, this should mean that the sort of information which will be excluded is the restricted type which I think the noble Baroness has in mind when she refers to "trade secrets".
It is clear from decisions which have been taken by the Secretary of State on appeals under Section 22(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that the concept
"prejudice to an unreasonable degree the commercial interests"
is a very rigorous test which is not satisfied by every assertion of commercial confidentiality. I would add that the Secretary of State may direct the agency that certain specific information is, in the public interest, to be included in registers, notwithstanding that the information may be commercially confidential.
I hope that, with these reassurances, the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I quite understand that the Government wish to be fair to the firms concerned who feel that their commercial confidentiality is important, but in doing so they may be unfair to those who may be affected by the fact that the information will not be publicly available. I shall think about what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 284 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 285 to 287 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 288:
Page 247, line 30, at end insert:
("Subordinate legislation and local statutory provisions
.—(1) In any subordinate legislation or local statutory provisions, for any reference (however framed) to the National Rivers Authority, and for any reference which falls to be construed as such a reference, there shall be substituted a reference to the Agency.
(2) In any subordinate legislation, for any reference (however framed) to a relevant inspector, and for any reference which falls to be construed as such a reference, there shall be substituted a reference to the appropriate Agency.
(3) The provisions of this paragraph are subject to the other provisions of this Act and to any provision made under or by virtue of this Act.
(4) In this paragraph—
"the appropriate Agency" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Agency;

(b) in relation to Scotland, SEPA;

"local statutory provision" means—

(a) a provision of a local Act (including an Act confirming a provisional order);

(b) a provision of so much of any public general Act as has effect with respect to particular persons or works or with respect to particular provisions falling within any paragraph of this definition;

(c) a provision of an instrument made under any provision falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above;

(d) a provision of any other instrument which is in the nature of a local enactment;

"relevant inspector" means—

(i) the chief inspector for England and Wales constituted under section 16(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

(ii) the chief inspector for Scotland constituted under section 16(3) of that Act;

(iii) the chief inspector for England and Wales appointed under section 4(2) (a) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993;

(iv) the chief inspector for Scotland appointed under section 4(2) (b) of that Act;

(v) the chief, or any other, inspector, within the meaning of the Alkali, &c., Works Regulation Act 1906;

(vi) an inspector appointed under section 19 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 by the Secretary of State in his capacity as the enforcing authority responsible for the enforcement of the Alkali, &c., Works Regulation Act 1906 or section 5 of the said Act of 1974;

"subordinate legislation" has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 257. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 19 [Transitional and transitory provisions and savings]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 248, leave out lines 12 to 17 and insert:
("Charging schemes
.—(1) Without prejudice to section 52 of this Act, any charging scheme—

(a) which relates to any transferred functions,

(b) which was made before the transfer date, and

(c) which is in force immediately before that date or would (apart from this Act) have come into force at any time after that date,

shall, subject to the provisions of section 39 of this Act, have effect on and after the transfer date, with any necessary modifications, and for the remainder of the period for which the charging scheme would have been in force apart from any repeal made by this Act, as a scheme made under that section by the transferee in accordance with section 40 of this Act.
(2) Any costs or expenses incurred before the transfer date by any person in carrying out functions transferred to a new Agency by or under this Act may be treated for the purposes of subsections (3) and (4) of section 40 of this Act as costs or expenses incurred by that new Agency in carrying out those functions.
(3) In this paragraph—
"charging scheme" means a scheme specifying, or providing for the determination of, any fees or charges;
"new Agency" means the Agency or SEPA;
"transferred functions" means any functions which, by virtue of any provision made by or under this Act, become functions of a new Agency and "the transferee" means the new Agency whose functions they so become.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 104. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 289A:
Page 248, line 50, at end insert:
("Membership of Welsh National Park authorities
.—(1) Where a body corporate constituted as a Welsh National Park planning board becomes, or has become, the National Park authority in relation to the National Park in question by virtue of an order under section 60 of this Act made by virtue of section (National Park authorities in Wales)(1) of this Act, paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 to this Act shall, in its application in relation to that National Park authority at any time before 31st March 1997, have effect with the following modifications.
(2) In sub-paragraph (5) —

(a) in paragraph (a), after the word "council" there shall be inserted the words "or, if earlier, until the council which appointed him as a local authority member of that authority is excluded from the councils by whom such members of that authority are to be appointed"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), after the word "cessation" there shall be inserted the words "or exclusion".

(3) In sub-paragraph (6), after the words "Sub-paragraph (5) (a) above" there shall be inserted the words ", so far as relating to cessation of membership of a council,".
(4) In this paragraph, "Welsh National Park planning board" means a National Park planning board, as defined in section (National Park authorities in Wales) of this Act, for the area of a National Park in Wales.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 183.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 290 and 291:
Page 250, line 21, after ("Act") insert (", in its application to England and Wales,").
Page 250, leave out line 30 and insert:
(" . If, at the transfer date, the content of the strategy required by section 44B of that Act has not been finally determined, any plan or modification under section 50 of that Act, in its application to Scotland, whose content has been finally determined before that date shall continue in force until the contents of the strategy are finally determined, notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of that section.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 20 [Repeals and revocations]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 292 and 293:
Page 256, line 32, column 3, at end insert:
("Section 31D.")
Page 257, line 40, column 3, at end insert:
("Section 91(5) (a).")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lindsay spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 259. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments No. 294 to 309A:
Page 258, line 49, column 3, at end insert ("In section 103(2) (c), the word "and" immediately preceding sub-paragraph (ii).").
Page 259, line 9, column 3, leave out ("17(3)") and insert ("17, in subsection (3),").
Page 259, line 10, column 3, at beginning insert (""the").
Page 259, line 12, column 3, at end insert ("and, in subsection (4), in the definition of "a Welsh planning board", paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it").
Page 259, line 13, column 3, leave out ("4(3)") and insert ("4").
Page 259, line 14, column 3, after ("3,") insert ("in sub-paragraph (3),").
Page 259, line 14, column 3, after ("words") insert (""the").
Page 259, line 16, column 3, at end insert ("and, in sub-paragraph (4), in the definition of "a Welsh planning board", paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it").
Page 260, line 21, column 3, leave out ("573(1),") and insert ("573, in subsection (1),").
Page 260, line 25, column 3, at end insert ("and, in subsection (IA), paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it").
Page 260, line 35, column 3, leave out ("and").
Page 260, line 37, column 3, at end insert ("and a special planning board constituted under paragraph 3A of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972").
Page 260, line 37, at end insert:

("1988 c. 41.

The Local Government Finance Act 1988.

In section 74(7), paragraph (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.").

Page 261, line 5, column 3, after ("1") insert ("in paragraph 2(1) (b), the word "(m)" and").
Page 261, line 7, column 3, leave out ("1(5)") and insert ("1, in subsection (5)").
Page 261, line 13, column 3, at end insert ("and, in subsection (6), the words "section 4(3) and".").
Page 263, line 49, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 79, in subsection (7), in the definition of "local authority", the word "and" following paragraph (b).").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 294 to 309 with Amendment No. 195 and my noble friend Lord Lindsay spoke to Amendment No. 309A with Amendment No. 250A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 309B not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 310 to 314:
Page 266, line 16, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 35(5) (a) and (b).").
Page 267, line 46, column 3, at beginning insert:

("Section 19(2) and (3). Section 59(15). In Schedule 5, in Part III, paragraph 10. In Schedule 6, paragraphs 3 to 12, 18, 23, 24(1), 28 and 29.").

Page 267, line 47, column 3, at end insert:

("In Schedule 15, paragraph 64(b). In Schedule 16, paragraph 65(5) and (9). In Schedule 17, paragraph 13.").

Page 267, line 55, column 3, after ("(4)") insert (",(8)").
Page 268, line 14, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 10, paragraph 22(1).").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 310 to 312 with Amendment No. 195, to Amendment No. 313 with Amendment No. 259 and to Amendment No. 314 with Amendment No. 185. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes before midnight.

  Armenia and Northern Cyprus: NATO Policy
  Armenia and Northern Cyprus: NATO Policy
  NHS Doctors: Duty to Patients
  NHS Doctors: Duty to Patients
  Electoral Registers: Incompleteness
  Electoral Registers: Incompleteness
  Laser Weapons
  Laser Weapons
  Landmines
  Landmines
  Motorail and Sleeper Service to West Highlands
  Motorail and Sleeper Service to West Highlands
  Science Budget
  Science Budget